A Better [?] Tournament Scoring System

I have not been a regular poster here for a while, so forgive if the following issue has been discussed before. I am proposing a tournament scoring system that seems to be an improvement over the current one, and I am interested in feedback and counterarguments. THE PROPOSED SYSTEM Same as the current system, except: 1) No messing around with half victory points in uncompleted games. A player gets a full victory point for not being ousted (whether due to withdrawal or due to still being in the game when time is called). This means that for uncompleted games, just like completed games, the number of victory points distributed among the players equals the number of players in the game. 2) For uncompleted games, 3 victory points (including the one for not being ousted, if applicable) are required for a game win. For completed games, one can still get a game win with 2 victory points (on those very rare occasion when no-one else has 2 victory points). WHY IT IS BETTER 1) It is more accurate in predicting what the outcome of the game is likely to be if the game were played to completion (see, for instance, the example below). 2) It is less encouraging of the sort of fast-vote and fast-bleed decks that tend to dominate tournaments. AN EXAMPLE The following example seeks show why the proposed system is better than the current system in predicting game outcomes: In a five-player game, A (playing a fast, aggressive deck) ousts B & C, then runs out of steam and gets ousted by E. D and E remain in the game when it gets called for time. Under the current system, players A, B, C, D and E get 2, 0, 0, .5 and 1.5 victory points respectively. A gets awarded a game win, E takes second place. This result, however, is dead wrong under the original rules. The one thing we know for certain is that, under the original rules, it is impossible for A to win the game. The best he can hope for is a tie for first place (which is not a win). If the game is played to a finish, there are only 3 ways it can end, only 2 of which are even remotely likely, and NONE of which result in a win for player A. Either E will oust D, in which case E will have 3 victory points and a game win, or else D will oust E, taking 2 victory points, and tying with A so that nobody takes a game win. The third possibility, withdrawal, results in 2 victory points for E (no matter who withdraws) which is also a tie game with no winner. If ANYONE in this called-for-time game should be granted a game win, it should clearly be Player E, since he is the only person who has any chance of winning it if it is played to a finish. Indeed, if we make allowances for the fact that a person who starts winning is likely to keep winning, his odds of emerging as winner may be greater than 50%. Player A should not get it -- he is only the most successful of the proven losers. The proposed system has a fairer result. The five players get 2, 0, 0, 1, 2. Nobody gets a game win and Players A and E tie for first place. We cannot know whether D will end the game with 0 vp or 2 vp, so we split the difference and give him 1 vp. We cannot know whether E will end the game with 1 vp or 3 vp, so we split the difference and give him 2. ANTICIPATING SOME COUNTERARGUMENTS 1. "The point of the game is to oust people, not to sit there and survive." If the point of the game is really that simple, it is only because the current tournament rules have made it so by devaluing survival. The rule-book says differently. The rule-book says that survival or withdrawal is worth as much as the ousting of a single prey. Of course, the rulebook requires that one do more than merely survive in order to win the game. In addition to survival, you will probably need to oust two prey to win a completed 5-player game (in rare situations, one prey ousted plus survival will suffice). So yes, you need to do more than survive to win, just as you need to achieve more than a single oust to win; but that does not mean that a single oust should be worth more than survival. Yes, the rules do require ousting, and should require ousting. The proposed system reflects those values accurately. 2. "The current system encourages all players to play quickly in order to maximize victory points for themselves as well as the whole table; your proposed system might give a player currently in the lead, or anyone in danger of being ousted, an incentive to stall." This is true to some extent, but the force of this argument is very much abated by the fact that game wins are the primary measure of tournament success, with victory point totals being used only as tie breakers. Under the proposed system, a game win is far more likely in a finished game than an unfinished one, and I think this is all the incentive for speed that is needed. If the game does not make substantial progress, then nobody gets a game win. And, although I agree that it would be better if games would finish, I also feel that there can be too much of a good thing. An excessive "hurry hurry hurry" atmosphere of tournament play does not necessarily make for a relaxing and enjoyable tournament experience. 3. "Long drawn out games are boring, and are one of the flaws of V:TES. It is good that tournament rules alter the game environment by encouraging people to design decks that have some hope of proving their worth within a 2 hour time limit." Personally, I rather like long, drawn-out epic games. I am nonetheless willing to assume, for the sake of argument, that long games are bad for V:TES. My response, again, is that the need to score a "game win" (rather than merely survive or score more victory points than anyone else at the table) is sufficient encouragement for people to design reasonably fast decks intended to make substantial progress (including oustings) within the 2-hour time limit. And whatever the hostility toward drawn out games, I cannot help also noting substantial hostility towards the sort of fast bleed/vote decks that tend to do well in tournaments. People bemoan the fact that they cannot bring to tournaments the "interesting" decks that they reserve for casual play. Seems to me that the system I propose is a suitable compromise, offering reasonable encouragement to decks that can demonstrate SOME progress within 2 hours, but not unfairly rewarding the fast weenie deck that scores two victory points before it runs out of steam and gets ousted.

> 2) For uncompleted games, 3 victory points (including the one for not > being ousted, if applicable) are required for a game win. For > completed games, one can still get a game win with 2 victory points > (on those very rare occasion when no-one else has 2 victory points). I disagree, and you've put in the main reason > ANTICIPATING SOME COUNTERARGUMENTS > > 1. "The point of the game is to oust people, not to sit there and > survive." If I'm in a game where I know I can't win, I can choose to wall up to the point that I'm now trying only to survive. Attack backwards/ xtable whatever to destabalise the environment just so that another player cannot win the game. This in my opinion woud open the game up to some pretty poor player attitudes. It will actually encourage players IMO to try and sabotage other players games to prevent them from getting the GW. --> J grail_pbem "at" hotmail.com

J wrote: > > 2) For uncompleted games, 3 victory points (including the one > > for not being ousted, if applicable) are required for a game > > win. For completed games, one can still get a game win with 2 > > victory points (on those very rare occasion when no-one else has > > 2 victory points). > > I disagree, and you've put in the main reason > > > ANTICIPATING SOME COUNTERARGUMENTS > > > > 1. "The point of the game is to oust people, not to sit there > > and survive." I've already anticipated and responded to this argument -- but I'll add another one. The argument simply proves too much. Not only does it prove that a survivor should not get one victory point, but it also proves that a survivor should not get a half victory point. The question is not whether survivors should get credit, but how much credit they should get. If you are not going to address that question, then you have landed by accident in the wrong argument. > If I'm in a game where I know I can't win, I can choose to wall up > to the point that I'm now trying only to survive. If you are really in a game where you "know you can't win" then you can do this for a half victory point just as well as you can do it for a whole victory point. Neither under the current system nor under the proposed system is this strategy likely to be of much use in getting you into the finals. Under either system, even a remote chance of a game win is worth far more than any number of victory points without such a win. The single victory point you get for merely surviving is going to be entirely worthless to you, especially if that is all your deck can do. In a competitive environment, you need to do better than anyone else, not merely keep the vp you brought to the table with you. > Attack backwards/ > xtable whatever to destabalise the environment just so that another > player cannot win the game. This in my opinion woud open the game > up to some pretty poor player attitudes. It will actually > encourage players IMO to try and sabotage other players games to > prevent them from getting the GW. If this is really so, then why does not the current system have the same effect? Are you objecting to my system, or to both systems. Do you think that survivors should not even get the half point?

J wrote: > It will actually encourage > players IMO to try and sabotage other players games to prevent them > from getting the GW. Incidentally, I did not understand this comment. As far as I know, the point of the game is to win and prevent others from winning, and I do not see how this is any more true under my proposed system than it is under the current one. Could you elaborate?

On 24 sep, 07:51, nyst...@cs.com wrote: > I have not been a regular poster here for a while, so forgive if the > following issue has been discussed before. I am proposing a > tournament scoring system that seems to be an improvement over the > current one, and I am interested in feedback and counterarguments. <snip proposed system> > Seems to me that the system I propose is a suitable compromise, > offering reasonable encouragement to decks that can demonstrate SOME > progress within 2 hours, but not unfairly rewarding the fast weenie > deck that scores two victory points before it runs out of steam and > gets ousted. Are those unfairly rewarded in the current system? Do you see many 2VP gamewins by such decks? The thing concerning timeouts and such weenie decks is that they often do not happen simultaneously. I'd say there's an average of about 40 turns playable in 2 hours (educated guess, but just that. These are turns all around the table) . If three people are ousted in the first 20 turns, that leaves 20 turns for 2 players to finish the game in. Perhaps a few more in a 1v1 endgame. But timeouts and super aggressive decks usually do not mix and match. So whereas I'm not yet commenting on the actual proposed rules, my question to you is, why would this change be neccessary? Is there a need for this? Cheers, B

On Sep 24, 1:45 am, Bram Vink <jja.v...@hccnet.nl> wrote: > On 24 sep, 07:51, nyst...@cs.com wrote: > > Seems to me that the system I propose is a suitable compromise, > > offering reasonable encouragement to decks that can demonstrate SOME > > progress within 2 hours, but not unfairly rewarding the fast weenie > > deck that scores two victory points before it runs out of steam and > > gets ousted. > > Are those unfairly rewarded in the current system? Do you see many 2VP > gamewins by such decks? I claim no expertise regarding the tournament environment. My own limited experience in my own local groups is that weenie fast bleed and weenie fast vote are alot less common than they used to be. There still seems to be a fair amount of player hostility towards those kind of decks, however. It therefore seems strange that such decks would be deliberately favored by a skewed tournament scoring system that goes out of its way to reward fast decks, as opposed to a system that more accurately reflects the original rules. Nor would I be much concerned about the tournament environment, if not for the effect it is having on my local group. My local group is influenced by the tournament environment -- games are always called after two hours, and any victory after the two-hour time limit is openly disparraged as something that does not really count. Indeed, games are often called after 1 hour and 45 minutes, on the ground that not enough time remains for anyone to score the sort of victory that might count in tournaments. I have also noticed the effect on me, whenever I consider which of my OWN decks I would consider playing in a tournament. For instance, I do have one or two fast weenie bleed decks (such as a mono-obfuscate bleed deck with burnable stealth). This deck has some chance of sweeping, but when it fails at this aim, frequently fails by scoring one or two victory points and then getting ousted. I have other decks, which seem just as likely -- if not more likely -- to win a completed game, but face a serious question as to whether they can do this within a 2-hour time limit. They might well win a 3- hour final, if only it could make it into the finals. To my mind it is just as good a deck -- if not a better deck -- but it will not make the finals, in part because the tournament rules -- for no good reason that I can think of -- devalue survival in games called for time. But I do not claim my experience is typical -- my argument does not depend on my expertise. My argument depends simply on the fact that tournament scoring distorts and poorly estimates the outcome of unfinished games. Does it matter how often a deck scores two victory points and then gets ousted in a five player game that is then called for time? Bottom line is, no matter what kind of deck this is, whether weenie bleed or a fascinating and creative intercept combat deck, that the tournament rules award such decks a game win that it does not (under the standard rules) deserve. It awards a game win to a player who we know for a fact could not have won the game had it been completed. > The thing concerning timeouts and such weenie decks is that they often > do not happen simultaneously. I'd say there's an average of about 40 > turns playable in 2 hours (educated guess, but just that. These are > turns all around the table) . If three people are ousted in the first > 20 turns, that leaves 20 turns for 2 players to finish the game in. > Perhaps a few more in a 1v1 endgame. But timeouts and super aggressive > decks usually do not mix and match. The point of what you are saying is lost on me. Are you suggesting that it is impossible, or extremely unlikely, for a player to score two victory points, then be ousted, and then have the game called for time among the two remaining players? I assure you that that can and does happen. And when it does happen, the tournament scoring system awards the game win to the wrong person. But this is only an extreme and striking example of the undervalueing of surviving decks in games that get called for time. EVERY time a game gets called for time (and this is NOT an uncommon occurrence), the surviving players get a half victory point less than what what a fair assessment of the strength of their position would award them. This is a very serious consideration when choosing one's decks for tournament play, and effectively prevents me from playing many interesting decks I might otherwise want to try. Suppose their are 5 players left when the game gets called for time. We know only that, if the game is finished, Player A could get as many as 5 victory points, or he may get none at all. A fair averaging of the possibilities leaves him with the victory point he brought to the table with him -- in short -- everyone should get a victory point. There is no reason to impose a half-point penalty, unless we deliberately want to punish those decks that win after 2 hours and fifteen minutes, as opposed to those decks that win after one hour and fifteen minutes. Suppose their are two players left in a 4-player game, each with a victory point. If the game is played to completion, one of these players will get one victory point, whereas the other will get three. A fair averaging of these possibilities gives them each 2 victory points, not one and a half. The judge of the tournament needs to choose the fifth player in a tournament consisting of three rounds and a final. The next two players in line each have one game win, so victory points will determine the final round. Player A scored 3 vp in round one (completed game); 1 victory points in round 2 (ousted in completed game), and 1 victory point in round 3 (ousted in game called for time after earning 1 vp) for a total of 5 vp. Player B, however, had the misfortune to be stuck in slow games. He scored 2.5 vp in round one (called for time with 2 players left); 1.5 vp in round 2 (called for time with three players left); and 0.5 vp in round 3 (called for time with 3 players left). He gets only 4.5 vp and therefore is knocked out of the final running by player A. But a fair assessment of their respective positions is that Player B is the stronger player. Had the games been permitted to finish, the probabilities are very very strongly in favor of his emerging with the most victory points. Even without taking into account the fact that winning players tend to keep winning, the law of averages suggest he would receive 6 victory points, not 4.5. Of course, it is possible that, had the games finished, he would have received 3 vps; but it is also possible that, had the games finished, he would have received 11 vps and 3 game wins. 6 vps fairly reflects the law of averages and the strength of his position in the game. There seems no compelling reason to impose this penalty. The fact that his failure to finish rounds 2 and 3 has potentially deprived him of one or two game wins is in itself an enormous penalty. Why impose more beyond that? It just doesn't make sense > So whereas I'm not yet commenting on the actual proposed rules, my > question to you is, why would this change be neccessary? Is there a > need for this? I think I have adequately explained the need. I am now waiting for someone to suggest some kind of justification for the half-point penalty we currently impose on players remaining in a game that gets called for time.

<nys...@cs.com> wrote in message news:1190657111....@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com... I claim no expertise regarding the tournament environment. My own > limited experience in my own local groups is that weenie fast bleed > and weenie fast vote are alot less common than they used to be. There > still seems to be a fair amount of player hostility towards those kind > of decks, however. It therefore seems strange that such decks would > be deliberately favored by a skewed tournament scoring system that > goes out of its way to reward fast decks, as opposed to a system that > more accurately reflects the original rules. Granted, fast weeny decks are always a problem in that they're hard things for which to specifically build counter-decks. I mean, you _can_ build counter decks for them, certainly, but not too many such decks are otherwise viable in the greater metagame. So, acknowledging that, the game also has (IMO) a distinct problem with decks which are too slow. In this case, we're talking about fighty, intercepty combat decks which stop up the whole table as they slowly build up and make it extremely difficult for the anyone on the table to win except them - and they often don't win either. Thus, the whole table gets punished for one deck's "sins". Although your proposal would hurts them in a certain way (making it difficult for them to get a game win if they don't finish the game) and helps their opponents in a certain way (granting a whole VP for a time-out), I think realistically it rewards them more (more whole victory points for situations where they fail to win) and hurts their opponents more (mainly their prey who feels little forward pressure from them may get two VP but be unable to oust the intercepty deck) and so I wouldn't think this was a positive proposal. In general, the choice of the current GW criteria and withdrawal/time-out rewards have been settled on from years of experience. They still strike me as the best ones, absent more cogent reasons for changing them than you've presented. > I have also noticed the effect on me, whenever I consider which of my > OWN decks I would consider playing in a tournament. For instance, I > do have one or two fast weenie bleed decks (such as a mono-obfuscate > bleed deck with burnable stealth). This deck has some chance of > sweeping, but when it fails at this aim, frequently fails by scoring > one or two victory points and then getting ousted. This seems like a reason not to play them to me. So I'm confused what your point is, here. I believe Darby Keeny played a weeny presence bleed deck yesterday in the second day of the NAC. (Not absolutely sure of the details since I didn't see him playing it but going from one of his opponent's and his own description of it.) He got one table sweep and nothing else (I believe) and failed to make the finals. > There is no reason to impose a half-point penalty, unless we > deliberately want to punish those decks that win after 2 hours and > fifteen minutes, as opposed to those decks that win after one hour and > fifteen minutes. We deliberately want to punish those decks that win after 2 hours and fifteen minutes, as opposed to those decks that win after one hour and fifteen minutes, yes. The trouble with the former is that they make it very difficult for OTHER decks to win at all. Thus, in a tournament in which the time limit is two hours, you should be punished for bringing a deck which has difficulty winning in less than two hours. Granted, the penalty will also hit your opponents in that game - but since it's your deck, you will get penalized all the time and your opponents will only be penalized in the games they play with you. It's not a perfect answer but it's the only one we really have. > There seems no compelling reason to impose this penalty. The fact > that his failure to finish rounds 2 and 3 has potentially deprived him > of one or two game wins is in itself an enormous penalty. Why impose > more beyond that? It just doesn't make sense Why not? People REALLY shouldn't be bringing such decks. In fact, in my observation people do bring slow decks sometimes and certain players are good enough to win with them often enough that the payoff works for them. But they should not be rewarded with a whole victory point for the games which they fail to bring to a conclusion within the time limit. Fred

Frederick Scott wrote: > In this case, we're talking about fighty, intercepty combat decks > which stop up the whole table as they slowly build up and make it > extremely difficult for the anyone on the table to win except > them - and they often don't win either. Thus, the whole table > gets punished for one deck's "sins". Although your proposal would > hurts them in a certain way (making it difficult for them to get a > game win if they don't finish the game) [...] I will respond to your other points later (it might take a while, since I disagree with almost everything you say) but I want to get one point out of the way, since it is an easy point. You are mistaken about my current proposal making it harder for intercept decks to score game wins. My current proposal makes it almost exactly as hard for intercept decks to score a game win as the current tournament rules do. To score a game win in an unfinished game under my proposal, the intercept deck needs not merely to survive, but also to score two ousts -- exactly as under the current system. The only way my proposal prevents intercept decks from gaining game wins is by NOT giving a game win to an intercept deck that scores 2 vp's and then gets ousted. But this is not an outcome that is very likely with intercept decks.

<nys...@cs.com> wrote in message news:1190674549.7...@y42g2000hsy.googlegroups.com... > > Frederick Scott wrote: >> In this case, we're talking about fighty, intercepty combat decks >> which stop up the whole table as they slowly build up and make it >> extremely difficult for the anyone on the table to win except >> them - and they often don't win either. Thus, the whole table >> gets punished for one deck's "sins". Although your proposal would >> hurts them in a certain way (making it difficult for them to get a >> game win if they don't finish the game) [...] > > I will respond to your other points later (it might take a while, > since I disagree with almost everything you say) but I want to get one > point out of the way, since it is an easy point. > > You are mistaken about my current proposal making it harder for > intercept decks to score game wins. That's an interesting contention. Maybe I'm missing something - which I certainly do from time to time - but could you please list what the conditions are in which any kind of deck could get a GW under your system where it wouldn't get one under the old system? I believe the only ones would involve withdrawal, which is extremely difficult to pull off absent player agreements. My experience is that withdrawals in tournaments are extremely rare. > The only way my proposal prevents intercept decks from gaining game > wins is by NOT giving a game win to an intercept deck that scores 2 > vp's and then gets ousted. OK, I see that I erred in claiming that it would make it harder for them to get a game win in an unfinished game since if they had 1 and 1/2 VPs under the current system, they would have 2 VPs under your proposal - not a GW in either case. And if they had 2 1/2 VPs under the current system, they would get 3 VPs under your proposal which is a GW in either system. Thus I stand corrected. None the less, you likewise pointed out a way in which it would be harder for them to get game wins under your proposal yet you hold that overall, it helps intercept decks (whether by helping them get game wins is disputed, apparently). Thus our positions are the same in this sense. It's just that we differ whether there is any overall goodness to the idea of helping or encouraging these sorts of decks in timed tournament. Fred

On Sep 24, 7:22 pm, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: > Maybe I'm missing something - which > I certainly do from time to time - but could you please list what > the conditions are in which any kind of deck could get a GW under > your system where it wouldn't get one under the old system? I am not sure I understand why you are asking the question. Did I ever say anything to imply that my proposed system would EVER have such an effect? It does make slower decks (but not the slowest decks) marginally more competitive -- but not by granting them game wins. One (very marginal) way it help them is to prevent faster competition from being awarded game wins in games where they certainly would not have won a completed game. A more substantive benefit is the advantage in victory points, but the effect is not earth shattering since this is only used as a tie-breaker for game wins. Of course, if a slower deck makes it into the 3-hour final, as a result of the above advantages, it may end up winning the tournament (taking full advantage of the extra time to prove its worth), which is a game win it would not have otherwise achieved. It is a cautious and modest proposal, neither intended nor likely to have any radical effect on the game environment. > I believe > the only ones would involve withdrawal, which is extremely difficult > to pull off absent player agreements. My experience is that withdrawals > in tournaments are extremely rare. I agree -- which perhaps explains why I did not bother mentioning it.

On Sep 24, 1:51 am, nyst...@cs.com wrote: > 1) No messing around with half victory points in uncompleted games. > A player gets a full victory point for not being ousted (whether due > to withdrawal or due to still being in the game when time is called). > This means that for uncompleted games, just like completed games, the > number of victory points distributed among the players equals the > number of players in the game. Hmm. You may have missed all the brujaja in recent months, but there is a lot of concern over games timing out by design (more or less), and givine even greater incentive to time out (i.e. getting 1VP for timing out instead of .5) makes timing out even more attractive--if simply surviving is as good as ousting your prey, in situations where you think you can only oust your one prey but it is risky, it becomes more beneficial simply to wall up and survive, rather than taking the risky option to try and oust your prey. Anything that removes incentive to oust your prey is Bad. > 2) It is less encouraging of the sort of fast-vote and fast-bleed > decks that tend to dominate tournaments. Why? Fast decks will still oust and get VPs, as fast decks don't benefit from slwing the game down. They benefit from ousting their prey. > If the point of the game is really that simple, it is only because the > current tournament rules have made it so by devaluing survival. The game is about ousting your prey. > The > rule-book says differently. The rule-book says that survival or > withdrawal is worth as much as the ousting of a single prey. A) Withdrawing from the game is generally considerably harder than simply surviving till the game runs out of time. B) The tournament rules currently stipulate you only get .5 VP for withdrawing anyway. To remove the incentive to use withdrawl as a dealmaking tool. To encourage folks to oust their prey. > Yes, the rules do require ousting, and should require ousting. The > proposed system reflects those values accurately. Yet gives more incentive to not try and oust your prey if it seems risky to do so and gives more incentive to try and just wall up and make the game time out if you are in a bad position. If you get .5 VP for surviving and 1 VP for ousting your prey, however, there is *always* concrete incentive to try and go forward. Even if it is risky. As the reward for the risk outweighs the reward for inaction. > And whatever the hostility toward drawn out games, I cannot help also > noting substantial hostility towards the sort of fast bleed/vote decks > that tend to do well in tournaments. People bemoan the fact that they > cannot bring to tournaments the "interesting" decks that they reserve > for casual play. I, for one, would much rather see games that have fast decks and result in people getting ousted than not. -Peter

<nys...@cs.com> wrote in message news:1190728181.9...@r29g2000hsg.googlegroups.com... > On Sep 24, 7:22 pm, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: >> Maybe I'm missing something - which >> I certainly do from time to time - but could you please list what >> the conditions are in which any kind of deck could get a GW under >> your system where it wouldn't get one under the old system? > > I am not sure I understand why you are asking the question. Did I > ever say anything to imply that my proposed system would EVER have > such an effect? Sort of, yea. If it's exactly as hard to get a GW and you can no longer get one after gaining two VP and being ousted, there must be another situation somewhere else to make up for that. But never mind, in truth it's mostly that I misread what you were claiming in your previous post. I note that it's also harder for others to get game wins by ousting two players and then being ousted when a game times out - since the opponent who ousted them will now have two VP and tie them whereas before the latter would only have 1 and 1/2 VP. (And the time- out goal of 3 VP would be in effect - something the ousted player no longer has any power over despite it affecting him.) So that's another kind of 'reward' (i.e. preventing an opponent from getting a GW) for a deck that didn't show enough offense to resolve the game in two hours. Bad. > It is a cautious and modest proposal, neither intended nor likely to > have any radical effect on the game environment. Perhaps not - except in its tendency to cause more tied (and thus unawarded) game wins. But it just rewards exactly the wrong style of play, IMHO. Fred

On Sep 25, 12:50 pm, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: > I note that it's also harder for others to get game wins > by ousting two players and then being ousted when a game times out - > since the opponent who ousted them will now have two VP and tie them > whereas before the latter would only have 1 and 1/2 VP. Right. This was the example I chose for my original post. > (And the time- > out goal of 3 VP would be in effect - something the ousted player no > longer has any power over despite it affecting him.) I'm not sure what you mean, but I suspect you are making a mistake. You seem to be accusing my proposal of a flaw of which it is quite innocent, but which the current system is actually guilty. Only in extremely rare situtations can you score a game win with 2 victory points in a completed 4 or 5-player game. One of these rare situations involves withdrawals by multiple players, and is not even worth discussing. In the other, E gets ousted by D, who in turn gets ousted by C, who in turn gets ousted by B, who in turn gets ousted by A, permitting a situation where A, B, C, D, and E get 2, 1, 1, 1 and 0 vps respectively. What makes this situation so ridiculously unlikely is that it always requires the last person to score a vp to be the next person ousted, despite the fact that ousting normally strengthens a player by earning them pool. In short, a 2 vp victory is merely a theoretical possiblity that no-one should expect. The normal requirement for victory in a 4 or 5 player game is 3 vp. Being ousted normally means a non-win. In a 5-player game, a person who finally gets ousted by the last player after ousting everyone else is the winner with 3 vps, but this is the only exception that exists in games with fewer than six players. There are NO situations where, in a completed game, an ousted person with 2 victory points can win. When person scores two victory points and then gets ousted, the theoretical possibility of a 2vp victory is no longer a possiblity -- this game will be won by someone gaining 3 vps, or it will not be won at all. Depending on what happens next, he will either tie with a player for 2 vp, or lose to a player with 3 victory points. He will not win. Period. Under my proposed system, he is not granted a game win merely because the last two people standing fail to finish the game. He is NOT affected by what they do after he is ousted. Under the current system, he WILL be granted a game win if the last two players are called for time, and WON'T be granted a game win if they manage to finish the game. So it is the CURRENT system that punishes or rewards him based on what happens after he is ousted. In fact (and I only just thought of this) this scenario could give one of the last two players an incentive to throw the game to his opponent, in order to deprive Player A (who scored 2 vps and then got ousted) or a game win. If this scenario, one of the last 2 players (player E) has 1 vp, and the other (Player D) has 0 vp. If the game goes to time, A will win with 2, 0, 0, 1.5, 0.5. But if player E lets himself be ousted D, then he will prevent A from getting a game win at a cost of a half-victory point. This creates a final score of 2, 0, 0, 1, 2 -- and nobody gets a game win. Player E might consider this a perfecely reasonable option if, in the last 5 minutes of the game, he realizes he cannot oust his opponent and get the game win himself. Despite the cost of a half vp, depriving an opponent of a game win could maximize Player E's chances of making it into the finals. My proposed system avoids such silliness. I still have to respond to your other points. Forgive me if I take my time. Writing is exhausting for me, and I seem to be quite outnumbered here.

<nys...@cs.com> wrote in message news:1190758375.9...@50g2000hsm.googlegroups.com... > On Sep 25, 12:50 pm, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: >> I note that it's also harder for others to get game wins >> by ousting two players and then being ousted when a game times out - >> since the opponent who ousted them will now have two VP and tie them >> whereas before the latter would only have 1 and 1/2 VP. > > Right. This was the example I chose for my original post. ...and another thing that I would deem a negative, since the ousted player (one would assume) took risks to resolve the game sooner (a good thing in my value system) whereas the player who (one would assume) had the upper hand at the end of the game failed to move aggressively enough to resolve it (a bad thing in my value system). I strongly prefer the former get a game win and the latter be penalized. >> (And the time- >> out goal of 3 VP would be in effect - something the ousted player no >> longer has any power over despite it affecting him.) > > I'm not sure what you mean, but I suspect you are making a mistake. > You seem to be accusing my proposal of a flaw of which it is quite > innocent, but which the current system is actually guilty. > > Only in extremely rare situtations can you score a game win with 2 > victory points in a completed 4 or 5-player game. One of these rare > situations involves withdrawals by multiple players, and is not even > worth discussing. In the other, E gets ousted by D, who in turn gets > ousted by C, who in turn gets ousted by B, who in turn gets ousted by > A, permitting a situation where A, B, C, D, and E get 2, 1, 1, 1 and 0 > vps respectively. What makes this situation so ridiculously unlikely > is that it always requires the last person to score a vp to be the > next person ousted, despite the fact that ousting normally strengthens > a player by earning them pool. In short, a 2 vp victory is merely a > theoretical possiblity that no-one should expect. The normal > requirement for victory in a 4 or 5 player game is 3 vp. (Just as an aside...) Well, actually this is the archetypical "back-oust" and is not all that rare. Certain kinds of decks are constructed to back-oust (but aren't considered mainstream, of course, because so many things can go wrong) and sometimes rush decks do it more or less by accident (either by encountering successive predators who can only be neutralized through their utter destruction or by accidentally destroying them). Granted, it's not a common occurrence but it happens - especially in four- player games. > Being ousted normally means a non-win. It depends on what you mean. Under the current system, two VPs before oust can be a game win, if the remaining players are ineffective in ousting one another before time. I believe that's how if should be. Your change would eliminate that feature. My parenthetical comment you wished to respond to above was just to point out that the standard for a game win hinges on whether the game was completed or not and the ousted player has no control over that. Nothing more. If your reply is just that under your proposed system it doesn't matter (since he isn't going to get a game win either way), OK - so noted. It wasn't really important anyway which was why I used the parenthesis. > In fact (and I only just thought of this) this scenario could give one > of the last two players an incentive to throw the game to his > opponent, in order to deprive Player A (who scored 2 vps and then got > ousted) or a game win. If this scenario, one of the last 2 players > (player E) has 1 vp, and the other (Player D) has 0 vp. If the game > goes to time, A will win with 2, 0, 0, 1.5, 0.5. But if player E lets > himself be ousted D, then he will prevent A from getting a game win at > a cost of a half-victory point. This creates a final score of 2, 0, > 0, 1, 2 -- and nobody gets a game win. Player E might consider this a > perfecely reasonable option if, in the last 5 minutes of the game, he > realizes he cannot oust his opponent and get the game win himself. > Despite the cost of a half vp, depriving an opponent of a game win > could maximize Player E's chances of making it into the finals. Sure. But, in practice, it seldom does. And, for what it's worth, that kind of reasoning is illegal because it doesn't pass muster under the play-to-win rule. Tournament standing is considered an "out-of-game motivation". In practice, this is difficult to enforce because in many instances the judge would have to read player E's mind to have any evidence that an illegal play happened. But at the very least, it prevents the remaining players from speaking of this and making out-loud deals around it. > My proposed system avoids such silliness. It isn't really considered a problem, as far as I know. If a player is on the bubble, the 1/2 victory point makes the difference between him and anyone else he's tied with for game wins and victory points or could become tied with (thus leaving it to tournament points and/or randomization). Preventing player A from gaining a game win only helps him against player A. If he has knowledge that player A is the only player he needs to compete with for that last spot in the finals and that preventing player A from getting a game win is the only way to do it, this might make a difference. But in a tournament with eight or more players, that is almost never the case and when it is, player E will seldom be aware of it. Trust me, this is a miniscule thing. > I still have to respond to your other points. Forgive me if I take my > time. Writing is exhausting for me, and I seem to be quite > outnumbered here. Well, the obvious issue is the original one cited: why reward decks that are so slow and deliberate that they excessively risk going to time and preventing all players from getting a game win? If we have any other real issues beyond that, I fail to see what they could be. Fred

Peter D Bakija wrote: > On Sep 24, 1:51 am, nyst...@cs.com wrote:> > > 1) No messing around with half victory points in uncompleted > > games. A player gets a full victory point for not being ousted > > (whether due to withdrawal or due to still being in the game when > > time is called). This means that for uncompleted games, just like > > completed games, the number of victory points distributed among > > the players equals the number of players in the game. > > Hmm. You may have missed all the brujaja in recent months, but > there is a lot of concern over games timing out by design (more or > less), [...] I did a bit of searching, and all I could find recently was some posts about FINALISTS who seem willing to permit the final round to go to time because they don't need a "game win" to win the tournament. But this can hardly be what you had in mind. As I am sure you realize -- my proposed system has no affect on such dynamics whatsoever, for better or worse. Since you said "by design" I guess you are talking about players deliberately orchestrating "time outs", and not merely talking about issues of game design and game mechanics that make survival too easy and ousting too hard. If the problem is merely one of game design & game mechanics, resulting in games running too long (whatever you think "too long" is), then the solution, in my opinion, is for the design team to print new cards that tend to promote faster games. I'm sure the design team has been doing just that -- and/or will do just that -- to the extent that they perceive a problem. Unless you want to actually ban blood dolls and bleed defense (and such), then printing new cards that promote fast games seems to me the ONLY solution to any alleged problem. Such a solution does NOT involve blaming the players when their games go to time, nor should it. Virtually all players are doing the best they can to win the game -- which is exactly what they should be doing. Until you elaborate, I will presume you are discussing the same phenomenon I have noticed. The problem I have noticed is players getting understandably frustrated when games go to time because a time out HURTS THEM by depriving them -- not only of their hopes of of victory -- but also of the reasonable value of their reasonable expectations. To use the simplest example: If 2 players are left in a game, it is reasonable to suppose that, if the game is permitted to continue indefinitely, one will eventually oust the other. In other words, each has about 50-50 chance of winning 2 victory points (above and beyond whatever they may have already earned). As any gambler or mathematician knows, a 50-50 chance of 2 vp is worth one vp, not half a vp. A more negative aspect of this phenomenon of understandable player frustration is the phenomenon of mean-spirited, petulant and unsportsmanlike players, unhappy at the game outcome, taking out their otherwise-understandable frustration at what they call "Bad Players" who kept everyone else (and especially a Certain Someone) from gaining victory points, without scoring any victory points themselves. I seriously hope that whiny losers of this variety have not been getting a sympathetic ear on this NG. To my mind, petulant tantrume directed at one's fellow losers is even more reprehensible than petulance at the winner. At least the winner knows he won and can laugh in your face. But the fellow loser often knows that (to some extent) he did play badly -- that's why he lost, and the whiny loser may succeed in making him feel bad. But it the whiny loser were honest with himself, he would acknowledge that he does not really want his opponent to play better -- he wants them to play worse. My solution to this problem (both the understandable frustration and the unsportsmanlike petulance) would be to reduce player frustration by granting players the fair victory-point value of their position in the game when it times out. This will not (as a general rule) make them WANT games to time out, because, under my system, one still needs to score two ousts for a game win. The only people (apart from tournament finalists discussed above) likely to WANT to "merely" surive til time out under my proposed system are people who have already scored two ousts and are therefore guaranteed a game win provided no-one ousts them (and it is hardly fair to call that "merely" surviving til time out). But this is not a flaw compared to the current system, because the current system works almost exactly the same way in this regard. > [...] and giving even greater incentive to time out (i.e. getting 1VP > for timing out instead of .5) makes timing out even more attractive-- This, to me, seems somewhat analogous to saying that letting drivers wear seatbelts while driving makes crashing their car more attractive. It may be, in some very marginal sense, true that if we don't let drivers wear seatbelts they might drive a tiny bit more carefully, but on the whole it is a poor argument against seatbelts. My proposed system is not going to make players any more eager for 5- way tie games than current drivers are eager to crash their cars. I expect players will still try to win the game in much the same that seatbelted drivers will still try to avoid crashing into other vehicles. They just might be a little less unhappy when they fail, since they will not be unfairly treated compared. > [...] if simply surviving is as good as ousting your prey, in > situations where you think you can only oust your one prey but it > is risky, it becomes more beneficial simply to wall up and survive, > rather than taking the risky option to try and oust your prey. First of all, a single oust IS worth the same as survival. The rules (which are applied more or less intact in completed games even in tournaments) say so. If you don't like that, you can advocate that the rules be changed. It would certainly be possible to have a game where only ousts were counted as victory points. In such a game, one who scored 2 ousts in a 4-player game would win, even if the final player then ousted him. This would also create a situation where granting a half vp for survival in uncompleted games would (for 2 surviving players) more or less fairly reflect the strength of their position in the game (the one remaining vp is divided equally between them). Under the current rules, however, the above situation is a tie game, despite the fact that the surviving player has only one oust, wheras his opponent has two ousts. An oust is worth the same as ultimate survival. However, you generally need 3 vps for a game win, and you can only survive once, so ousts are (collectively) more important than being the last player standing. It hardly follows, however, that players will roll over and let themselves be ousted if we give them the right incentive. An ousted methuselah can do nothing. Not only has he no chance whatsoever of ousting his prey, but he cannot even have fun playing his cards and learning what it is about his deck that works and what does not. > Anything that removes incentive to oust your prey is Bad. Irrelevant, since my proposed system does not remove the incentive to oust your prey. Two ousts are still required for a game win (ignoring rare exceptions). But if you mean something more than that, you have said too much. You cannot really mean that anything which has any potential whatsoever to prolong a game is bad. If you really mean what you say, perhaps you think the game would be even better if the players received NO points for surviving in timed out games. Then they would be in even more of a panic to finish; would take greater risks. They might even deliberately oust themselves (after a coin flip) to let the game finish (doesn't cost them anything). We could try as an experiment a game where we simply raced to see who could be the first to score an oust. That person would be declared the winner, period! But if, after trying such an experiment, you found you were dissatisfied, and wanted to return to the old way, an opponent could counter with "anything that removes your incentive to oust your prey is bad." > > 2) It is less encouraging of the sort of fast-vote and fast-bleed > > decks that tend to dominate tournaments. > > Why? For the reasons I stated. No need to repeat myself since I am sure you understood me. > Fast decks will still oust and get VPs, [...] Indeed. My proposal is neither intended nor likely to have any radical effects. > > If the point of the game is really that simple, it is only > > because the current tournament rules have made it so by > > devaluing survival. > > The game is about ousting your prey. Please stop pretending you didn't understand me. Please stop pretending I am trying to eliminate the need for ousting. I am perfectly aware that ousting is required, and should be required, for victory, and you are arguing with a straw man if you try to pretend otherwise. However, under the current rules for completed games, the number of ousts is not the only factor used to determine victory. If you think it SHOULD be the only factor, then say so, but don't pretend that is how it IS. A person who scores a single oust, and then gets ousted, gets one victory point. A person who merely avoids getting ousted, and survives until the last person in the game withdraws, gets one victory point. Neither are winners, because 3 vps are generally needed for victory in a 4-5 player game. But the "mere" single-ouster is not rated higher than the "mere" survivor. If you think it should be otherwise, then we need to change the rules. > > The > > rule-book says differently. The rule-book says that survival or > > withdrawal is worth as much as the ousting of a single prey. > > A) Withdrawing from the game is generally considerably harder than > simply surviving till the game runs out of time. I'm not sure why you are telling me this. I only mentioned withdrawal for completeness, to avoid the annoyance of someone coming correcting me. > B) The tournament rules currently stipulate you only get .5 VP for > withdrawing anyway. To remove the incentive to use withdrawl as a > dealmaking tool. To encourage folks to oust their prey. I don't think it was primarily "To encourage folks to oust their prey." I think it was understood that the players already had that incentive, and only resorted to the withdrawal device when they realized that their hopes and efforts had failed. I just think it was felt that, if one of several players cannot overcome the others, he should not gain more victory points in the final round by agreeing to a draw by one method rather than by another. It is simply an abuse of the withdrawal rule to use it for such purposes. It takes advantage of the tension between the rules for completed games and the rules for uncompleted games. A 5-way draw is a 5-way draw is a 5-way draw. A deadlock is a deadlock is a deadlock. Why should a 5-way draw at one table give its players more points than a 5-way draw at another table? If you have not, in any way, bested your opponents, why should you gain extra credit? But such problems still potentially exist under the current rules. Imagine 5 players left at the table. Each player has 5 or more minions, but 5 or less pool. With 15 seconds to go, Player A calls Ancilla Empowerment. Everyone with votes sees the implications and votes in favor. Everyone gets ousted simultaneously, and everyone gets a victory point. Meanwhile, a similarly deadlocked game at a nearby table goes to time, and everyone there gets a half victory point. The second situation is an abuse for the same reason that the first situation is an abuse. It gives the players extra credit despite the fact that no player at the table got the better of any other person at the table. Note that the problem, in the second situation, is not that the player was not interested in ousting his prey. If anything, he was too interested in ousting his prey. He ousted his prey under circumstances where ousting bore no relationship whatsoever to winning or besting his opponents. Victory points should be awarded based on one's success in besting other players at your table. You should not be competing with other tables, by trying to maximize the total number of victory points distributed at your table compared to other tables. The number of vp's handed out at a table should always be the same -- 1 vp per player -- regardless of whether the game gets called for time. My proposal eliminates both abuses (without skewing the results for completed games where withdrawal occurs). > > Yes, the rules do require ousting, and should require ousting. > > The proposed system reflects those values accurately. > > Yet gives more incentive to not try and oust your prey if it seems > risky to do so and gives more incentive to try and just wall up and > make the game time out if you are in a bad position. I'm sorry, but that's pretty much what one SHOULD do if one is in a bad position. Nobody has an obligation to give up and let themselves be ousted just because they realize they cannot score a game win. I see no evidence that anyone is walling up under any other circumstances, nor am I inclined to second guess the judgment of other players. Of course, one can and does take risks in Jyhad, in the hope of victory. But, for reasons explained below, this does not depend very much on the price tag you place on survival. > If you get .5 VP for surviving and 1 VP for ousting your prey, > however, there is *always* concrete incentive to try and go > forward. Even if it is risky. As the reward for the risk outweighs > the reward for inaction. I understand what you are saying. It is sort of a gambler's argument. Suppose Player A says to himself -- "If I tap out all my minions, I have a 40 percent chance of earning a dollar, but on the downside, their is also an independent 50 percent chance that I will lose a dollar. On the average, I can expect to lose 10 cents on this deal, I won't do it." But if you reduce the potential loss to 50 cents, then the equation is (.40 times 1,00 is .40) minus (.50 time . 50 is .25) equals a situation where on average the gambler can earn 15 cents, and therefore thinks it a good deal to go forward. The problem is that, in jyhad, a player the point is not to count pennies. The point is to win the game, by beating your opponents, and not letting them beat you. A player who gets ousted does not lose 50 cents; he does not lose a dollar. He loses the game, and gets kicked out of the game. I know there are rare exceptions. In a 5 player game, for instance, a player who scores 3 ousts is a victor even if he then gets ousted. But to achieve this he had to survive at least long enough to score three ousts -- in fact, despite the fact that he was the last player standing, he had to survive until the very end of the game. A player who lets himself be one of the first 2 or 3 players ousted in a game has failed. He has failed regardless of any silly attempts to place a discounted value on his survival. He has no chance of earning any future victory points. He does not even have the reward of being able to have fun playing around with his cards so he can learn how to make his deck better. He came to win (something he generally cannot do without surviving til the end of the game), and, failing that, he came to score an oust or two (something he cannot do without surviving a substantial part of the game), and failing that, he came to get that lousy half vp he gets for surviving under the current system, and, failing that, he came to hold out as long as possible before being ousted so he could spend as much time as possible playing cards and having fun and as little time as possible sitting on the sidelines feeling bored. You really think he will feel happier about being ousted if you tell him that his survival was only worth a half victory point instead of one? Do you suppose he would play much differently if you reduced the survival award to zero? The need for a game win already means that there is concrete incentive to try to oust, regardless of whether survival is discounted in time- out games. > > And whatever the hostility toward drawn out games, I cannot help > > also noting substantial hostility towards the sort of fast > > bleed/vote decks that tend to do well in tournaments. People > > bemoan the fact that they cannot bring to tournaments the > > "interesting" decks that they reserve for casual play. > > I, for one, would much rather see games that have fast decks and > result in people getting ousted than not. Of course, there is some circularity here. Part of the reason you want to see fast games is because you want to avoid the time out penalty, a problem I am proposing we correct. But, even if you do just prefer fast games, that does not help much. I'm not sure what your definition of a "fast deck" is. Other players have their own preferences, and obviously the solution cannot be to have you tell them what sort of decks they may or may not bring to the tournament. You're not supposed to know what I'm bringing, and I'm not supposed to know what you're bringing. Many of the factors that cause games to go to time are beyond player control. Each player is trying to win, and there are 4 other players at the table trying to stop him. The only way players can truly control the situation is to let themselves be ousted, which they should not do. Generally, all players, whatever their errors in judgment, are playing to the best of their ability. Each tries to outguess the other. A player whose deck has too little offense, or the wrong kind of offense, together with too much defense, or the right kind of defense, has merely made an error in guessing his opposition. And if he decides to wall up and survive, he is virtually always making the best of a bad situation, to the best of his limited judgment.

Frederick Scott wrote: > <nys...@cs.com> wrote in message > news:1190758375.9...@50g2000hsm.googlegroups.com... > > On Sep 25, 12:50 pm, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> > > wrote: > >> I note that it's also harder for others to get game wins > >> by ousting two players and then being ousted when a game times > >> out - since the opponent who ousted them will now have two VP > >> and tie them whereas before the latter would only have 1 and > >> 1/2 VP. > > > > Right. This was the example I chose for my original post. > > ...and another thing that I would deem a negative, since the ousted > player (one would assume) took risks to resolve the game sooner (a > good thing in my value system) whereas the player who (one would > assume) had the upper hand at the end of the game failed to move > aggressively enough to resolve it (a bad thing in my value system). > I strongly prefer the former get a game win and the latter be > penalized. Why are you making assumpions not inherent in the fact pattern? The only "value systems" I am aware of are the current tournament rules for scoring incomplete games, which declare the above player a winner, and the standard rules for scoring complete games, which declare him a loser. Player A played well under the former value system, and badly under the latter. Why should there be this tension between the two value systems, when Player A has no control over what happens after he is ousted? Would it not be better for Player A to know which "value system" will judge him while he still has a chance to do something about it? If you really think that Player A needs to be rewarded with victory, after scoring 2 vps and then being ousted, then perhaps we should change the standard rules. If we deprive players of the extra 1 vp they get for being the last player standing, then our ousted player has a reasonable chance of winning even if the game is completed. The worst he can do is tie. There will be less tension between the completed game and the incomplete game. If you want to make absolute sure he keeps his well-deserved reward, we could further introduce a rule that the winner is the first person to gain 2 vp, regardless of whether another player gains 2 vp later in the game (simultaneous vps are still a tie). But somehow, the "value system" of the original rules seems more appealing to me. It avoids the strange situation of an ousted "winner" sitting bored on the sidelines as he waits for the game to finish, watching the happy losers as having fun as they jockey for second place (and, unless you choose both of the above rules changes, waiting helplessly to see if his crown will be taken from him). Under the current rules (for completed games), the only situations I can think of where an ousted player can win is where the game ends immediately after he is ousted.

Frederick Scott wrote: > <nys...@cs.com> wrote in message > > Being ousted normally means a non-win. > > It depends on what you mean. That's why I took so much trouble explaining what I meant. > Under the current system, two VPs before > oust can be a game win, if the remaining players are ineffective in > ousting one another before time. I was discussing completed games under the standard rules. I am pretty sure I was clear about that, since my whole point was to contrast completed games with incomplete ones scored under the current tournament rules.

Frederick Scott wrote: > My parenthetical comment > you wished to respond to above was just to point out that the > standard for a game win hinges on whether the game was completed > or not and the ousted player has no control over that. Nothing > more. If your reply is just that under your proposed system it > doesn't matter (since he isn't going to get a game win either > way), OK - so noted. It wasn't really > important anyway which was why I used the parenthesis. It's a minor point, yes, but still (I think) worth mentioning. The standard rulebook rules, for completed 4 or 5-player games, do not allow for a situation where an ousted player sits around watching the game waiting to see if he has won or not. The tournament rules for INCOMPLETE games do allow for such a situation, granting the ousted player a game win only if the remaining players play until a time out. Under my proposed rules, as in the standard rules, a player ousted from a continuing game is never a game winner, regardless of whether the game later goes to time. Hence my proposal is more consistent with the rules for finished games.

nys...@cs.com wrote: > Frederick Scott wrote: >> My parenthetical comment >> you wished to respond to above was just to point out that the >> standard for a game win hinges on whether the game was completed >> or not and the ousted player has no control over that. Nothing >> more. If your reply is just that under your proposed system it >> doesn't matter (since he isn't going to get a game win either >> way), OK - so noted. It wasn't really >> important anyway which was why I used the parenthesis. > > It's a minor point, yes, but still (I think) worth mentioning. > > The standard rulebook rules, for completed 4 or 5-player games, do not > allow for a situation where an ousted player sits around watching the > game waiting to see if he has won or not. huh? A, B, C, D, E. A ousts B and C. E ousts A. So there is D and E left. If D ousts E, thus getting 2vps, A ties for the win with D. If E ousts D, A does not get a tied win, they just come 2nd, on 2vps. If either D or E withdraw, A will tie with E instead of D. So A is waiting to see if: i) they lose or ii) They tie for the win but with: 1) D or 2) E And then everything can be a lot messier if A got their 2nd vp not through ousting C, but from withdrawing. Or if C got a vp before A ousted them. There are plenty of scenarios where an ousted player sits around waiting to see if they have won or not. -- salem (replace 'hotmail' with 'yahoo' to email)

Frederick Scott wrote: > Well, the obvious issue is the original one cited: why reward > decks that are so slow and deliberate that they excessively risk > going to time and preventing all players from getting a game win? The obvious answer is that my proposal does not do that. Two ousts are (normally) still required for a game win. My proposal marginally rewards successful decks by providing a fairer approximation of the ultimate game outcome. It does not reward the deck that sits there and votes lots of Autarchis Persecutions for everyone. It depends, of course, what you mean by "excessive". You seem to be a hard man to please. I described my fastest deck to you, and you told me I ought not play it. I said I had some slower decks, and you said I ought not play them either. I am forced to conclude that, in your opinion, I am simply not welcome in tournaments. :) I described to you a deck that scored 2.5 vps and a game win in round 1, 1.5 vps in round 2 and 0.5 vps in round 3, and you told me (without knowing anything about the deck or why the game went to time) that this person should not have brought the deck to the tournament.

Salem wrote: > nys...@cs.com wrote: > > The standard rulebook rules, for completed 4 or 5-player games, > > do not allow for a situation where an ousted player sits around > > watching the game waiting to see if he has won or not. > > huh? > > A, B, C, D, E. > A ousts B and C. > E ousts A. > So there is D and E left. > If D ousts E, thus getting 2vps, A ties for the win with D. If E > ousts D, A does not get a tied win, they just come 2nd, on 2vps. > > If either D or E withdraw, A will tie with E instead of D. > > So A is waiting to see if: > i) they lose > or > ii) They tie for the win but with: > 1) D > or > 2) E There is no such thing as "tie for the win". A tie game is not a win. To win, you need more vps than any other player. Check the rule book. This is the exact scenario we have been discussing. Under the tournament rules for unfinished games, Player A can win only if the game does not finish, because only then will he have more vps than any other player.

Frederick Scott wrote: > In general, the choice of the current GW criteria and > withdrawal/time-out rewards have been settled on from years of > experience. "In general" you may be right. But as regards to anything resembling the current proposal, this is, as far as I can tell simply not true. The half victory point time out rule goes back at least as far as the Duelists' Convention Tournament Rules, revised October 1995. I would guess the prior version was the same on this point (but I have been unable to find it). Although the half victory point time out rule always struck me as wrong, I cannot ever recall it being debated of justified. I can certainly recall no other system ever being tested and tried. At the time, there was no counting of game wins as primary criteria. Victory points were the primary criteria. If I were to guess, I would guess that the half-point rule was meant as a kind of imperfect attempt to ensure that players who won a game by the rulebook would get more points than those who merely scored a vp or two. Since it was possible to score a game win (per the rulebook) with only 2 vps, I would guess that someone decided it was unfair that a person who went to time with a single vp should earn the exact same result. Of course, now that game wins are treated as a primary determination, that is no longer the issue.

[ quoted text not captured ] The funny thing is that the GW scoring rule is a relatively recent incarnation of the spirit of victory. When it was introduced in '03 (I'm guessing but it sounds right) it got people off their laurels who were just trying to shoot for 2 VPs. I think your new rules reintroduce that mechanic and the huge (HUGE!) amount of table deals that went along with it. Comments Welcome, Norman S. Brown, Jr XZealot Archon of the Swamp

XZealot wrote: > The funny thing is that the GW scoring rule is a relatively recent > incarnation of the spirit of victory. When it was introduced in '03 > (I'm guessing but it sounds right) it got people off their laurels > who were just trying to shoot for 2 VPs. I think your new rules > reintroduce that mechanic and the huge (HUGE!) amount of table > deals that went along with it. Well, (without having an opinion as to whether this is good or bad) I do see that the "game win" system would encourage deal-making. But I'm not sure what else you are saying. Are you suggesting that my proposal would FURTHER encourage deal-making? (If so, I can't see how).

nys...@cs.com wrote: > Salem wrote: >> nys...@cs.com wrote: >>> The standard rulebook rules, for completed 4 or 5-player games, >>> do not allow for a situation where an ousted player sits around >>> watching the game waiting to see if he has won or not. >> huh? >> >> A, B, C, D, E. >> A ousts B and C. >> E ousts A. >> So there is D and E left. >> If D ousts E, thus getting 2vps, A ties for the win with D. If E >> ousts D, A does not get a tied win, they just come 2nd, on 2vps. >> >> If either D or E withdraw, A will tie with E instead of D. >> >> So A is waiting to see if: >> i) they lose >> or >> ii) They tie for the win but with: >> 1) D >> or >> 2) E > > There is no such thing as "tie for the win". A tie game is not a > win. To win, you need more vps than any other player. Check the rule > book. A ousts B and then withdraws. Many turns later, C calls a referendum that ousts C, D, and E simultaneously. A wins 2-0-1-1-1.

In article <1191117326....@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com>, nys...@cs.com wrote: > I did a bit of searching, and all I could find recently was some posts > about FINALISTS who seem willing to permit the final round to go to > time because they don't need a "game win" to win the tournament. But > this can hardly be what you had in mind. Why can that hardly be what I had in mind? There has been an awful lot of discussion of late specifically about final games going to time and not actually ending with a concrete winner--instead the winner being determined by tiebreakers (i.e. the final ends with 3 people left at the table, 2 of them each have 1VP, the guy with the higher initial seed wins! Woo!) > As I am sure you realize -- > my proposed system has no affect on such dynamics whatsoever, for > better or worse. Your proposed system gives 1VP for survival. This encourages folks to try a lot harder to not die as opposed to oust their prey, which has an effect on the whole dynamic. > Until you elaborate, I will presume you are discussing the same > phenomenon I have noticed. The problem I have noticed is players > getting understandably frustrated when games go to time because a time > out HURTS THEM by depriving them -- not only of their hopes of of > victory -- but also of the reasonable value of their reasonable > expectations. Games going to time hurts folks 'cause no one actually wins the game. If folks want someone to win the game, they should try harder to oust their prey. Giving folks more incentive to wall up and *not* try and oust their prey, isn't going to improve this dynamic. > First of all, a single oust IS worth the same as survival. The rules > (which are applied more or less intact in completed games even in > tournaments) say so. If you don't like that, you can advocate that > the rules be changed. I don't need to advocate that the rules be changed--as the rules stand, you get .5VP for surviving. If you are the last person at the table, you get a full VP for survival, as being the last guy at the table is a considerably more significant event that simply surviving till time runs out. Which is why you get 1VP for being last guy at the table and only .5VP for not being ousted when time runs out. > Irrelevant, since my proposed system does not remove the incentive to > oust your prey. Two ousts are still required for a game win (ignoring > rare exceptions). Giving 1VP for still being at the table when time runs out removes incentive to oust your prey in any remotely risky situation, as defense (i.e. walling up and covering your head) is generally less risky than offense (going all out to oust your prey even if it means you might fail and get ousted). If the reward in a difficult situation is 1VP for walling up and covering your head instead of .5VP, you have incentive to wall up and cover your head rather than lunging for the risky oust. Anything that disincentives folks going for the risky oust is bad. > If you really mean what you say, perhaps you think the game would be > even better if the players received NO points for surviving in timed > out games. I'd be ok with that. Except that, as you note, it makes folks arbitrary and reckless. Which is why the current system is reasonable--you have more incentive to try and go forward than to simply survive, but more incentive to survive than to get ousted. > Please stop pretending you didn't understand me. Please stop > pretending I am trying to eliminate the need for ousting. It is called "rhetorical device", not "pretending". > Victory points should be awarded based on one's success in besting > other players at your table. Sure. Simply staying alive is not success in besting other players at the table. Which is why you get .5VP for still being alive when time runs out, rather than 1VP. As more often than not, being alive when time runs out has nothing at all to do with ones actual in game position--you could easily be at 1 pool, next to go, and sitting in front of an Anarch Revolt without the Edge when time runs out during your predator's turn. You survive, sure, but only by arbitrary time limit, not by virtue of game play. Consequently, the general consensus is that .5VP for survivial at time is a reasonable compromise. > I'm sorry, but that's pretty much what one SHOULD do if one is in a > bad position. See, clearly you do think this, as your proposal encourages this. Which I don't believe is actually a good idea. To reward folks for not trying to oust their prey. The tournament rules need to reward folks for trying to oust their prey over simply surviving. Giving .5VP for surviving is a reasonable compromise. Peter D Bakija pd...@lightlink.com http://www.lightlink.com/pdb6/vtes.html "Find hungry samurai." -The Old Man

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:1fNLi.53319 >> There is no such thing as "tie for the win". A tie game is not a >> win. To win, you need more vps than any other player. Check the rule >> book. > > A ousts B and then withdraws. > Many turns later, C calls a referendum that ousts C, D, and E > simultaneously. > A wins 2-0-1-1-1. 1/2 vp for withdraw? A=1.5? John P.

[ quoted text not captured ] Context, as quoted in my post: "The standard rulebook rules"

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:baQLi.30137 > > Context, as quoted in my post: "The standard rulebook rules" I should have known better....

<nys...@cs.com> wrote in message news:1191122394.6...@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com... > > Frederick Scott wrote: >> <nys...@cs.com> wrote in message >> news:1190758375.9...@50g2000hsm.googlegroups.com... >> > On Sep 25, 12:50 pm, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> >> > wrote: >> >> I note that it's also harder for others to get game wins >> >> by ousting two players and then being ousted when a game times >> >> out - since the opponent who ousted them will now have two VP >> >> and tie them whereas before the latter would only have 1 and >> >> 1/2 VP. >> > >> > Right. This was the example I chose for my original post. >> >> ...and another thing that I would deem a negative, since the ousted >> player (one would assume) took risks to resolve the game sooner (a >> good thing in my value system) whereas the player who (one would >> assume) had the upper hand at the end of the game failed to move >> aggressively enough to resolve it (a bad thing in my value system). >> I strongly prefer the former get a game win and the latter be >> penalized. > > Why are you making assumpions not inherent in the fact pattern? > > The only "value systems" I am aware of are the current tournament > rules for scoring incomplete games, which declare the above player a > winner, and the standard rules for scoring complete games, which > declare him a loser. The whole scoring system is a value system, not just the scores for incomplete games. In general that's exactly what scores are: values placed on outcomes and thus behaviors - hence, they are value systems. In this case, my reference to "my own value system" is how I think player behaviors should be rewarded or penalized depending on how I think they contribute to the fun of playing a tournament - which is ultimately what should be optimized. > Player A played well under the former value > system, and badly under the latter. Why should there be this tension > between the two value systems, when Player A has no control over what > happens after he is ousted? Would it not be better for Player A to > know which "value system" will judge him while he still has a chance > to do something about it? It would probably be better but it's less important than encouraging behavior that resolves a game with in its time limit. > If you really think that Player A needs to be rewarded with victory, > after scoring 2 vps and then being ousted, then perhaps we should > change the standard rules. If we deprive players of the extra 1 vp > they get for being the last player standing, then our ousted player > has a reasonable chance of winning even if the game is completed. The > worst he can do is tie. There will be less tension between the > completed game and the incomplete game. You're overgeneralizing what I said to create a straw man argument in order make the appearance of a case of reductio ad absurdum. I think it's better that a player who got two VP and then ousted be granted a GW if no remaining player got more than one VP in a timed out game. Period. I think this because the relative valuation of outcomes between the player who ousted two other players at the risk of his own ability to remain in the game is higher than the remaining player(s) who could not oust more than one other player even though they survived the game. Such a comparison obviously doesn't hold if the game is completed, so tinkering with the current system in the way you propose wouldn't yield anything positive. > Under the current rules (for completed games), the only situations I > can think of where an ousted player can win is where the game ends > immediately after he is ousted. I'm not sure what you mean by this. Under the current rules, I believe the only situation where an ousted player can win a completed game would involve withdrawals by at least one other player. Fred

nys...@cs.com> wrote in message news:1191123493....@n39g2000hsh.googlegroups.com... [ quoted text not captured ] Well, the trouble is, your proposed change affects non-completed games as well as completed games. And the effect is adverse, IMHO. Fred

<nys...@cs.com> wrote in message news:1191126935.3...@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com... > Frederick Scott wrote: >> My parenthetical comment >> you wished to respond to above was just to point out that the >> standard for a game win hinges on whether the game was completed >> or not and the ousted player has no control over that. Nothing >> more. If your reply is just that under your proposed system it >> doesn't matter (since he isn't going to get a game win either >> way), OK - so noted. It wasn't really >> important anyway which was why I used the parenthesis. > > It's a minor point, yes, but still (I think) worth mentioning. > > The standard rulebook rules, for completed 4 or 5-player games, do not > allow for a situation where an ousted player sits around watching the > game waiting to see if he has won or not. He could possibly still win, yes. Player A ousts players B and C but is ousted by player E. He has two VPs and players B and C have zero. Player E withdraws and receives 1 and 1/2 VPs. Player D remains with one VP. Player A gets a game win. > Under my proposed rules, as in the standard rules, a player ousted > from a continuing game is never a game winner, regardless of whether > the game later goes to time. Hence my proposal is more consistent > with the rules for finished games. Perhaps, but why on Earth should we care about such a nit? I don't care about this particular form of consistency and I don't see why anyone else should either. Fred

I wrote in message news:CKRLi.5518$nT2...@newsfe09.phx... > <nys...@cs.com> wrote in message >> The standard rulebook rules, for completed 4 or 5-player games, do not >> allow for a situation where an ousted player sits around watching the >> game waiting to see if he has won or not. > > He could possibly still win, yes. Player A ousts players B and C but > is ousted by player E. He has two VPs and players B and C have zero. > Player E withdraws and receives 1 and 1/2 VPs. Player D remains with > one VP. Player A gets a game win. ... Ah, reading further down the thread, LSJ's post drew my attention to the point that you were talking about "standard rulebook rules" over the course of your entire previous post, not just in the last paragraph. I'm kind of a sloppy reader (obviously) when another poster takes the discussion off in a direction I wasn't expecting. I apologize for this. In general, you seem to think we should value consistency between tournament scoring and rulebook rules scoring and merely endeavor to find a tournament scoring system which rewards things as nearly as possible to non-timed play. You need to be aware that this is not all that high a priority in the tournament scoring system and I don't believe it should be. Tournaments feature time-limited games and they need to be played that way. Players who play decks which can win given unlimited time but don't tend to resolve games before the tournament time limit SHOULD be penalized for that because such play unfairly robs other players who happen to draw them as opponents during the tournament of their chance to get game wins. As a general statement, of course, we want tournament play to resemble non-tournament play. But the fact of time limits and how they affect fairness needs to be given its due as a higher priority. Fred

<nys...@cs.com> wrote in message news:1191127800.3...@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com... > Frederick Scott wrote: >> Well, the obvious issue is the original one cited: why reward >> decks that are so slow and deliberate that they excessively risk >> going to time and preventing all players from getting a game win? > > The obvious answer is that my proposal does not do that. Two ousts > are (normally) still required for a game win. It does do that by removing the 1/2 point penalty for being in a timed out game. Rewards in tournament scoring are not only in the form of game wins. Victory points make a significant difference. They are lower on the heirarchy of determiners but they come into play quite often so their contribution should not be understated. > My proposal marginally > rewards successful decks by providing a fairer approximation of the > ultimate game outcome. Your definition of "successful decks" is a stab at a circular argument: by defining these particular decks as a "successful", you infer it would be a good thing that they should be rewarded. I reject the definition. Again, what seems to be at issue here is your insistence on approximating successful behavior in non-timed games with tournament scoring that matches it. This is not important to me. See the last paragraph of the post where I responded to my own post. > It depends, of course, what you mean by "excessive". You seem to be a > hard man to please. I described my fastest deck to you, and you told > me I ought not play it. I said I had some slower decks, and you said > I ought not play them either. I am forced to conclude that, in your > opinion, I am simply not welcome in tournaments. :) If your decks can't win within the time limit of the tournament, you can and should be penalized for that, yes. Again, such behavior robs other players of their chance to get game wins within the time limit and that's bad. As for being "welcome" or not, you're always welcome to join a tournament as long as your overall motivation as in line with the tournament's overall motivation (having fun, as expressed by competition for the highest possible tournament standing). However, if you don't wish to choose a style of play which resolves games within the time limit, you will be penalized for that under the scoring system and, IMHO, you should be. > I described to you a deck that scored 2.5 vps and a game win in round > 1, 1.5 vps in round 2 and 0.5 vps in round 3, and you told me (without > knowing anything about the deck or why the game went to time) that > this person should not have brought the deck to the tournament. In my original reply to you, the use of the word "should" was intended to convey "for purposes of winning the tournament" - not some kind of moral value system or anything. The only thing you really told me about your deck was that it tends to win after two hours and 15 minutes, a period longer than the two hour time limit most tournaments use. Don't conflate the sense of the generalized point I was trying to make: that the scoring system deliberately penalizes slow decks for a good reason. Your deck won one game and timed out two others. Of course, I can't know the circumstances of the time outs with the above information so please don't subsequently blindside me (again) with the inference that I'm being overly judgmental with insufficient information, here. I'm just trying to speak of general principals. If your deck which tends to take longer to win than the tournament time limit was a contributing factor to those two games timing out, then I think it's fair you should penalized for it since the slow style of play robs other players of their chance at getting game wins within the time limit. Hence, it becomes an unfair penalty for them to draw you as an opponent. You are, of course, free to choose such a deck anyway if you deem its overall chance of success under the existing scoring system makes it a good choice despite the penalties. But I see no reason to enhance its value by increasing victory point rewards for timing out a game. If anything, I would like to penalize such play even further. Unfortunately, I can't think of any means of doing that without causing some other undesirable effect. Until I do, I support continuation of the existing system. Fred

<nys...@cs.com> wrote in message news:1191131280....@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com... > Frederick Scott wrote: >> In general, the choice of the current GW criteria and >> withdrawal/time-out rewards have been settled on from years of >> experience. > > "In general" you may be right. But as regards to anything resembling > the current proposal, this is, as far as I can tell simply not true. > > The half victory point time out rule goes back at least as far as the > Duelists' Convention Tournament Rules, revised October 1995. I would > guess the prior version was the same on this point (but I have been > unable to find it). > > Although the half victory point time out rule always struck me as > wrong, I cannot ever recall it being debated of justified. I don't recall anyone questioning it either. I always took it as a sign of agreement that 1) timeouts are bad; and 2) play which contributes to timeouts (whether it be deckbuilding style or game play) is likewise bad. Norm is right about the game wins: they were instituted to discourage dealmaking by players who tried to gain one or two VPs in exhange for kingmaking another player, a style of play which frequently worked well for those engaging in it but was found to warp the intent of the game and rob it of its competitive balance. As I've said previously, the current system has been arrived upon through a lot of hard experience. Some of this may not be apparent to those who didn't live through it. > At the time, there was no counting of game wins as primary criteria. > Victory points were the primary criteria. If I were to guess, I would > guess that the half-point rule was meant as a kind of imperfect > attempt to ensure that players who won a game by the rulebook would > get more points than those who merely scored a vp or two. Since it > was possible to score a game win (per the rulebook) with only 2 vps, I > would guess that someone decided it was unfair that a person who went > to time with a single vp should earn the exact same result. I always assumed the intent was to get players to recognize the time limit and encourage them to attack with one another as opposed to "turtling up" and merely surviving until time. Granting a player a full VP for going to time rewards players who have no hope of ousting their first prey equally with another player who is playing defensively as a means of eventually winning the game. Granted, awarding both players one half victory point does the same thing, but the above point pierces the fallacy of trying to assert that scoring systems should attempt to reward timed out game participants as closely as possible to how they would be rewarded in a non-time-limited game. In truth, it's impossible to do such a thing very accurately. So it should not be a high priority. Fred

Frederick Scott wrote: > As a general statement, of course, we want tournament play to resemble > non-tournament play. But the fact of time limits and how they affect > fairness needs to be given its due as a higher priority. As you know in LA, all our "casual" games are timed to 2 hours. AFAIC, that should be the standard anyway. best - chris -- Super Fun Cards http://stores.ebay.com/superfuncards/ auct...@superfuncards.com

nys...@cs.com wrote: > Salem wrote: >> nys...@cs.com wrote: >> > The standard rulebook rules, for completed 4 or 5-player games, >> > do not allow for a situation where an ousted player sits around >> > watching the game waiting to see if he has won or not. >> >> huh? >> >> A, B, C, D, E. >> A ousts B and C. >> E ousts A. >> So there is D and E left. >> If D ousts E, thus getting 2vps, A ties for the win with D. If E >> ousts D, A does not get a tied win, they just come 2nd, on 2vps. >> >> If either D or E withdraw, A will tie with E instead of D. >> >> So A is waiting to see if: >> i) they lose >> or >> ii) They tie for the win but with: >> 1) D >> or >> 2) E > > There is no such thing as "tie for the win". A tie game is not a > win. To win, you need more vps than any other player. Check the rule > book. OK. The most recent rule book i could find lying around is my Legacies of Blood one, so it'll have to do. "the winner is the player with the most victory points at the end of the game" The most victory points at the end of the game in scenario ii) is 2. And two players both got that value. So you have two players winning. ergo, a 'tie for the win'. Then there is also the scenario LSJ mentions later on for a unique winner on 2vps but still ousted before the game ends. > This is the exact scenario we have been discussing. Under the > tournament rules for unfinished games, Player A can win only if the > game does not finish, because only then will he have more vps than any > other player. Only the tournament rules care about more than any other player. The standard rulebook just cares about 'the most'. [ quoted text not captured ]

LSJ wrote: > A ousts B and then withdraws. > Many turns later, C calls a referendum that ousts C, D, and E > simultaneously. A wins 2-0-1-1-1. Yes, but what I said was .... "The standard rulebook rules, for completed 4 or 5-player games, do not allow for a situation where an ousted player sits around watching the game waiting to see if he has won or not." A withdrawn player is different from an ousted one.

Salem wrote: > Then there is also the scenario LSJ mentions later on for a unique > winner on 2vps but still ousted before the game ends. No. LSJ came up with no such situation. > Only the tournament rules care about more than any other player. > The standard rulebook just cares about 'the most'. I do not read it that way. It says "the player with the most" not "the players with the most". I won't argue further with your interpretation, because it is just semantics. Your semantics are obviously not that adopted by the VEKN for the term "game win". For that reason, your interpretation has minimal relevance to this discussion. I'm sure you can appreciate the difference between what the VEKN calls a "game win" and what you call a "tie for a win". When I said win, I was talking about a "game win" (per the VEKN's definition).

nys...@cs.com wrote: > Salem wrote: >> Then there is also the scenario LSJ mentions later on for a unique >> winner on 2vps but still ousted before the game ends. > > No. LSJ came up with no such situation. Would you have considered withdrawing and being ousted to be distinct scenarios if LSJ hadn't come up with that scenario? I doubt it. I don't think the person sitting off to one side will feel more or less like they're still part of the game depending on whether they were ousted or withdrew. >> Only the tournament rules care about more than any other player. >> The standard rulebook just cares about 'the most'. > > I do not read it that way. It says "the player with the most" not > "the players with the most". Well, actually, you had read it as 'the player with more'. which wasn't even in the rulebook. but you seem to have snipped that line out from the above quotes. > I won't argue further with your interpretation, because it is just > semantics. Your semantics are obviously not that adopted by the VEKN > for the term "game win". For that reason, your interpretation has > minimal relevance to this discussion. it's not really semantics. and they're also not the reason the VEKN changed the tournament rules. I am not sure if you played tournaments back before the Game Win rule existed, but back then there was a lot of dealing for tied wins. 2-2 splits being the most common. And since there did not exist such a thing as a 'game win' to score off, those things were highly desirable. The Game Win rule was created to try and force players to not deal as much for those sorts of splits. It wasn't based off some re-reading of the standard rulebook and deciding that's what it really meant all along. > I'm sure you can appreciate the difference between what the VEKN calls > a "game win" and what you call a "tie for a win". I do. One is from the rulebook, one is in the tournament rules. > When I said win, I > was talking about a "game win" (per the VEKN's definition). No you weren't. You were explicitly talking about a rulebook only situation, and explicitly excluded the VEKN rules from this part of the discussion. [ quoted text not captured ]

Salem wrote: > nys...@cs.com wrote: > > Salem wrote: > >> Then there is also the scenario LSJ mentions later on for a > >> unique winner on 2vps but still ousted before the game ends. > > > > No. LSJ came up with no such situation. > > Would you have considered withdrawing and being ousted to be > distinct scenarios if LSJ hadn't come up with that scenario? I *did* consider them to be distinct, which is why I worded the sentence the way I did. I was aware of LSJ's example before I posted. Earlier in the discussion, I had mentioned withdrawal for completeness, only to have my opponent complain that withdrawal was virtually unheard of. I decided not to make an issue out of withdrawal exceptions from then on. > I doubt it. Sure, fine. Call me a liar. I cannot stop you from being nasty, if that's what you want to be. There is no question about what I said, but you want to tell me I really meant something else. > I don't think the person sitting off to one side will feel more or > less like they're still part of the game depending on whether they > were ousted or withdrew. In my mind they are distinct, for various reasons. > > When I said win, I > > was talking about a "game win" (per the VEKN's definition). > > No you weren't. Yes I was. I was talking about situations where one player earns more victory points than any other player. If you look at the discussions, this is absolutely clear in context, since on several occasions, I explicitly mentioned tie games as non-wins. > You were explicitly talking about a rulebook only > situation, and explicitly excluded the VEKN rules from this part > of the discussion. As already explained, I saw no difference. Even if you are right, and the rulebook definition is meant to be different, then it is still clear that I was talking about situations where (under the standard rulebook rules) one player earns more victory points than any other player. >From now on, when I discuss "wins" in context of the standard rulebook rules, assume I mean "wins excluding tie games" (in the context of the standard rulebook rules). I am refering to situations where the game ends, and a single player has more victory points than any other player. Such sitiations *do* occur under the standard rules, and THOSE are the situations I am referring to. Okay?

Frederick Scott wrote: > In general, you seem to think we should value consistency between > tournament scoring and rulebook rules scoring and merely endeavor > to find a tournament scoring system which rewards things as nearly > as possible to non-timed play. I would not say "as near as possible". For instance, where a 5-player game goes to time with 4 players remaining, after A ousts B, my system gives 2vp to Player A, and the other survivors 1 vp, but does not award A a game win, despite the fact that he finished in the lead and there is a logical basis for guessing that he is the most likely winner. I still require two ousts for a game win. I deprive him of his reasonable hope of a game win, but give him the fair vp value of his game position as a consolation prize. This ensures that he has a good incentive to finish the game, but is perhaps not quite so frustrated when he fails. Consistency between tournament scoring and rulebook scoring ensures that players are competing with eachother and not with other tables. Under the standard rules, every methuselah brings a vp with him to the table. When any methuselah gets the better of another methuselah (by ousting him) he takes his vp. One maximizes vp gain by besting each opponent and avoiding being bested by any opponent, to the extent possible. Ideally by ousting everyone, avoiding being ousted, thereby getting 5 vp; but failing that, by any strategy that gets a lesser number. Since you are competing against the other players at the table, any vp point one gains is always at the expense of another player. By changing this dynamic, the current rules allow for situations where one can maximize vp gain without getting the better of other opponents at the table. One can get a full vp for oneself without taking a full vp from an opponent. The extreme case of this, which I described for Mr. Bakija, was one where a player calls an Ancilla Empowerment which ousts all 5 players simultaneously. The result is a 5-way tie, in which no player got the better of any other player in a meaningful way. There motive, was to get a full vp instead of a half vp, but they did not get this benefit at the expense of their opponents (who each received the same benefit) But their opponents are the only people they SHOULD be competing with. Instead, they are competing with neighboring tables -- cooperating to ensure that the maximum number of vps are distribued at their table. Players SHOULD try to finish games, but should do so for the RIGHT reason. The RIGHT reason to want to finish is that they want to get the better of their opponents at the table. The WRONG reason is to maximize the number of vps distributed at their table compared to neighboring tables. My system keeps the right reason for wanting to finish, and dispenses with the wrong reasons. It keeps the number of vps at a table steady. Under my system, if you want to gain a vp, you have to take it from your enemy. > You need to be aware that this is > not all that high a priority in the tournament scoring system and Well, if the Powers That BE never take my suggestion, then I will suppose my concerns are not a priority for them. > I don't believe it should be. We may soon have to just agree to disagree. We are not making too much progress. I understand what you are saying about there being (theoretically) a marginally higher incentive to go to time under my system, but I just don't see it making much of a difference in practice, for all the reasons I gave. I just don't think players are going to be any happier dying just because there is a half-price sale at the funeral parlor. Under my proposal, just like under the current system, a player who hopes to win generally needs to score at least two ousts, and therefore needs to survive long enough to achieve this -- which generally means surviving most of the game. Under my system (as under the current system) any risks he takes are measured against that hope of two ousts -- and not merely against the whole or half vp he stands to lose. > Tournaments feature time-limited games and they need to be played > that way. Yes, but, under my proposal they will continue to be played that way. > Players who play decks which can win given unlimited time but don't > tend to resolve games before the tournament time limit SHOULD be > penalized for that because such play unfairly robs other players > who happen to draw them as opponents during the tournament of > their chance to get game wins. That's where we disagree. They have not unfairly robbed other players of anything. Each player has no obligation whatsoever to help opponents gain vps -- quite the reverse in fact. His job is (if possible) to sieze a vp from each opponent and (if possible) to not let any opponent sieze a vp from him. Every vp you get should be siezed fair & square from another methuselah who lost exactly what you gained. Putting a discount on death to bribe players to let other players oust them is silly.

nys...@cs.com wrote: > Salem wrote: >> nys...@cs.com wrote: >> > Salem wrote: >> >> Then there is also the scenario LSJ mentions later on for a >> >> unique winner on 2vps but still ousted before the game ends. >> > >> > No. LSJ came up with no such situation. >> >> Would you have considered withdrawing and being ousted to be >> distinct scenarios if LSJ hadn't come up with that scenario? > > I *did* consider them to be distinct, which is why I worded the > sentence the way I did. I was aware of LSJ's example before I > posted. Earlier in the discussion, I had mentioned withdrawal for > completeness, only to have my opponent complain that withdrawal was > virtually unheard of. I decided not to make an issue out of > withdrawal exceptions from then on. > >> I doubt it. > > Sure, fine. Call me a liar. I cannot stop you from being nasty, if > that's what you want to be. There is no question about what I said, > but you want to tell me I really meant something else. my apologies. i didn't try and tell you you meant something else. I just meant that the impression i got was something else. i didn't realise that would cause offense. my bad. >From now on, when I discuss "wins" in context of the standard rulebook > rules, assume I mean "wins excluding tie games" (in the context of the > standard rulebook rules). I am refering to situations where the game > ends, and a single player has more victory points than any other > player. Such sitiations *do* occur under the standard rules, and > THOSE are the situations I am referring to. > > Okay? Okay. Sure. [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] It seemed as if the issue was the sitting around (not playing) to see if he has won. A ousts B then C. E ousts A. E plays Gambit Accepted. Many turns later, E withdraws. A wins 2-0-0-1-1.

<nys...@cs.com> wrote in message news:1191226174.2...@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com... > Players SHOULD try to finish games, but should do so for the RIGHT > reason. The RIGHT reason to want to finish is that they want to get > the better of their opponents at the table. The WRONG reason is to > maximize the number of vps distributed at their table compared to > neighboring tables. I assert that your definition of a "right reason" is arbritrary and not particularly important. I also assert that the emphasis you've chosen to place on conservation of victory points is misguided. In practice, there's less harm in robbing tables of victory points based on failure to resolve a game than in unduly rewarding the failure to resolve a game. Were there a reliable means of indentifying the exact party guilty of "causing" the time out (or "the most guilty" to further play with the concept) then perhaps it would be reasonable to take victory points away from that party and give them to other players and conserve the total at one VP per player. In truth, of course, that's hopeless. But it works reasonably effectively (at least in the long run) to penalize each surviving player in a timed out game in order to discourage timeouts. And it's total argumentative chicaery to turn this construction on its head and claim a player can create victory points out of thin air by avoiding this penalty. One does not "get a full VP for oneself without taking a full VP from an opponent" when one _avoids_ a penalty. That is simply doing what you're supposed to be doing. The Ancilla Empowerment example is odd but, like the rest of your complaints, it's not a thing that causes a real, tangible problem. It's just an oddity which could potentially be employed by a player to extricate a table which was going to time from the worst result (as a group) of all - albeit if no one finished with 2 VPs, I note the table would still finish without the game win. In fact, along the same lines and much more realistic before the rule change to grant withdrawn players only 1/2 of a victory point instead of a full one, groups of players would sometimes agree to mutually withdraw. This actually happened from time to time - you'd see players drawing, discarding, and declaring their turn over in a second or so. In theory, one or more of the players could then double-cross the deal when the victims had discarded their entire libraries and that happened once in a Blue Moon as well - though the deals were fulfilled in the vast majority of the cases. But my point is, all this stuff happened without compromising the spirit of the game too badly. In retrospect, the rule change was probably an improvment because mutual withdrawal schemes (which were the main thing affected by it) really weren't desirable outcomes. And a freak universal-ousting Ancilla Empowerment could theorectically be employed to the same effect but it's not a real problem because players are unlikely to deckbuild or play for such outcomes, so the problem is limited to slim chance. (More likely to be used by a player who had no chance of any VPs except through it's use - which would be an entirely legitimate play AFAICS.) >> You need to be aware that this is >> not all that high a priority in the tournament scoring system and > > Well, if the Powers That BE never take my suggestion, then I will > suppose my concerns are not a priority for them. > >> I don't believe it should be. > > We may soon have to just agree to disagree. We are not making too > much progress. I understand what you are saying about there being > (theoretically) a marginally higher incentive to go to time under my > system, but I just don't see it making much of a difference in > practice, for all the reasons I gave. It's not marginal and it does make a difference. And your system also penalizes the two-VP-and-ousted player in a non-completed game of his chance at a game win which is not a penalty I think is a good thing either. By way of turnabout, your concerns about conservation of victory points absolutely baffle me. They seem more like ideology than practical problem solving. >> Players who play decks which can win given unlimited time but don't >> tend to resolve games before the tournament time limit SHOULD be >> penalized for that because such play unfairly robs other players >> who happen to draw them as opponents during the tournament of >> their chance to get game wins. > > That's where we disagree. They have not unfairly robbed other players > of anything. Each player has no obligation whatsoever to help > opponents gain vps -- quite the reverse in fact. His job is (if > possible) to sieze a vp from each opponent and (if possible) to not > let any opponent sieze a vp from him. If you play a deliberate game with a slow developing deck which risks a table time out before victory, your play unquestionably exports that risk to your opponents as well. This unfairly robs your opponents - in comparison to other players at other tables who are not playing in a game with a slow developing deck. This is, perhaps, one of the major failings in your point of view. To suggest players at a table are competing only with one another and not with the other players at the other tables is simply wrong, a result of an overly narrow construction of the situation. You can only make the finals by placing in the top five of *ALL* players at the tournament. So if one or more of your opponents at your table cause(s) a greater than normal risk of a timeout at your table, it makes it harder than it should be for your or anyone else to get a game win at your table. This is a bad thing and should be penalized. Fred

LSJ wrote: > It seemed as if the issue was the sitting around (not playing) to > see if he has won. Okay, but more generally, my issue and point was that survival (for -- at the very least, a substantial portion of the game) is essential to winning, and one creates a rather questionable dichotomy when one says that the point of the game is to oust rather than to survive. To win, you have to outlast at least some other players -- usually most of them. Had I mentioned withdrawal, for completeness, I might have pointed out that (1) a withdrawer is a type of survivor, because he is never ousted; (2) a withdrawer is still required to remain in the game long enough to exhaust his library; and (3) a withdrawer is still required to remain in the game longer than at least one other player in order for his withdrawal to grant him any hope of a game win. > A ousts B then C. E ousts A. E plays Gambit Accepted. > Many turns later, E withdraws. > A wins 2-0-0-1-1. It appears, from your example, that the number of vps distributed at the table have been reduced from 5 to 4. I was unaware that any cards had been printed that were capable of altering the ultimate number of vps distributed. But looking at the example (and looking up the card text), it appears to me that A ties with E for two victory points. E gets 1 vp for withdrawal and an extra 1 vp for not being ousted at the end of the game. I suppose one could argue that, since cards are burned upon withdrawal, this prevents the Gambit from taking effect. But in this case the withdrawal is simultaneous with the end of the game. If ousting you does not burn your cards fast enough to prevent one's predator from gaining the extra vp for ousting you, then withdrawing should not burn your cards fast enough to prevent you from gaining that last extra vp at the end of the game. I can see that, when E withdraws BEFORE the end of the game, one vp would go up in smoke and no player would get it. I'm not too happy about this, because it seems to me that the number of vps to be ultimately distributed at a table should never be altered.

LSJ wrote: > It seemed as if the issue was the sitting around (not playing) to > see if he has won. This is also possible, of course, in a six player game, where a player is ousted after scoring 3 ousts. But the precise words I chose excluded that scenario.

<nys...@cs.com> wrote in message news:1191255064.2...@n39g2000hsh.googlegroups.com... > > LSJ wrote: >> It seemed as if the issue was the sitting around (not playing) to >> see if he has won. > > Okay, but more generally, my issue and point was that survival (for -- > at the very least, a substantial portion of the game) is essential to > winning, and one creates a rather questionable dichotomy when one says > that the point of the game is to oust rather than to survive. I didn't say this. I didn't see anyone else say this (though I'll grant, I didn't read all the other branches of the thread with other people replying to you). Both are important. It is in the common interest, however, that games be encouraged to resolve before the time limit. In that dynamic, ousting would necessarily be rewarded in preference to surviving. Don't > To win, > you have to outlast at least some other players -- usually most of > them. Sure. But here you're talking about a different opposition - the one resolved by the player's struggle for victory rather than the rulemakers desire to create the best possible environment for fun. Do not conflate the two. The former is resolved within the constraints determined by the latter. Fred

nys...@cs.com wrote: > LSJ wrote: >> A ousts B then C. E ousts A. E plays Gambit Accepted. >> Many turns later, E withdraws. >> A wins 2-0-0-1-1. > > It appears, from your example, that the number of vps distributed at > the table have been reduced from 5 to 4. I was unaware that any cards > had been printed that were capable of altering the ultimate number of > vps distributed. > > But looking at the example (and looking up the card text), it appears > to me that A ties with E for two victory points. E gets 1 vp for > withdrawal and an extra 1 vp for not being ousted at the end of the > game. > I suppose one could argue that, since cards are burned upon > withdrawal, this prevents the Gambit from taking effect. But in this Correct. http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/666847c6e07bb99d But then errata was issued to give the predator a VP is the controller withdraws. (d'oh, that's twice today I've been caught reading obsolete rulings). So A and D tie 2-0-0-2-1. > case the withdrawal is simultaneous with the end of the game. If > ousting you does not burn your cards fast enough to prevent one's > predator from gaining the extra vp for ousting you, then withdrawing > should not burn your cards fast enough to prevent you from gaining > that last extra vp at the end of the game. Either you're standing (in play) at the end of the game or you're not. If you are, you get a VP for being the last Methuselah standing. If you're not, then your cards aren't in play, either. Since the withdrawn player doesn't get a VP for last Methuselah standing, it follows that her Gambit isn't around to restore the VP she lost to it. > I can see that, when E withdraws BEFORE the end of the game, one vp > would go up in smoke and no player would get it. I'm not too happy > about this, because it seems to me that the number of vps to be > ultimately distributed at a table should never be altered. Right.

On Oct 1, 1:39 pm, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: > I didn't say this. I didn't see anyone else say this (though I'll grant, > I didn't read all the other branches of the thread with other people > replying to you). I said something like this, although, really, the jist of what I said was that the point of the game is to oust your prey, and while it is good to survive, it makes sense to reward and incentivize ousting over simply surviving. The current system of 1VP for ousting and .5VP for simply surviving (as opposed to being the last person at the table, which also gets 1VP, as it is generally a more significant effort to be last person standing than to just not get ousted before time runs out) does this--it rewards ousting your prey (with the standard 1VP) in preference to simply surving till time runs out (with the .5VP). Both of these are better than dying (0VP). As a result, the order of preference for these events are: 1. Oust your prey. Get 1VP. 2. Don't get killed before time runs out. Get .5VP. 3. Get killed. Get nothing. Which is a very reasonable order of desireablity of these events. If you get 1VP for surviving till time runs out, it will often be more attractive to simply wall up and hope time runs out than it will be to try and oust your prey. Which is why it would be a bad idea to change the .5VP fro survival to 1VP for survival. -Peter

On Sep 23, 10:51 pm, nyst...@cs.com wrote: > I have not been a regular poster here for a while, so forgive if the > following issue has been discussed before. I am proposing a > tournament scoring system that seems to be an improvement over the > current one, and I am interested in feedback and counterarguments. > > THE PROPOSED SYSTEM > > Same as the current system, except: > > 1) No messing around with half victory points in uncompleted games. > A player gets a full victory point for not being ousted (whether due > to withdrawal or due to still being in the game when time is called). > This means that for uncompleted games, just like completed games, the > number of victory points distributed among the players equals the > number of players in the game. > > 2) For uncompleted games, 3 victory points (including the one for not > being ousted, if applicable) are required for a game win. For > completed games, one can still get a game win with 2 victory points > (on those very rare occasion when no-one else has 2 victory points). > > WHY IT IS BETTER > > 1) It is more accurate in predicting what the outcome of the game is > likely to be if the game were played to completion (see, for instance, > the example below). > > 2) It is less encouraging of the sort of fast-vote and fast-bleed > decks that tend to dominate tournaments. > > AN EXAMPLE > > The following example seeks show why the proposed system is better > than the current system in predicting game outcomes: > > In a five-player game, A (playing a fast, aggressive deck) ousts B & > C, then runs out of steam and gets ousted by E. D and E remain in the > game when it gets called for time. > > Under the current system, players A, B, C, D and E get 2, 0, 0, .5 and > 1.5 victory points respectively. A gets awarded a game win, E takes > second place. > > This result, however, is dead wrong under the original rules. The one > thing we know for certain is that, under the original rules, it is > impossible for A to win the game. The best he can hope for is a tie > for first place (which is not a win). > > If the game is played to a finish, there are only 3 ways it can end, > only 2 of which are even remotely likely, and NONE of which result in > a win for player A. Either E will oust D, in which case E will have 3 > victory points and a game win, or else D will oust E, taking 2 victory > points, and tying with A so that nobody takes a game win. The third > possibility, withdrawal, results in 2 victory points for E (no matter > who withdraws) which is also a tie game with no winner. > > If ANYONE in this called-for-time game should be granted a game win, > it should clearly be Player E, since he is the only person who has any > chance of winning it if it is played to a finish. Indeed, if we make > allowances for the fact that a person who starts winning is likely to > keep winning, his odds of emerging as winner may be greater than 50%. > Player A should not get it -- he is only the most successful of the > proven losers. > > The proposed system has a fairer result. The five players get 2, 0, > 0, 1, 2. Nobody gets a game win and Players A and E tie for first > place. > > We cannot know whether D will end the game with 0 vp or 2 vp, so we > split the difference and give him 1 vp. We cannot know whether E will > end the game with 1 vp or 3 vp, so we split the difference and give > him 2. > > ANTICIPATING SOME COUNTERARGUMENTS > > 1. "The point of the game is to oust people, not to sit there and > survive." > > If the point of the game is really that simple, it is only because the > current tournament rules have made it so by devaluing survival. The > rule-book says differently. The rule-book says that survival or > withdrawal is worth as much as the ousting of a single prey. Of > course, the rulebook requires that one do more than merely survive in > order to win the game. In addition to survival, you will probably > need to oust two prey to win a completed 5-player game (in rare > situations, one prey ousted plus survival will suffice). So yes, you > need to do more than survive to win, just as you need to achieve more > than a single oust to win; but that does not mean that a single oust > should be worth more than survival. > > Yes, the rules do require ousting, and should require ousting. The > proposed system reflects those values accurately. > > 2. "The current system encourages all players to play quickly in > order to maximize victory points for themselves as well as the whole > table; your proposed system might give a player currently in the lead, > or anyone in danger of being ousted, an incentive to stall." > > This is true to some extent, but the force of this argument is very > much abated by the fact that game wins are the primary measure of > tournament success, with victory point totals being used only as tie > breakers. Under the proposed system, a game win is far more likely in > a finished game than an unfinished one, and I think this is all the > incentive for speed that is needed. If the game does not make > substantial progress, then nobody gets a game win. > > And, although I agree that it would be better if games would finish, I > also feel that there can be too much of a good thing. An excessive > "hurry hurry hurry" atmosphere of tournament play does not necessarily > make for a relaxing and enjoyable tournament experience. > > 3. "Long drawn out games are boring, and are one of the flaws of > V:TES. It is good that tournament rules alter the game environment by > encouraging people to design decks that have some hope of proving > their worth within a 2 hour time limit." > > Personally, I rather like long, drawn-out epic games. I am > nonetheless willing to assume, for the sake of argument, that long > games are bad for V:TES. > > My response, again, is that the need to score a "game win" (rather > than merely survive or score more victory points than anyone else at > the table) is sufficient encouragement for people to design reasonably > fast decks intended to make substantial progress (including oustings) > within the 2-hour time limit. > > And whatever the hostility toward drawn out games, I cannot help also > noting substantial hostility towards the sort of fast bleed/vote decks > that tend to do well in tournaments. People bemoan the fact that they > cannot bring to tournaments the "interesting" decks that they reserve > for casual play. > > Seems to me that the system I propose is a suitable compromise, > offering reasonable encouragement to decks that can demonstrate SOME > progress within 2 hours, but not unfairly rewarding the fast weenie > deck that scores two victory points before it runs out of steam and > gets ousted. I'm a little bit late to the thread, but after reading a few of the posts, I got to thinking about the current scoring structure. I think this proposal is fine, but what I did not like is that there are two separate conditions for earning a game win--3 VPs if game goes to time, 2 VPs if otherwise. I think that's just too messy so I thought about an additional consideration which not only solves this problem, but creates a significant incentive for finishing the game to its natural conclusion: Give the sole survivor 2 VPs at the end. I haven't thought about all the implications of this, but I think on the face of it, they're positive. * A player who makes a single oust and survives earns 3 VPs and the GW. * Players have no incentive to make a 3/2 deal because it might end up being a 3/3 deal with no GW. * That extra survival VP makes everyone want to finish the game to its conclusion because it is a bonus that can only be earned with a complete game. Jeff

On Sep 30, 1:35 am, nyst...@cs.com wrote: > XZealot wrote: > > The funny thing is that the GW scoring rule is a relatively recent > > incarnation of the spirit of victory. When it was introduced in '03 > > (I'm guessing but it sounds right) it got people off their laurels > > who were just trying to shoot for 2 VPs. I think your new rules > > reintroduce that mechanic and the huge (HUGE!) amount of table > > deals that went along with it. > > Well, (without having an opinion as to whether this is good or bad) I > do see that the "game win" system would encourage deal-making. But > I'm not sure what else you are saying. Are you suggesting that my > proposal would FURTHER encourage deal-making? (If so, I can't see > how). Actually, the Game Win system greatly curtails deal making. When the only sole determiner for making the finals was Victory Points than every victory point was precious, so you would see people making ridiculous deals constantly just to try and squeeze into the finals. I am saying that your system further encourages deal-making by punishing aggressive play. Comments Welcome, Norman S. Brown, Jr XZealot Archon of the Swamp

On Oct 1, 4:24 am, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: > <nyst...@cs.com> wrote in message > > news:1191226174.2...@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com... > > So if one or more of your opponents at your table > cause(s) a greater than normal risk of a timeout at your table, it makes it > harder than it should be for your or anyone else to get a game win at your > table. This is a bad thing and should be penalized. > > Fred Or you make a positive incentive for finishing the games in a timely fashion, like giving the Sole Survivor an additional VP for being the true last man standing. :) Jeff

On Oct 1, 4:22 pm, librarian <aucti...@superfuncards.com> wrote: > As you know in LA, all our "casual" games are timed to 2 hours. We do that as well in Wellington. > AFAIC, that should be the standard anyway. I'm not sure about the standard thing but it's a good idea anyway as it keeps the game moving along. Obviously good practice for building decks that can oust 2 people in 2 hours but also has a nice side affect of limiting the pain if you're shut down or hosed :-) Simon

"Jeff Kuta" <jeff...@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:1191272632....@y42g2000hsy.googlegroups.com... > On Oct 1, 4:24 am, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: >> <nyst...@cs.com> wrote in message >> >> news:1191226174.2...@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com... >> >> So if one or more of your opponents at your table >> cause(s) a greater than normal risk of a timeout at your table, it makes it >> harder than it should be for your or anyone else to get a game win at your >> table. This is a bad thing and should be penalized. > > Or you make a positive incentive for finishing the games in a timely > fashion, like giving the Sole Survivor an additional VP for being the > true last man standing. :) That's not the same thing, and its contribution towards resolving games would be questionable. An extra victory point for being the last man standing is an incentive towards being the last man standing - only. This doesn't necessarily reward taking risks that well since an ousted player would never receive the bonus. Likewise, a conservative player might be in just as good a position as an aggressive player because, although he is at disadvantage in that his play will frequently prevent games from resolving, his play will tend to insure he will be around until the end so when one _does_ resolve, he has a better than average chance of being the one who receives the bonus. This is at least a somewhat compensating advantage. The current system, which just flat out penalizes play that makes it harder to resolve games, is the better way - albeit still admittedly flawed. Fred

On Oct 1, 4:51 pm, XZealot <xzea...@cox.net> wrote: > Actually, the Game Win system greatly curtails deal making. When the > only sole determiner for making the finals was Victory Points than > every victory point was precious, so you would see people making > ridiculous deals constantly just to try and squeeze into the finals. Okay. > I am saying that your system further encourages deal-making by > punishing aggressive play. How? Could you elaborate? After all, my proposal preserves the "game win" system intact. It even enforces it more strictly. Under the current system, a player in a 5-player game can make a deal with his predator for his second oust in exchange for concessions that will result in his being ousted simultaneously or immediately afterwards, and both parties to the deal can still hope for a win. The ousted player (with 2 vp) hopes for a game win if the game goes to time, and his predator hopes for a game win if it does not. But under my proposal, the ousted player cannot agree to the deal without knowing he is sacrificing any hope of a game win.

On Oct 1, 6:52 pm, nyst...@cs.com wrote: > On Oct 1, 4:51 pm, XZealot <xzea...@cox.net> wrote: > > > Actually, the Game Win system greatly curtails deal making. When the > > only sole determiner for making the finals was Victory Points than > > every victory point was precious, so you would see people making > > ridiculous deals constantly just to try and squeeze into the finals. > > Okay. > > > I am saying that your system further encourages deal-making by > > punishing aggressive play. > > How? Could you elaborate? Certainly, Let's say I am in a hopeless position. It's down to the last two players. The other player has two victory points. I have one victory point. I am fairly sure I can make it to the time out, but I could also make a mistake and get ousted. With your victory conditions, what do I do? 1) Do I agressively throw myself at my predator to try and get 3 VP's for the Game Win? 2) Do I play for time and deny the other player a Game Win, which is smart for me because less game wins means it will be easier for me to make the finals with any other games I can win in a tournament. See here is where subtle favoritism creeps into your model. If I am playing against a player from a rival playgroup, the I can stall out figuring that improves not only my, but also my friends chances of making the finals. If I am playing against a player from my playgroup then I can make several "fumbles" and hand the game win off. There is no incentive within the game to stay in it other than to spite other players. No judge will ever catch a player making bad plays for a friend, ever. [ quoted text not captured ]

XZealot wrote: > Let's say I am in a hopeless position. It's down to the > last two players. The other player has two victory points. I have > one victory point. I am fairly sure I can make it to the time out, > but I could also make a mistake and get ousted. With your victory > conditions, what do I do? You say you are in a "hopeless position" and I would assume this means you have no hope of ousting your prey. Your duty under either system, is to maximize victory points. If you are fairly sure you can make it to time out, that's what you should do, under either system. > 1) Do I agressively throw myself at my predator to try and get 3 > VP's for the Game Win? Obviously not, since according to you, you have no hope of success. > 2) Do I play for time and deny the other player a Game Win, [...] Playing until time-out will not deny the other the Game Win, under either system. Under the current proposal, he will win 2.5 to 1.5. Under my proposal, he will win 3 to 2. > [...] which is > smart for me because less game wins means it will be easier for me > to make the finals with any other games I can win in a tournament. Your only hope of denying him the game win is to oust him. But you said that was hopeless. > See here is where subtle favoritism creeps into your model. I cannot see where. Does it have something to do with your mistaken idea that, under my system, you can deny your opponent the game win by playing for time? > If I > am playing against a player from a rival playgroup, then I can > stall out figuring that improves not only my, but also my friends > chances of making the finals. You can do this under either system. > If I am playing against a player from my playgroup > then I can make several "fumbles" and hand the game win off. You can do this under either system. > There is no incentive within the game to stay in it other than to > spite other players. Huh? By surviving, you avoid losing victory points (a half point under the current system, and a whole point under mine). Which, being that your position is otherwise "hopeless" is exactly what you should do per tournament rules. > No judge will ever catch a player making bad plays for a friend, > ever. How does the current system make them easier to catch, or give them less incentive to cheat, than my proposal? If anything, it is the current system that allows a player to grant greater help his buddy at another table by sending a game to time out. If he can cause a game to go to time with 5 players, he deprives that table of a collective 2.5 vps (a half-point for each player at a table), making any victory points earned by his buddy at a neighboring table all that more significant.

nyst...@cs.com wrote: > Under the current proposal, he will win 2.5 to 1.5. [...] Sorry ... the above was supposed to be "under the current system" > [...] Under my proposal, he will win 3 to 2.

This is in further reply to XZealot, the Noble Archon of the Swamp, on the subject of those two Evil Colluders who have split a 5-player table between them, and who are not trying to decide what to do with eachother. Evil Colluder A has 2 ousts; Evil Colluder B has 1 oust. If each player "plays to win" per tournament rules (meaning a player with no hope of a game win should instead maximize victory points), the game will go to time. This will grant A and B 2.5 and 1.5 vp respectively under the current system, and 3 and 2 vp respectivly under my proposed system. On the other hand, B could throw the game to A, granting A a 4 to 1 victory. (Alternatively, A could throw the game to B, granting B a 3 to 2 victory). This is the real difference between the two systems. Under the current system, a colluder can hand 1.5 victory points to an opponent at the cost of 0.5 vps to himself. Under my system, there can only be a 1 for 1 exchange.

I wrote: > This is in further reply to XZealot, the Noble Archon of the > Swamp, on the subject of those two Evil Colluders who have split a > 5-player table between them, and who are not trying to decide what > to do with eachother. Damned typos! "not" should be "now".

On Oct 1, 4:42 pm, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: > "Jeff Kuta" <jeff.k...@gmail.com> wrote in > messagenews:1191272632....@y42g2000hsy.googlegroups.com... > > > On Oct 1, 4:24 am, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: > >> <nyst...@cs.com> wrote in message > > >>news:1191226174.2...@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com... > > >> So if one or more of your opponents at your table > >> cause(s) a greater than normal risk of a timeout at your table, it makes it > >> harder than it should be for your or anyone else to get a game win at your > >> table. This is a bad thing and should be penalized. > > > Or you make a positive incentive for finishing the games in a timely > > fashion, like giving the Sole Survivor an additional VP for being the > > true last man standing. :) > > That's not the same thing, and its contribution towards resolving > games would be questionable. Sure, but any contribution of anything towards any other thing is questionable. > An extra victory point for being the last man > standing is an incentive towards being the last man standing - only. Last man standing only occurs when a game-ending situation occurs for a single Methuselah. Thus is incentivizes ending games. > This doesn't necessarily reward taking risks that well since > an ousted player would never receive the bonus. It is supposed to reward completing games. Risky behavior may be encouraged as a side effect. > Likewise, a conservative > player might be in just as good a position as an aggressive player because, > although he is at disadvantage in that his play will frequently prevent > games from resolving, his play will tend to insure he will be around until > the end so when one _does_ resolve, he has a better than average chance of > being the one who receives the bonus. This is at least a somewhat > compensating advantage. Sure, and this is a fine thing as well. It almost sounds like you want to reward a conservative player, which is kind of what nyst's system does. > The current system, which just flat out penalizes play that makes it > harder to resolve games, is the better way - albeit still admittedly > flawed. > > Fred I think that most players, when faced with a situation where everyone can be penalized by losing a half VP will take that choice rather than risk losing it all and being ousted. Misery loves company. Somehow it seems more fair when everyone gets the same penalty and no one gets the bonus. There is lots of psychology to support this point of view. I think this pessimistic mindset is built into the tournament scoring system and discourages games from going to their full conclusion. I tend to think of the scoring system for World Cup soccer which used to only award 2 points for a victory and 1 for a tie and made for some really boring games. There is a positive incentive now with 3 points for a victory and teams will fight for those wins. Adding the bonus VP for Last Man Standing is an attempt to address this and encourage players to finish games entirely. It has another small side effect of closing the gap between the worth of 4- and 5- player tables since there are 5 and 6 VPs at stake instead of 4 and 5. I don't think it would encourage walls to become the last man standing because you only earn the VP if the table reaches its conclusion. Jeff

Jeff Kuta wrote: > I think this pessimistic mindset is built into the tournament scoring > system and discourages games from going to their full conclusion. I > tend to think of the scoring system for World Cup soccer which used to > only award 2 points for a victory and 1 for a tie and made for some > really boring games. There is a positive incentive now with 3 points > for a victory and teams will fight for those wins. You describe a system that parallels the current V:EKN system (except that the V:EKN system provides a larger incentive over time-out), but you label the V:EKN system as pessimistic and the World Cup as "positive incentive". World Cup Current: 3-0 to 1-1 V:EKN Current: 2-0 to .5-.5 (equiv: 4-0 to 1-1) > Adding the bonus VP for Last Man Standing is an attempt to address > this and encourage players to finish games entirely. It has another As does the current system, in exactly the same manner. The only difference is degree. V:EKN Kuta: 3-0 to 0.5-0.5 (equiv: 6-0 to 1-1) > small side effect of closing the gap between the worth of 4- and 5- > player tables since there are 5 and 6 VPs at stake instead of 4 and 5. If 2 is better than 1 for LMS, for both incentivizing and gapclosing, then 3 would be better yet for each. And so on until LMS is the new GW (5 would do it). [ quoted text not captured ]

"Jeff Kuta" <jeff...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1191336433....@y42g2000hsy.googlegroups.com... > On Oct 1, 4:42 pm, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: >> "Jeff Kuta" <jeff.k...@gmail.com> wrote in >> messagenews:1191272632....@y42g2000hsy.googlegroups.com... >> >> > On Oct 1, 4:24 am, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: >> >> <nyst...@cs.com> wrote in message >> >> >>news:1191226174.2...@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> So if one or more of your opponents at your table >> >> cause(s) a greater than normal risk of a timeout at your table, it makes it >> >> harder than it should be for your or anyone else to get a game win at your >> >> table. This is a bad thing and should be penalized. >> >> > Or you make a positive incentive for finishing the games in a timely >> > fashion, like giving the Sole Survivor an additional VP for being the >> > true last man standing. :) >> >> That's not the same thing, and its contribution towards resolving >> games would be questionable. > > Sure, but any contribution of anything towards any other thing is > questionable. The point is, they're not the same things. >> An extra victory point for being the last man >> standing is an incentive towards being the last man standing - only. > > Last man standing only occurs when a game-ending situation occurs for > a single Methuselah. I understand that. It also only occurs for a given player when he survives. > Thus is incentivizes ending games. More correctly, for a given player it incetivizes the union of ending games AND being the surviving player. The latter is a goal that will tend to interfere with the former. >> This doesn't necessarily reward taking risks that well since >> an ousted player would never receive the bonus. > > It is supposed to reward completing games. Risky behavior may be > encouraged as a side effect. So is conservative behavior. The overall effect would be murky, IME. There is already plenty of incentive to be the last man standing. >> Likewise, a conservative >> player might be in just as good a position as an aggressive player because, >> although he is at disadvantage in that his play will frequently prevent >> games from resolving, his play will tend to insure he will be around until >> the end so when one _does_ resolve, he has a better than average chance of >> being the one who receives the bonus. This is at least a somewhat >> compensating advantage. > > Sure, and this is a fine thing as well. It almost sounds like you want > to reward a conservative player, which is kind of what nyst's system > does. I'm not sure what you mean by suggesting that, "(I) want to reward a conservative player." I want no such thing. I was just evaluating what I thought the effects would be of implementing your proposal. >> The current system, which just flat out penalizes play that makes it >> harder to resolve games, is the better way - albeit still admittedly >> flawed. > > I think that most players, when faced with a situation where everyone > can be penalized by losing a half VP will take that choice rather than > risk losing it all and being ousted. Agreed. That seems intuitive and I see it in actual play, as well. (And I do exactly that, myself.) > Misery loves company. Somehow it > seems more fair when everyone gets the same penalty and no one gets > the bonus. There is lots of psychology to support this point of view. > I think this pessimistic mindset is built into the tournament scoring > system and discourages games from going to their full conclusion. Well, that's true - but you're forgetting the main issue here: the game itself frequently tends to lead to these results. If you think about the mechanics of Jyhad, the cards in the game, and the gameplay you've experienced, you will notice that many conservative, building-up type strategies tend to get rewarded better than aggressive, go-for-broke type strategies. This gets heavily reinforced by the multiplayer nature of the game which will inevitably punish players who do well early (or, more accurately, players who _appear_ to do well early) and rewards players who appear to be near death early on. The upshot is that the conservative mindset is not necessary, not an artifact of the scoring system for the most part, and not really solvable by modifying the scoring system for the most part. I think the half-point penalty and penalizing of the table its game win if the table doesn't resolve are good things which grate away at players who depend too heavily on conservative strategies. But ultimately, any real solution to the problem would have to involve changing the game through new cards that reward aggressive play better than it is currently rewarded. > I > tend to think of the scoring system for World Cup soccer which used to > only award 2 points for a victory and 1 for a tie and made for some > really boring games. There is a positive incentive now with 3 points > for a victory and teams will fight for those wins. Good analogy. And I think you have the same issue: Soccer is an incredibly conservative game. The only player on the field with the huge advantage of using his hands is the GOALIE for Christ's sake!!! And, while you can tinker with the metagame scoring system to encourage aggressive play a little bit but in the end, only changes in the on-field rules will make much difference. Until then, I'll continue to use soccer broadcasts for their correct and only real purpose: as sleep aids. > Adding the bonus VP for Last Man Standing is an attempt to address > this and encourage players to finish games entirely. It has another > small side effect of closing the gap between the worth of 4- and 5- > player tables since there are 5 and 6 VPs at stake instead of 4 and 5. > I don't think it would encourage walls to become the last man standing > because you only earn the VP if the table reaches its conclusion. We'll have disagree about that. Your refusal to acknowledge the other part of your incentive (the requirement of survival to qualify for your bonus) is creating a flaw in your evaluation of its effects, IMHO. Fred

On Oct 2, 8:18 am, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > Jeff Kuta wrote: > > I think this pessimistic mindset is built into the tournament scoring > > system and discourages games from going to their full conclusion. I > > tend to think of the scoring system for World Cup soccer which used to > > only award 2 points for a victory and 1 for a tie and made for some > > really boring games. There is a positive incentive now with 3 points > > for a victory and teams will fight for those wins. > > You describe a system that parallels the current V:EKN system (except that the > V:EKN system provides a larger incentive over time-out), but you label the V:EKN > system as pessimistic and the World Cup as "positive incentive". > > World Cup Current: 3-0 to 1-1 > > V:EKN Current: 2-0 to .5-.5 (equiv: 4-0 to 1-1) But V:EKN Current could also be 2-0 to 1-1-1 (equiv: 2-1 or 1-1) if there is a table full of withdraws. > > Adding the bonus VP for Last Man Standing is an attempt to address > > this and encourage players to finish games entirely. It has another > > As does the current system, in exactly the same manner. The only difference is > degree. > > V:EKN Kuta: 3-0 to 0.5-0.5 (equiv: 6-0 to 1-1) Or 3-0 to 1-1-1 (equiv: 3-0 to 1-1) with a table full of withdraws. > > small side effect of closing the gap between the worth of 4- and 5- > > player tables since there are 5 and 6 VPs at stake instead of 4 and 5. > > If 2 is better than 1 for LMS, for both incentivizing and gapclosing, then > 3 would be better yet for each. And so on until LMS is the new GW (5 would do it). While mutual withdraws are probably less common than regular timeouts, it is partly because many (most?) players don't consider the absolute difference between 1/2 and 1 VP to be significant. When you put then in relative terms compared to the number of VPs required to win a game, you can see the difference more dramatically. I see the point your are illustrating taking it to the logical conclusion, but I also agree that the process of reaching a game's ultimate conclusion should play some part in its evaluation so each oust should be worth something still. I suppose if enough people felt that we should award 5 VPs for LMS that would make it very clear that finishing a game is of paramount importance. This makes me think of another alternate tournament scoring system which we use for youth soccer here. Typically, two flights of four teams play three opponents in a round robin earning points based on performance. The top two teams from each flight then play cross-flight in the championship and consolation finals. For each game a team earns: 5 points for winning 2 points for tying 1 point for every goal scored (up to four maximum) 1 point for a shutout -2 points for each red card (player sent off for discipline) Thus, the maximum number of points earned per game is 10 (5 for winning, 4+ goals scored, 1 shutout, 0 clean sheet). This format does away with wins and losses entirely and converts them to points. Most other soccer formats fall back to goal differential as a tie-breaker but this one incorporates the number of goals into the score per game. Something similar could be done with GWs and VPs and LMS. I realize that back in the day, VPs were all that mattered and that system was eliminated in favor of what we have now. I don't want to go back to that at all. Mainly, I just wanted to point out that if the VEKN thinks that there are problems with tables timing out (could be just a local phenomenon), there are other ways to provide incentives to finishing up games. Tweaking scoring structure is the obvious way to provide the proper incentives to players. Jeff

On Oct 2, 5:51 am, nyst...@cs.com wrote: > XZealot wrote: > > Let's say I am in a hopeless position. It's down to the > > last two players. The other player has two victory points. I have > > one victory point. I am fairly sure I can make it to the time out, > > but I could also make a mistake and get ousted. With your victory > > conditions, what do I do? > > You say you are in a "hopeless position" and I would assume this means > you have no hope of ousting your prey. Your duty under either system, > is to maximize victory points. If you are fairly sure you can make it > to time out, that's what you should do, under either system. > > > 1) Do I agressively throw myself at my predator to try and get 3 > > VP's for the Game Win? > > Obviously not, since according to you, you have no hope of success. But I have to try and win and maximize VPs. Under your system, playing smart is just a waste of time. There is no reward for staying in a game. > > 2) Do I play for time and deny the other player a Game Win, [...] > > Playing until time-out will not deny the other the Game Win, under > either system. Under the current proposal, he will win 2.5 to 1.5. > Under my proposal, he will win 3 to 2. Ah, I didn't see that full VP for a timeout, which pretty much invalidates the rest of the line of thought. My only thought that the variable Game Win scenario (3 vs. 2) makes deal making more powerful as stalling/politicking becomes a method to deny a Game Win by going to time. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Oct 2, 8:58 am, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: > "Jeff Kuta" <jeff.k...@gmail.com> wrote in message [ quoted text not captured ] Depends whether you consider survival to be an offensive or defensive exercise. > >> This doesn't necessarily reward taking risks that well since > >> an ousted player would never receive the bonus. > > > It is supposed to reward completing games. Risky behavior may be > > encouraged as a side effect. > > So is conservative behavior. The overall effect would be murky, IME. > There is already plenty of incentive to be the last man standing. Murky whether such a change would encourage offensive or defensive deckbuilding, yes. You know how we play here in SF. It's the land of timeouts but this does color my perception of what others experience. I still think complete games could and should be incentivized more. [ quoted text not captured ] But again as is clear, the ultraconservative player can almost singlehandedly rob a table of its game win. While the other players do want to win the game, someone who takes too much time or stalls or just plays a slow deck can hamper that. If you make completing the game REALLY worthwhile (and yeah, a Game Win is worthwhile, but I don't think enough people see how far behind missing out on a GW really puts them), then it is very clear what needs to be done at the table. Of course, some might consider this solution overkill for a small problem. > > I > > tend to think of the scoring system for World Cup soccer which used to > > only award 2 points for a victory and 1 for a tie and made for some > > really boring games. There is a positive incentive now with 3 points > > for a victory and teams will fight for those wins. > > Good analogy. And I think you have the same issue: Soccer is an > incredibly conservative game. The only player on the field with the > huge advantage of using his hands is the GOALIE for Christ's sake!!! > And, while you can tinker with the metagame scoring system to encourage > aggressive play a little bit but in the end, only changes in the on-field > rules will make much difference. Until then, I'll continue to use > soccer broadcasts for their correct and only real purpose: as sleep aids. > > > Adding the bonus VP for Last Man Standing is an attempt to address > > this and encourage players to finish games entirely. It has another > > small side effect of closing the gap between the worth of 4- and 5- > > player tables since there are 5 and 6 VPs at stake instead of 4 and 5. > > I don't think it would encourage walls to become the last man standing > > because you only earn the VP if the table reaches its conclusion. > > We'll have disagree about that. Your refusal to acknowledge the other > part of your incentive (the requirement of survival to qualify for your > bonus) is creating a flaw in your evaluation of its effects, IMHO. > > Fred How can I not acknowledge that survival qualifies for the bonus if that is precisely what gives you the bonus? Are you suggesting I'm discounting what negative effect this might have on game play toward an even more careful conservative game? I think it would have quite the opposite effect and therein lies the disagreement. Yes, we wouldn't have players necessarily racing out of the gate to earn their 3 VPs and then run out of gas. I don't see a problem with that. Logically, you could still be considered to have "lost" the game if you're not around at the end to enjoy the lack of competition for ownership of your own World of Darkness. Perhaps those decks would become *more* robust so they can make it to the end. I seem to remember a (Swiss?) player posting that they design decks to take 2 VPs then merely survive so they'll get the Game Win without the game going to conclusion. That's a pretty poor attitude to take IMO, but you know, it can win with the current structure. Giving that little nudge to encourage players to fully finish might eliminate this sort of strategy from tournaments, or at the very least encourage aggressive players who do well at the start to keep the pedal to the metal and finish the game out entirely, rather than coast to the finish line with a lackey at their back. Jeff I just don't believe there will be people out there trying to let their prey earn 3 VPs and then try to snag last man standing for a 3-3 TIE with no game win.

On Oct 2, 5:11 pm, XZealot <xzea...@cox.net> wrote: > Ah, I didn't see that full VP for a timeout, which pretty much > invalidates the rest of the line of thought. I'll have to make that clearer next time. > My only thought that the variable Game Win scenario (3 vs. 2) makes > deal making more powerful as stalling/politicking becomes a method to > deny a Game Win by going to time. Actually, the game win requirements are almost identical to the current system -- the increase from 2 vp to 3 vp is largely illusory, if you think about it. The increase was necessary to prevent people who got only 1.5 vp under the current system from getting game wins under my proposal. No-one else is effected, except ... The increase will make a difference in only one situation -- that a person who gains two ousts and then is ousted himself is denied the game win, even if the game later goes to time between the remaining two players. For purpose of your concerns -- this foils one of the few remaining attractive table-splitting options. A person who, in exchange for his second vp, lets himself be ousted by his predator, may do so in the hope of the game going to time, in which case he will get a game win (he cannot win if the game finishes). His predator, meanwhile, may still hope for a 3 vp finish.

On Oct 2, 5:38 pm, nyst...@cs.com wrote: > On Oct 2, 5:11 pm, XZealot <xzea...@cox.net> wrote: > > > Ah, I didn't see that full VP for a timeout, which pretty much > > invalidates the rest of the line of thought. > > I'll have to make that clearer next time. > > > My only thought that the variable Game Win scenario (3 vs. 2) makes > > deal making more powerful as stalling/politicking becomes a method to > > deny a Game Win by going to time. > > Actually, the game win requirements are almost identical to the > current system -- the increase from 2 vp to 3 vp is largely illusory, > if you think about it. The increase was necessary to prevent people > who got only 1.5 vp under the current system from getting game wins > under my proposal. No-one else is effected, except ... If you consider a 50% increase to be illusory, then I would like you to use some of your illusions to increase my bonus numbers. :) > The increase will make a difference in only one situation -- that a > person who gains two ousts and then is ousted himself is denied the > game win, even if the game later goes to time between the remaining > two players. ....and that situation alone makes it bad. > For purpose of your concerns -- this foils one of the few remaining > attractive table-splitting options. A person who, in exchange for his > second vp, lets himself be ousted by his predator, may do so in the > hope of the game going to time, in which case he will get a game win > (he cannot win if the game finishes). His predator, meanwhile, may > still hope for a 3 vp finish. I don't understand this. Can you elaborate. I like the Full VP for surviving, but I have yet to understand the full ramifications. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Oct 2, 6:50 pm, XZealot <xzea...@cox.net> wrote: > On Oct 2, 5:38 pm, nyst...@cs.com wrote: > > On Oct 2, 5:11 pm, XZealot <xzea...@cox.net> wrote: > > > My only thought that the variable Game Win scenario (3 vs. 2) makes > > > deal making more powerful as stalling/politicking becomes a method to > > > deny a Game Win by going to time. > > > Actually, the game win requirements are almost identical to the > > current system -- the increase from 2 vp to 3 vp is largely illusory, > > if you think about it. The increase was necessary to prevent people > > who got only 1.5 vp under the current system from getting game wins > > under my proposal. No-one else is effected, except ... > > If you consider a 50% increase to be illusory, then I would like you > to use some of your illusions to increase my bonus numbers. :) Everyone who gets 2.5 vps under the current system (those who survive or withdraw after two ousts, gets 3 vp under my system, because they get a full vp rather than a half vp for surviving. Completed games are unaffected. Hence, the only ones effected are those who would have gotten 2 vp (and only 2vp) -- ousted players who scored two ousts. > > The increase will make a difference in only one situation -- that a > > person who gains two ousts and then is ousted himself is denied the > > game win, even if the game later goes to time between the remaining > > two players. > > ....and that situation alone makes it bad. Depends on whether you think Game Wins should be awarded to predict the ultimate outcome. In a completed game, an ousted player with 2 vp can NEVER win. If this ousted person, who cannot gain any more vps, cannot win if the game finishes, why should he win just because we do not know which of the two remaining players would have stolen his crown? > > For purpose of your concerns -- this foils one of the few remaining > > attractive table-splitting options. A person who, in exchange for his > > second vp, lets himself be ousted by his predator, may do so in the > > hope of the game going to time, in which case he will get a game win > > (he cannot win if the game finishes). His predator, meanwhile, may > > still hope for a 3 vp finish. > > I don't understand this. Can you elaborate. > > I like the Full VP for surviving, but I have yet to understand the > full ramifications. 5 player table: A ousts B and C with E's help. Then A lets himself be ousted by E. Three things can happen now: 1) Game goes to time. Score (VEKN system) 2, 0, 0, .5, 1.5. Game Win to A. 2) E ousts D. Score 2, 0, 0, 0, 3. Game Win to E. 3) D ousts E. Score 2, 0, 0, 2, 1. Tie Game (No Game Win). Under my proposal, the surviving players in an unfinished game get an extra half vp, so... 1) Game goes to time. Score (My Proposal) 2, 0, 0, 1, 2. E ties with A. 2) E ousts D -- E wins 3) D ousts E -- D ties with A. So actually, under my proposal, A's game win (in an unfinished game) is foiled by the extra half-victory point granted to the survivors. 2 vp (ousts) + 0vp (non-survival) ties with 1 vp (oust) + 1 vp (survival). So even if I leave the Game Win requirements at 2 vp (allowing a Game Win to a surviving player with a single oust -- providing no other surviving player has an oust), the ousted player with 2 vp cannot win.

[ quoted text not captured ] Well, see that is where I have a problem with your system. Game Wins should be awarded for the player who does the best, period. If I can lunge to take out 2 preys and then fall victim to my predator, yet I still outscore everyone else in the game then I should get the game win. If the other players stall out after I am ousted then I shouldn't be penalized for playing the best by ousting more preys than anyone else. That is the major flaw with your new system, and it is unfairly penalizing a player for upholding the stated objective of the game. It also shouldn't penalize the player who ousted two preys, only to lose because a player who only ousted one prey was able to stall the game out. For those two reasons, I think that awarding Full Victory points for survival is a bad change. [ quoted text not captured ]

XZealot wrote: > Well, see that is where I have a problem with your system. > Game Wins should be awarded for the player who does the best, > period. My proposal does that, exactly the same as in the standard original rules. If two people tie for "the best" score, then nobody wins, exactly as under the standard rules. You are correct that I am denying the game win to the person who did "the best" under the VEKN rules, but that is circular logic. I am proposing to correct the VEKN rules, to make them more consistent with the original rules. > If I can lunge to take out 2 preys and then fall victim to my > predator, yet I still outscore everyone else in the game then I > should get the game win. You did not outscore everyone else in the game. Your predator got the same score as you. You got 2 vps and he got 2 vps. He scored one less oust -- but, unlike you, he did not let himself get ousted. That evens you out exactly. Had the game continued, he might have ousted D, gaining an extra point bringing his total to 3; or he might have been ousted by D, thereby losing a victory point and ending at 1. Since neither of these things had a chance to happen, he remains at 2, exactly as though he had withdrawn from the game, or, alternatively, exactly as though D had withdrawn from the game. A ousts B, then A ousts C, then E ousts A. That is our story in a nutshell. Which player is irrelevant to this story? Who does not even get mentioned? Who neither ousts nor got ousted? That's easy -- Player D. What happens, then if we remove Player D from the picture? What if this were a 4 player game, and D were not even present? You got it -- a tie game, 2 to 2. > If the other players stall out after I am ousted > then I shouldn't be penalized for playing the best by ousting more > preys than anyone else. Why should the other players be penalized and not you? If we must play the silly blame game, how do we know that it is not your fault that the game went to time? Why should Player E be the one to get a half-point deduction for not ousting Player D? You (Player A) were also a predator to player D, and you also failed to oust Player D. For all we know, you may have been D's predator for far longer than E was. > That is the major flaw with your new system, > and it is unfairly penalizing a player for upholding the stated > objective of the game. I haven't penalized anybody. The stated object of the game is to oust and not get ousted. He got 2 victory points, you got two victory points -- the result is a tie -- exactly as though this had been a 4 player game. If you think the game win should simply go to the player with the most victory points, then you need to change the original rules. > It also shouldn't penalize the player who > ousted two preys, only to lose because a player who only ousted one > prey was able to stall the game out. Don't invent facts that are not inherent in the example. The example does not assume that Player E is more to blame than any other player for causing the game to go to time. It could just as easily been either Player D or Player A. Player D neither ousted anyone nor got ousted. Player A may have been Player D's predator for far longer than Player E was. E may have ousted A moments before the game went to time. A may have been the one stalling -- he after all, is the one with a motive to stall, for he had 2 vps, and was assured the game win if he could make it to time (which assures his victory under either system), or by delaying his oust until E did not have enough time left to oust D (which assures his victory under the current system).

nyst...@cs.com wrote: > If you think the game win should simply go to the player with the > most victory points, then you need to change the original rules. Oh dang! I meant "the most ousts" of course.

On Oct 2, 11:54 pm, nyst...@cs.com wrote: > XZealot wrote: > > Well, see that is where I have a problem with your system. > > Game Wins should be awarded for the player who does the best, > > period. > > My proposal does that, exactly the same as in the standard original > rules. If two people tie for "the best" score, then nobody wins, > exactly as under the standard rules. You are correct that I am > denying the game win to the person who did "the best" under the VEKN > rules, but that is circular logic. I am proposing to correct the VEKN > rules, to make them more consistent with the original rules. You are specifically creating rules that structurally create ties to deny Game Wins against players who try to win. This is self- defeating. > > If I can lunge to take out 2 preys and then fall victim to my > > predator, yet I still outscore everyone else in the game then I > > should get the game win. > > You did not outscore everyone else in the game. Your predator got the > same score as you. You got 2 vps and he got 2 vps. He scored one > less oust -- but, unlike you, he did not let himself get ousted. That > evens you out exactly. So your system rewards inactivity and turtling, which goes against the nature of the game. VTES is a game of aggression not defense. > Had the game continued, he might have ousted D, gaining an extra point > bringing his total to 3; or he might have been ousted by D, thereby > losing a victory point and ending at 1. Since neither of these things > had a chance to happen, he remains at 2, exactly as though he had > withdrawn from the game, or, alternatively, exactly as though D had > withdrawn from the game. Woulda, Coulda, Shoulda, So you are rewarding timeouts and punishing players who achieve ousts. Bad Idea. > A ousts B, then A ousts C, then E ousts A. That is our story in a > nutshell. Which player is irrelevant to this story? Who does not > even get mentioned? Who neither ousts nor got ousted? That's easy -- > Player D. What happens, then if we remove Player D from the picture? > What if this were a 4 player game, and D were not even present? You > got it -- a tie game, 2 to 2. That's no way to encourage people to play the game. > > If the other players stall out after I am ousted > > then I shouldn't be penalized for playing the best by ousting more > > preys than anyone else. > > Why should the other players be penalized and not you? If we must > play the silly blame game, how do we know that it is not your fault > that the game went to time? Why should Player E be the one to get a > half-point deduction for not ousting Player D? You (Player A) were > also a predator to player D, and you also failed to oust Player D. > For all we know, you may have been D's predator for far longer than E > was. Yet, I am the one who is trying to achieve the stated goal of the game "OUST YOUR PREY" while the other players are rewarded for doing the exact opposite. > > That is the major flaw with your new system, > > and it is unfairly penalizing a player for upholding the stated > > objective of the game. > > I haven't penalized anybody. The stated object of the game is to oust > and not get ousted. See this is where you are wrong. The game doesn't reward you for not being ousted. It only rewards you for being last man standing. You need to read the rules again. I'll help you out and copy them for you. Object of the Game Your goal is to accumulate the most victory points by destroying the influence held by rival Methuselahs. You accomplish this goal by using your influence to gain control of younger vampires and using those vampires to take actions to reduce the influence of rival Methuselahs. Influence is represented by pool counters (see Equipment Needed, sec. 1.2), the main currency of the game. When a Methuselah runs out of pool counters, she* is bereft of influence and ousted from the game. As Methuselahs are ousted, players earn victory points; the winner is the player with the most victory points at the end of the game > If you think the game win should simply go to the player with the most > victory points, then you need to change the original rules. See again, you are not Richard Garfield. You are messing with the fundamental underlying game mechanic that you must play aggressively or you will lose. This is not a sit on your thumbs and wait game. > > It also shouldn't penalize the player who > > ousted two preys, only to lose because a player who only ousted one > > prey was able to stall the game out. > > Don't invent facts that are not inherent in the example. I am inventing nothing that you have not already proposed. This is exactly the kind of loophole in your rules that will be exploited. Smart players who can't win will seek to deny victory to other players. Your Alternate solution provides players with a way to destroy the ability of another player to win, which is bad because it encourages an alternate strategy other than the goal stated in the rulebook. [ quoted text not captured ]

XZealot wrote: > See this is where you are wrong. The game doesn't reward you for > not being ousted. It only rewards you for being last man > standing. You forgot withdrawal. Everyone who has not been ousted gains a victory point. This is not merely the last man standing, but also anyone who has withdrawn. Under the rules, the game does not end until all players but one have withdrawn or been ousted. The standard rules do not tell you how to score uncompleted games. Hence, my system extrapolates from the original rules, and preserves the principle, intended by Richard Garfield, that Jyhad be a "zero sum game", wherein the number of victory points distributed always equals the number of methuselahs playing. If there are 2 players left, and the last player withdraws, and you let him, why do you earn glory? It is certainly not for ousting him. Why does the withdrawn player earn glory? It is certainly not for ousting. That last victory point is simply the reward for not letting oneself be ousted, because jyhad is a zero sum game, wherein every point you earn must be siezed from a rival methuselah who loses exactly what you gain.

On Oct 3, 1:07 am, nyst...@cs.com wrote: > XZealot wrote: > > See this is where you are wrong. The game doesn't reward you for > > not being ousted. It only rewards you for being last man > > standing. > > You forgot withdrawal. Which is nearly impossible to do, but your system gives the same reward for a timeouts which effectively obsoletes that rule, congraulations on your first non-sequitur. Again, you have not addressed the point. The game does not reward survival, it rewards ousting your prey as the path to victory. You system subverts the various anti-inertia designs (the edge, 6 pool and a VP for ousting). Since your system reward the "do nothing" path to victory, it encourages table politics and deal making, which are an interesting facet of the game but not more important than the predator- prey relationship. [ quoted text not captured ]

"Jeff Kuta" <jeff...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1191359827....@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com... > On Oct 2, 8:58 am, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: >> The upshot is that the conservative mindset is not necessary, not an >> artifact of the scoring system for the most part, and not really >> solvable by modifying the scoring system for the most part. I think >> the half-point penalty and penalizing of the table its game win if >> the table doesn't resolve are good things which grate away at players >> who depend too heavily on conservative strategies. But ultimately, >> any real solution to the problem would have to involve changing the >> game through new cards that reward aggressive play better than it is >> currently rewarded. > > But again as is clear, the ultraconservative player can almost > singlehandedly rob a table of its game win. While the other players do > want to win the game, someone who takes too much time or stalls or > just plays a slow deck can hamper that. If you make completing the > game REALLY worthwhile (and yeah, a Game Win is worthwhile, but I > don't think enough people see how far behind missing out on a GW > really puts them), then it is very clear what needs to be done at the > table. Of course, some might consider this solution overkill for a > small problem. Obviously, from how I've argued my disputes with "nystulc", whoever this person is, I have no love of ultraconservative play. But playing to be LMS is simply not the same thing as playing to oust. In many cases, I'm sure the same incentives would incentize both goals but in some cases it would not. And even if I agreed with you about the clarity of the incentives, I just don't think incentives are really the problem, here. >> > Adding the bonus VP for Last Man Standing is an attempt to address >> > this and encourage players to finish games entirely. It has another >> > small side effect of closing the gap between the worth of 4- and 5- >> > player tables since there are 5 and 6 VPs at stake instead of 4 and 5. >> > I don't think it would encourage walls to become the last man standing >> > because you only earn the VP if the table reaches its conclusion. >> >> We'll have disagree about that. Your refusal to acknowledge the other >> part of your incentive (the requirement of survival to qualify for your >> bonus) is creating a flaw in your evaluation of its effects, IMHO. > > How can I not acknowledge that survival qualifies for the bonus if > that is precisely what gives you the bonus? Are you suggesting I'm > discounting what negative effect this might have on game play toward > an even more careful conservative game? Um, in a word: yes. > I think it would have quite > the opposite effect and therein lies the disagreement. OK. I stand corrected in that sense. > Yes, we wouldn't have players necessarily racing out of the gate to > earn their 3 VPs and then run out of gas. I don't see a problem with > that. I'm not sure I think there's a big problem with it. It bothers me that IMHO it disincentizes situations where a person has to decide between making a lunge for a second VP while fearing that the lunge will ultimately get him ousted, even if he succeeds. You can jigger with the various odds to decide how to treat it with game theory: raise and lower the chance of succeeding with the lunge, the chance the player will be ousted if the lunge fails, and the chance the player will be ousted even if the lunge succeeds and he has six more pool to work with. Ultimately, people in this situation will tend to be more oriented towards being LMS instead of getting ousts when and where they can. I note that it would not rob the ousted guy with 2 VP of his game win if the game doesn't not resolve, unlike nystulc's proposal. That makes your suggestion superior to his in my eyes. But even so, game wins from being LMS become worth relatively more (you get an additional VP along with your LMS GW) and thus it's relatively more worth to pass up the chance at a payoff from lunging for a second VP. I'm afraid that makes it a loser as far as encouraging games to resolve, so thus I'd be opposed to it. > I seem to remember a (Swiss?) player posting that they design decks to > take 2 VPs then merely survive so they'll get the Game Win without the > game going to conclusion. That's a pretty poor attitude to take IMO, > but you know, it can win with the current structure. Giving that > little nudge to encourage players to fully finish might eliminate this > sort of strategy from tournaments, or at the very least encourage > aggressive players who do well at the start to keep the pedal to the > metal and finish the game out entirely, rather than coast to the > finish line with a lackey at their back. I don't think so. It's a nudge, but I don't think it's hard enough nudge in that situation. Someone with 2 VPs and the ability to survive would be risking his GW to play over aggressively. Thus, I think the extra VP incentive is not going to enter his thinking as nearly as much as the person who has no GW and is just deciding whether to lunge at a second - or even at a first - VP. > I just don't believe there will be people out there trying to let > their prey earn 3 VPs and then try to snag last man standing for a 3-3 > TIE with no game win. No. Agreed, that scenario doesn't bother me. I'm not sure what brought this up, however. Fred

<nys...@cs.com> wrote in message news:1191364694.5...@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com... > Actually, the game win requirements are almost identical to the > current system -- the increase from 2 vp to 3 vp is largely illusory, > if you think about it. The increase was necessary to prevent people > who got only 1.5 vp under the current system from getting game wins > under my proposal. No-one else is effected, except ... > > The increase will make a difference in only one situation -- that a > person who gains two ousts and then is ousted himself is denied the > game win, even if the game later goes to time between the remaining > two players. In fact, in all "normal" situations I can think of (i.e. no unusual VP-affecting cards, simultaneous ousts, or withdrawals), the change should _only_ deprive that person of his GW if the game later goes to time, I believe. When a game doesn't go to time, someone else in the game should have gathered at least 2 VPs under the current system, anyway. Fred

XZealot wrote: > On Oct 3, 1:07 am, nyst...@cs.com wrote: > > XZealot wrote: > > > See this is where you are wrong. The game doesn't reward you > > > for > > > not being ousted. It only rewards you for being last man > > > standing. > > > > You forgot withdrawal. > > Which is nearly impossible to do, [...] So? All the "exceptions" disprove your rule -- that only ousting counts. Every time a game ends, and a player has not been ousted, that player earns a victory point. This reward is not applied it is certain that the player will keep the point, because Garfield does not want to complicate things with adding and subtracting victory points. But the end result is always exactly the same as though the player had brought a vp with him to the table, and then lost it to an opponent when and if ousted. > [...] but your system gives the same > reward for a timeouts which effectively obsoletes that rule, The rule -- that a winner is not determined until the game ends, is "obsoleted" no matter how you look at it. Garfield's game ends rules tend to make tie games unlikely, but a game called at 2 hours with 5 players remaining is a tie game whether you give the tied players 0 vp, .5 vp or 1 vp. > congraulations on your first non-sequitur. Oh .. go to hell. > Again, you have not addressed the point. The game does not reward > survival, it rewards ousting your prey as the path to victory. (sigh) The game rewards both survival and ousting -- to the exact same extent. Of course, you need more ousts than survivals, because you can only survive once. Therefore, ousting is collectively more important. Why are you pretending you don't know what I'm talking about? 5 players get ousted simultaneously with s single Ancilla Empowerment. All have one oust, but none have survived, all get one vp. Final score 1, 1, 1, 1, 1. 4 players withdraw from the game, and one is last man standing. Final score 1, 1, 1, 1, 1. In the first, all ate, but they all got eaten too; in the second all neither ate, nor got eaten. The result in both cases is the same. In a 4 player game, you score two ousts, and your last opponent scores one oust. You ate twice, but got eaten. He ate once, but did not get eaten. Score, 2 to 2. It always follows this pattern. > You > system subverts the various anti-inertia designs (the edge, 6 pool > and a VP for ousting). Incorrect. The game win requirements are the same as under the original rules. They require ousting. > Since your system reward the "do nothing" path to > victory, [...] My system requires 2 ousts for a victory, the only exceptions being those that exist currently in finished games. You know this perfectly well. I am tired of this nonsense. Do you think that if you shout "the sky is green" long enough it will make it true? > [...] it encourages table politics and deal making, which are an > interesting facet of the game but not more important than the > predator- prey relationship. You have completely failed to show how it does this. All your examples merely showed you did not know how my system worked.

On Oct 3, 7:01 am, nyst...@cs.com wrote: > XZealot wrote: > > On Oct 3, 1:07 am, nyst...@cs.com wrote: > > > XZealot wrote: > > > > See this is where you are wrong. The game doesn't reward you > > > > for > > > > not being ousted. It only rewards you for being last man > > > > standing. > > > > You forgot withdrawal. > > > Which is nearly impossible to do, [...] > > So? All the "exceptions" disprove your rule -- that only ousting > counts. Every time a game ends, and a player has not been ousted, > that player earns a victory point. This reward is not applied it is > certain that the player will keep the point, because Garfield does not > want to complicate things with adding and subtracting victory points. > But the end result is always exactly the same as though the player had > brought a vp with him to the table, and then lost it to an opponent > when and if ousted. You again have failed to address the point. > > [...] but your system gives the same > > reward for a timeouts which effectively obsoletes that rule, > > The rule -- that a winner is not determined until the game ends, is > "obsoleted" no matter how you look at it. Garfield's game ends rules > tend to make tie games unlikely, but a game called at 2 hours with 5 > players remaining is a tie game whether you give the tied players 0 > vp, .5 vp or 1 vp. Again, you have failed to address the point. > > congraulations on your first non-sequitur. > > Oh .. go to hell. It's October 3rd and its 95 degrees outside and 110 degrees inside; where do you think I am writing this from? > > Again, you have not addressed the point. The game does not reward > > survival, it rewards ousting your prey as the path to victory. > > (sigh) The game rewards both survival and ousting -- to the exact > same extent. Of course, you need more ousts than survivals, because > you can only survive once. Therefore, ousting is collectively more > important. Why are you pretending you don't know what I'm talking > about? No, it does not. You are completely wrong. It does not reward survival. You need to read the rules again. > 5 players get ousted simultaneously with s single Ancilla > Empowerment. All have one oust, but none have survived, all get one > vp. Final score 1, 1, 1, 1, 1. > > 4 players withdraw from the game, and one is last man standing. Final > score 1, 1, 1, 1, 1. No, they don't. They get .5, .5, .5, .5 and 1 > In the first, all ate, but they all got eaten too; in the second all > neither ate, nor got eaten. The result in both cases is the same. > > In a 4 player game, you score two ousts, and your last opponent scores > one oust. You ate twice, but got eaten. He ate once, but did not get > eaten. Score, 2 to 2. > > It always follows this pattern. See above, it doesn not. > > You > > system subverts the various anti-inertia designs (the edge, 6 pool > > and a VP for ousting). > > Incorrect. The game win requirements are the same as under the > original rules. They require ousting. No your game win rule has a sliding scale which certainly is not the same as the original. > > Since your system reward the "do nothing" path to > > victory, [...] > > My system requires 2 ousts for a victory, the only exceptions being > those that exist currently in finished games. You know this perfectly > well. Yes, and that is exactly why I am telling you it is a bad system. Your changes invalidate victory conditions as well as encourage non- action. > I am tired of this nonsense. Do you think that if you shout "the sky > is green" long enough it will make it true? I am not talking about the sky. I am talking about these changes, which are bad for the reasons I have listed that you have failed to address. > > [...] it encourages table politics and deal making, which are an > > interesting facet of the game but not more important than the > > predator- prey relationship. > > You have completely failed to show how it does this. All your > examples merely showed you did not know how my system worked. Incorrect, since you haven't address the points I have raised, then I will have to raise them again. 1) [the assuption that timeouts should reward an entire VP based on the assumption that they were going to oust their prey] Not everyone ousts their prey so to reward players on that assumption by giving them a whole VP by going to time makes dragging the game out equally valuable as ousting your prey. This creates inertia which encourages players not to put pressure on their prey. 2) [timeouts should reward an entire VP] You are specifically creating rules that structurally create ties by going to time to deny Game Wins against players who try to win. This is self-defeating. 3) [time outs should requard an entire VP] The game doesn't reward you for not being ousted. It only rewards you for being last man standing. You need to read the rules again. I'll help you out and copy them for you. Object of the Game Your goal is to accumulate the most victory points by destroying the influence held by rival Methuselahs. You accomplish this goal by using your influence to gain control of younger vampires and using those vampires to take actions to reduce the influence of rival Methuselahs. Influence is represented by pool counters (see Equipment Needed, sec. 1.2), the main currency of the game. When a Methuselah runs out of pool counters, she* is bereft of influence and ousted from the game. *****AS METHUSELAHS ARE OUSTED, players earn victory points; the winner is the player with the most victory points at the end of the game ***** This is to encourage aggressive play and prevent overly defensive strategies from dominating the game. 4) [2vps for a GW in a completed game versus 3vps in a game that timed out] This is blatantly unfair to deny a player who has ousted 2 players the game win only because he was then ousted and the game went to time. This overly punishes aggressive play and foils the original intent of the designer to keep players acting aggressively against their prey. It also creates a mechanic where other players can engineer denying a GW to the player who has earned by timing out a game. If you would like to address those points then please go ahead. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Oct 3, 3:36 am, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: > <nyst...@cs.com> wrote in message > news:1191364694.5...@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com... > > Actually, the game win requirements are almost identical to the > > current system -- the increase from 2 vp to 3 vp is largely illusory, > > if you think about it. The increase was necessary to prevent people > > who got only 1.5 vp under the current system from getting game wins > > under my proposal. No-one else is effected, except ... > > > The increase will make a difference in only one situation -- that a > > person who gains two ousts and then is ousted himself is denied the > > game win, even if the game later goes to time between the remaining > > two players. > > In fact, in all "normal" situations I can think of (i.e. no unusual > VP-affecting cards, simultaneous ousts, or withdrawals), the change > should _only_ deprive that person of his GW if the game later goes to > time, I believe. I am fairly sure that [A ousts B, then ousts C, then gets ousted by E, leaving E & D to survive til time out] is the *only* situation where a person who would get a game win under the current system would not get one under mine. There are exotic situations where one could get a game win under my system where you could not have done under the current system. I believe they all involve a player avoiding the half-point withdrawal penalty of the current rules, in a finished game. For instance A ousts B, A withdraws, an ancilla empowerment ousts the remaining players simultaneously, A wins with 2, 0, 1, 1, 1 (he would have got only 1.5 under the current system, denying him a game win). > When a game doesn't go to time, someone else in the > game should have gathered at least 2 VPs under the current system, > anyway. Yes, usually you need 3 vp to win. If no-one has scored an oust when you leave the game with 2 vp (possible if you withdraw following an oust -- except under the current system that gets you 1.5 rather than 2), then there is a possibility that the remaining players will tie 1, 1, 1 -- and you win (or would were it not for the half-point discount on withdrawal). But you left the game with 2 vp, and someone has scored an oust (by ousting you) then there are NO situations (exotic or otherwise) that can preserve the game win for you. An ousted player with 2 vps has no hope of a game win whatsoever -- not even a theoretical one. This is because 3 players have left the table, taking 2 vp with them, and the remaining 2 players are fighting over the last 3 vp.

<nys...@cs.com> wrote in messagenews:1191448933....@y42g2000hsy.googlegroups.com... > On Oct 3, 3:36 am, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: >> <nyst...@cs.com> wrote in message >> news:1191364694.5...@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com... >> > The increase will make a difference in only one situation -- that a >> > person who gains two ousts and then is ousted himself is denied the >> > game win, even if the game later goes to time between the remaining >> > two players. >> >> In fact, in all "normal" situations I can think of (i.e. no unusual >> VP-affecting cards, simultaneous ousts, or withdrawals), the change >> should _only_ deprive that person of his GW if the game later goes to >> time, I believe. ... >> When a game doesn't go to time, someone else in the >> game should have gathered at least 2 VPs under the current system, >> anyway. > > Yes, usually you need 3 vp to win. If no-one has scored an oust when > you leave the game with 2 vp (possible if you withdraw following an > oust -- except under the current system that gets you 1.5 rather than > 2), then there is a possibility that the remaining players will tie 1, > 1, 1 -- and you win (or would were it not for the half-point discount > on withdrawal). > > But you left the game with 2 vp, and someone has scored an oust (by > ousting you) then there are NO situations (exotic or otherwise) that > can preserve the game win for you. An ousted player with 2 vps has no > hope of a game win whatsoever -- not even a theoretical one. This is > because 3 players have left the table, taking 2 vp with them, and the > remaining 2 players are fighting over the last 3 vp. I was talking about "under the current system" in the last paragraph of my previous post. The point was to correct the part where you stated, "that a person who gains two ousts and then is ousted himself is denied the game win, *EVEN* if the game later goes to time between the remaining two players" - emphasizing your choice of the word "even". "Even" should be replace by "only" if you accept the limitation of non-exotic situations. (I think...correct me if I missed something...) Fred

XZealot wrote: > On Oct 3, 7:01 am, nyst...@cs.com wrote: > > XZealot wrote: > > > On Oct 3, 1:07 am, nyst...@cs.com wrote: > > > > XZealot wrote: > > > > > See this is where you are wrong. The game doesn't reward > > > > > you for > > > > > not being ousted. It only rewards you for being last man > > > > > standing. > > > > > > You forgot withdrawal. > > > > > Which is nearly impossible to do, [...] > > > > So? All the "exceptions" disprove your rule -- that only ousting > > counts. Every time a game ends, and a player has not been > > ousted, that player earns a victory point. This reward is not > > applied it is certain that the player will keep the point, > > because Garfield does not want to complicate things with adding > > and subtracting victory points. But the end result is always > > exactly the same as though the player had brought a vp with him > > to the table, and then lost it to an opponent when and if ousted. > > You again have failed to address the point. I thought I just addressed your point. Garfield does not tell us how to score uncompleted games. It is an extremely cheap shot for you to accuse me of violating his intention just because I try to score uncompleted games. My disagreement is with the way the current VEKN rules score uncompleted games, not with Richard Garfield. > > > [...] but your system gives the same > > > reward for a timeouts which effectively obsoletes that rule, > > > > The rule -- that a winner is not determined until the game ends, > > is "obsoleted" no matter how you look at it. Garfield's game > > ends rules tend to make tie games unlikely, but a game called at > > 2 hours with 5 players remaining is a tie game whether you give > > the tied players 0 vp, .5 vp or 1 vp. > > Again, you have failed to address the point. To the extent that I understood your point, I have addressed it. > > > Again, you have not addressed the point. The game does not > > > reward survival, it rewards ousting your prey as the path to > > > victory. > > > > (sigh) The game rewards both survival and ousting -- to the > > exact same extent. Of course, you need more ousts than > > survivals, because you can only survive once. Therefore, > > ousting is collectively more important. Why are you pretending > > you don't know what I'm talking about? > > No, it does not. You are completely wrong. It does not reward > survival. You need to read the rules again. I don't think I do. > > 5 players get ousted simultaneously with s single Ancilla > > Empowerment. All have one oust, but none have survived, all get > > one vp. Final score 1, 1, 1, 1, 1. > > > > 4 players withdraw from the game, and one is last man standing. > > Final score 1, 1, 1, 1, 1. > > No, they don't. They get .5, .5, .5, .5 and 1 I am pretty sure we were discussing the standard rulebook, since the whole issue was whether my rules preserved the reward structure of the standard rulebook. I even remember Richard Garfield's name coming up. Under the standard rulebook -- both Garfield's original version and the current version (and under my system) they get 1, 1, 1, 1, 1. > > In the first, all ate, but they all got eaten too; in the second > > all neither ate, nor got eaten. The result in both cases is the > > same. > > > > In a 4 player game, you score two ousts, and your last opponent > > scores one oust. You ate twice, but got eaten. He ate once, > > but did not get eaten. Score, 2 to 2. > > > > It always follows this pattern. > > See above, it doesn not. Under the standard rulebook, it always follows this pattern. If you disagree, please provide an example. > > > You > > > system subverts the various anti-inertia designs (the edge, 6 > > > pool and a VP for ousting). > > > > Incorrect. The game win requirements are the same as under the > > original rules. They require ousting. > > No your game win rule has a sliding scale which certainly is not > the same as the original. My scale is exactly the same as the original (by which I mean both the current and former versions of the standard rules, as distinct from the current tournament rules). One vp every time you oust, plus one point if you have not been ousted. The latter point is granted when it is determined you will not be ousted (either when you withdraw, or when the game ends). The time out system > > > Since your system reward the "do nothing" path to > > > victory, [...] > > > > My system requires 2 ousts for a victory, the only exceptions > > being those that exist currently in finished games. You know > > this perfectly well. > > Yes, and that is exactly why I am telling you it is a bad system. > Your changes invalidate victory conditions as [...] If your only complaint is that it is different from the VEKN system, then I concede -- it has made a change from the victory conditions of the VEKN system. However it is not a change from the standard rules, which do not tell us how to score uncompleted games. > well as encourage non-action. You have yet to explain how it does this. > > I am tired of this nonsense. Do you think that if you > > shout "the sky > > is green" long enough it will make it true? > > I am not talking about the sky. I am talking about these changes, > which are bad for the reasons I have listed that you have failed to > address. I have addressed all your points. You keep shouting "the sky is green", I point out that it is in fact blue, and even provide laborious explanations as to why it is blue and not green. You insist that it is green and accuse me of failing to address your point. What am I to say? I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on the color of the sky. > > > [...] it encourages table politics and deal making, which are > > > an interesting facet of the game but not more important than > > > the predator- prey relationship. > > > > You have completely failed to show how it does this. All your > > examples merely showed you did not know how my system worked. > > Incorrect, since you haven't address the points I have raised, > then I will have to raise them again. As far as I can tell, the "points" you raise below, at least as applied to the encouragement of deal-making and table splitting, are being raised for the first time. It is the first time I recall being given the opportunity to correct the new false claims you are now making. > 1) [the assuption that timeouts should reward an entire VP based on > the assumption that they were going to oust their prey] False. My system does not assume they will oust their prey, it merely grants the victory point he would have gotten in a deadlock under Garfield's rules -- simulating either him withdrawing or his opponent withdrawing. It grants him the vp Garfield grants merely for not being ousted when the game ends. 5 player game. A ousts B, A ousts C, A ousts D. A runs out of cards, A tries to withdraw, E lets him. E gets a victory point. If E is not gaining the vp for not being ousted, what's he getting it for? What else has he accomplished? Nothing. Only in the marginal sense is it a "reward". E is clearly a loser. The winner of the game is clearly A. He has merely, by losing with 1 vp, lost a little less spectacularly than the other 3 losers, who all lost with 0 -- because they were ousted. > Not everyone > ousts their prey so to reward players on that assumption by giving > them a whole VP by going to time makes dragging the game out > equally valuable as ousting your prey. False. If he ousts his prey, instead of going to time, he gets an additional victory point. As an additional incentive, he may even get a game win he would not have gotten otherwise. 4 player game. A ousts B, C ousts D. If the game goes to time, under my proposal, they tie 2 to 2, and neither gets the game win. If one ousts the other, then the final score is 3 to 1. The prize is an extra vp and a game win. > This creates inertia which encourages > players not to put pressure on their prey. Bait and switch. I thought your claim was that it encouraged deal- making. If you cannot come up with concrete examples of my system encouraging deal-making, then please have the decency to concede the point, and stop shouting "the sky is green." But moving on to your other point -- that it encourages inertia -- it does not do this in any the examples you have provided, nor any I have provided. The ball is now in your court. Provide some counterexamples. Who knows? Perhaps you will succeed in finding an example. However, the only examples I can think of provide the same incentives under the current systsm. > 2) [timeouts should reward an entire VP] You are specifically > creating rules that structurally create ties by going to time to > deny Game Wins against players who try to win. This is self- > defeating. I have no idea what you are talking about. Please provide a concrete example. If you are referring to the ousted player with 2 vp, yes ... my system denies him the game win and grants him a tie instead -- which is the best he could have hoped for in a completed game under garfields rules. It does not punish him for trying to win ... it punishes him for getting ousted. Not getting ousted takes effort and energy. Generally, it means hurrying to oust your prey before you can get ousted yourself by your predator (since the passage of time tends to result in the reduction of all resources == blood, pool, cards). You accuse my system of forcing him to defend himself to preserve his game win. (You seem to think defense is always bad, because it could lead to time outs). But under the current system, he need not even do that. After scoring 2 vps, he can just say "my minions are'nt going to do anything for the rest of the game -- I'm going out for coffee" and he will win provided he is correctly confident the the game will goes to time between the remaining 2 players. If my system rewards defening yourself (which you call "doing nothing" then the current system rewards "doing less than nothing". Under my system, yes, his only goal might be to survive to game end. Under the current system, his goal might be the same, except that he need not even be alive at the end. Under my system, survival might be his only goal; but under the current system, stalling might be his only goal. My system may not be perfect, but it is an improvement. > 3) [time outs should requard an entire VP] > The game doesn't reward you for not being ousted. It only rewards > you for being last man standing. You omitted withdrawal again, which, under the standard rules, also grants a WHOLE victory point. Fine. Have it your way. Garfields game NEVER awards a whole victory point for survival EXCEPT under the following circumstances: 1) last unousted player remaining after all other players have been ousted or have withdrawn ("last man standing"; and 2) players who legally leave the game without being ousted ("withdrawn"). You are right. In all those OTHER situations where a person finishes a game without having been ousted, they get nothing. Problem is, there ARE no other situations -- not in completed games. Garfield never told us, and the standard rules still don't tell us, how to score incompleted games. > You need to read the rules again. I'll > help you out and copy them for > you. You know, this condescending crap is really annoying. I am VERY tempted to tell you where you can shove that rulebook. But fine, I will read VERY VERY carefully. > Object of the Game > Your goal is to accumulate the most victory points by destroying > the influence held by rival Methuselahs. You accomplish this goal > by using your influence to gain control of younger vampires and > using those vampires to take actions to reduce the influence of > rival Methuselahs. Influence is represented by pool counters (see > Equipment Needed, sec. 1.2), the main currency of the game. When a > Methuselah runs out of pool counters, she* is bereft of influence > and ousted from the game. *****AS METHUSELAHS ARE OUSTED, players > earn victory points; the winner is the player with the most > victory points at the end of the game ***** WOW!!! You are totally right. NOWHERE in this paragraph does it say anything about granting an extra victory point for being the last person remaining in the game. NOWHERE does it say anything about receiving a victory point on successful withdrawal. Clearly, according to this paragraph, ousting is the ONLY thing that gets you a victory point -- the ONLY thing that is considered when determining a game win. NOTHING else is rewarded. Clearly I was wrong. My memory must be getting faulty in my old age. I was *sure* I remembered something about full vps for withdrawal and last man standing. The person with the most victory points wins. It really is that simple. 4 player game A ousts B and C, gets ousted by D. A wins, 2 ousts to 1 oust. You are TOTALLY right. THANK YOU, oh noble sir, for showing me the error of my ways. > 4) [2vps for a GW in a completed game versus 3vps in a game that > timed out] This is blatantly unfair to deny a player who has > ousted 2 players the game win only because he was then ousted and > the game went to time. Game going to time has nothing to do with it. He was denied the game win because he let himself be ousted without first scoring a third victory point. Period. Once ousted, then no matter how the game ends, in a completed game, he is a loser -- under Garfields Rules, under the Current Standard Rules, under Current Tournament. It is the CURRENT tournament rules that reward a player with a GAme Win he could not have otherwise achieved, merely because the game goes to time. Under the CURRENT rules, if you have 2 vp, and you can make the game go to time, you win, even if you get ousted in the last minute. > This overly punishes aggressive play and > foils the original intent of the designer to keep players acting > aggressively against their prey. I don't see how it does that at all. You seem fond of making unsupported conclusory statements, as a substitute for argument. > It also creates a mechanic where > other players can engineer denying a GW to the player who has > earned by timing out a game. This is simply incorrect. How does it do this? Lets recap the example under discussion (which is the only example possible): A ousts B, then ousts C, then gets ousted by D. E and D remain in the game. The remaining possibilities are: 1) Time out, Score (my system): 2, 0, 0, 1, 2 -- No game win. (VEKN system): 2, 0, 0, .5, 1.5 -- A wins. 2) E ousts D: Score: 2, 0, 0, 0, 3 -- E wins. 3) D ousts E: Score: 2, 0, 0, 2, 1 -- No game win. 4) E withdraws: Score (my system): 2, 0, 0, 1, 2 -- No game win Score (VEKN system): 2, 0, 0, 1, 1.5 -- A wins. 5) D withdraws: Score (my system): 2, 0, 0, 1, 2 -- No game win. (VEKN system): 2, 0, 0, .5, 2 -- no game win. Are you saying that E and D deliberately timed out the game instead of agreeing to let E withdraw, because they did not want A to get a game win? Because if the game ends any other way, A will not get the game win anyway -- under ANY system. Seems to me that, under my system, E and D have every incentive to try oust eachother. > If you would like to address those points then please go ahead. Seems to me that I am laboriously addressing all your points. I note that no-where did you support your still-unsupported claim that my system promotes deal-making. You merely switched gears and made other unsupported and/or false accusations against my proposal.

Frederick Scott wrote: > I was talking about "under the current system" in the last > paragraph of my previous post. The point was to correct the part > where you stated, "that a person who gains two ousts and then is > ousted himself is denied the game win, *EVEN* if the game later > goes to time between the remaining two players" - emphasizing your > choice of the word "even". "Even" should be replace by "only" if > you accept the limitation of non-exotic situations. (I > think...correct me if I missed something...) Hmm. You are right ... I think (my brain hurts). Including exotic situations, it should be corrected as follows: The increase will make a difference in only two closly related situations: 1) a person who gains two ousts and then is ousted himself is denied the game win he would have gotten had the game went to time with the 2 remaining players; and 2) a person who gains two ousts and then is ousted himself is denied the game win he would have gotten had the person ousting him ended the game by withdrawing. In any event, the only person effected is the person is the person who, in a 5 player game earns 2 ousts and is ousted leaving 2 players remaining.

[ quoted text not captured ] Correct. The (basic) game doesn't reward you for "not be ousted" per se. It rewards you for only three things: 1. your prey is ousted 2. being the last one left in the game. 3. successfully withdrawing. (and note that 2 and 3 are mutually exclusive) So "not being ousted" is actually only rewarded as "not being ousted when all other players have been ousted or have withdrawn." The current V:EKN tournament rules add a new reward: half a VP for not being ousted when the time limit is reached (as well as reducing the reward for successful withdrawal). The basic rules exactly mimic an "ante" system, where each player antes a VP to the pot (or to their position) at the start of the game to be awarded as above. Maintaining that paradigm is definitely a good idea. I like the principle involved in any effort toward that goal. But there are other good ideas that compete with that goal, which is why, I presume, the DCI implemented a reduced reward for time-outs (see the World Cup parallel) which the V:EKN kept.

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:d%7Ni.315$lE2...@newssvr22.news.prodigy.net... > nys...@cs.com wrote: >> I thought I just addressed your point. Garfield does not tell us how >> to score uncompleted games. It is an extremely cheap shot for you to >> accuse me of violating his intention just because I try to score >> uncompleted games. My disagreement is with the way the current VEKN >> rules score uncompleted games, not with Richard Garfield. > > Correct. > > The (basic) game doesn't reward you for "not be ousted" per se. > It rewards you for only three things: > 1. your prey is ousted > 2. being the last one left in the game. > 3. successfully withdrawing. > > (and note that 2 and 3 are mutually exclusive) > > So "not being ousted" is actually only rewarded as "not being ousted when all other players have been ousted or have withdrawn." > > The current V:EKN tournament rules add a new reward: half a VP for not being ousted when the time limit is reached (as well as > reducing the reward for successful withdrawal). This point is important and exposes the weakness in the previous poster's thinking in extending the conservation-of-victory-points ideology to the scoring system where timeouts are concerned. It's a much different thing surviving to the end of a game because one has ousted all of one's opponents vs. surviving to the end of a timed-out game. The former requires a distinct form of offense - the latter does not. Building and playing to survive to time is much easier than building and playing to be last man standing. Fred

On Sep 23, 10:51 pm, nyst...@cs.com wrote: > I have not been a regular poster here for a while, so forgive if the > following issue has been discussed before. I am proposing a > tournament scoring system that seems to be an improvement over the > current one, and I am interested in feedback and counterarguments. > > THE PROPOSED SYSTEM We already have far too many timed out games as it is. Your system would only encourage this, making it a bad system imho. Sorry for the short reply, but this system is horribly flawed. G

On Oct 4, 10:24 am, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: > "LSJ" <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message [ quoted text not captured ] And that's why it should be incentivized! :) Award a bonus VP for LMS so you don't have people dragging their feet because doing nothing is the easy thing to do. Jeff

[ quoted text not captured ] And that's why it is incentivized. > Award a bonus VP for LMS so you don't have people dragging their feet > because doing nothing is the easy thing to do. They already get a bonus for not dragging their feet: the oust gets them a bonus and LMS gets a bonus over standing-at-time.

[ quoted text not captured ] Barring your prey withdrawing, LMS already gets 2 VPs (they have to oust their prey). [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] There is no such thing as uncompleted games under Garfield's rules. He lists only three goals to earn Victory Points. If you do not fulfill those goals you don't earn victory points. The logical extension of Garfield's rules are that no VPs of any kind are awarded for timeouts. The game goes to time and players leave with the amount of victory points they have scored. The current rules reward a player for not sandbagging a game when it becomes evident that they won't oust their prey before time is called. > > > > [...] but your system gives the same > > > > reward for a timeouts which effectively obsoletes that rule, > > > > The rule -- that a winner is not determined until the game ends, > > > is "obsoleted" no matter how you look at it. Garfield's game > > > ends rules tend to make tie games unlikely, but a game called at > > > 2 hours with 5 players remaining is a tie game whether you give > > > the tied players 0 vp, .5 vp or 1 vp. > > > Again, you have failed to address the point. > > To the extent that I understood your point, I have addressed it. Apparently, What is harder, achieving 1 VP for withdrawal conditions or having a game go to time? We both know it is easier to go to time, so therefore your changes have obsolesced the withdrawal rule. > > > > Again, you have not addressed the point. The game does not > > > > reward survival, it rewards ousting your prey as the path to > > > > victory. > > > > (sigh) The game rewards both survival and ousting -- to the > > > exact same extent. Of course, you need more ousts than > > > survivals, because you can only survive once. Therefore, > > > ousting is collectively more important. Why are you pretending > > > you don't know what I'm talking about? > > > No, it does not. You are completely wrong. It does not reward > > survival. You need to read the rules again. > > I don't think I do. Well, you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink. You get VP's for 3 things: Ousting your prey, withdrawing, or being Last Man Standing. Thats it. Survival doesn't mean anything outside the context of those three goals. > > > 5 players get ousted simultaneously with s single Ancilla > > > Empowerment. All have one oust, but none have survived, all get > > > one vp. Final score 1, 1, 1, 1, 1. > > > > 4 players withdraw from the game, and one is last man standing. > > > Final score 1, 1, 1, 1, 1. > > > No, they don't. They get .5, .5, .5, .5 and 1 > > I am pretty sure we were discussing the standard rulebook, since the > whole issue was whether my rules preserved the reward structure of the > standard rulebook. I even remember Richard Garfield's name coming > up. Under the standard rulebook -- both Garfield's original version > and the current version (and under my system) they get 1, 1, 1, 1, 1. There is a reason that rule was changed. Players would make a deal to withdraw prior to the timeout to earn the full victory point. If you didn't know why this was changed, then now you do. This is an example of encouraging table politics to maximize the VP outcomes of a game. > > > > You > > > > system subverts the various anti-inertia designs (the edge, 6 > > > > pool and a VP for ousting). > > > > Incorrect. The game win requirements are the same as under the > > > original rules. They require ousting. > > > No your game win rule has a sliding scale which certainly is not > > the same as the original. > > My scale is exactly the same as the original (by which I mean both the > current and former versions of the standard rules, as distinct from > the current tournament rules). One vp every time you oust, plus one > point if you have not been ousted. There is no reward for not being ousted. The closest thing is being Last Man Standing which is not the same. This is where your system is flawed, it is overly generous for time outs. > > > > Since your system reward the "do nothing" path to > > > > victory, [...] > > > > My system requires 2 ousts for a victory, the only exceptions > > > being those that exist currently in finished games. You know > > > this perfectly well. > > > Yes, and that is exactly why I am telling you it is a bad system. > > Your changes invalidate victory conditions as [...] > > If your only complaint is that it is different from the VEKN system, > then I concede -- it has made a change from the victory conditions of > the VEKN system. However it is not a change from the standard rules, > which do not tell us how to score uncompleted games. My complaint is that rewarding a whole VP for a timeout is the same as rewarding inaction. that is because it makes defensive tactics (inaction) more viable, which in turn make offensive tactics less viable, by default. If you make it more difficult for someone to single handedly oust their prey, then the solution within the context of a multi player game is for two players to oust a single prey. Two players teaming up requires politics therefore your change to the standard rule increases the amount of table politics in the game. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Oct 4, 8:52 am, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > The (basic) game doesn't reward you for "not be ousted" per se. > It rewards you for only three things: > 1. your prey is ousted > 2. being the last one left in the game. > 3. successfully withdrawing. > > (and note that 2 and 3 are mutually exclusive) Sure. Of course, one could think of the latter two as two mutually exclusive ways of "not being ousted" -- one determined at the end of the game, the other before. In each case, the victory point is granted when it is determined, for certain, that the player will never be ousted. > So "not being ousted" is actually only rewarded as "not being ousted when all > other players have been ousted or have withdrawn." Sure, except that one can think of withdrawal as an additional "not being ousted" scenario, in which case, it would be more accurate to say that "not being ousted" is only rewarded at the point in the game where it can be determined that you will not be ousted. > The current V:EKN tournament rules add a new reward: half a VP for not being > ousted when the time limit is reached (as well as reducing the reward for > successful withdrawal). > > The basic rules exactly mimic an "ante" system, where each player antes a VP to > the pot (or to their position) at the start of the game to be awarded as above. > > Maintaining that paradigm is definitely a good idea. I like the principle > involved in any effort toward that goal. > > But there are other good ideas that compete with that goal, which is why, I > presume, the DCI implemented a reduced reward for time-outs (see the World Cup > parallel) which the V:EKN kept. Yes, but, originally, when the DCI implemented the reduced award, the "Game Win" system was not yet in place. It is possible that the Game Win system (which my proposal preserves) already serves whatever function the DCI originally had in mind. Imagine a 4 player game, where the last 2 players (A and C), each with a victory point, duke it out. Under the former VEKN rules, each of these players anticipates the following awards: Time-Out Tie: +0.5 vp, +0.5 vp (total 1.5 vp, 1.5 vp) Other Deadock (withdrawal): +1.0 vp, +1.0 vp (total 2.0 vp, 2.0 vp) A ousts C: +2.0 vp, +0 vp (total 3.0 vp, 1.0 vp) A player gets 4 times as much for winning as he does for tying the game. Imagine the same game under my proposal: Time-Out Tie: +1 vp, +1 vp (total 2.0 vp, 2.0 vp) Other Deadlock (withdrawal): +1, +1 (total 2.0, 2.0) A ousts C: +2.0 vp & +1 gw (total 3.0 vp & 1 gw, 1.0 vp) It is hard, under the current game win system, to measure the value of a victory point versus the value of a game win. But if I assume that a game win award is at least as valuable as 2 vps* then A is still getting at least 4 times as much for winning as he is for tying the game. On the other hand, under the current VEKN system, which introduced the game win system while keeping the half-point system (and also introduces half points for withdrawals): Time-Out: +0.5 vp, +0.5 vp (total 1.5 vp, 1.5 vp) Other Deadock (withdrawal by A): +0.5 vp, +1 vp & 1 gw (total 1.5 vp, 2 vp & 1 gw) A ousts C: +2 vp & +1 gw, +0 vp (total 3 vp & 1gw, 1 vp) If we assume the game win award is (at least) worth 2 vp, we now have a situation where the reward for winning is at least 8 times the reward for a tie game. Whatever functions the win bonus serves, might not this be overkill? (Incidentally, under the current system one can have the bizarre situation where a person caught in a deadlock with his opponent -- such as all vamps in torpor with no prospect of either player rescuing them -- uses the deadlock-breaking mechanism of withdrawal to throw a half victory point and a game win at his opponent at no cost to himself). * This seems reasonable -- even conservative. It is possible, in a 3 preliminary round tournament, for a person with 6 vp and 3 gws to beat someone with 12 vp and 2 gws -- so it is theoretically possible to have situations where 1 extra gw trumps 6 extra vps; an if you object that this example hardly matters because both people are sure to make the final round in any event, one still can have a situation where a person with 2 vp and 1 gw beats someone with 6 vp and 0 gw -- 1 extra gw trumping 4 extra vp. If you further object that 2 vp game wins are rare, we can still have situations where a person with 3 vp and 1 gw beats someone with 6 vp and 0 gw -- 1 extra gw trumping 3 extra vp.

[ quoted text not captured ] Garfield's basic rules pretty clearly parallel the ante concept. In which case, players who left before game end (e.g., time limit) would simply take their ante with them.

On Oct 4, 8:52 am, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > The (basic) game doesn't reward you for "not be ousted" per se. > It rewards you for only three things: > 1. your prey is ousted > 2. being the last one left in the game. > 3. successfully withdrawing. > > (and note that 2 and 3 are mutually exclusive) Sure. Of course, one could think of the latter two as two mutually exclusive ways of "not being ousted" -- one determined at the end of the game, the other before. In each case, the victory point is granted when it is determined, for certain, that the player will never be ousted. > So "not being ousted" is actually only rewarded as "not being ousted when all > other players have been ousted or have withdrawn." Sure, except that one can think of withdrawal as an additional "not being ousted" scenario, in which case, it would be more accurate to say that "not being ousted" is only rewarded at the point in the game where it can be determined that you will not be ousted. > The current V:EKN tournament rules add a new reward: half a VP for not being > ousted when the time limit is reached (as well as reducing the reward for > successful withdrawal). > > The basic rules exactly mimic an "ante" system, where each player antes a VP to > the pot (or to their position) at the start of the game to be awarded as above. > > Maintaining that paradigm is definitely a good idea. I like the principle > involved in any effort toward that goal. > > But there are other good ideas that compete with that goal, which is why, I > presume, the DCI implemented a reduced reward for time-outs (see the World Cup > parallel) which the V:EKN kept. Yes, but, originally, when the DCI implemented the reduced award, the [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] That is not how an ante system works, at least not the way I learned it. The ante is the cost of entering the game. You only leave the table with your winnings. If you leave before the game is over then you forfeit your ante. The ante is to keep players in the game and create a value over which the game is fought. It is what the players must risk to participate. If, as you say, VTES is based upon the ante system, then a player does not reclaim their ante at the end of the game, but only leave with their winnings (earned VPs). I can't think of a game that uses the ante system and a timing system other than VTES. As far as I know, the only way to reclaim an ante is to win the game, in either VTES or any other game. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Oct 4, 6:07 pm, XZealot <xzea...@cox.net> wrote: > Well, you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink. I am not your horse. > There is a reason that rule was changed. Players would make a deal to > withdraw prior to the timeout to earn the full victory point. If you > didn't know why this was changed, then now you do. I did ask you to put a lid on the condescending crap, didn't I?

On Oct 4, 5:37 pm, nyst...@cs.com wrote: > On Oct 4, 6:07 pm, XZealot <xzea...@cox.net> wrote: > > > Well, you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink. > > I am not your horse. But apparently you are being lead. > > There is a reason that rule was changed. Players would make a deal to > > withdraw prior to the timeout to earn the full victory point. If you > > didn't know why this was changed, then now you do. > > I did ask you to put a lid on the condescending crap, didn't I? The funny thing is your inability to respond to the actual points of the discussion rather than the transition that separates one point from another. I am not being critical of you, but rather reflecting on why you are not engaging the points that I am making. If you would respond to the actual points I am making rather than the fluff around the points then this won't dissolve into a flame war. So is this the totality of your response? [ quoted text not captured ]

> I can't think of a game that uses the > ante system and a timing system other than VTES. As far as I know, > the only way to reclaim an ante is to win the game, in either VTES or > any other game. What happens when a game of poker (an ante system game) ends without a clear winner then the house keeps the pot and the antes that make it up. So it is a clear win or lose situation. If you do not win the game then the default is that you lose the game. [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] Yes, this is true. But part of the discussion came from the fact that if a Meth ousts three successive preys then is ousted themselves, they still get 3 VPs and the GW, even though they're not the LMS. This wasn't part of Garfield's plan and is something that the VEKN instituted to encourage a variety of deck archetypes, rather than only those which are capable of sweeping within time constraints. IMO, this "lunge at the finish time" mentality is causing some stalling/slow play problems at tournaments. I was just proposing ways to make it even more important to finish a game completely to minimize this problem. To what degree the VEKN feels this is an issue will of course affect if any changes are made or are necessary (and of course, this isn't quite the same discussion that nyst has initiated because he has a different problem he set out to address. Jeff

<nys...@cs.com> wrote in message news:1191535768....@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com... > On Oct 4, 8:52 am, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: >> The current V:EKN tournament rules add a new reward: half a VP for not being >> ousted when the time limit is reached (as well as reducing the reward for >> successful withdrawal). >> >> The basic rules exactly mimic an "ante" system, where each player antes a VP to >> the pot (or to their position) at the start of the game to be awarded as above. >> >> Maintaining that paradigm is definitely a good idea. I like the principle >> involved in any effort toward that goal. >> >> But there are other good ideas that compete with that goal, which is why, I >> presume, the DCI implemented a reduced reward for time-outs (see the World Cup >> parallel) which the V:EKN kept. > > Yes, but, originally, when the DCI implemented the reduced award, the > "Game Win" system was not yet in place. It is possible that the Game > Win system (which my proposal preserves) already serves whatever > function the DCI originally had in mind. Yes, but the thing you don't explain is why this matters. If you comprehend that the game win artifact was put into place to compensate for failings in the previous (inherited-from-the-DCI system), you seem to accept that there were reasons for making this change. Why then would you assert that the 1/2 VP penalty could have been obsolesced at that moment but that no one would think to eliminate it as the Game Win was instituted? Presumably, if it had become truly obsolete, it would have been. It wasn't. This point exposes all this historical conjecture for what I think it is: manufacturing a convenient justification. "Ooops! See here, this should have done this in 2001 but they forgot!" We didn't forget. I was one of the ones talking about the original table win proposal back in 2001. Although a lot of different criteria were discussed at the time, and although the tournament rule just magically showed up in the 2002 tournament rules without discussion as to who's proposal exactly was used to create the final criteria for the game win (doesn't really matter - it was as close to a collective act of creativity as I've ever seen in truth), I can say that the criteria were being discussed in terms of number of _ousts_ required, with no one that I saw particularly felt like survival to the game's end should make a difference. The main contention was over such nuances as, "Should a table win be split if two players both scored 2+ VPs." One critical point to consider in this discussion: With as much interest as there was with fixing the perceived shortcomings of the system in 2001 and at various periods since (Succubus Club eventually got updated and then eventually banned; the two seat-switching cards likewise got banned), no one until you has ever stood up and said, "Gee, it's a problem that people are getting penalized by only getting 1/2 VP in timeouts." The tournament rules have even been changed to make withdrawals equal in reward to time outs - rather than the other way around - in that period. You seem to be quite unique in your perception that this is a problem. It's certainly not because others are uninterested in the subject. Fred

On Oct 4, 7:34 pm, XZealot <xzea...@cox.net> wrote: > That is not how an ante system works, at least not the way I learned > it. The ante is the cost of entering the game. Right. > You only leave the table with your winnings. Right, but the ante is never left on the table. > If you leave before the game is over then > you forfeit your ante. Most likely so. But if you do forfeit your ante, you forfeit it TO somebody. Somebody always gets it, by the time the game ends. > The ante is to keep players in the game and > create a value over which the game is fought. It is what the players > must risk to participate. > > If, as you say, VTES is based upon the ante system, then a player does > not reclaim their ante at the end of the game, but only leave with > their winnings (earned VPs). If a game is unavoidably ended prematurely, presumably the remaining players would devide the ante between them. > I can't think of a game that uses the > ante system and a timing system other than VTES. As far as I know, > the only way to reclaim an ante is to win the game, in either VTES or > any other game. In vtes, the winnings are awarded incrementally, in the form of "victory points". By the time the game ends, the total winnings awarded equals the number of players. 5 vtes gamblers come to the table, each placing a hundred dollar bill in the pot. A ousts B. A grabs a hundred dollar bill from the pot and puts it in his pocket. These are his "winnings" so far. $400 remain. A ousts C. A grabs another hundred dollar bill pot and puts it in his pocket. $300 remain in the pot. E ousts A. E grabs $100 from the pot and puts it in his pocket. (A leaves, and goes home with $200 in his pocket). $200 remain. E and D duke it out for the next 2 hours, trying to win the money for themselves. Then, unavoidable circumstances -- beyond anyone's control -- bring the game to a forced and premature concludion -- the cops show up to arrest them for gambling. E and D quickly split the pot between them, each taking $100, and run out the back door. A similar result would have occurred had they found themselves hopelessly deadlocked, and had needed to resort to the withdrawal mechanism to end the game.

nys...@cs.com wrote: > On Oct 4, 8:52 am, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: >> The basic rules exactly mimic an "ante" system, where each player antes a VP to >> the pot (or to their position) at the start of the game to be awarded as above. >> >> Maintaining that paradigm is definitely a good idea. I like the principle >> involved in any effort toward that goal. >> >> But there are other good ideas that compete with that goal, which is why, I >> presume, the DCI implemented a reduced reward for time-outs (see the World Cup >> parallel) which the V:EKN kept. > > Yes, but, originally, when the DCI implemented the reduced award, the > "Game Win" system was not yet in place. It is possible that the Game > Win system (which my proposal preserves) already serves whatever > function the DCI originally had in mind. Perhaps, but it doesn't seem plausible. Adding an extra 0.5 for time-out standing would certainly do nothing to address the kind of deals and splits that the GW was added to address. > Imagine a 4 player game, where the last 2 players (A and C), each with > a victory point, duke it out. Under the former VEKN rules, each of > these players anticipates the following awards: > > Time-Out Tie: +0.5 vp, +0.5 vp (total 1.5 vp, 1.5 vp) > Other Deadock (withdrawal): +1.0 vp, +1.0 vp (total 2.0 vp, 2.0 vp) > A ousts C: +2.0 vp, +0 vp (total 3.0 vp, 1.0 vp) > > A player gets 4 times as much for winning as he does for tying the > game. > > Imagine the same game under my proposal: > > Time-Out Tie: +1 vp, +1 vp (total 2.0 vp, 2.0 vp) > Other Deadlock (withdrawal): +1, +1 (total 2.0, 2.0) > A ousts C: +2.0 vp & +1 gw (total 3.0 vp & 1 gw, 1.0 vp) > > It is hard, under the current game win system, to measure the value of > a victory point versus the value of a game win. But if I assume that > a game win award is at least as valuable as 2 vps* then A is still > getting at least 4 times as much for winning as he is for tying the > game. At least, indeed. As VPs don't factor in at all except as a tie breaker for GW ties, the GW is effectively worth as many VPs as you like. > On the other hand, under the current VEKN system, which introduced the > game win system while keeping the half-point system (and also > introduces half points for withdrawals): > > Time-Out: +0.5 vp, +0.5 vp (total 1.5 vp, 1.5 vp) > Other Deadock (withdrawal by A): +0.5 vp, +1 vp & 1 gw (total 1.5 vp, > 2 vp & 1 gw) > A ousts C: +2 vp & +1 gw, +0 vp (total 3 vp & 1gw, 1 vp) > > If we assume the game win award is (at least) worth 2 vp, we now have > a situation where the reward for winning is at least 8 times the > reward for a tie game. Whatever functions the win bonus serves, might > not this be overkill? No. The GW is supposed to serve exactly this function -- to shift the focus away from counting (splitting) VPs back to the primary goal of the game: winning the game (by achieving a plurality of VPs). In the time-out case, the plurality is missed, so the reward is severely reduced. > (Incidentally, under the current system one can have the bizarre > situation where a person caught in a deadlock with his opponent -- > such as all vamps in torpor with no prospect of either player rescuing > them -- uses the deadlock-breaking mechanism of withdrawal to throw a > half victory point and a game win at his opponent at no cost to > himself). Giving a GW to another player is a cost. > * This seems reasonable -- even conservative. It is possible, in a 3 > preliminary round tournament, for a person with 6 vp and 3 gws to beat > someone with 12 vp and 2 gws -- so it is theoretically possible to > have situations where 1 extra gw trumps 6 extra vps; an if you object > that this example hardly matters because both people are sure to make > the final round in any event, one still can have a situation where a > person with 2 vp and 1 gw beats someone with 6 vp and 0 gw -- 1 extra > gw trumping 4 extra vp. If you further object that 2 vp game wins are > rare, we can still have situations where a person with 3 vp and 1 gw > beats someone with 6 vp and 0 gw -- 1 extra gw trumping 3 extra vp. True. Back to the main: As I said, maintaining the ante property of VPs is a solid goal. The problem situation is the one of risk analysis, much the same reason that the Edge was implemented (and the withdrawal rules). IMO, anyway. Get A and C as you have above (1 VP each). Sometimes (perhaps frequently) it will be that neither of them can get into a position to guarantee a no-risk path to ousting the other. In order to scrabble for extra advantage, some risk would have to be taken (risking being ousted and giving up the GW, not to mention the VP). In the current environment, players face a VP penalty (in the ante sense, since they will take back only a fraction of their ante upon a time out), providing an impetus to take a risk (go forward). In the pure ante environment (your proposal), the impetus is not there. The player could risk a win (with an average chance of success at 50%) for an expected outcome of 1 VP (.5 * 2VP + .5 * 0 VP; the GW is a wash at .5 * 1 + .5 * -1) or avoid the risk and bide time until the time out, again for an expected outcome of 1 VP. As opposed to an expected outcome of 1VP for risk-taking vs 0.5 VP for biding time under the current system.

XZealot wrote: > On Oct 4, 5:11 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: >> In which case, players who left before game end (e.g., time limit) would simply >> take their ante with them. > > That is not how an ante system works, at least not the way I learned > it. The ante is the cost of entering the game. You only leave the > table with your winnings. If you leave before the game is over then > you forfeit your ante. The ante is to keep players in the game and > create a value over which the game is fought. It is what the players > must risk to participate. And how do you handle the ante when *all* players leave the game? Leave it on the table as you exit the venue? Not likely. > If, as you say, VTES is based upon the ante system, then a player does > not reclaim their ante at the end of the game, but only leave with > their winnings (earned VPs). I can't think of a game that uses the > ante system and a timing system other than VTES. As far as I know, > the only way to reclaim an ante is to win the game, in either VTES or > any other game. No, in VTES, ante is awarded on a per-player basis. See ousting one's prey without winning. See also time-out (in the basic rules' paradigm).

On Oct 4, 4:51 pm, XZealot <xzea...@cox.net> wrote: > The funny thing is your inability to respond to the actual points of > the discussion rather than the transition that separates one point > from another. I am not being critical of you, but rather reflecting > on why you are not engaging the points that I am making. I see. Thank you for not being critical of me. It is really most merciful of you. > If you would > respond to the actual points I am making rather than the fluff around > the points then this won't dissolve into a flame war. So is this the > totality of your response? Would you prefer it to devolve in a flame war?.

On Oct 4, 7:29 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > XZealot wrote: > > On Oct 4, 5:11 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > >> In which case, players who left before game end (e.g., time limit) would simply > >> take their ante with them. > > > That is not how an ante system works, at least not the way I learned > > it. The ante is the cost of entering the game. You only leave the > > table with your winnings. If you leave before the game is over then > > you forfeit your ante. The ante is to keep players in the game and > > create a value over which the game is fought. It is what the players > > must risk to participate. > > And how do you handle the ante when *all* players leave the game? The house gets the money. That is the rule in every casino, back room, or friend's garage on poker night. If their is no winner then then house gets the pot. You would be surprised a how often a winner is declared. > Leave it on the table as you exit the venue? > Not likely. Au Contraire, you absolutely must leave your money on the table if there hasn't been a winner declared. If you get up from a game you must leave your money in the pot. If you reach into the pot prior to a winner being declared then you will be thrown out of the establishment and forfeit any moneys you have on the table. Comments Welcome, Norman S. Brown, Jr XZealot Archon of the Swamp

On Oct 4, 7:22 pm, nyst...@cs.com wrote: > On Oct 4, 7:34 pm, XZealot <xzea...@cox.net> wrote: > > > That is not how an ante system works, at least not the way I learned > > it. The ante is the cost of entering the game. > > Right. > > > You only leave the table with your winnings. > > Right, but the ante is never left on the table. Correct, it is part of the pot and the winnings > > If you leave before the game is over then > > you forfeit your ante. > > Most likely so. But if you do forfeit your ante, you forfeit it TO > somebody. Somebody always gets it, by the time the game ends. No, if there is no winner declared then the house get it. > > The ante is to keep players in the game and > > create a value over which the game is fought. It is what the players > > must risk to participate. > > > If, as you say, VTES is based upon the ante system, then a player does > > not reclaim their ante at the end of the game, but only leave with > > their winnings (earned VPs). > > If a game is unavoidably ended prematurely, presumably the remaining > players would devide the ante between them. No, the house would claim the pot. > > I can't think of a game that uses the > > ante system and a timing system other than VTES. As far as I know, > > the only way to reclaim an ante is to win the game, in either VTES or > > any other game. > > In vtes, the winnings are awarded incrementally, in the form of > "victory points". By the time the game ends, the total winnings > awarded equals the number of players. In poker it is dollars. The total winnings is the total amount bet. The two are roughly analogous. > 5 vtes gamblers come to the table, each placing a hundred dollar bill > in the pot. A ousts B. A grabs a hundred dollar bill from the pot > and puts it in his pocket. Wrong, Player A gets shot/kicked out/beaten up. The other players roll Player A and take all his money for being a cheatin' thief . Player A ends up with nothing. You need to stay away from other poker players if you think you can do that. > These are his "winnings" so far. $400 > remain. A ousts C. A grabs another hundred dollar bill pot and puts > it in his pocket. $300 remain in the pot. E ousts A. E grabs $100 > from the pot and puts it in his pocket. (A leaves, and goes home > with $200 in his pocket). $200 remain. E and D duke it out for the > next 2 hours, trying to win the money for themselves. Then, > unavoidable circumstances -- beyond anyone's control -- bring the game > to a forced and premature concludion -- the cops show up to arrest > them for gambling. E and D quickly split the pot between them, each > taking $100, and run out the back door. A similar result would have > occurred had they found themselves hopelessly deadlocked, and had > needed to resort to the withdrawal mechanism to end the game. Players E and D would get arrested if they are stupid enough to try and split the pot evenly. There is no hopelessly deadlocked in poker. One is the winner and one is the loser. If their is no winner declared then the house takes the pot. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Oct 4, 7:43 pm, nyst...@cs.com wrote: > On Oct 4, 4:51 pm, XZealot <xzea...@cox.net> wrote: > > > The funny thing is your inability to respond to the actual points of > > the discussion rather than the transition that separates one point > > from another. I am not being critical of you, but rather reflecting > > on why you are not engaging the points that I am making. > > I see. Thank you for not being critical of me. It is really most > merciful of you. I am most beneficent. > > If you would > > respond to the actual points I am making rather than the fluff around > > the points then this won't dissolve into a flame war. So is this the > > totality of your response? > > Would you prefer it to devolve in a flame war?. Ain't 'fraid o' no heat. [ quoted text not captured ]

XZealot wrote: > On Oct 4, 7:29 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: >> XZealot wrote: >>> On Oct 4, 5:11 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: >>>> In which case, players who left before game end (e.g., time limit) would simply >>>> take their ante with them. >>> That is not how an ante system works, at least not the way I learned >>> it. The ante is the cost of entering the game. You only leave the >>> table with your winnings. If you leave before the game is over then >>> you forfeit your ante. The ante is to keep players in the game and >>> create a value over which the game is fought. It is what the players >>> must risk to participate. >> And how do you handle the ante when *all* players leave the game? > > The house gets the money. Then You should definitely play at my house. (House calls time = house profit? House always calls time) But seriously, in real games, players would take back their ante if they (as a group in total) could not finish the game due to the house's time limit. > That is the rule in every casino, back room, > or friend's garage on poker night. If their is no winner then then > house gets the pot. You would be surprised a how often a winner is > declared. In which of these does the house call time? I'll leave you to your flawed parallels.

On Oct 4, 8:28 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > XZealot wrote: > > On Oct 4, 7:29 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > >> XZealot wrote: > >>> On Oct 4, 5:11 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > >>>> In which case, players who left before game end (e.g., time limit) would simply > >>>> take their ante with them. > >>> That is not how an ante system works, at least not the way I learned > >>> it. The ante is the cost of entering the game. You only leave the > >>> table with your winnings. If you leave before the game is over then > >>> you forfeit your ante. The ante is to keep players in the game and > >>> create a value over which the game is fought. It is what the players > >>> must risk to participate. > >> And how do you handle the ante when *all* players leave the game? > > > The house gets the money. > > Then You should definitely play at my house. (House calls time = house profit? > House always calls time) I would play one game at your house then you would call time. Then you get a bunch of angry players threatening your good health because you are actually trying to cheat them out of their money. It might not be as much fun as you think. People are funny about cheating. > But seriously, in real games, players would take back their ante if they (as a > group in total) could not finish the game due to the house's time limit. Seriously, They would generally not start a game that they couldn't finish once bets are placed. > > That is the rule in every casino, back room, > > or friend's garage on poker night. If their is no winner then then > > house gets the pot. You would be surprised a how often a winner is > > declared. > > In which of these does the house call time? I have seen "Last Game" called in every parlor that doesn't stay open 24 hours a day. They usually let you play it out. > I'll leave you to your flawed parallels. ...but you were making such good points on why we should get rid of time limits all together. If you leave the table you lose. If the game has no winner than the house gets the money. That is how the game is played. [ quoted text not captured ]

XZealot wrote: > On Oct 4, 8:28 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: >> XZealot wrote: >>> On Oct 4, 7:29 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: >>>> XZealot wrote: >>>>> On Oct 4, 5:11 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: >>>>>> In which case, players who left before game end (e.g., time limit) would simply >>>>>> take their ante with them. >>>>> That is not how an ante system works, at least not the way I learned >>>>> it. The ante is the cost of entering the game. You only leave the >>>>> table with your winnings. If you leave before the game is over then >>>>> you forfeit your ante. The ante is to keep players in the game and >>>>> create a value over which the game is fought. It is what the players >>>>> must risk to participate. >>>> And how do you handle the ante when *all* players leave the game? >>> The house gets the money. >> Then You should definitely play at my house. (House calls time = house profit? >> House always calls time) > > I would play one game at your house then you would call time. Then > you get a bunch of angry players threatening your good health because > you are actually trying to cheat them out of their money. It might > not be as much fun as you think. People are funny about cheating. Ah, good. Then you do understand the point. I was concerned. Glad your caught up now.

[ quoted text not captured ] I think you are being overly pithy. I don't understand. Please explain it to me. How does that relate to ante? [ quoted text not captured ]

LSJ wrote: > nys...@cs.com wrote: > > Yes, but, originally, when the DCI implemented the reduced > > award, the "Game Win" system was not yet in place. It is > > possible that the Game Win system (which my proposal preserves) > > already serves whatever function the DCI originally had in mind. > > Perhaps, but it doesn't seem plausible. > Adding an extra 0.5 for time-out standing would certainly do > nothing to address the kind of deals and splits that the GW was > added to address. Okay, but I never wondered about their motives for adding a half vp at time out, but rather their motives for subtracting. What you call the "pure ante" system always seemed to me to be too obviously the way it ought to be. So many have argued on this NG that my proposal will promote deal making and table splitting, that I cannot help wondering if the DCI folks might not somehow have gotten the same idea. I agree, of course, that it was woefully ineffective compared to the GW system. I also think (and have argued here) that any marginal effect the "pure ante" system might otherwise have had on deal making and table splitting is effectively foiled by the GW system already in place (which my proposal preserves essentially intact). I would agree, for instance, that the half-point reduction was not effective in preventing players from splitting tables 3 to 2 or 2 to 2. But you can hardly deny that, in a "pure ante" environment, then splitting tables this way becomes just a tiny wee bit easier. > > Imagine the same game under my proposal: > > > > Time-Out Tie: +1 vp, +1 vp (total 2.0 vp, 2.0 vp) > > Other Deadlock (withdrawal): +1, +1 (total 2.0, 2.0) > > A ousts C: +2.0 vp & +1 gw (total 3.0 vp & 1 gw, 1.0 vp) > > > > It is hard, under the current game win system, to measure the > > value of a victory point versus the value of a game win. But if > > I assume that a game win award is at least as valuable as 2 vps* > > then A is still getting at least 4 times as much for winning as > > he is for tying the game. > > At least, indeed. As VPs don't factor in at all except as a tie > breaker for GW ties, the GW is effectively worth as many VPs as > you like. Agreed. I was trying to being conservative, perhaps in recognition of the fact that VPs and GWs are to some extent inseparable -- there is a limit to how many you can get of one without getting the other as well. > > If we assume the game win award is (at least) worth 2 vp, we now > > have a situation where the reward for winning is at least 8 > > times the reward for a tie game. Whatever functions the win > > bonus serves, might not this be overkill? > > No. The GW is supposed to serve exactly this function -- to shift > the focus away from counting (splitting) VPs back to the primary > goal of the game: winning the game (by achieving a plurality of > VPs). Well, assuming it has achieved this (and I think it has) one must wonder what purpose is still being served by the current system's mucking around with half-victory points. > In the time-out case, the plurality is missed, so the reward is > severely reduced. Not sure what you mean. Are you discussing the half-vp system? Or are you still discussing the function of the GW system, and saying that it discourages time out, since a GW is rather less likely in a time out game? > As I said, maintaining the ante property of VPs is a solid goal. > The problem situation is the one of risk analysis, much the same > reason that the Edge was implemented (and the withdrawal rules). > IMO, anyway. Okay. > Get A and C as you have above (1 VP each). Sometimes (perhaps > frequently) it will be that neither of them can get into a > position to guarantee a no-risk path to ousting the other. In > order to scrabble for extra advantage, some risk would have to be > taken (risking being ousted and giving up the GW, not to mention > the VP). > > In the current environment, players face a VP penalty (in the ante > sense, since they will take back only a fraction of their ante > upon a time out), providing an impetus to take a risk (go forward). Is not the need go score a GW (which neither A or C have yet earned) a far more effective incentive than a difference of a half vp? Even those who have not earned a vp yet will be thinking of the GW, and will want to score one oust as a first step to scoring two ... I recognize a somewhat different mechanic might operate where a player who has scored 2 ousts faces two remaining players with none. Here, he has minimal incentive to go foreward, since he need only maintain the status quo to preserve his GW at time out. Arguably, my proposal gives him even less incentive to go forward than the current system. But even here, I think the need for a GW will dominate his mind. Maintaining the status quo is harder than it sounds. He faces two hungry opponents who know they need to sweep the rest of the table to gain that precious GW, and he knows that just one more oust will cement his victory. > In the pure ante environment (your proposal), the impetus is not > there. The player could risk a win (with an average chance of > success at 50%) for an expected outcome of 1 VP (.5 * 2VP + .5 * 0 > VP; the GW is a wash at .5 * 1 + .5 * -1) or avoid the risk and > bide time until the time out, again for an expected outcome of 1 > VP. You objected before -- perhaps correctly -- to my clumsy attempt to combine the value of VPs and GWs. So let us look at the calculation soley in terms of GWs. He currently has 0 GWs. If he makes his risky move, he has 50% chance of gaining a GW and no chance of losing a GW (since he cannot lose what he does not yet have). If he does nothing, his expected outcome is 0 GW. So the risky move is definitely a go at (.5 * 1) + (.5 * -0) at an expected outcome of +0.5 GW. > As opposed to an expected outcome of 1VP for risk-taking vs 0.5 VP > for biding time under the current system. But if the GW system has had its intended effect, and he is now minimally interested in VPs except as a means of getting GWs, how much will the player really be interested in such calculations?

In message <MjtMi.1633$sw6....@nlpi061.nbdc.sbc.com>, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> writes: >Jeff Kuta wrote: >> small side effect of closing the gap between the worth of 4- and 5- >> player tables since there are 5 and 6 VPs at stake instead of 4 and 5. > >If 2 is better than 1 for LMS, for both incentivizing and gapclosing, then >3 would be better yet for each. And so on until LMS is the new GW (5 >would do it). Although there is a reducto ad absurdum problem if you follow the motivation thoroughly, I do like the fact that this suggestion means that a predator and prey won't do a deal to get the game win by doing a 3-2 split and rolling over once the game win has been gained. This sort of thing is the one annoyance left after the "all deals are off at 2 plays" change - because the player with the game win doesn't need the "permission" of a pre-existing deal, as she can win in any way she chooses. I'm not sure if an extra VP for LMS would have any adverse effects on other situations, but I do like its effect on this situation. Let me see... - a sweep gets 6 VP, which is fine - a current "2-1, fight it out at the end" deal turns into 5-1 (instead of 4-1) or 4-2 (instead of 3-2), which seems fine - a deck that gets to the endgame without any prior VPs and survives would get 3VP, which could tie with the 3VP of its prey, which might be awkward - a back-ousting !Malk deck could split a table 3-1-1-1-0, rather than 2-1..., which seems no particular bother - a Peter Bakija-esque "Destroy prey, get LMS" could get 4 vs the other 2 VP, which is reasonable. But if it only got LMS, it could be a 3-3 tie. Now, we could resolve the awkward "sit on your hands, and survive the endgame" issue by changing it to: "The last man standing gets 1VP if she has zero VP prior to the final oust (or simultaneous ousts), or 2VP if she has more than zero VP prior to the final oust (or...)." That would give us: - 6 VP (fine) - 5-1 or 4-2 (or 4-1-1-0-0) (fine by me) - 3 (prey) - 2 (Last Man Standing - no VPs prior to the one-on-one endgame) - 2-1-1-1-0 for the !Malk going backwards, which would still be a GW - 4-1-1-0-0 or 4-2-0-0-0 for the Bakija "destroy prey, get LMS" combat style, but if it can't get an oust of its prey prior to the endgame, it gets 2VP for getting LMS (and its prey could get the other 3VP and win) There are doubtless other cases I'm not considering - such as a withdraw from someone else on the table doing something odd, or Gambit Accepted - and I'm *only* considering completed games (because LMS doesn't matter in uncompleted games). Is this a desirable change? -- James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D YOU ARE IN ERROR. EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 NO-ONE IS SCREAMING. 13D7E668C3695D623D5D THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.

In message <sCwUqkvM...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk>, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> writes: >Now, we could resolve the awkward "sit on your hands, and survive the >endgame" issue by changing it to: "The last man standing gets 1VP if she >has zero VP prior to the final oust (or simultaneous ousts), or 2VP if >she has more than zero VP prior to the final oust (or...)." Urgh. Which, of course, gets us back to a position where the 3/2 split+roll- over is possible. Stupid early morning brian. [ quoted text not captured ]

nys...@cs.com wrote: >> In the pure ante environment (your proposal), the impetus is not >> there. The player could risk a win (with an average chance of >> success at 50%) for an expected outcome of 1 VP (.5 * 2VP + .5 * 0 >> VP; the GW is a wash at .5 * 1 + .5 * -1) or avoid the risk and >> bide time until the time out, again for an expected outcome of 1 >> VP. > > You objected before -- perhaps correctly -- to my clumsy attempt to > combine the value of VPs and GWs. So let us look at the calculation > soley in terms of GWs. > > He currently has 0 GWs. If he makes his risky move, he has 50% chance > of gaining a GW and no chance of losing a GW (since he cannot lose > what he does not yet have). No. Giving up th GW to C is worse for A than not -- A falls a GW down to C. > If he does nothing, his expected outcome > is 0 GW. So the risky move is definitely a go at (.5 * 1) + (.5 * -0) > at an expected outcome of +0.5 GW. > >> As opposed to an expected outcome of 1VP for risk-taking vs 0.5 VP >> for biding time under the current system. > > But if the GW system has had its intended effect, and he is now > minimally interested in VPs except as a means of getting GWs, how much > will the player really be interested in such calculations? As much as the ante system, plus a little more.

LSJ wrote: > nys...@cs.com wrote: > >> In the pure ante environment (your proposal), the impetus is not > >> there. The player could risk a win (with an average chance of > >> success at 50%) for an expected outcome of 1 VP (.5 * 2VP + .5 * 0 > >> VP; the GW is a wash at .5 * 1 + .5 * -1) or avoid the risk and > >> bide time until the time out, again for an expected outcome of > >> 1 VP. > > > > You objected before -- perhaps correctly -- to my clumsy attempt > > to combine the value of VPs and GWs. So let us look at the > > calculation soley in terms of GWs. > > > > He currently has 0 GWs. If he makes his risky move, he has 50% > > chance of gaining a GW and no chance of losing a GW (since he > > cannot lose what he does not yet have). > > No. Giving up th GW to C is worse for A than not -- A falls a GW > down to C. Okay, but if the result of the above is a complete wash, completely negating A's incentive to sieze the 50% opportunity of a GW, then by the same logic, the risk incentivizing rewards offered by the VEKN vp allocation system are equally illusory. Your 50% fear of losing half vp (compared to time out) is exactly balanced by a 50% hope of costing your opponent the exact same thing. Your 50% hope of earning 1.5 vps (compared to time out) is exactly balanced by your 50% fear of granting your opponent the exact same thing. I think the answer, in both cases (GW awards, and VP awards under VEKN), lies the following two facts: (1) we are not dealing with a zero sum game, and (2) this is a broader competition that extends beyond this individual game. Because he is competing not only with the player at his table, but also the players at other tables, he has an incentive to maximize the GWs and VPs earned at the table, in the hope that he shall be the one to win them. The risk taking described, therefore, can be thought of as a cooperative enterprise to maximize the GWs and VPs earned at the table, before it can be determined who will earn them, to ensure that the winner(s) of this table will be competitive with the winner(s) of other tables. > > If he does nothing, his expected outcome > > is 0 GW. So the risky move is definitely a go at (.5 * 1) + (.5 * -0) > > at an expected outcome of +0.5 GW. > > > >> As opposed to an expected outcome of 1VP for risk-taking vs 0.5 VP > >> for biding time under the current system. > > > > But if the GW system has had its intended effect, and he is now > > minimally interested in VPs except as a means of getting GWs, how much > > will the player really be interested in such calculations? > > As much as the ante system, plus a little more. A wee little bit more, but it is hard to think of a situation where the hope of a game win, or the fear of losing a game win almost in one's pocket (as when one has scored two ousts) does not completely overshadow any vp-related incentives in terms of motivation. Or are we really concerned that the player with 3 ousts in his pocket and one player left to devour needs a little extra motivation?

"Jeff Kuta" <jeff...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1191542507....@y42g2000hsy.googlegroups.com... > On Oct 4, 2:49 pm, XZealot <xzea...@cox.net> wrote: >> > Award a bonus VP for LMS so you don't have people dragging their feet >> > because doing nothing is the easy thing to do. >> >> Barring your prey withdrawing, LMS already gets 2 VPs (they have to >> oust their prey). > > Yes, this is true. But part of the discussion came from the fact that > if a Meth ousts three successive preys then is ousted themselves, they > still get 3 VPs and the GW, even though they're not the LMS. This > wasn't part of Garfield's plan Huh?!? Then why did he put it in the rules: a player in the original game would be considered to win with 3 VP even if ousted. Where are you getting your knowledge of "Garfield's plan"?!? > IMO, this "lunge at the finish time" mentality is causing some > stalling/slow play problems at tournaments. Well, that certain explains why we don't see the game in the same light. Your conclusion is the most counterintuitive thing I've heard in their thread so far. Lunging for ousts, as near as I can figure, absolutely speeds up the game and tends to ensure it resolve. It's the solution to slow play and stalling. I'm trying to figure out how you could think it would be the cause?!? Or am I misunderstanding your post? Fred

On Oct 5, 1:09 am, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: > In message <MjtMi.1633$sw6.1...@nlpi061.nbdc.sbc.com>, LSJ > > <vtes...@white-wolf.com> writes: > >Jeff Kuta wrote: > >> small side effect of closing the gap between the worth of 4- and 5- > >> player tables since there are 5 and 6 VPs at stake instead of 4 and 5. > > >If 2 is better than 1 for LMS, for both incentivizing and gapclosing, then > >3 would be better yet for each. And so on until LMS is the new GW (5 > >would do it). > > Although there is a reducto ad absurdum problem if you follow the > motivation thoroughly, I do like the fact that this suggestion means > that a predator and prey won't do a deal to get the game win by doing a > 3-2 split and rolling over once the game win has been gained. > > This sort of thing is the one annoyance left after the "all deals are > off at 2 plays" change - because the player with the game win doesn't > need the "permission" of a pre-existing deal, as she can win in any way > she chooses. > > I'm not sure if an extra VP for LMS would have any adverse effects on > other situations, but I do like its effect on this situation. > > Let me see... > > - a sweep gets 6 VP, which is fine > > - a current "2-1, fight it out at the end" deal turns into 5-1 (instead > of 4-1) or 4-2 (instead of 3-2), which seems fine > > - a deck that gets to the endgame without any prior VPs and survives > would get 3VP, which could tie with the 3VP of its prey, which > might be awkward It is more awkward than awarding a Game Win to a player who doesn't survive to the end of the game? Sure, it's different than what we have now, but not worse IMO. The Meth who slacked until the end is deprived of the GW because they didn't actually do their job until the very end. > - a back-ousting !Malk deck could split a table 3-1-1-1-0, rather than > 2-1..., which seems no particular bother > > - a Peter Bakija-esque "Destroy prey, get LMS" could get 4 vs the other > 2 VP, which is reasonable. But if it only got LMS, it could be > a 3-3 tie. Similar to the above, but with serious aggression toward one's first prey. Seems fair enough. > Now, we could resolve the awkward "sit on your hands, and survive the > endgame" issue by changing it to: "The last man standing gets 1VP if she > has zero VP prior to the final oust (or simultaneous ousts), or 2VP if > she has more than zero VP prior to the final oust (or...)." Or, keep it simple (1 bonus VP for LMS regardless of how you get there) and then you'll still end up with the "awkward" tie situation. However, since there is no GW awarded for the awkward tie, the remaining Meths will do whatever they can to avoid that situation. This should in theory make it harder for this situation to occur since the Meth who is ahead 3-0 will do anything they can to sweep with 6 VPs instead. BIG difference. Conversely, the Meth who is down 0-3 should do whatever they can to go 3-3 and deprive the other Meth of the GW while earning 3 VPs themselves. This also makes it impossible for a Withdraw deal to be feasible when it gets to be head to head at the end. Currently, if one Meth gets 3 VPs, they can throw the last two away since it will not affect the game result. With a bonus LMS VP, the outcome of the GW is still in doubt until the game reaches its ultimate conclusion. > That would give us: > > - 6 VP (fine) > - 5-1 or 4-2 (or 4-1-1-0-0) (fine by me) > - 3 (prey) - 2 (Last Man Standing - no VPs prior to the one-on-one > endgame) > - 2-1-1-1-0 for the !Malk going backwards, which would still be a GW > - 4-1-1-0-0 or 4-2-0-0-0 for the Bakija "destroy prey, get LMS" combat > style, but if it can't get an oust of its prey prior to > the endgame, it gets 2VP for getting LMS (and its prey could get > the other 3VP and win) > > There are doubtless other cases I'm not considering - such as a withdraw > from someone else on the table doing something odd, or Gambit Accepted - > and I'm *only* considering completed games (because LMS doesn't matter > in uncompleted games). > > Is this a desirable change? This is the big question. I kinda like it personally, but then I'm biased. :) Jeff

On Oct 5, 1:00 am, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: > "Jeff Kuta" <jeff.k...@gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:1191542507....@y42g2000hsy.googlegroups.com... > > > On Oct 4, 2:49 pm, XZealot <xzea...@cox.net> wrote: > >> > Award a bonus VP for LMS so you don't have people dragging their feet > >> > because doing nothing is the easy thing to do. > > >> Barring your prey withdrawing, LMS already gets 2 VPs (they have to > >> oust their prey). > > > Yes, this is true. But part of the discussion came from the fact that > > if a Meth ousts three successive preys then is ousted themselves, they > > still get 3 VPs and the GW, even though they're not the LMS. This > > wasn't part of Garfield's plan > > Huh?!? Then why did he put it in the rules: a player in the original > game would be considered to win with 3 VP even if ousted. Where are > you getting your knowledge of "Garfield's plan"?!? I was referring more to VEKN tournament rules than the basic rules of the game. They're slightly different. Anyway, my blunder here is not so relevant. > > IMO, this "lunge at the finish time" mentality is causing some > > stalling/slow play problems at tournaments. > > Well, that certain explains why we don't see the game in the same light. > Your conclusion is the most counterintuitive thing I've heard in their > thread so far. Lunging for ousts, as near as I can figure, absolutely > speeds up the game and tends to ensure it resolve. It's the solution > to slow play and stalling. I'm trying to figure out how you could > think it would be the cause?!? Or am I misunderstanding your post? > > Fred Many people play extra carefully because they do not want to be ousted. Decks can be designed this way. Players may be ultra cautious during their turns taking extra time during all the phases. Some people even come to tournaments with decks they have never played before and may still be learning what the cards do. When this happens, it is not unusual for five players to still be contesting a game 90-119 minutes on. Since each turn becomes more precious as the clock ticks away, people set themselves up to lunge and try to win at the end because they full well know the game cannot come to a complete conclusion. Sniping for a VP or two at the last minute can be a successful strategy. I think a preferable way to deal with this would be to award bonuses for a complete game rather than just penalizing everyone when it might not really be everyone's fault for a time out. Jeff

[ quoted text not captured ] Looking at the current posted rules online, I see this, with no mention of "time-out" at all. "The game continues until only one Methuselah is left." Was there something in the original basic rules? I don't recall. 9. Ending the Game 9.1. Victory Points When a Methuselah runs out of pool counters, she is ousted from the game. If you are ousted, all the cards you control are removed from the game. Any of your opponents' cards you control are returned to them at the end of the game. Any of your cards controlled by other Methuselahs remain in play as normal (see The Golden Rule of Card Ownership, sec. 1.3). The game continues until only one Methuselah is left. You get a victory point whenever the Methuselah who is your prey is ousted (no matter how or by whom your prey was ousted). You receive an additional victory point if you are the last player left. At the end of the game, the winner is the player with the most victory points, even if she has been ousted. Along with a victory point, you gain six pool from the blood bank when your prey is ousted. EXCEPTION: If a player is ousted at the same time that her prey is ousted, the player gets the victory point but does not gain 6 pool. When your prey is ousted, the next Methuselah to your left (the ousted Methuselah's prey) becomes your new prey. 9.2. Withdrawing from the Game If you have exhausted your library and begin your turn with less than a full hand, you have the option of withdrawing from the game. To exercise this option, you must announce your intent to withdraw during your untap phase. For the withdrawal to succeed, you must meet the following conditions: * None of your minions enter combat until your next untap phase. * None of your minions lose (or spend) any blood until your next untap phase. * You do not lose (or spend) any pool until your next untap phase. If on your next untap phase you have met these conditions, then you successfully withdraw. The withdrawal fails if you lose a single pool or blood, even if you gain enough to make up for the loss. If you successfully withdraw, you receive one victory point to add to any victory points you have already gained. Your predator does not get a victory point or any pool for your withdrawal. Jeff

On Oct 5, 1:04 pm, Jeff Kuta <jeff.k...@gmail.com> wrote: > I think a preferable way to deal with this would be to award bonuses > for a complete game rather than just penalizing everyone when it might > not really be everyone's fault for a time out. I cannot see a meaningful distinction between a punishment for not finishing and a reward for finishing. As you know, my proposal wants to eliminate the current vp punishment for not finishing (reward for finishing), and I am opposed to adding any additional punishments for not finishing (rewards for finishing). However, the "no GW" punishment for not finishing should be retained. I believe the game win system, which is far more likely to grant a game win in completed games, is an adequate award and incentive for finishing. I think it has been largely successful in shifting the focus from vps as an end in themselves, and that vp-based incentives for risk taking are no longer likely to influence player behavior.

"Jeff Kuta" <jeff...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1191603896.2...@o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com... > On Oct 5, 1:00 am, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: >> "Jeff Kuta" <jeff.k...@gmail.com> wrote in message >> > IMO, this "lunge at the finish time" mentality is causing some >> > stalling/slow play problems at tournaments. >> >> Well, that certain explains why we don't see the game in the same light. >> Your conclusion is the most counterintuitive thing I've heard in their >> thread so far. Lunging for ousts, as near as I can figure, absolutely >> speeds up the game and tends to ensure it resolve. It's the solution >> to slow play and stalling. I'm trying to figure out how you could >> think it would be the cause?!? Or am I misunderstanding your post? > > Many people play extra carefully because they do not want to be > ousted. Decks can be designed this way. Players may be ultra cautious > during their turns taking extra time during all the phases. Some > people even come to tournaments with decks they have never played > before and may still be learning what the cards do. When this happens, > it is not unusual for five players to still be contesting a game > 90-119 minutes on. > > Since each turn becomes more precious as the clock ticks away, people > set themselves up to lunge and try to win at the end because they full > well know the game cannot come to a complete conclusion. Sniping for a > VP or two at the last minute can be a successful strategy. Well, OK. That's an explanation, I suppose. Just say I don't find it very convincing and I don't think discouraging lunges will, on balance, cause people to play _more_ carefully to set up for the near-end-of-game lunge. Or maybe you're just defining "lunge" differently than I do. I see them as potentially occuring any moment when someone sees a chance to get an oust which is dicey and would potentially expose themselves to being ousted if they fail (and, to a much lesser extent, even if they succeed). Your definition seems far narrower in that you don't seem to want to consider the possibility of players making lunges while there's still lots of time left. It's called "taking a risk" and it happens all the time. I don't understand why you don't want to take this aspect of the game into account. But, again, it certainly explains our different viewpoints about your extra VP bonus. Someone who doesn't think making a mid-game lunge for an oust ever happens _would_ discount how the proposed extra VP disincentizes game-resolving play. But they do happen and they're quite an important - and fun - aspect of Jyhad. Fred

Jeff Kuta wrote: > On Oct 4, 5:29 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: >> See also time-out (in the basic rules' paradigm). > > Looking at the current posted rules online, I see this, with no > mention of "time-out" at all. "The game continues until only one > Methuselah is left." Was there something in the original basic rules? > I don't recall. No, there wasn't. The basic rules never address a time-out, since the basic rules assume no time limit. That's why I used the word "paradigm" above.

On Oct 5, 10:24 am, nyst...@cs.com wrote: > On Oct 5, 1:04 pm, Jeff Kuta <jeff.k...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > I think a preferable way to deal with this would be to award bonuses > > for a complete game rather than just penalizing everyone when it might > > not really be everyone's fault for a time out. > > I cannot see a meaningful distinction between a punishment for not > finishing and a reward for finishing. A punishment for not finishing affects everyone (which seems fair). A reward for finishing affects only the last man standing (which encourages a timely finish to games). > As you know, my proposal wants > to eliminate the current vp punishment for not finishing (reward for > finishing), and I am opposed to adding any additional punishments for > not finishing (rewards for finishing). Your solution addresses primarily the problem of "fast-vote and fast- bleed decks that tend to dominate tournaments" by giving survivors their full VP at end time (toward which I am neutral), with a nod to outcome prediction (toward which I don't really see the correlation). I think the problems you see aren't really the root of the issues in tournaments. I think that time-outs are a terrible thing and encourage unethical behavior once it becomes clear a game will not come to a full, natural conclusion. Your scoring tweak doesn't really address this, but I don't see any inconsistency using it (or not) in conjunction with a bonus VP for Last Man Standing. I can see how you might believe a bonus VP for LMS would encourage fast decks even more and that would be detrimental to your vision for tournaments. But I think that finishing games is a "good thing" and needs to be *encouraged* more. > However, the "no GW" punishment for not finishing should be retained. I don't think anyone has argued this. Found a nice thread which goes over some of the origin and early discussion of the GW rule: http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/browse_frm/thread/11701da2196a618d/69b683a43f14aaa6 > I believe the game win system, which is far more likely to grant a > game win in completed games, is an adequate award and incentive for > finishing. But it's not. Many many GWs are awarded without complete games, the most common being 2.5-0-0-0.5-0.5. > I think it has been largely successful in shifting the > focus from vps as an end in themselves, and that vp-based incentives > for risk taking are no longer likely to influence player behavior. And that's what it was designed to do. But if you want games to go to their ultimate conclusion, and I definitely think this would be good for the tournament game, you should provide an incentive for the ultimate winner of a game, not just penalties for everyone for failing to do so. Jeff

[ quoted text not captured ] > see them as potentially occurring any moment when someone sees a chance > to get an oust which is dicey and would potentially expose themselves > to being ousted if they fail (and, to a much lesser extent, even if they > succeed). Your definition seems far narrower in that you don't seem to > want to consider the possibility of players making lunges while there's > still lots of time left. It's called "taking a risk" and it happens all > the time. I don't understand why you don't want to take this aspect of > the game into account. "Lunge and try to win at the end" doesn't really define lunging per se, just *when* they become a problem. I play combat decks all the time and those frequently rely on lunging as a VP earning strategy. > But, again, it certainly explains our different viewpoints about your > extra VP bonus. Someone who doesn't think making a mid-game lunge for > an oust ever happens _would_ discount how the proposed extra VP > disincentizes game-resolving play. But they do happen and they're quite > an important - and fun - aspect of Jyhad. > > Fred My main bone of contention is how games often, in my experience (and this is key as SF is notorious for slow, cautious, talkative play...and I'm as guilty as anyone) slows to a crawl during the last 20-30 minutes while people set the game up for a last second stab at the GW, even if three players still remain when time is called. That's just not very satisfying and I think more can be done to encourage games to finish. Maybe I'll just have to play faster and nag my table mates to do the same. ;) Jeff

On Oct 5, 2:33 pm, Jeff Kuta <jeff.k...@gmail.com> wrote: > A punishment for not finishing affects everyone (which seems fair). Not to me. > A reward for finishing affects only the last man standing (which > encourages a timely finish to games). No it doesn't. If you want to reward finishing, you should reward ousting, and maybe even withdrawing. You could reward letting oneself be ousted (but should not -- because that is contrary to the spirit of the game). Rewarding last man standing doesn't reward timely finish of games. It MIGHT have this effect, only because the last man standing just happens to be the person who scored the most ousts -- and therefore did the most to finish the game -- but this need hardly be the case. 5 player game A ousts B, A ousts C, A ousts D, E ousts A. Extra VP to E, even though A clearly did the most to finish the game. 5 player game: A ousts B, A ousts C, A ousts D, D runs out of cards, D withdraws, E lets him, E is last man standing. Extra VP to E. You awaded Extra VP to E, even though he did NOTHING ... except survive. Now I have vigorously argued that the original paradigm should be preserved, and survival rewarded ... but with only 1 vp. 2vp for mere survival is a horrific distortion. Incidentally, I think I missed whether your intent was to actually propose that your incentive change the indentity of the game winner. For instance, would you deny the game win to A, in the example above? I hope not. I hope your intent was merely to use the extra VP as an extra vp point going into finals. > > As you know, my proposal wants > > to eliminate the current vp punishment for not finishing (reward for > > finishing), and I am opposed to adding any additional punishments for > > not finishing (rewards for finishing). > > Your solution addresses primarily the problem of "fast-vote and fast- > bleed decks that tend to dominate tournaments" by giving survivors > their full VP at end time (toward which I am neutral), [...] Well, it give survivors there full VP at end time ... which has a number of interesting and demonstrable effects ... all of them beneficial. Whether it discourages fast vote and bleed I am unsure. It was merely a thought I expressed. > [...] with a nod to > outcome prediction (toward which I don't really see the correlation). I won't elaborate, since I'm not clear on what you're missing. > I think the problems you see aren't really the root of the issues in > tournaments. I think that time-outs are a terrible thing and encourage > unethical behavior once it becomes clear a game will not come to a > full, natural conclusion. Could you give an example? My impression was that my system would discourage desperate and unethical behavior, in part because people would not be so desperate, and in part because the game would be balanced once again, and the loopholes simply would not be there for them to exploit. But I do not know what sort of unethical behavior you have in mind. > Your scoring tweak doesn't really address > this, but I don't see any inconsistency using it (or not) in > conjunction with a bonus VP for Last Man Standing. Since my "scoring tweak" is intended to restore the setup of the original rules, which is a zero sum game where exactly x players compete for exactly x vps, your suggestion is DEFINITELY inconsistent with my scoring tweak. It violates the whole principle on which it is based. > I can see how you might believe a bonus VP for LMS would encourage > fast decks even more and that would be detrimental to your vision for > tournaments. I don't believe a bonus VP for LMS would encourage fast decks at all. See above. > But I think that finishing games is a "good thing" and needs to be *encouraged* > more. In which case you should petition the design team to print more cards that make games go faster. Your "last man standing" rule will not have the desired effect. > > I believe the game win system, which is far more likely to grant a > > game win in completed games, is an adequate award and incentive for > > finishing. > > But it's not. Many many GWs are awarded without complete games, the > most common being 2.5-0-0-0.5-0.5. In which case, the GW is awarded to the player who did the most to finish the game. If the other two losers, who ousted nobody, do not like it, then they can go ahead and try to sweep the rest of the table before time out. Let THEM finish the game. Its the only way they can get a GW. Seriously, I am not about to lose sleep over a game, like the one above, going to time. I can think of only two reasons to be dissatisfied: 1) because of the suspicion that one of the other players would have won if given enough time, and 2) because of the players feel cheated because their table was collectively denied 1.5 vps compared to other 5-player tables that finished playing. Now, my proposal addresses problem 2 by giving the table its collective 1.5 vps back. So the only remaining "problem" is problem 1. Only -- I cannot understand why anyone who wants to encourage fast decks would care about problem one. Would you not say "If they can't prove their worth in 2 hours, then screw them?" > > I think it has been largely successful in shifting the > > focus from vps as an end in themselves, and that vp-based incentives > > for risk taking are no longer likely to influence player behavior. > > And that's what it was designed to do. But if you want games to go to > their ultimate conclusion, [...] I don't ... particularly. I want decks to do well enough in preliminary rounds to prove their worth. They don't necessarily need to finish the entire game to do that. If they cannot demonstrate their worth in 2 hours, they should suffer for this flaw -- but only to the extent that they have failed to demonstrate their worth in 2 hours. They should never be punished merely for not finishing, nor should they be rewarded merely for finishing The final round is the final ultimate test, and I prefer the final to be at least 3 hours long. > [...] and I definitely think this would be good > for the tournament game, you should provide an incentive for the > ultimate winner of a game, not just penalties for everyone for failing > to do so. Sorry dude. I think it's a bad idea.

On Oct 5, 5:57 pm, I wrote: > 5 player game: A ousts B, A ousts C, A ousts D, D runs out of cards, > D withdraws, E lets him, E is last man standing. Extra VP to E. Oops. That should have been "A runs out of cards, A withdraws"

<nys...@cs.com> wrote in message news:1191621440.2...@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com... > On Oct 5, 2:33 pm, Jeff Kuta <jeff.k...@gmail.com> wrote: >> A punishment for not finishing affects everyone (which seems fair). > > Not to me. Actually, it doesn't seem likely to be "fair" exactly to me, either. Chances are good that one or more players will be more guilty of the things that led to the timeout than others present. Still, not finishing needs punishment and, given that there's no way for the scoring system to really ascertain 'whodunnit', it's reasonable to punish them all and let Garfield chose his own, to borrow a phrase. In the end - over the course of the whole tournament or multiple tournaments - the most guilty will suffer the most and that's a good thing. >> A reward for finishing affects only the last man standing (which >> encourages a timely finish to games). > > No it doesn't. > > If you want to reward finishing, you should reward ousting, and maybe > even withdrawing. I agree. This is my point of view in my dispute with Jeff. > You could reward letting oneself be ousted (but > should not -- because that is contrary to the spirit of the game). This - on the other hand - is wrong. Appeals to subjective justification about "the spirit of the game" are conveniently unprovable and generally circular. And your way of stating this, "reward letting oneself be ousted", is slanted. You don't per se reward someone for failing at something. But it's completely reasonable to lighten a punishment thought to be overly burdensome in order to make it more reasonable to take certain kinds of risks throughout a game. The encouragement of risk- taking at various points throughout games is something which would unquestionably make Jyhad more fun and lead to fewer frustrating timeouts. (elided a bunch of stuff I disagree with but is trodden ground...) >> But I think that finishing games is a "good thing" and needs to be >> *encouraged* more. > > In which case you should petition the design team to print more cards > that make games go faster. Your "last man standing" rule will not > have the desired effect. These are two generally reasonable comments to make to Jeff. And a third one for you: "...and in the meantime, don't change the scoring rules to make the situation even _worse_." Fred

Frederick Scott wrote: > <nys...@cs.com> wrote in message > > You could reward letting oneself be ousted (but > > should not -- because that is contrary to the spirit of the > > game). > > This - on the other hand - is wrong. Appeals to subjective > justification about "the spirit of the game" are conveniently > unprovable and generally circular. Perhaps, but I have no intention of taking it back. > And your way of stating this, "reward letting oneself be > ousted", is slanted. You are mistaken. It is not slanted at all. You are assuming this is a sneaky straw man way of saying "there should be no incentives for risk taking." But actually, I was merely saying there should be no rewards for letting oneself get ousted. > You don't per se reward someone for failing at > something. In short (whatever you may have suspected I was sneakily implying) you agree with what I was in fact saying. > But it's completely reasonable to lighten a punishment thought > to be overly burdensome in order to make it more reasonable to take > certain kinds of risks throughout a game. It could be. I certainly did not say otherwise, as a general rule. > The encouragement of risk- > taking at various points throughout games is something which would > unquestionably make Jyhad more fun and lead to fewer frustrating > timeouts. My position on encouragement of risk taking is precisely this: The Game Win system encourages risk taking. It does it in a FAR FAR more powerful way than the VEKN vp allocation discount ever did, and does so without distorting the game as Garfield designed it. I am enthusiastically in favor of the Game Win setup, precisely because I believe it has this effect. Early rounds of World Cup Soccer incentivize risk taking by giving 3 points for a win and 1 for a draw. The VEKN system tried to incentivize risk taking by offering (if the conditions were right) a half point for a draw and 2 for a win (or 1 vs 4). But the GW system offers NOTHING for a draw, except lousy tie-breaking victory points -- if you want a game win , you've got to go for the gusto. The risk-taking lure of a game win manifests itself far earlier in the game than the risk taking lure of that final game-ending oust. Two outs puts you in the running for a GW. Once you have achieved that, other players know they can win only by finishing the game. Meanwhile (in my opinion) the VEKN vp allocation system is obsolete. The measley vp bribe it offers has virtually no effect on player risk taking. Player motivations are now completely overshadowed by the hope of gaining, or the fear of losing a game win -- and the earning of vps has properly become a means to that end. The skewed vp allocation system has ceased to be part of the solution. The main effect it has is to increase player frustration when their games go to time. It's tendency to increase player frustration in time out games far outweighs any tendency it has to prevent them. Meanwhile, the VEKN vp allocation system continues to have a number of minor, subtle, distorting effects on the game. > > In which case you should petition the design team to print more > > cards that make games go faster. Your "last man standing" rule > > will not have the desired effect. > > These are two generally reasonable comments to make to Jeff. And a > third one for you: "...and in the meantime, don't change the > scoring rules to make the situation even _worse_." Dude, I am not on the design team. But of course, I believe my system will make things BETTER. If the design team does not buy my arguments, you have nothing to fear. (As for our powers of prediction, I am tempted to remind you of a debate we had long, long ago ....)

<nys...@cs.com> wrote in message news:1191631880.2...@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com... > > Frederick Scott wrote: >> <nys...@cs.com> wrote in message >> > You could reward letting oneself be ousted (but >> > should not -- because that is contrary to the spirit of the >> > game). >> >> This - on the other hand - is wrong. Appeals to subjective >> justification about "the spirit of the game" are conveniently >> unprovable and generally circular. > > Perhaps, but I have no intention of taking it back. > >> And your way of stating this, "reward letting oneself be >> ousted", is slanted. > > You are mistaken. It is not slanted at all. It was a slanted way of inferring that such a suggestion was crazy. My ensuing text spoke for itself. > You are assuming this is > a sneaky straw man way of saying "there should be no incentives for > risk taking." But actually, I was merely saying there should be no > rewards for letting oneself get ousted. The two are one and the same. My way of saying it was far less disingenuous. >> You don't per se reward someone for failing at >> something. > > In short (whatever you may have suspected I was sneakily implying) you > agree with what I was in fact saying. I do not agree with what you were saying. I was pointing out that the _reason_ for lessening the risk is not to reward someone for failing - as you were attempting to spin it - but to for another reason which is much more reasonable. >> But it's completely reasonable to lighten a punishment thought >> to be overly burdensome in order to make it more reasonable to take >> certain kinds of risks throughout a game. > > It could be. I certainly did not say otherwise, as a general rule. You were taking a stab at misrepresenting the reduction of a penalty for failing to survive after lunging as "rewarding failure". One would infer from such propaganda that you opposed the direction Jeff was taking when you made that comment. >> The encouragement of risk- >> taking at various points throughout games is something which would >> unquestionably make Jyhad more fun and lead to fewer frustrating >> timeouts. > > My position on encouragement of risk taking is precisely this: The > Game Win system encourages risk taking. It does it in a FAR FAR more > powerful way than the VEKN vp allocation discount ever did, and does > so without distorting the game as Garfield designed it. I am > enthusiastically in favor of the Game Win setup, precisely because I > believe it has this effect. Sure, I agree with all this. At the same time, powerful or not, the game win system by itself may be inadequate to its task of encouraging risk taking. It turns out that in practice, the game itself frequently discourages risk taking to a very powerful extent as well. Whether there's too much, just enough, or not enough risk taking is, in the end, debatable. But I think you've gotten responses from at least a few of us who it as inadequate, if anything. > Meanwhile, the VEKN vp allocation system continues to have a number of > minor, subtle, distorting effects on the game. But what defines "distortion", exactly, save for your truth-by-blatant- assertion reasoning? And why should we care about this, in practical terms? Failure to conserve victory points does not a distortion (or an evil) make. It's this repeated failure to justify your ideas about how you think a scoring system should look in terms of the practical goals that players really care about which robs it of any impetus. > Dude, I am not on the design team. But of course, I believe my system > will make things BETTER. If the design team does not buy my > arguments, you have nothing to fear. I sure hope I have nothing to fear from what's been presented so far. I do not believe I do. > (As for our powers of prediction, I am tempted to remind you of a > debate we had long, long ago ....) I'm afraid you have the advantage on me. I am quite aware that I have not been right about a lot of the things I've said here. On the other hand, in retrospect, I seem to have gotten lucky at least once or twice as well. Fred

On Oct 5, 9:45 pm, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: > <nyst...@cs.com> wrote in message > > news:1191631880.2...@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com... > > Frederick Scott wrote: > >> <nyst...@cs.com> wrote in message > >> > You could reward letting oneself be ousted (but > >> > should not -- because that is contrary to the spirit of the > >> > game). > > >> This - on the other hand - is wrong. Appeals to subjective > >> justification about "the spirit of the game" are conveniently > >> unprovable and generally circular. > > > Perhaps, but I have no intention of taking it back. > > >> And your way of stating this, "reward letting oneself be > >> ousted", is slanted. > > > You are mistaken. It is not slanted at all. > > It was a slanted way of inferring that such a suggestion was > crazy. My ensuing text spoke for itself. Incorrect. I merely listed for completeness all acts a player could take that promote the reduction of players and lead to the end of the game, in order to make the point that incentivizing survival was obviously not the way to promote the end of the game. I mentioned, as an aside, that although the direct incentivizing of ousting yourself could theoretically be done, it obviously should not be done. I was NOT talking about a situation where ousting is incentivized more than survival so that risk taking becomes encouraged. I was talking about the direct incentivizing of suicide. Of course, now that I think of it, I realize that withdrawal is exactly that -- directly incentivized suicide. > > You are assuming this is > > a sneaky straw man way of saying "there should be no incentives for > > risk taking." But actually, I was merely saying there should be no > > rewards for letting oneself get ousted. > The two are one and the same. My way of saying it was far less > disingenuous. You definitely seem to be calling me a liar. > >> You don't per se reward someone for failing at > >> something. > > > In short (whatever you may have suspected I was sneakily implying) you > > agree with what I was in fact saying. > > I do not agree with what you were saying. I was pointing out that > the _reason_ for lessening the risk is not to reward someone for > failing - as you were attempting to spin it - but to for another > reason which is much more reasonable. I was not talking about incentivizing of risk at all. I already told you that. If you continue to call me a liar, there will be no further discussion between us , I promise. > >> But it's completely reasonable to lighten a punishment thought > >> to be overly burdensome in order to make it more reasonable to take > >> certain kinds of risks throughout a game. > > > It could be. I certainly did not say otherwise, as a general rule. > > You were taking a stab at misrepresenting the reduction of a penalty > for failing to survive after lunging as "rewarding failure". No I was not. I was listing the things you could incentivize to promote game ending in order to make the point that survival was obviously not one of them. > One > would infer from such propaganda that you opposed the direction > Jeff was taking when you made that comment. Jeff was not talking about the incentivizing of risk. If anything, he was talking about the incentivizing of survival. My comment was a mind-wandering aside and not intended as a criticism of anyone -- and certainly not of Jeff.

On Oct 6, 1:52 am, nyst... wrote: > Of course, now that I think of it, I realize that withdrawal is > exactly that -- directly incentivized suicide. It's not suicide. Withdrawal means removing yourself from the game, yes, but without being killed (i.e. taking your VP with you instead of letting another player get it). It's a big difference, IMO. Abraço, Luiz Mello

[ quoted text not captured ] Okay. But it still looks to me as though the main difference is the incentive.

<nys...@cs.com> wrote in message news:1191646341.2...@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com... [ quoted text not captured ] OK. If that's the extent of what you meant, then I'd say you overlooked how what that could be taken in a completely different way in that context. "Rewarding", "incentizizng", "punishing", "de- incentizing" (or "disincentizing" - I think we're making up words at this point) are all concepts that work equally well in the postitive and in the negative. If one changes the scoring rules in some way which lessenes the risk for getting ousted, that also promotes the reduction of players which leads to the end of the game. One you missed, apparently. Ousting can be incentived to a greater degree relative to survival (it does not make sense to use the word "more" as if we could compare the incentives of the two acts to one another directly; all we can do is judge how the incentives have changed from one set of scoring rules to the next) by reducing the punishment for not surviving as well as by increasing the reward for ousting. Either one encourages more risk-taking. "Increasing the reward for letting oneself be ousted" sounds like a slanted way of describing the former. It does not sound all that much to me like self-ousting, transferring out, or suicide. That said, I don't suppose there's any point to sitting around sniping about it. Yes, I agree, people should not be given reason to do things which cause their own oust merely to reduce the number of players in the game. However, making lunges to oust _another_ player often has that side-effect, and it could be reasonable to reduce the punishment for not surviving. I have no proposals to do so relative to the existing system. But this is another reason why the 1/2 VP penalty for going to time makes sense: it reduces the penalty for not surviving in such a game from 1 VP to 1/2 VP, which makes the act of taking a lunge to cause another player's oust at the risk of suffer one's own oust look relatively better. Notice, however, it _also_ can be framed as "rewarding letting oneself be ousted" in that it reduces the disincentive for getting ousted. Fred

On Oct 6, 1:15 pm, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: > <nyst...@cs.com> wrote in message > > Incorrect. I merely listed for completeness all acts a player could > > take that promote the reduction of players and lead to the end of the > > game, in order to make the point that incentivizing survival was > > obviously not the way to promote the end of the game. I mentioned, as > > an aside, that although the direct incentivizing of ousting yourself > > could theoretically be done, it obviously should not be done. I was > > NOT talking about a situation where ousting is incentivized more than > > survival so that risk taking becomes encouraged. I was talking about > > the direct incentivizing of suicide. > > OK. If that's the extent of what you meant, [....] IF ... ? > [...] then I'd say you > overlooked how what that could be taken in a completely different > way in that context. Obviously. Misunderstandings occur. But when I offer clarification, I like to be acknowledged. I get annoyed when others claim to know my views better than I do.. > "Rewarding", "incentizizng", "punishing", "de- > incentizing" (or "disincentizing" - I think we're making up words at > this point) are all concepts that work equally well in the postitive > and in the negative. If one changes the scoring rules in some way which > lessenes the risk for getting ousted, that also promotes the reduction > of players which leads to the end of the game. One you missed, > apparently. Nice little condescenting remark you threw in there. > Ousting can be incentived to a greater degree relative to > survival (it does not make sense to use the word "more" as if we could > compare the incentives of the two acts to one another directly; all we > can do is judge how the incentives have changed from one set of > scoring rules to the next) by reducing the punishment for not surviving > as well as by increasing the reward for ousting. Either one encourages > more risk-taking. "Increasing the reward for letting oneself be ousted" > sounds like a slanted way of describing the former. It does not sound > all that much to me like self-ousting, transferring out, or suicide. I don't care. I have clarified twice now. > That said, I don't suppose there's any point to sitting around sniping > about it. I don't see one. > Yes, I agree, people should not be given reason to do things > which cause their own oust merely to reduce the number of players in the > game. Yes, we agree.

<nys...@cs.com> wrote in message news:1191715444.8...@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com... > On Oct 6, 1:15 pm, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: >> <nyst...@cs.com> wrote in message >> > Incorrect. I merely listed for completeness all acts a player could >> > take that promote the reduction of players and lead to the end of the >> > game, in order to make the point that incentivizing survival was >> > obviously not the way to promote the end of the game. I mentioned, as >> > an aside, that although the direct incentivizing of ousting yourself >> > could theoretically be done, it obviously should not be done. I was >> > NOT talking about a situation where ousting is incentivized more than >> > survival so that risk taking becomes encouraged. I was talking about >> > the direct incentivizing of suicide. >> >> OK. If that's the extent of what you meant, then I'd say you >> overlooked how what that could be taken in a completely different >> way in that context. > > Obviously. > > Misunderstandings occur. But when I offer clarification, I like to > be acknowledged. I get annoyed when others claim to know my views > better than I do.. I did acknowledge it - on your second try, in my previous post when you actually provided some clarity rather than rearing back and repeating the same thing with more emphasis. You REALLY didn't provide any context until then that you were talking about suiciding. Sorry. ... Bleh. Elided the sniping you put in that you didn't see a reason to engage in. :-P Fred

On Oct 5, 9:45 pm, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: > <nyst...@cs.com> wrote in message > > My position on encouragement of risk taking is precisely this: The > > Game Win system encourages risk taking. It does it in a FAR FAR more > > powerful way than the VEKN vp allocation discount ever did, and does > > so without distorting the game as Garfield designed it. I am > > enthusiastically in favor of the Game Win setup, precisely because I > > believe it has this effect. > > Sure, I agree with all this. At the same time, powerful or not, the > game win system by itself may be inadequate to its task of encouraging > risk taking. It it is, the vp incentive adds nothing to it. Those unable or unwilling to be bribed by the (often more immediate) prospect of a game win are hardly likely to be bribed by the (often more remote) prospect of an extra half victory point. > It turns out that in practice, the game itself frequently > discourages risk taking to a very powerful extent as well. The Game Win is a powerful incentive. Unfortunately, for every person at the 5-player table who eagerly wants to sweep the table, there are 4 other people at the table who want to stop him. Four dreams of glory are inevitably shattered, and sometimes, 5 dreams are shattered as well. Some of these frustrated losers will be philosophical about their defeat, but inevitably, some will want to blame the system or their fellow players and howl for a solution that is not needed. > Whether > there's too much, just enough, or not enough risk taking is, in the > end, debatable. Many players who fail to oust will always feel that their prey didn't take enough risk. Many dissatisfied players who fail to win will feel the desire to blame something or someone other than themselves. I personally see no reason to believe that the tournament system is not working. Inevitably, during the end of each tournament, a great many players have scored ousts and game wins. A great many of these games even finished within the two hour time limit -- or so I've heard. The ones with the most game wins and (then) the most ousts get to play in the finals. What reason do we have to suspect that these decks and players are not the best decks and players -- the ones that deserve to play in the finals? Why should we listen to the whining of all the frustrated losers who want to blame their defeat on their fellow losers, and howl for a solution that is not needed? If these frustrated losers really believe in the risk taking they preach, how come they themselves managed to survive a whole two hours without scoring a single oust? Where was their courage? Why didn't their decks contain a little less defense and blood gain, and a little more forward power. Maybe if they practiced courage, instead of preaching it, they would win more often. > But I think you've gotten responses from at least a > few of us who it as inadequate, if anything. I'm sorry, you all of you have only managed to convince me that my proposal is a good one. You see, I don't just count the number of objectors. I take a look at what they have to say, and see if it is, in my humble but unhesitant opinion, worthwhile. > > Meanwhile, the VEKN vp allocation system continues to have a number of > > minor, subtle, distorting effects on the game. > > But what defines "distortion", exactly, save for your truth-by-blatant- > assertion reasoning? If you were really interested in my answer to that question, you would not have asked it in that way. > And why should we care about this, in practical terms? Since you apparently don't care, why bother me with such questions? > Failure to conserve victory points does not a distortion (or an evil) make. "Failure to conserve victory points" as you call it, is causing what I arbitrarily consider to be subtle distoritions in the arbitrary rules and arbitrary victory conditions of the arbitrary game of Jyhad as arbitrarily designed by that arbitrary dude Richard Garfield, a game I happen to rather like. Banning Jyhad and forcing everyone to play Snakes and Ladders instead does not an Evil make, unless you happen to arbitrarily prefer Jyhad. > It's this repeated failure to justify your ideas about how you think a > scoring system should look in terms of the practical goals that players > really care about which robs it of any impetus. Of course I cannot provide some kind of ultimate justification for my preferences. Neither could anyone. I like Jyhad, have been playing it for years, and have ideas about what I like about the game as defined by the standard rules. I assume some common ground or common values with at least some other players who also like the game of Jyhad. I have nothing to say to those who prefer Tennis. It is your demand for some Ultimate Justification for my values that invalidates your Heckling. It is a cheap shot, that no reasonable critic would make. It is also, by the way, a cheap shot to taunt an outnumbered opponent with the fact that he does not have the time to respond to each and every one of his heckler's attacks. How much time do you think I have on my hands? > > Dude, I am not on the design team. But of course, I believe my system > > will make things BETTER. If the design team does not buy my > > arguments, you have nothing to fear. > > I sure hope I have nothing to fear from what's been presented so far. > I do not believe I do. > > > (As for our powers of prediction, I am tempted to remind you of a > > debate we had long, long ago ....) > > I'm afraid you have the advantage on me. I am quite aware that I have > not been right about a lot of the things I've said here. On the > other hand, in retrospect, I seem to have gotten lucky at least once or > twice as well. I had a strange sense of deja vu when I showed up here, and saw you and Peter Bakija take me on. So I did a goodle search. The first thing that came up was both of you (and especially you) vigorously trying to convince me that disciplineless concealed weapon, if printed, would be a broken card. I remember being sorely outnumbered then too. Which is precisely why I am not impressed by the numbers arrayed against me now.

<nys...@cs.com> wrote in message news:1191733486....@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com... > On Oct 5, 9:45 pm, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: >> <nyst...@cs.com> wrote in message >> > Game Win system encourages risk taking. It does it in a FAR FAR more >> > powerful way than the VEKN vp allocation discount ever did, and does >> > so without distorting the game as Garfield designed it. ... >> Sure, I agree with all this. At the same time, powerful or not, the >> game win system by itself may be inadequate to its task of encouraging >> risk taking. > > It it is, the vp incentive adds nothing to it. It surely must add something or there would no reason to have it and, having it, no reason to quibble over its form. I do think we're mostly in agreement that the game win is, by far, the most powerful part of the incentive. >> But I think you've gotten responses from at least a >> few of us who it as inadequate, if anything. > > I'm sorry, you all of you have only managed to convince me that my > proposal is a good one. You see, I don't just count the number of > objectors. I take a look at what they have to say, and see if it is, > in my humble but unhesitant opinion, worthwhile. Well, OK. I stand by your right not to count numbers. I frequently take unpopular positions myself. (Displays "Ask me about the screwed up, pointless, and stupid non-rating sytem!" button.) But I wonder what anyone might have said that could convince you of a thing? You don't seem interested in anyone's actual tournament experiences. The one experience you've offered for us makes me think this is more about _you're_ being frustrated that decks prone to timeout tend to get slightly penalized by it and would rather change the scoring system than change your style of play to adapt. That's OK, if true - there's nothing wrong with proposing a change you think would make tournaments more fun. But it makes me suspicious that there's nothing behind this purist advocacy of conservation of victory points you espouse. People don't make deals to manufacture victory points in tournaments. They can't. There's no reason for them to. And you have no anecdotes and very little but conjecture to suggest any good practical reasons to worry about it. So all we're doing is quibbling over whether timeouts should be slightly penalized or not. You're not likely to be convinced they should if you think they shouldn't. Nor are you likely to convince guys like Jeff or myself that they shouldn't. So...end of story, AFAICS. >> > Meanwhile, the VEKN vp allocation system continues to have a number of >> > minor, subtle, distorting effects on the game. >> >> But what defines "distortion", exactly, save for your truth-by-blatant- >> assertion reasoning? > > If you were really interested in my answer to that question, you would > not have asked it in that way. Well, actually I am interested but it has been my observation that you don't have an answer to it. If you had, you'd have offered it up by now. In theory, opponents in the same game could make deals to manufacture victory points but the thing is, they have no reason to in practice. So why else should we care that victory points aren't conserved? I can't think of any reasons and you won't give any. So, yes, the real reason to make that comment was to spotlight that your complaints are based in theory with no basis in real world problems - other than increasing the chances of making the finals for slow-developing decks. >> And why should we care about this, in practical terms? > > Since you apparently don't care, why bother me with such questions? Ah, but I _do_ care. That's the problem. I don't believe you do. >> It's this repeated failure to justify your ideas about how you think a >> scoring system should look in terms of the practical goals that players >> really care about which robs it of any impetus. > > Of course I cannot provide some kind of ultimate justification for my > preferences. Neither could anyone. I like Jyhad, have been playing > it for years, and have ideas about what I like about the game as > defined by the standard rules. I assume some common ground or common > values with at least some other players who also like the game of > Jyhad. I have nothing to say to those who prefer Tennis. OK, if you're going to frame it that way, then I think you're miscalculating about what some of the value you believe you have in common in other Jyhad players but I don't think are common. > It is your demand for some Ultimate Justification for my values that > invalidates your Heckling. It is a cheap shot, that no reasonable > critic would make. If you believe that what you think of as distortions by the current scoring system are concerns for all Jyhad players, then I would say that is our dispute. No, you don't have to justify it any further than that. But you also shouldn't expect people who don't share those values to care. > It is also, by the way, a cheap shot to taunt an outnumbered opponent > with the fact that he does not have the time to respond to each and > every one of his heckler's attacks. How much time do you think I have > on my hands? Then intent is not to taunt you. I post stuff like that out of frustration when I don't see a coherent arguement based on real-world frustration. I'm still not quite sure what common value you're appealing to but that's fine. It's fair to leave it at that. > I had a strange sense of deja vu when I showed up here, and saw you > and Peter Bakija take me on. So I did a goodle search. The first > thing that came up was both of you (and especially you) vigorously > trying to convince me that disciplineless concealed weapon, if > printed, would be a broken card. I remember being sorely outnumbered > then too. Which is precisely why I am not impressed by the numbers > arrayed against me now. Hmmm. Was I ever in a dispute with you about that? I don't have the energy to go back and look it up. If I did, I was wrong. A discipline- less concealed weapon is a fine and fun card. Like I said, I've been wrong about a lot of stuff. And there's nothing wrong with being in the minority. I'm not impressed by numbers either. Fred

Frederick Scott wrote: > <nys...@cs.com> wrote in message > > If it is, the vp incentive adds nothing to it. > > It surely must add something [...] I'll revise that to "virtually nothing" or "almost nothing". > [...] or there would no reason to have it [...] Originally, when vp's were the primary scoring reward of tournaments, the risk incentivizing effect was far more substantial. Not so now. In almost all situations where the reward might be a motivating factor, it is eclipsed by the Game Win. > [...] and, > having it, no reason to quibble over its form. There are at at least two reasons to quibble, regardless of its ability to risk-incentivize: 1) Despite it's minimal-bordering-on-nonexistent inability to contribute in a meaningful way to making games end earlier, it nonetheless increases player frustration and dissatisfaction when, inevitably, some games do go to time. 2) By subtracting half victory points from some players but not others, the current system alters the identity of the game winner in ways that are inconsistent with the values of the original scoring system > I do think we're > mostly in agreement that the game win is, by far, the most powerful > part of the incentive. Well, that's good, anyway. > >> But I think you've gotten responses from at least a > >> few of us who it as inadequate, if anything. > > > > I'm sorry, you all of you have only managed to convince me that my > > proposal is a good one. You see, I don't just count the number of > > objectors. I take a look at what they have to say, and see if it is, > > in my humble but unhesitant opinion, worthwhile. > > Well, OK. I stand by your right not to count numbers. I frequently > take unpopular positions myself. (Displays "Ask me about the screwed up, > pointless, and stupid non-rating sytem!" button.) But I wonder what > anyone might have said that could convince you of a thing? Don't know until I hear it. My opinions have modified somewhat, or developed, since starting on this NG, and I have incorporated some ideas. However, I am still convinced my proposal is a good one. > You don't > seem interested in anyone's actual tournament experiences. Well, I am happy to listen to any stories anyone wants to tell. However, before anyone starts shooting, I should warn about my general attitude toward two types of stories: First: If your story is about tournament finalists going to time in the final round because they know they are ahead and want to win the tournament, and, therefore, have no interest in a "game win" as such, or no interest in gaining extra points, as long as they do better than anyone else at the table and walk away with the prize loot, then the sort of risk incentivizing rules we have been discussing will have no effect upon them. As in soccer, this sort of risk incentivization can only work in preliminary rounds. Second: Best I can see, the tournament system is working fine, meaning that at least five players (and, I think, quite a lot more than this) have scored a sufficient number of Game Wins and/or victory points over the course of 2 hours in each of the preliminary rounds that the judges have little or no trouble making an objective and reasonably meaningful determination of who those 5 top players are. Judges are never (as far as I know) placed in a position of saying "All 5 tables went to time in all 3 rounds with all 5 tables remaining and everyone has no GWs and 1.5 vp each. So who the hell do we pick for the finals?" Naturally, these 5 finalists are generally perfectly happy with the results, even when (as is often the case) some of their games went to time. The disatisfied ones, naturally enough, are the majority -- the 20 people who did not make the final -- who likely had their games go to time at least as often -- and perhaps or probably more often -- than the finalists did. Many of the latter will be philosophical and blame their bad showing on bad play and/or bad luck and/or the tough quality of the competition, and simply vow to try do better next time. Predictably though, at least some others will blame their failure on their fellow players and/or on the system, and loudly assert that they would have gotten into the finals (and no doubt, won the tournament as well) if only that damned newbie with his wall deck had gone forward and not played so damned slow and not so stubbornly refused to be ousted, and not slowed down everyone else. Such stories, even if there is alot of truth do them, do not prove the system is not working. Good luck and bad luck and blind guesswork as to what sort of opposition you may face are all part of the game. The tournament winners had just as much chance as the frustrated loser did to be seated next to the newbie with the wall deck -- and most likely *did* sit next to him at some point during the 3 preliminary rounds. Notwithstanding, these tournament winners still came out ahead of the frustrated loser. If the finalists tended to have more success in finishing their games before the time limit -- maybe that's just because they are better at ousting their prey. If one expects gripings from unhappy losers even in a well functioning system, how can such gripings prove that time outs are a serious problem? > The one > experience you've offered for us makes me think this is more about > _you're_ being frustrated that decks prone to timeout tend to get > slightly penalized by it and would rather change the scoring system than > change your style of play to adapt. That's OK, if true - there's nothing > wrong with proposing a change you think would make tournaments more fun. I have a variety of decks, and I don't want to be unduly influenced towards my fastest ones. If I did that, (and if everyone followed my example) the game would merely become a boring bleed race. So yes -- it my deck does well enough in the game win department, I don't want it penalized in the victory ponts department. > But it makes me suspicious that there's nothing behind this purist > advocacy of conservation of victory points you espouse. Earlier, LSJ pointed out to me that errata was issued on the card "Gambit Accepted" -- solely and precisely because the rules team wanted to, as you put it, conserve victory points. I am therefore somewhat reassured that this preoccupation is not entirely unique and peculiar to me alone. > People don't make deals to manufacture victory points in tournaments. They did. Most famous were the cooperative withdrawal deals in the earlier VEKN rules -- directly motivated by the failure to conserve victory points, and the motive to maximize the table's vps through cooperation. By "fixing" this problem, the VEKN caused, for the first time, a distortion of the victory conditions as applied to completed games. > They can't. They still can (even if illegal). Two deadlocked players can agree to toss a coin or roll a dice to see which of them will withdraw and surrender a game win to the other -- and unlike a similar agreement to forfeiture, this does have any vp cost to the loser of the dice role. > There's no reason for them to. Players collude for all kinds of reasons. Colluders are the players with the most power to end games. Colluders, therefore, gain the most benefit from any game-ending incentives. > And you have no anecdotes and very little > but conjecture to suggest any good practical reasons to worry about it. I have given my reasons. > So all we're doing is quibbling over whether timeouts should be slightly > penalized or not. My position was never that simple, since my proposal *does* tend to penalize time outs -- the natural way -- by tending to deny them game wins. > You're not likely to be convinced they should if you > think they shouldn't. Nor are you likely to convince guys like Jeff or > myself that they shouldn't. So...end of story, AFAICS. > > >> > Meanwhile, the VEKN vp allocation system continues to have a number of > >> > minor, subtle, distorting effects on the game. > >> > >> But what defines "distortion", exactly, save for your truth-by-blatant- > >> assertion reasoning? > > > > If you were really interested in my answer to that question, you would > > not have asked it in that way. > > Well, actually I am interested but it has been my observation that you don't > have an answer to it. If you had, you'd have offered it up by now. In theory, > opponents in the same game could make deals to manufacture victory points > but the thing is, they have no reason to in practice. So why else should > we care that victory points aren't conserved? I can't think of any reasons > and you won't give any. I have given reasons. You discount my reasons for reasons of your own as to why you don't care about my reasons (you don't think the values by which I define "distortion" matter -- etc. etc.) -- which is your right to do. Problem is, having dismissed my reasons from your mind for reasons of your own, you then go on to accuse me of not having offered reasoning or analysis or examples to support my posision -- which is entirely false -- and then use this false claim as a basis for further undue speculation about my motives. By the way, earlier in this thread, you admitted that you had not read all my posts in this thread, but (it seems) mainly just my responses to you personally. I wonder -- did you correct this oversight before making the above accusation? Because you really ought to have, I would think. > So, yes, the real reason to make that comment was to spotlight that your > complaints are based in theory with no basis in real world problems - other > than increasing the chances of making the finals for slow-developing decks. > > >> And why should we care about this, in practical terms? > > > > Since you apparently don't care, why bother me with such questions? > > Ah, but I _do_ care. That's the problem. I don't believe you do. Well, being called a liar isn't exactly amusing for me, now is it -- especially after all the effort I have put into defending my position. Fine -- I will give you some distortions, most of which I have alluded to elsewhere in thie thread. Note that I am aware that you have already dismissed my examples for reasons of your own. I am aware, that you may not accept my underlying ideas as to the intent behind the original rules. You may not accept my view that Garfield's intent in rewarding withdrawal and last man standing was simply to reward survival (keep a victory point for not being ousted) and that the reason he grants this award at the end of the game or upon withdrawal is because that is the point at which it can be determined that the player will not be ousted. Nonetheless, those are my views and underlying assumption. With that in mind, the scoring paradigm is as follows: Ousted Non-Ouster: 0 vp Live Non-Ouster: 1 vp Ousted Single-Ouster: 1 vp Live Single-Ouster: 2 vp. Ousted Double-Ouster: 2 vp. Live Double-Ouster: 3 vp. Ousted Triple-Ouster: 3 vp Live Triple-Ouster: 4 vp Ousted Quadruple-Ouster: 4 vp (requires simultaneous ousts). Live Quadruple-Ouster: 5 vp. "Live" means "Never Ousted" (withdrawn, last man standing, or by extension ... alive at time out). So the formula is always 1 point per oust plus 1 point for "never ousted". It is a zero sum game where the ousted player loses exactly what his predator gains. Note that, for the first examples below, I assume that the award for successful withdrawal is still 1 vp. At the end, I discuss withdrawal distortion under the newer VEKN rules THE OUSTED DOUBLE-OUSTER vs THE LIVE SINGLE-OUSTER: Under the paradigm of the standard rules, an ousted double-ouster has the same worth as as Live (withdrawn or remaining) single-ouster. Both earn 2 vp in a completed game -- often resulting in tie games. The VEKN rules alter ("distort") this result by throwing the game to the ousted double-ouster by penalizing the Live single-ouster with a half vp penalty. Moreover, it applies these values inconsistently, since it sometimes gives the Live single ouster his full 2 vps, resulting in the tie from the standard rules. In a 4 player game, or in a completed 5 player game, the ousted double-ouster, the withdrawn single-ouster and the remaining single ouster receive exactly equal credit, resulting in a tie. But in an uncompleted 5 player game the ousted double ouster is declared winner, solely because of the presence of a player who, under Garfield's scoring paradigm ought to be irrelevant to the score of the other 4 because he has neither ousted nor been ousted. This also creates a bizarre situation where this irrelevant 5th player can deny the Game Win to the ousted double- ouster by successfully withdrawing from the game. But why should the withdrawal of a player affect the relative final scores of the remaining 2 players? Under the standard rules paradigm, a withdrawn player simply walks away from the table, taking with him the vp he brought to the table, and leaves the remaining players as they were. In this context, I mentioned to you specifically the possiblity that the leading remaining player (the one who oused the double ouster) might let himself be ousted (at a cost of a half victory point to himself) to ensure that there was no game win for the remaining two players at the table. You objected that this was illegal (you were I suppose correct -- it violates the rule mandating maximization of one's own victory points when one is without hope of a game win). You nonetheless conceded that this rule was unenforceable. But it is the distortions of the VEKN vp allocation system that have created this illicit opportunity that depends upon an unenforceable rule for its prevention. Eliminate the distortions (as my proposal does) and one eliminates the illicit opportunity. THE OUSTED SINGLE-OUSTER vs THE LIVE NON-OUSTER: This works the same as the example above. It seems less important, because the difference has no chance of affecting a game win. On the other hand, the difference may large in the frustrated loser's mind because it is a 50% discount from what he would have otherwise gotten. He may have fought a long hard 2-hour battle, only to get half as much as a player who died early in the game. Once again, the award is applied inconistently: 4 player game -- A ousts B; A ousts C; game goes to time; D gets 0.5 victory points. But if A ousts B; A ousts C, A withdraws; D gets 1 victory point. Why should D, who did nothing in either scenario -- except survive -- get a half point depending on D's behavior here. THE LIVE DOUBLE-OUSTER: Not a critical issue, since he gets a game win under the current system. Under Garfield's paradigm, he should get 3 vps, but in unfinished games, the current system reduces this to 2.5. Again this is applied inconsistently, for the Live double-ouster gets 3 vp in completed games (a not-uncommon scenario). People who claim that the extra half vp is a "reward for completing the game" would seem to be wrong. In both situations, the ousted double-ouster has made exactly the same contribution to completing the game -- he has ousted two players. Giving him an extra half point for completing the game is in fact to reward him for the game-ending contributions of other players. For example, a player with one oust may end the game as an Live double-ouster by eliminating the final player. He gets his extra half point, apparently, because one or more of his victims ousted two players. Or an Live double-ouster may face off against a single player -- if the game goes to time the Live double-ouster gets 2.5 vp, but if the final opponent withdraws -- and Live double-ouster lets him, then the Live double-ouster gains the extra half vp for the final opponent's behavior. THE LIVE TRIPLE-OUSTER Analysis is similar to the above, except that in a 4-player game, he always gets 4 vp, and not 3.5. In a 5-player game the presence of a do-nothing 5th player, who manages neither to oust nor be ousted, costs him a half vp, despite the fact that his own accomplishments are exactly the same. (As always, this problem is fixed if the 5th player withdraws and Triple-Ouster lets him -- such that withdrawal improperly affects the scores of other players, and his own score is not altered not based on anything he did). WITHRAWAL -- GENERALLY Under the standard rules, a withdrawn player merely leaves his opponents as they stand, taking with him the vp he brought to the table. He neither ousts nor is ousted. However, as discussed in the above examples, because of the VEKN's distortions, the withdrawal has the effect of altering the relative scores of remaining players, and even granting a game win to one who would not have one -- an effect certainly never intended by Richard Garfield. WITHDRAWAL -- OLD VEKN RULES -- COOPERATIVE WITHDRAWAL TO MAXIMIZE VPS Withdrawal is merely a mechanism for permitting the game to end when deadlock occurs. It's conditions -- difficult to meet -- are merely designed to apply where players are likely to be truly deadlocked and incapable of hurting eachother (eg. -- all minions in torpor with no blood and no-one has the edge). Otherwise, Garfield would prefer that the players continue to battle until someone eats or gets eaten. Some players seem to think that the 1 vp award for withdrawal is a rewards for accomplishing a technically very difficult task. This is wrong. Garfield simply wants the (typically) last 2 players to duke it out in a all or nothing battle for the last 2 vps in the pot. Only when this seems impossible is he reluctantly willing to permit them to split those last 2 points, and take one apiece (each walking away with the vp they brought to the table). Needless to say, neither Garfield nor the VEKN never intended mass cooperative withdrawal as a vp maximizing strategy in tournaments. It was the distortions of the VEKN vp allocation system that made this possible. Players merely realized that, if deadlocked, some deadlocks were more profitable than others -- that they could sieze the reward for "ending the game" without actually doing anything to get the better of their opponents. WITHDRAWAL -- NEW VEKN RULES The VEKN "fixed" this problem by reducing the VP award for successful withdrawal. This means that, for the first time, the scoring system for COMPLETED games was altered. Now, if a 2 remaining deadlocked players are (for example) tied for 1 vp, neither can withdraw without granting his enemy more than he gains for himself. This would be a distortion in any event, but in this particular instance the effect is enormous. Neither can withdraw without granting the other the game win. This is huge. Under the original rules, when one of two deadlocked and tied players withdraws, and the other lets him, they remain tied and deadlocked. Withdrawal is no longer a device for acknowledging deadlock, but for breaking it. Moreover, the advantage of withdrawal goes to one's enemy. Hence, withdrawal serves only two functions: 1) a defensive device to prevent opponents from ousting you; and 2) a method for colluders to grant victories to their buddies or to grant victories to opponents pursuant to some secret coin-toss deal. Note that the former defensive purpose, while not absolutely and strictly impossible under Garfield's rules, were what his stringent withdrawal conditions were generally aimed at preventing. Defensive use of withdrawal is permitted by Garfield's rules, but is not (I think) the purpose the withdrawal rule was designed for. If a player needs to withdraw to avoid being ousted, I suspect Garfield would prefer to let him be ousted. The second purpose, of course, is entirely illegitimate. In short, the VEKN might as well ban withdrawal -- leaving "time out" and mutually agreed draws as the only methods by which deadlocks are acknowledged. So you see, I have written a whole bloody essay for you. Plenty of "distortions" for you. I'm sure you have various reasons for not thinking they "count" in your book, or have various reasons for not caring about them. I cannot dictate how another person weighs evidence nor can I tell you what should or should not matter to you. But to charge that I have offered no reason or justification for my views, and to therefore engage in unfriendly speculation as to my real motives, is, I think, unreasonable. ---------------------- Incidentally, if I thought we still needed to incentivize risk taking for VPs, I would propose use the following method (which I think is less of a distortion -- have not given it alot of thought yet): Each player starts the game with 0 vp. He gains a vp each time he ousts,and loses one if he is ousted. Negative numbers are ignored, so, until he scores an oust, each player has nothing to lose. Once the player has a game win, the lure of a game win takes over as incentive for risk taking. (Once a player has two game wins, no futher risk taking incentives are offered him -- it is now up to the remaining players -- who have nothing to lose and everything to gain -- to knock him off his throne.) This offers risk-taking incentives early in the game -- when the player has nothing to lose -- rather than towards the end, when it is often too late. This results in a score similar to a "pure ante" system (resembling the paradigm of the standard rules for completed games) except that all results are reduced by one. This naturally necessitates a revision of the "game win" requirements, as follows: 2 victory points (at game end or time out) are required for a game win. 1 victory point will suffice, however, in a finished game, if no other player has 1 victory point.

<nys...@cs.com> wrote in message news:1191791463....@o3g2000hsb.googlegroups.com... > If one expects gripings from unhappy losers even in a well functioning > system, how can such gripings prove that time outs are a serious > problem? I don't think you can prove anything about time outs. There's too much interaction between players to judge who 'caused' a time out or what effect a given play or decision had towards causing a time out (or not). Likewise, there's also too much speculation about what a deck is intended to do vs. what it actually does when hampered by deck ordering issues and metagame issues in a given game. Nonetheless, failure to prove a problem is not the same thing as a problem not existing. It's not necessary to wave one's hand over deckbuilding and slow play just because it's difficult to prove who caused what. That's why the existing system's solution is ideal: apply the same penalty to all players involved in the game. It's the most you can do but you can do that and it helps, convoluted and convenient theories around 'causing frustration' notwithstanding. > Frederick Scott wrote: >> People don't make deals to manufacture victory points in tournaments. > > They did. Most famous were the cooperative withdrawal deals in the > earlier VEKN rules -- directly motivated by the failure to conserve > victory points, and the motive to maximize the table's vps through > cooperation. OK, agreed, they did in the past. I don't think it was that bad a thing but since it made players marginally more successful for recognizing on upcoming timeout and conspiring to generate 1/2 a victory point for doing nothing laudable, a positive change was made to deny that tactic. Now, they don't. > By "fixing" this problem, the VEKN caused, for the first > time, a distortion of the victory conditions as applied to completed > games. More semantics. Define something you don't like as a 'distortion' - or whatever negative terminology you think you can get away with - and hope the negativity will stick and people will agree with your that it's a bad thing based on the label you want to slap on it. Oh, wait! Now I'm "calling you a liar", using that same thought process. >> They can't. > > They still can (even if illegal). Right. What I said: they can't. > Two deadlocked players can agree to > toss a coin or roll a dice to see which of them will withdraw and > surrender a game win to the other -- and unlike a similar agreement to > forfeiture, this does have any vp cost to the loser of the dice > role. They better do the randomization part in the bathroom. And no one better be hanging around watching the loser play out his position who would question whether that player is truly playing to win. And, by the same token, there are lots of ways to cheat through collusion. It's not an argument to change the scoring system. >> There's no reason for them to. > > Players collude for all kinds of reasons. Colluders are the players > with the most power to end games. Colluders, therefore, gain the most > benefit from any game-ending incentives. I don't see the point to making a wholly inadequate stab at fixing collusion by changing a scoring system to function in a way that makes it less capable of addressing a real problem I care about. For all practical purposes, people can't manufacture victory points. I'll leave the question on the table of whether your motives are geared toward facilitating a more sympathetic environment for slower decks vs....er...whatever other problem or problems you claim to be solving which never make any coherent sense. It's true, I can't read your mind and it's possible that you're quite serious about the 'distortion' thing and/or the 'frustration' thing and whatever else. But it doesn't matter to me. It always seems to come down to creating an easier road to the finals for the type of play I'd like to see less of - if anything - so I'm going to continue to point out its lack of positive qualities to people. >> >> And why should we care about this, in practical terms? >> > >> > Since you apparently don't care, why bother me with such questions? >> >> Ah, but I _do_ care. That's the problem. I don't believe you do. > > Well, being called a liar isn't exactly amusing for me, now is it -- > especially after all the effort I have put into defending my > position. Notice that no one claim that you lied. I was simply stating my belief. Equating it to lying is a matter of assuming certain questionable rhetorical constructions - for instance, what constitutes "caring" about a thing? What exactly was I claiming you didn't care about vs. what is it that you believe you do care about? Hint: they are likely not the same things when explored and that was precisely my point at the time. The upshot is that you have this awfully annoying rhetorical mannerism of claiming that you're being insulting when your opponent is simply pointing out that he doesn't agree with your assessment of a given situation. That's about all I want to say about this bit. If you want to act insulted by how I give my opinion, that's your choice. Suffice it to say, I don't agree. > Fine -- I will give you some distortions, most of which I have alluded > to elsewhere in thie thread. Note that I am aware that you have > already dismissed my examples for reasons of your own. I am aware, > that you may not accept my underlying ideas as to the intent behind > the original rules. You may not accept my view that Garfield's intent > in rewarding withdrawal and last man standing was simply to reward > survival (keep a victory point for not being ousted) and that the > reason he grants this award at the end of the game or upon withdrawal > is because that is the point at which it can be determined that the > player will not be ousted. Nonetheless, those are my views and > underlying assumption. With that in mind, the scoring paradigm is as > follows: Having read through what followed, I find it to be more of the same. Essentially, it contains a lot values and assumptions with which I don't agree. Your estimate of what is "intended" by Garfield and "not intended" is convenient but never mind that. As I pointed out near the beginning of this thread and once or twice since then, I question why we should care about that. The original game rules were created long ago before anyone had any ideas what issues might crop up and cause problems with the experience of much play under our belts. Further more, the tournament game _is_ a completely different game than the non-tournament game and, while it would be nice if the two were as similar as possible, that's ultimately a lower priority goal than other things. For instance, the scoring rules should encourage play that doesn't arbitrarily rob other players of their chance at a game win based on which opponents they draw in a given round. I don't know that there's much more to say about all this. As long as you continue to assert those values that were part and parcel to your analysis, I will continue to assert that those values are irrelevant to what players as a group generally want and, hence, so is the analysis. This is, of course, a common and arguably controversial assumption on my part: "The masses agree with me." It may be false; perhaps people _do_ care a great deal that the game should faithfully and closely reflect the original intention of Garfield. Perhaps they would also agree that you've pretty much defined that intention accurately in your supporting arguments. This latter point is arguable but moot, IMO. The former would surprise me a great deal. Fred

Peter D Bakija wrote: > In article <1191117326....@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com>, > nys...@cs.com wrote: > > > I did a bit of searching, and all I could find recently was some > > posts about FINALISTS who seem willing to permit the final round > > to go to time because they don't need a "game win" to win the > > tournament. But this can hardly be what you had in mind. > > Why can that hardly be what I had in mind? Apparently it *was* what you had in mind. But I already explained why I thought otherwise, so why ask? My proposal will not effect those factors which cause finals tables to go to time. Finals players are worried about how will they do relative to other players at the table. They are worried about whether they come in first, second, third, fourth or fifth. They are not worried about the number of vps they get, except as a means to this end. A victory point has no inherent value. You cannot take it to the store after the game and buy two cups of coffee instead of one. It is a means to an end. In casual games, and in final rounds, victory points are merely a step in the process of determining who wins, and, failing that, who comes in second, etc. In finals, a player does not care whether he comes in first with 1.5 vp or with 2 vp, so long as he comes in first. This is the fundamental problem in final rounds that has been causing such a hullaballoo. Only in preliminary rounds did (does?) the VEKN vp allocution system marginally incentivize risk, by giving survivors of finished games a tournament ranking edge over those with an equal number of ousts in unfinished games. With the shift to the game win system, the focus is now on gaining game wins, and it is unlikely that such incentives have any further potential to affect player behavior. > > As I am sure you realize -- > > my proposed system has no affect on such dynamics whatsoever, for > > better or worse. > > Your proposed system gives 1VP for survival. This encourages folks > to try a lot harder to not die as opposed to oust their prey, > which has an effect on the whole dynamic. I have already explained, in detail, why I think it does not do so. You snipped my arguments without response. I have also since posted an alternative risk incentivation proposal. > Games going to time hurts folks 'cause no one actually wins the > game. If folks want someone to win the game, they should try > harder to oust their prey. Giving folks more incentive to wall up > and *not* try and oust their prey, isn't going to improve this > dynamic. Moot, until you address my arguments regarding why I do not believe my proposal would have such an effect. > > First of all, a single oust IS worth the same as survival. The > > rules (which are applied more or less intact in completed games > > even in tournaments) say so. If you don't like that, you can > > advocate that the rules be changed. > > I don't need to advocate that the rules be changed--as the rules > stand, you get .5VP for surviving. Not if the game is completed, you don't. Under the standard rules, every time a player is not ousted at the end of the game, he gets 1 vp. If you think "merely surviving" should not be rewarded with a whole, why not be consistent and change the standard rules. A ousts B, C, and D, then withdraws, leaving E as last man standing. Why should E get a whole victory point under your value system. He has done nothing the whole game ... except survive. The standard rules do not say how to end a game prematurely or how to score a completed game. The only way to legally end a game prematurely is collusive withdrawal (easily done if everyone agrees) which results in 1 vp for everyone. > If you are the last person at the table, you > get a full VP for survival, as being the last guy at the table is > a considerably more significant event that simply surviving till > time runs out. Not so, as the above example demonstrates. Being last man standing is a significant achievement only because it usually means the player has scored alot of ousts. But ousts are rewarded adequately and separately. Last man standing is a survival award, just like withdrawal is a survival award. Both awards get awarded at the point in the game where it is determined the player will not be ousted. The standard rules could be restated as follows: every player brings a vp to the table with him; gains a point every time he ousts; loses a point if he gets ousted. Except for the fact that the standard rules do not tell us how to score unfinished games, the standard rules always follow this pattern. > Which is why you get 1VP for being last guy at the table and only > .5VP for not being ousted when time runs out. I suspect that this is actually an attempt by the VEKN to incentivize risk. However, its ability to do so is virtually non-existent now that the Game Win system is in effect. > > Irrelevant, since my proposed system does not remove the > > incentive to oust your prey. Two ousts are still required for a > > game win (ignoring rare exceptions). > > Giving 1VP for still being at the table when time runs out removes > incentive to oust your prey in any remotely risky situation, [...] Why? What do you want the victory point for? If you want to get into the finals, remember (1) a victory point is not a game win; and (2) more other players will be getting extra vps as well (including many who scored more ousts than you). > as defense > (i.e. walling up and covering your head) is generally less risky > than offense (going all out to oust your prey even if it means you > might fail and get ousted). If the reward in a difficult situation > is 1VP for walling up and covering your head instead of .5VP, you > have incentive to wall up and cover your head rather than lunging > for the risky oust. Anything that disincentives folks going for > the risky oust is bad. Problem is, you don't actually mean what you say ... as you are about to admit. > > If you really mean what you say, perhaps you think the game > > would be even better if the players received NO points for > > surviving in timed out games. > > I'd be ok with that. Except that, as you note, it makes folks > arbitrary and reckless. Which is why the current system is > reasonable--you have more incentive to try and go forward than to > simply survive, but more incentive to survive than to get ousted. First you say that anything that does X is bad, then you say it is merely a matter of achieving the right balance. Well, I believe my proposal achieves the right balance, ... and to those who are doubtful, I have offered a second proposal. > > Please stop pretending you didn't understand me. Please stop > > pretending I am trying to eliminate the need for ousting. > > It is called "rhetorical device", not "pretending". Why can't it be both? Making a reasonable attempt to acknowledge and understand your opponent helps things civil and the discussion constructive. But if words are merely weapons .... > > Victory points should be awarded based on one's success in > > besting other players at your table. > > Sure. Simply staying alive is not success in besting other players > at the table. Neither is withdrawal. Neither is last man standing. Success in besting other players at the table is measured by ousting, and only by ousting. On average, last man standing is more successful than ousting than other players are. But his level of success is always adequately measured by counting the number of ousts he achieves. > Which is why you get .5VP for still being alive when time > runs out, rather than 1VP. That can't be why, for the obvious reason stated above. > As more often than not, being alive when time > runs out has nothing at all to do with ones actual in game > position--you could easily be at 1 pool, next to go, and sitting > in front of an Anarch Revolt without the Edge when time runs out > during your predator's turn. Or one could be about to oust one's last enemy and gain 2 vps ... 1 vp for survival always fairly averages the prospects. > You survive, sure, but only by arbitrary time limit, not by virtue > of game play. Where it is imposed, the arbitrary time limit is part of the game -- ergo you survive by game play. And, of course, it is just as likely that the arbitrary time limit prevented you from getting more than you otherwise have gotten. If two players remain at a table, there is a 50-50 chance that -- but for the "arbitrary time limit" (or but for withdrawal) -- each will oust the other. A 50-50 chance of a 2 vp is worth 1 vp. A simliar (but more complex) calculus could be done for 3, 4, or 5 players remaining at a table. But it will always amount to survival being worth 1 vp. > Consequently, the general consensus is that .5VP for > survivial at time is a reasonable compromise. > > > I'm sorry, but that's pretty much what one SHOULD do if one is > > in a bad position. > > See, clearly you do think this, [...] Yes, in the sense that, under the VEKN rules one SHOULD work to maximize victory points, when one has no hope of a game win (yes, even for a half vp). No, to the extent you are trying to pretend I meant something else, and am trying to de-incentivize risk. I made it clear enough, in context, that I was NOT talking about incentivizing risk; and then proceeded to discuss incentivizing risk. > [...] as your proposal encourages this. I have argued that it does not, if you mean that my proposal de- incentivizes risk taking. You have not responded, except to take my words out of context and try to pretend they meant something other than that which I clearly intended. > Which > I don't believe is actually a good idea. To reward folks for not > trying to oust their prey. The tournament rules need to reward > folks for trying to oust their prey over simply surviving. > Giving .5VP for surviving is a reasonable compromise. See my second proposal, which incentivizes risk-taking far more effectively than the current VEKN rules, and also gives some perspective as why the VEKN rules cannot do so effectively with the Game Win rules in effect.

<nys...@cs.com> wrote in message news:1192984616.5...@q3g2000prf.googlegroups.com... > Peter D Bakija wrote: >> I don't need to advocate that the rules be changed--as the rules >> stand, you get .5VP for surviving. > > Not if the game is completed, you don't. Under the standard rules, > every time a player is not ousted at the end of the game, he gets 1 > vp. If you think "merely surviving" should not be rewarded with a > whole, why not be consistent and change the standard rules. Because there's a huge _difference_ in the type of games defined by the standard rules and the tournament rules, which is what you never seem to get through your head. Standard rules are the rules played in games for which it is assumed need never time out. The possibility of the time out is the thing which makes a lot more difference than you give it credit for and which makes the distinction important. > A ousts > B, C, and D, then withdraws, leaving E as last man standing. Why > should E get a whole victory point under your value system. He has > done nothing the whole game ... except survive. He's done something a survivor-to-timeout has not: held a position capable of convincing A that he was better off withdrawing at a .5 VP profit than staying in the game. Why did A bother to withdraw? If A merely survived to time, he'd get the same payoff and stop E from getting the extra half .5 VP. A must have had a reason for withdrawing. That reason is significant. Surviving to time is certainly less hard than being last man standing and it is certainly appropriate to view it as being reasonable to reward it accordingly. And this is the distinction that clearly divides you and I about your second proposal. You seem to think some form of rewarding ousts incentizes the end of the game. Bullshit. To do so fails to recognize the game-lengthening aspects of incentizing ousts: namely, that players see the need to survive to get the ousts in order to collect on the incentive. There is little particular additional incentive to risk one's survival in order to get an ousts, except perhaps near the end of the game when it often won't matter. If you want to incentize ending the game effectively, you do this by incentizing the end of the game - nothing more, nothing less. And the incentive for ending in the game is *EXACTLY* that .5 VP for being last man standing. This is my problem with your proposals: you keep demanding the one true game-resolving incentive be taken away. > Last man standing is a survival award, just like withdrawal is a > survival award. Both awards get awarded at the point in the game > where it is determined the player will not be ousted. The standard > rules could be restated as follows: every player brings a vp to the > table with him; gains a point every time he ousts; loses a point if he > gets ousted. Except for the fact that the standard rules do not tell > us how to score unfinished games, the standard rules always follow > this pattern. The standard rules can be restated that way only if time outs are not taken into consideration, which the standard rules never needed to. You seem to think this way of reasoning is unassailable but it's not. Just because that reasoning works in the absense of the one particular scenario Richard Garfield didn't need to cover doesn't mean it must therefore be extended ad naseum each time a new scenario - such as the need to adjudicate a time out result that crops up in time-limited tournaments - crops up. It doesn't work right for time outs so screw it. The problem here boils down to an overly narrow way of viewing how time outs change the nature of Jyhad. Equating the challenge of survival-to- time with that of last-man-standing is a fundamental error. >> You survive, sure, but only by arbitrary time limit, not by virtue >> of game play. > > Where it is imposed, the arbitrary time limit is part of the game -- > ergo you survive by game play. And, of course, it is just as likely > that the arbitrary time limit prevented you from getting more than you > otherwise have gotten. Maybe, but to reward it equally with to last-man-standing is to encourage undesirable, problematic strategies and tactics. Of course it has to be part of the game. But it doesn't need to rewarded in any particular way as a matter of form. Whatever choice is found to work best in practice is fine. Fred

In article <1192984616.5...@q3g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, nys...@cs.com wrote: > Apparently it *was* what you had in mind. But I already explained why > I thought otherwise, so why ask? I posted this, like, 2 weeks ago. Why are you responding to it now? I mean, like, it isn't a problem. But weird. > Not if the game is completed, you don't. That is because if the game is completed, and you are the only survivor (as games generally can't be completed with more than 1 survivor), you accomplished more than simply not being ousted when time runs out--you get .5VP for simply not being ousted when time runs out, as it isn't really much of an accomplishment. Being the last person left at the table is takes much more work (you had to oust at least 1 other player to be the last person standing--to still be alive when time runs out, you have to simply have been in a game that took longer to oust you than you had time to be ousted in, and this often has nothing at all to do with your actual game play, deck, or position). Consequently, it makes perfect sense to me that a person who is the last person at the table gets 1VP, where someone who is simply not ousted when time runs out gets only .5VP. > Under the standard rules, > every time a player is not ousted at the end of the game, he gets 1 > vp. You are portraying "every time a player is not ousted" in a standard game as being the same as someone still being alive when time runs out in a tournament game. When they are not actually the same thing. Being not ousted in a standard game means that you are the last person at the table. Which means you killed someone to get there. Which means you did something proactive and accomplished something. In a tournament game, being still alive when time runs out means nothing of the sort. It just means that you had at least 1 pool when time ran out. Comparing the two is not really viable > If you think "merely surviving" should not be rewarded with a > whole, why not be consistent and change the standard rules. The standard rules don't include a time limit, so changing the standard rules based on the tournament rules that include a time limit is pointless. In a standard game, surviving to the end of the game means you are the last person at the table. And you ousted someone to get there. This is, in the context of the game, an accomplishment that is worth incentivizing and rewarding. Thus, a full VP. Conversely, in tournament play, being alive when time runs out is certainly some sort of accomplishment (although how big of an accomplishment is certainly up to debate based on a given game), so it gets some sort of reward (.5 VP), but not the same reward as being the last person left at the table. Which strikes me as totally logical. > A ousts > B, C, and D, then withdraws, leaving E as last man standing. Why > should E get a whole victory point under your value system. He has > done nothing the whole game ... except survive. This is a ridiculously trumped up example. Why is player A withdrawing after ousting 3 people? If it is 'cause player E is too tough to oust? Well, then E has done something other than just survive--he has foiled the clearly superior player A. If it is for any reason other than this, the situation is falling outside of the realm of the game rules, as it is clearly for irrational (or in a tournament, illegal) reasons. > The standard rules do not say how to end a game prematurely or how to > score a completed game. 'Cause the standard rules assume there is no time limit. The tournament rules have a time limit. This is a significant difference, that leads to different rules. > The only way to legally end a game > prematurely is collusive withdrawal (easily done if everyone agrees) > which results in 1 vp for everyone. Why is this happening in a non tournament game? And why does anyone care? You are inventing examples that have no place in reality and trying to use them to support your argument. > Why? What do you want the victory point for? If you want to get into > the finals, remember (1) a victory point is not a game win; and (2) > more other players will be getting extra vps as well (including many > who scored more ousts than you). A single victory point is worth more in tournament scoring than zero victory points. You want the victory point as it increases your standing. > Where it is imposed, the arbitrary time limit is part of the game -- > ergo you survive by game play. And, of course, it is just as likely > that the arbitrary time limit prevented you from getting more than you > otherwise have gotten. Sure. As it is likely to be all sorts of things, it makes sense to split the difference. And get you .5VP. You could be about to oust someone when time runs out. You could also be at 1 pool and have zero minions when time runs out. Either is just as likely. So you average things out. .5VP. > I have argued that it does not, if you mean that my proposal de- > incentivizes risk taking. You have not responded, except to take my > words out of context and try to pretend they meant something other > than that which I clearly intended. I have explained why I think your proposal de-incentivizes risk taking. And will do so again--if you get a full VP for simply surviving, if you are in a questionable position, you have all the incentive in the world to not try for the 1VP oust and and instead wall up and slow down the game. With .5VP for simply surviving, you have more incentive to take a risk for the oust if there is a chance for it. Peter D Bakija pd...@lightlink.com http://www.lightlink.com/pdb6/vtes.html "Find hungry samurai." -The Old Man

Frederick Scott wrote: > <nys...@cs.com> wrote in message > news:1192984616.5...@q3g2000prf.googlegroups.com... > > Peter D Bakija wrote: > >> I don't need to advocate that the rules be changed--as the rules > >> stand, you get .5VP for surviving. > > > > Not if the game is completed, you don't. Under the standard rules, > > every time a player is not ousted at the end of the game, he gets 1 > > vp. If you think "merely surviving" should not be rewarded with a > > whole, why not be consistent and change the standard rules. > > Because there's a huge _difference_ in the type of games defined by > the standard rules and the tournament rules, which is what you > never seem to get through your head. I have discussed and analysed those differences at length. You, on the other hand, have repeatedly said you don't care about those differences. All you offer now is conclusory statements and hot air. > Standard rules are the rules played > in games for which it is assumed need never time out. The > possibility of the time out is the thing which makes a lot more > difference than you give it credit for and which makes the > distinction important. Until you elaborate with some analysis, this is merely hot air. > > A ousts > > B, C, and D, then withdraws, leaving E as last man standing. Why > > should E get a whole victory point under your value system. He > > has done nothing the whole game ... except survive. > > He's done something a survivor-to-timeout has not: held a position > capable of convincing A that he was better off withdrawing at a .5 > VP profit than staying in the game. He's done the exact same thing the survivor til time out has done ... survived til the end of the game. The distinction you make is based on invented facts, not part of the scenario described. > Why did A bother to withdraw? Who cares? No-doubt he was out of cards. Perhaps he suspected (perhaps falsely) that his opponent would be able to oust him within the time limit. In any event, he prevented his predator from ousting him; but failed to oust his prey. Nobody wins (until and unless other ousts are considered). That's what withdrawal means. > If A merely survived to time, he'd get the same payoff and stop E > from getting the extra half .5 VP. A must have had a reason for > withdrawing. That reason is significant. To you, maybe. Not to me. Certainly not to the designer of the standard rules. Under the standard rules, if two players remaining in the game are tied for 1 vp, and one withdraws, the one who convinced the other to withdraw does not get extra credit for forcing his opponent to withdraw. After the withdrawal, they remain tied, exactly as they were before. Under the standard rules, the withdrawal of ones opponent is not a second-class victory. It is not a poor-man's oust. It is not a victory at all. > Surviving to time is certainly less hard than being last man > standing and it is certainly appropriate to view it as being > reasonable to reward it accordingly. Only because being last man standing normally requires ousting other players, particularly one's prey. That is the only reason why it is harder. > And this is the distinction that clearly > divides you and I about your second proposal. You seem to think > some form of rewarding ousts incentizes the end of the game. Yup. You read me right for once. > Bullshit. To > do so fails to recognize the game-lengthening aspects of > incentizing ousts: namely, that players see the need to survive to > get the ousts in order to collect on the incentive. I have not failed to recognize anything. > There is little particular > additional incentive to risk one's survival in order to get an > ousts, except perhaps near the end of the game when it often won't > matter. Evidently, you do not understand the proposal. My proposal incentivises risk. I have offered analysis to support this, which I need not repeat. All you offer is grand conclusory declarations. > If you want to incentize ending the game effectively, you do this > by incentizing the end of the game - nothing more, nothing less. I think that is totally idiotic, and I think you are making a complete ass of yourself by repeating it. Players cannot waive a magic wand and end the game. Players can do 4 things to end the game: 1. Withdraw 2. Oust cross-table 3. Oust their prey 4. Oust themselves To which their could be added a 5th (which, as far as the incentive is concerned, is really a variant of "oust your prey"): 5. Incentivize risk -- risk getting ousted in the course of desperately trying to oust prey. My proposal promotes game ending by rewarding ousting (#3) or by rewarding #5 (risk taking). (It also rewards withdrawal more than the current proposal, though it does not do this in order to risk incentivize). We have already agreed that #4 should not be directly incentivized. As for #2, we know Garfield sought to minimize that by the predator prey relationship, and most folks seem to think that is a dynamic worth preserving. That leaves the method I have adopted -- ousting prey (together with promiting risk taking for the sake of ousting prey). > And the > incentive for ending in the game is *EXACTLY* that .5 VP for being > last man standing. This is my problem with your proposals: you > keep demanding the one true game-resolving incentive be taken away. As you previously acknowledged, the game win system has been far more effective at incentivizing risk. It does so not by rewarding last man standing, but by rewarding the achievement of (normally) two ousts. My alternate proposal does the same. It does not (idiotially, uselessly, stupidly) offer measley half-vp bribes to decks that have already acheived a game win. > > Last man standing is a survival award, just like withdrawal is a > > survival award. Both awards get awarded at the point in the game > > where it is determined the player will not be ousted. The > > standard rules could be restated as follows: every player > > brings a vp to the table with him; gains a point every time he > > ousts; loses a point if he gets ousted. Except for the fact > > that the standard rules do not tell us how to score unfinished > > games, the standard rules always follow this pattern. > > The standard rules can be restated that way only if time outs are > not taken into consideration, [...] That's exactly what I said ... except I omitted the word "only". I do not assume, as you do, that Garfield would have made an exception had he taken time outs into consideration. > [...] which the standard rules never needed to. Hmmm? > You seem to think this way of reasoning is unassailable but it's > not. Clearly not, since you are assailing it. You have proven that my proposal is assailable by people who lack understanding. > Just because that reasoning works in the absense of the one > particular scenario Richard Garfield didn't need to cover doesn't > mean it must therefore be extended ad naseum each time a new > scenario - such as the need to adjudicate a time out result that > crops up in time-limited tournaments - crops up. I have offered extensive analysis supporting my view that it should be extended to time out. I have extensively shown the distortions that result from doing otherwise. Your response has been simply "I don't care." So what the hell are you going on about now? > It doesn't work right for time outs so screw it. Oh, I believe it does work for time outs ... quite well. > The problem here boils down to an overly narrow way of viewing how > time outs change the nature of Jyhad. Equating the challenge of > survival-to-time with that of last-man-standing is a fundamental > error. I see no error. > >> You survive, sure, but only by arbitrary time limit, not by virtue > >> of game play. > > > > Where it is imposed, the arbitrary time limit is part of the > > game -- ergo you survive by game play. And, of course, it is > > just as likely that the arbitrary time limit prevented you from > > getting more than you otherwise have gotten. > > Maybe, but to reward it equally with to last-man-standing is to > encourage undesirable, problematic strategies and tactics. How? It is about time you supported your nonsense with some examples and analysis. Provide an coherent example of a situation where the current system incentivizes risk taking, but where my proposals do not. > Of course it has to be > part of the game. But it doesn't need to rewarded in any > particular way as a matter of form. Whatever choice is found to > work best in practice is fine. My proposal has never been tried in practice. So I guess this is what you think supports your conclusory statements.

On Sun, 21 Oct 2007 12:11:09 -0700, nys...@cs.com wrote: >It is about time you supported your nonsense with some examples >and analysis. Why? So far, every single individual that has posted in your threads has disagreed with you. There is no reason to ever expect that you will advance your cause or see any changes to the tournament scoring system based on your posts in this newsgroup. Have a great day.

The Lasombra wrote: > On Sun, 21 Oct 2007 12:11:09 -0700, nys...@cs.com wrote: > >It is about time you supported your nonsense with some examples > >and analysis. > > Why? Because Fred keeps responding to my posts, hurling conclusory statments at me, even when I try to discuss with others. I think he should either agree to disagree, and stop heckling me, or provide something that I can respond to. A claim has been made that my proposal does not incentivize risk as well. Any specific example of a situation where this occurs would be welcome, and would permit a meaninful response by. I do not expect you to provide one, since you are just a heckler. I do not expect Fred to provide one, since he is just a heckler. But perhaps someone else could be a good sport and give it a shot. > So far, every single individual that has posted in your threads has > disagreed with you. So you are saying, you are outnumbered, therefore wrong. Thanks for letting me know. Great contribution. > There is no reason to ever expect that you will advance your cause > or see any changes to the tournament scoring system based on your > posts in this newsgroup. Why did you post this? You seem to have nothing to say, except to hint I should go away. > Have a great day. You have a great day too. Oh wait, you didn't really mean "have a nice day". You meant something else. Well, same to you.

On Sun, 21 Oct 2007 12:35:01 -0700, nys...@cs.com wrote: >So you are saying, you are outnumbered, therefore wrong. I am saying that you haven't convinced anyway, so you are wasting your time. It is absolutely your time though, so have at it.

<nys...@cs.com> wrote in message news:1192993869....@y27g2000pre.googlegroups.com... > Frederick Scott wrote: >> <nys...@cs.com> wrote in message >> news:1192984616.5...@q3g2000prf.googlegroups.com... >> > Peter D Bakija wrote: >> >> I don't need to advocate that the rules be changed--as the rules >> >> stand, you get .5VP for surviving. >> > >> > Not if the game is completed, you don't. Under the standard rules, >> > every time a player is not ousted at the end of the game, he gets 1 >> > vp. If you think "merely surviving" should not be rewarded with a >> > whole, why not be consistent and change the standard rules. >> >> Because there's a huge _difference_ in the type of games defined by >> the standard rules and the tournament rules, which is what you >> never seem to get through your head. > > I have discussed and analysed those differences at length. You, on > the other hand, have repeatedly said you don't care about those > differences. Bullshit. Obviously, I do care about the difference, you misinterpretations of anything I've said in the past not withstanding. You are throwing rhetorical furniture in the way of a pursuer hot on your heels, here. The problem with your claims is exactly what you just said: all of your rhetoric about it is based on long-winded analysis, not clear and succinct reasoning. I've examined your analysis and found no new ground in any of it - just the same errors repeated over and over in lots of boring little paragraphs. I could drag out your analysis and point these out but you'll forgive me if I assume that I'll just get the same circular answers you've repeatedly offered in the past, perhaps in yet _longer_ form, who knows? What I find very interesting is that whenever I attempt to summarize these long, point-by-point posts of yours so that people who don't care to find them and wade through them, you angrily accuse me of putting words in your mouth. Yet at the same time, you refuse to offer your *OWN* position about these issues in any succinct way. My conclusion is that you actually don't want people to know what it is: to do so would put its weakness on display for the masses. So every response is a wave of a hand, pointing people back to those long-winded and now difficult-to- find month old posts. >> Standard rules are the rules played >> in games for which it is assumed need never time out. The >> possibility of the time out is the thing which makes a lot more >> difference than you give it credit for and which makes the >> distinction important. ... >> > A ousts >> > B, C, and D, then withdraws, leaving E as last man standing. Why >> > should E get a whole victory point under your value system. He >> > has done nothing the whole game ... except survive. >> >> He's done something a survivor-to-timeout has not: held a position >> capable of convincing A that he was better off withdrawing at a .5 >> VP profit than staying in the game. > > He's done the exact same thing the survivor til time out has done ... > survived til the end of the game. The distinction you make is based > on invented facts, not part of the scenario described. "Invented facts"?!? YOU constructed the scenario. YOU invented player A who chose to withdraw, NOT ME!!! >> Why did A bother to withdraw? > > Who cares? I care! Everybody should care! Show me the reason A withdrew and I'll show you the reason it's appropriate to reward E with an extra .5 VP, where it wouldn't be if E merely survived to time. >No-doubt he was out of cards. Fine. Then he lost. Or at least, he lost his .5 VP in comparison to Player E. People lose when they run out of resources and their opponents thereby win. This is totally appropriate. Don't forget, it's very hard to withdraw in such a situation. In most cases, if A runs out of cards, he doesn't withdraw. He'd usually get ousted by any competant player E. If he can manage to withdraw, then he gets an extra .5 VP he normally wouldn't have had. > Perhaps he suspected > (perhaps falsely) that his opponent would be able to oust him within > the time limit. Then he screwed up and Player E won for managing to look formidable. Sometimes, looking more formidable than your are is rewardable. Ask a rush combat player who threatens his crosstable ally into taking a favorable action for him even when he doesn't hold the means to actually punish his ally in his hand. > In any event, he prevented his predator from ousting > him; but failed to oust his prey. Nobody wins (until and unless other > ousts are considered). That's what withdrawal means. No, that is not "what withdrawal means". You've conflated two unlike scenarios and the confusion is driving you to an incorrect conclusion. >> If A merely survived to time, he'd get the same payoff and stop E >> from getting the extra half .5 VP. A must have had a reason for >> withdrawing. That reason is significant. > > To you, maybe. Not to me. Certainly not to the designer of the > standard rules ...who was not covering the issue of time outs when he designed them. Every time you take that tact, you will get this response. So you are wasting your breath to take it without presenting some kind of answer to this. Survival-to-time does not equate to withdrawal. >> You seem to think >> some form of rewarding ousts incentizes the end of the game. > > Yup. You read me right for once. > >> Bullshit. To do so fails to recognize the game-lengthening aspects >> of incentizing ousts: namely, that players see the need to survive >> to get the ousts in order to collect on the incentive. There is little >> particular additional incentive to risk one's survival in order to get >> an ousts, except perhaps near the end of the game when it often won't >> matter. > > Evidently, you do not understand the proposal. My proposal > incentivises risk. I have offered analysis to support this, which I > need not repeat. All you offer is grand conclusory declarations. The declarations effectively state the dispute. Your "analysis", as per above, merely tends to hide the weakness in your position. >> If you want to incentize ending the game effectively, you do this >> by incentizing the end of the game - nothing more, nothing less. > > Players cannot waive a magic wand and end the game. > > Players can do 4 things to end the game: > > 1. Withdraw > 2. Oust cross-table > 3. Oust their prey > 4. Oust themselves > > To which their could be added a 5th (which, as far as the incentive is > concerned, is really a variant of "oust your prey"): > > 5. Incentivize risk -- risk getting ousted in the course of > desperately trying to oust prey. Sure. I'm not sure how #5 falls in a different category than #3 but I'm glad you specifically identified it because it _is_ important. Your pat little list of actions which could be contribute to the end of the game is an overly narrow, insufficient way of analyzing the issue of what contributes to ending game before vs. after a time limit. #5 is exactly the point: HOW one attempts to oust one's prey is as important to this end as the oust, itself. In fact, given that usually everybody on the table is attempting to oust their prey - albeit in different ways - it is actually a lot more important. So worrying about "incentizing ousts" in order to resolve games sooner misses the point: ousts are incentized just fine in the rules as it is. Incentizing taking risks to get ousts is much more to the point, since the goal of resolving the game is served either way if risk-taking is encouarged. > My proposal promotes game ending by rewarding ousting (#3) or by > rewarding #5 (risk taking). It actually doesn't reward risk taking nearly as much as you claim. You take away .8 VP from players who have no ousts instead of .5. But taking away with one hand, you give back with the other: giving back the .5 VP from players who have two or more ousts that would have provided them incentive to resolve the game. And the incentive isn't really all that big of an incentive anyway except towards the end of game. The nature of the game is that if you survive, you may get a chance later in the game to make a much better lunge than you can make now. And even if you have a lunge you can make now that's not too bad, you may succeed at getting the oust - and wind up getting ousted anyway. My conclusion is that the main incentive for making a lunge provided in your second proposal is towards the end of the game. So the game may well time out anyway, even if the isolated extra lunge is taken and even if some of those isolated extra lunges succeed some of time (I think they won't in most cases). Big deal. >> And the >> incentive for ending in the game is *EXACTLY* that .5 VP for being >> last man standing. This is my problem with your proposals: you >> keep demanding the one true game-resolving incentive be taken away. > > As you previously acknowledged, the game win system has been far more > effective at incentivizing risk. It does so not by rewarding last man > standing, but by rewarding the achievement of (normally) two ousts. > My alternate proposal does the same. But relative to the existing system, it's not as good. And there's a reason I like the extra incentive: it deliberately values last-man-standing victories as superior to two-plus-ousts-and-survive victories, oust-per-oust. I want that. That incentizes faster less- risk-of-timeout play in general. If I could, I'd jack the incentive up some more. It's just that I don't see how to accomplish it without too much risk of punishing things which were just misfortune (table in which everyone's prey, by chance, had an effective defense and an ineffective offense). So I like things as they are, unless someone shows me a better way to do it. > It does not (idiotially, > uselessly, stupidly) offer measley half-vp bribes to decks that have > already acheived a game win. The reason is that people who bring decks that risk time outs export that risk to their faster opponents who had the misfortune to play against them. This is unfair. This is a point you also refuse to acknowledge or take into account. You may have your opinion; I think the reason is very good. (elided the same repetitious dispute about whether standard rules can be readily extended to play where time outs need to be scored in the simplistic manner John claims...) >> > Where it is imposed, the arbitrary time limit is part of the >> > game -- ergo you survive by game play. And, of course, it is >> > just as likely that the arbitrary time limit prevented you from >> > getting more than you otherwise have gotten. >> >> Maybe, but to reward it equally with to last-man-standing is to >> encourage undesirable, problematic strategies and tactics. > > How? It is about time you supported your nonsense with some examples > and analysis. Above - the previous paragraph about drawing opponents using slower developing decks. > Provide an coherent example of a situation where the > current system incentivizes risk taking, but where my proposals do > not. Simple. Take the example of Tzimisce intercept combat deck. It has little direct forward means of ousting its prey in the early part of the game other than intercepting its prey taking undirected actions or the occasion Eagles Sight it can pull out. It doesn't need such means. It can stop its predator for ousting it in most cases and usually punish the predator for even trying by torping the predator's minions in the resulting combats. It plays things like Powerbase: Montreal, hunting ground, Palatial Estate, and blood dolls to build up. It may risk allowing its prey to get some ousts but in many circumstances, simply stopping enough of its prey's undirected actions (or, in a lot of case the prey just doesn't bother taking them) and the Eagle's Sights will stop the prey from getting an ousts. Anyway, if the table does collapse some, who cares? The Tzimisce deck usually won't win through a 5-player sweep anyway. But after enough time has passed, it will bloat up slowly and build up in numbers enough to start bleeding forward while still having enough defense to be comfortable. Maybe it's succeeded at Pulsing or maybe the table is now small enough to win with a Smiling Jack. Or maybe it's just beaten up its prey enough that small bleeds will do the trick. I've seen this kind of a deck work just fine. It was weaknesses, of course. But on balance, it metagames pretty good. The problem with it is that it slows down the game and risks no-game-win time outs even when it doesn't win. So it becomes an unfair punishment for other players to wind up stuck in the same game with it while others get to play against decks that, win or lose, don't cause that problem. >> Of course it has to be >> part of the game. But it doesn't need to rewarded in any >> particular way as a matter of form. Whatever choice is found to >> work best in practice is fine. > > My proposal has never been tried in practice. You mistake my meaning. I don't mean "in practice" as in, it has to be physically used. One can foresee the effect your proposals would have in practice. I mean "in practice" as in, taking ALL the phenomena observed in real world play into account. Not just the ones your narrow theories choose to account for. Fred

<nys...@cs.com> wrote in message news:1192995301.0...@z24g2000prh.googlegroups.com... > > The Lasombra wrote: >> On Sun, 21 Oct 2007 12:11:09 -0700, nys...@cs.com wrote: >> >It is about time you supported your nonsense with some examples >> >and analysis. >> >> Why? > > Because Fred keeps responding to my posts, hurling conclusory > statments at me, even when I try to discuss with others. This is Usenet. You don't get to discuss things "with others" as if you were just having a 2-person conversation that others are supposed to refrain from interfering in. If you want to do that, go to E-mail. But then, you wouldn't get the desired audience for your purposes there, would you? You are presenting ideas for the entire world to post and respond to and you must expect the rest of the world to do so. And, as for "conclusory statements", what were the statements you were making to Peter if not conclusory? Pot. Kettle. Black. The problem is not that my statements are conclusory. It's that you have no coherent conclusory resonses to them. So you fall back on long-winded analysis which appears to me, in the end, to make the same errors as your original conclusory statements which were originally challenged. > I think he > should either agree to disagree, and stop heckling me, or provide > something that I can respond to. I have provided you plenty to respond to. You just have to respond back in a manner that is succinct, understandable, and lacks error in order to get on with the dispute. Fred

<nys...@cs.com> wrote in message news:1192995301.0...@z24g2000prh.googlegroups.com... > > The Lasombra wrote: >> On Sun, 21 Oct 2007 12:11:09 -0700, nys...@cs.com wrote: >> >It is about time you supported your nonsense with some examples >> >and analysis. >> >> Why? > > Because Fred keeps responding to my posts, hurling conclusory > statments at me, even when I try to discuss with others. This is Usenet. You don't get to discuss things "with others" as if you were just having a 2-person conversation that others are supposed to refrain from interfering in. If you want to do that, go to E-mail. But then, you wouldn't get the desired audience for your purposes there, would you? You are presenting ideas for the entire world to post and respond to and you must expect the rest of the world to do so. And, as for "conclusory statements", what were the statements you were making to Peter if not conclusory? Pot. Kettle. Black. The problem is not that my statements are conclusory. It's that you have no coherent conclusory resonses to them. So you fall back on long-winded analysis which appears to me, in the end, to make the same errors as your original conclusory statements which were originally challenged. > I think he > should either agree to disagree, and stop heckling me, or provide > something that I can respond to. I have provided you plenty to respond to. You just have to respond [ quoted text not captured ]

Peter D Bakija wrote: > I posted this, like, 2 weeks ago. Why are you responding to it > now? I mean, like, it isn't a problem. But weird. People normally respond when they find the time. Why is an explanation needed? > > Not if the game is completed, you don't. > > That is because if the game is completed, and you are the only > survivor (as games generally can't be completed with more than 1 > survivor), you accomplished more than simply not being ousted when > time runs out-- That "more" consists of ousting prey -- normally. > [...] you > get .5VP for simply not being ousted when time runs out, as it > isn't really much of an accomplishment. If you get a whole vp for being last man standing (and do not oust) that is not much of an accomplishment either. I never took the position that last man standing who scores an oust has accomplished more than a time out player who has not scored an oust. I merely too the position that a last man standing with one oust should be worth the same as a time out player with one oust. I never denied that last man standing will on average have achieved more ousts than a time out player. But this level of success is already measured by the number of ousts he gets. > Being the last person left at the > table is takes much more work (you had to oust at least 1 other > player to be the last person standing--to still be alive when time > runs out, [...] Usually you do have to oust someone to be last man standing. But that ousting gets its own reward of one vp per oust. To determine if "last man standing" is inherently deserving of more than survival til time out, you have to look at those situations where a time out player and a last man standing have scored an equal number of ousts. > [...] you have to simply have been in a game that took longer to > oust you than you had time to be ousted in, and this often has > nothing at all to do with your actual game play, deck, or > position). You are skewing the assumptions -- assuming that a player who goes to time -- but for the time limit -- is about to be ousted, rather than that he is about to oust -- there is an equal chance of either. > Consequently, it makes > perfect sense to me that a person who is the last person at the > table gets 1VP, where someone who is simply not ousted when time > runs out gets only .5VP. Not to me ... (except as a risk incentivizing device, now obsolete with the game win system in place). > > Under the standard rules, > > every time a player is not ousted at the end of the game, he > > gets 1 vp. > > You are portraying "every time a player is not ousted" in a > standard game as being the same as someone still being alive when > time runs out in a tournament game. I simply made a true statement about the standard rules. As I have explicitly acknowledged many times, the standard rules do not address time outs -- so that is an extension of the pattern on my part. > When they are not actually the same thing. Being > not ousted in a standard game means that you are the last person > at the table. Either that, or it means successful withdrawal. Both gain 1 vp. > Which means you killed someone to get there. If you killed someone to get there, you get a vp for killing someone to get there -- or more than 1 vp, if you killed more than one to get there. So that is already accounted for. The 1vp for last man standing is awarded above and beyond that, and is awarded even if you did not kill anyone to get there. > Which means you did > something proactive and accomplished something. No. If you did anything proactive (like ousting), and accomplished anything (like ousting), you have already been rewarded for it. To the extent that last man standing awards anything beyond that, it merely awards survival. You seem to want to pretend that I believe that the last man standing with one oust should be rewarded the same as a time out player with no ousts. But that is to argue with a straw man. Clearly, my position is that the former should get 2 vp and the latter should get 1 vp. > In a tournament game, > being still alive when time runs out means nothing of the sort. It > just means that you had at least 1 pool when time ran out. Or it could mean your prey had one pool when time ran out. There is an equal chance of either. Stop skewing the facts in your favor. > Comparing the two is not really viable Seems viable to me. > > If you think "merely surviving" should not be rewarded with a > > whole, why not be consistent and change the standard rules. > > The standard rules don't include a time limit, so changing the > standard rules based on the tournament rules that include a time > limit is pointless. In a standard game, surviving to the end of > the game means you are the last person at the table. Right. > And you ousted someone to get there. If you did, you get an extra vp for ousting. Why are you pretending I am trying to change that? > This is, in the context of the game, an accomplishment that is > worth incentivizing and rewarding. Are you trying to pretend my proposal does not reward him? It gives him 1 vp for ousting, plus one for last man standing, for a total of 2 vp. It gives the same to a time-out player if AND ONLY IF he scores the same number of ousts. A time out player who scores no ousts gets only 1`vp under my proposal. > Thus, a full VP. Conversely, in > tournament play, being alive when time runs out is certainly some > sort of accomplishment (although how big of an accomplishment is > certainly up to debate based on a given game), so it gets some > sort of reward (.5 VP), but not the same reward as being the last > person left at the table. > Which strikes me as totally logical. It does not seem logical to me, because you are guilty of double counting. You want to reward the the last man standing for scoring more ousts, but have forgotten that he has already been awarded for this, to the extent that he has done it. > > A ousts > > B, C, and D, then withdraws, leaving E as last man standing. Why > > should E get a whole victory point under your value system. He has > > done nothing the whole game ... except survive. > > This is a ridiculously trumped up example. It is an appropriate example. You want to cheat by comparing the last man standing with 1 oust to the time out player with no ousts, and argue that the last man standing with one oust is more deserving. Of course he is! And my proposal gives him more -- it gives him 1 extra vp for that extra oust that he got. You want to harp on the time out player with no ousts. But the appropriate comparison to the time out player with no ousts is the last man standing with no ousts. If you want a less "ridiculous trumped up" example, we should compare the time out player with 3 ousts to the last man standing with 3 ousts. To my mind, they are both equally deserving -- they have ousted three players, and should both get 4 vp. The difference lies in the uncertainty. Had the time out game finished, then our winning player might have gotten ousted (and ended with 3 vp instead of 4); but it is at least equally likely (at least) that he would have ousted his prey and ended up with 5. So he splits the difference and gets 4. Perfectly fair. > Why is player A withdrawing after ousting 3 people? > If it is 'cause player E is too tough to oust? Could be ... after all, Player A did run out of cards. But if player E was so tough, why did he let A withdraw? > Well, then E has done something other than just survive--he has > foiled the clearly superior player A. You are assuming facts not in evidence. The only way E has foiled A is to avoid A's attempt to oust him. In other words, E survived until the end of the game. That is all E managed to accomplish -- not being ousted. > If it is for any reason other than this, > the situation is falling outside of the realm of the game rules, > as it is clearly for irrational (or in a tournament, illegal) > reasons. I think you're getting a bit carried away. There is no reason to discuss collusion. If you prefer a different example, where A's motives might be clearer, how about 4 player game: A ousts B, then ousts C, then withdraws. E (wuss that he is) lets him. A wins 3 vp to 1 vp standard rules (2.5 vp to 1 vp VEKN rules). Here we see that A by withdrawing secures himself the game win. His motives are clear enough. Even if he thought that there was a 95% percent chance that he would oust E, and an only 5% chance that he would be ousted, then the decision to withdraw would be rational if he thereby secured for himself a 100% game win. > > The standard rules do not say how to end a game prematurely or > > how to score a completed game. > > 'Cause the standard rules assume there is no time limit. The > tournament rules have a time limit. This is a significant > difference, that leads to different rules. More because it does not matter. Casual players wanting to end games prematurely could (if they wish) arrange collusive withdrawal (just as tournament players eventually learned to do). But there is no reason to, because that extra vp has no meaning if it does not come from besting your opponent and winning the game. Casual players use common sense. A,B,C,D,E sit at table. A ousts B, E ousts A. The 3 remaining players go to time, and have to go home to their wives. They understand perfectly well who was doing best at the table, who was in first place when time was called. It was E. B is dead last. A, C, and D are somewhere in the middle, and I would guess that C and D do not feel that they are doing any worse than A did. Certainly E knows he is in a better position than A, even though so far he has the same number of vps. If that extra had any inherent value to them -- if they could take it to the store and buy two cups of coffee -- then C, D and E could easily arrange for a collusive withdrawal, and end the game: A,B,C,D,E getting 1, 0, 1, 1, 2. This resulf fairly reflects the strength of their position. > > The only way to legally end a game > > prematurely is collusive withdrawal (easily done if everyone > > agrees) which results in 1 vp for everyone. > > Why is this happening in a non tournament game? And why does > anyone care? They don't. The example is for theoretical illustration. In casual games, victory points are merely a means to an end. If they did matter (if they were part of an economy external to the game, as in preliminary tournament rounds) then it could easily be done. This thought exercise shows how many vps they would get in a timed out game, under the standard rules IF IT MATTERED TO THEM. > You are inventing examples that have no place in reality and > trying to use them to support your argument. Perhaps you don't understand my point. > > Why? What do you want the victory point for? If you want to > > get into the finals, remember (1) a victory point is not a game > > win; and (2) more other players will be getting extra vps as > > well (including many who scored more ousts than you). > > A single victory point is worth more in tournament scoring than > zero victory points. So is a half victory point. You need more than that to make the finals. > You want the victory point as it increases your standing. You want more than the victory point, under my proposal, for the same reasons you want more than the half victory point under the current system. Alot of players are going to be getting more, so you need more to be competitive. The idea that players will stop wanting to oust, because they can get one whole victory point by surviving, is silly. This is especially so in a 40 player tournament. If you want to be one of the 5 finalists, you are not going to be satisfied with an average number of vps and a below-average number of game wins. > > Where it is imposed, the arbitrary time limit is part of the > > game -- ergo you survive by game play. And, of course, it is > > just as likely that the arbitrary time limit prevented you from > > getting more than you otherwise have gotten. > > Sure. As it is likely to be all sorts of things, it makes sense to > split the difference. That's exactly what I have done. I did it correctly. You did it incorrectly. In a 2-player context, there's 3 ways it can go: 2, 0 (A ousts B) 0, 2 (B ousts A) 1, 1 (simultaneous ousts -- or 1 player withdraws) Splitting the difference gives one per player. In the context of 3 remaining players, the possibilities for a completed game are as follows: 3, 0, 0 0, 3, 0 0, 0, 3 2, 1, 0 2, 0, 1 1, 2, 0 1, 0, 2 0, 2, 1 0, 1, 2 1, 1, 1 Average it all up, and you get one vp per player. (10 vp per column divided by 10 rows). You could achieve the same result with 4 or 5 player games. > And get you .5VP. No. Splitting the difference is 1 vp. You are falsely assuming that only one vp remains to be earned, and falsely averaging this against the one vp the player has to lose. In fact, there are at least 2 vp remaining to be earned. > You could be about to oust someone > when time runs out. You could also be at 1 pool and have zero > minions when time runs out. Either is just as likely. So you > average things out. .5VP. If there are 2 players remaining, splitting the difference gets you 1 vp, as shown above. If there are 3 players remaining, splitting the difference gets you 1 vp, as shown above. > > I have argued that it does not, if you mean that my proposal de- > > incentivizes risk taking. You have not responded, except to > > take my words out of context and try to pretend they meant > > something other than that which I clearly intended. > > I have explained why I think your proposal de-incentivizes risk > taking. And will do so again--if you get a full VP for simply > surviving, if you are in a questionable position, you have all the > incentive in the world to not try for the 1VP oust and and instead > wall up and slow down the game. With .5VP for simply surviving, > you have more incentive to take a risk for the oust if there is a > chance for it. Okay. Since you won't provide an example, I will. A ousts B and C; D oust E. Now its E against A. A thinks he has a chance to oust E, but it is very risky. E thinks he has a chance to oust A, but it is very risky. Under current VEKN rules, E will not take the risk of trying to oust A. He would rather go to time (if he can), and not risk losing the game win (but if he knows he cannot make it to time, he will want to oust before he gets ousted). Sure, he will get +1.5 vp for risking and winning, just as he will lose only 0.5 for losing, but along with that 0.5 he will also lose the game win -- That vp award is not relevant when the game win is at stake. E, however, has every reason to try to oust A, not mainly because of the extra 1.5 vps, but because of the game win. Under either of my proposals, the dynamics will be exactly the same -- the players will be focussed on the game win, and ignore the useless half vp bribe. Please provide a counterexample, where it would make a difference in terms of player behavior.

The Lasombra wrote: > I am saying that you haven't convinced anyway, so you are wasting > your time. Whether I have convinced anyone is unclear. I can assume that I have not convinced you. As for whether I am wasting my time trying to debate the fellow who is "hot on my heels", you are probably right. > It is absolutely your time though, so have at it. Thanks for telling me.

Frederick Scott wrote: > This is Usenet. You don't get to discuss things "with others" as > if you were just having a 2-person conversation that others are > supposed to refrain from interfering in. If you want to do that, > go to E-mail. But then, you wouldn't get the desired audience > for your purposes there, would you? You are presenting ideas for > the entire world to post and respond to and you must expect the > rest of the world to do so. I think it's time we agree to disagree, and soon I may do the same with Mr. Bakija, if it makes no progress. Do you really have anything to say that has not been said before? If not, why are you so proud of being "hot on my heels". I have responded to all your points -- at considerable length --, and you complain that they are too "long winded" and not "succinct" enough. What do you expect me to do now?

In article <1193005275.5...@e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, nys...@cs.com wrote: > People normally respond when they find the time. Why is an > explanation needed? An explanation isn't needed. But still. Weird. But maybe that is just me. Like, I'll respond to something when it happens, and if I don't? Not so much go back 2 weeks and readdress it. But ok. > If you get a whole vp for being last man standing (and do not oust) > that is not much of an accomplishment either. I never took the > position that last man standing who scores an oust has accomplished > more than a time out player who has not scored an oust. I merely too > the position that a last man standing with one oust should be worth > the same as a time out player with one oust. Again, the difference is that being the last man standing at the table means you have either ousted someone over and above the timeout player, or forced another player to withdraw (which is often a feat in and of itself). The position that last man standing with 1 oust should be worth the same as a timeout player with an oust is clearly the issue that you are having trouble convincing folks should be an equivelant position. I don't think they are equivelant positions. Being alive when the game times out holds no specific accomplishment--as I note elsewhere, sometimes when you are alive when the game times out, you are on the verge of a sweep. Just as often, you are in a totally lost position, and the timeout saves you from inevitable death. The timeout doesn't make a distinction. It just gives you an average reward--.5 VP. > I never denied that last man standing will on average have achieved > more ousts than a time out player. But this level of success is > already measured by the number of ousts he gets. It isn't the number of ousts that gets you the extra .5VP over simply being alive when time runs out. Being the last man standing is the result of being in an advantageous position--you either ousted the last other player *or* you forced them to withdraw (and the vast majority of the time, you are ousting the last other player). Either of these are "accomplishments" so much as anything in the game is. > Usually you do have to oust someone to be last man standing. But that > ousting gets its own reward of one vp per oust. To determine if "last > man standing" is inherently deserving of more than survival til time > out, you have to look at those situations where a time out player and > a last man standing have scored an equal number of ousts. Again, timing out is an artificial imposition on the playing field, and makes no value judgement--you might time out in a great position or time out in a horrible position. Likely equal likelyhood of either. Thus, average reward--.5VP. > You are skewing the assumptions -- assuming that a player who goes to > time -- but for the time limit -- is about to be ousted, rather than > that he is about to oust -- there is an equal chance of either. Exactly. An equal chance of either. Average the reward. .5VP. > If you killed someone to get there, you get a vp for killing someone > to get there -- or more than 1 vp, if you killed more than one to get > there. So that is already accounted for. The 1vp for last man > standing is awarded above and beyond that, and is awarded even if you > did not kill anyone to get there. You can't be the last man standing without either killing someone or forcing someone to withdraw. You are never going to be in a situation, other than by virtue of negotiation, where you will be the last man standing due to someone withdrawing when you can't either stop them or oust them. > No. If you did anything proactive (like ousting), and accomplished > anything (like ousting), you have already been rewarded for it. To > the extent that last man standing awards anything beyond that, it > merely awards survival. No, it awards being the last man standing. Which is, as noted ad-nauseum, different than being alive when time runs out. Time running out is, for all intents and purposes, a random effect. The game ends at some point, and the position you are in when time runs out could just as well be determined by die roll. Being last man standing comes from being in an advantageous position and playing well. Being alive when time runs out could just as likely be the result of random chance as good play. Thus, split the difference. .5VP. > You seem to want to pretend that I believe that the last man standing > with one oust should be rewarded the same as a time out player with no > ousts. But that is to argue with a straw man. Clearly, my position > is that the former should get 2 vp and the latter should get 1 vp. No, I want to pretend that you want to give a player who times out 1VP instead of .5VP. Oh, wait. You do want that. > Or it could mean your prey had one pool when time ran out. There is > an equal chance of either. Stop skewing the facts in your favor. I'm not skewing the facts at all. I'm simply pointing out that position when time runs out is just as likely to be losing as winning. So you average the difference. .5VP. > If you did, you get an extra vp for ousting. Why are you pretending I > am trying to change that? I'm not pretending anything. You spend an awful lot of time trying to attribute motives to folks. That isn't really helping your argument. > Are you trying to pretend my proposal does not reward him? It gives > him 1 vp for ousting, plus one for last man standing, for a total of 2 > vp. It gives the same to a time-out player if AND ONLY IF he scores > the same number of ousts. A time out player who scores no ousts gets > only 1`vp under my proposal. Under the current rules, a time out player who scores no ousts gets .5VP. Which is reasonable, given that a time out position is just as likely to be good as bad. So you split the difference. .5VP. And if you *are* in a good position and want to get the 1VP for ousting rather than the .5VP for timing out? Take a risk. Play faster. Try harder to oust your prey. Which is why .5VP for time out is a good idea. It provides incentive to do things like take risks and play faster. > It does not seem logical to me, because you are guilty of double > counting. You want to reward the the last man standing for scoring > more ousts, but have forgotten that he has already been awarded for > this, to the extent that he has done it. I don't want to reward the last man standing for scoring more ousts. I want to reward the last man standing for being in a good position when the game comes to an actual end. > It is an appropriate example. You want to cheat by comparing the last > man standing with 1 oust to the time out player with no ousts, and > argue that the last man standing with one oust is more deserving. Of > course he is! And my proposal gives him more -- it gives him 1 extra > vp for that extra oust that he got. No, it is a ridiculous example because when is someone going to oust 3 people and then decide to withdraw? If it is 'cause they can't oust the other last guy? Then the other last guy is in an advantageous position. Give him the 1VP for being last man standing. Go him. > You want to harp on the time out player with no ousts. But the > appropriate comparison to the time out player with no ousts is the > last man standing with no ousts. I'm not harping on anything. I'm pointing out the being the last man standing comes from being in an advantageous position (go you! 1VP!) and being alive when the game times out is essentially a random position (split the difference! .5VP!) > If you want a less "ridiculous trumped up" example, we should compare > the time out player with 3 ousts to the last man standing with 3 > ousts. To my mind, they are both equally deserving -- they have > ousted three players, and should both get 4 vp. Except that in one example, the game has come to a natural end and the last man standing got there by virtue of being in a advantageous position. And in the other, the game has come to an artificial, essentially random end, and there is no way to know if either player is in an advantageous position. > You are assuming facts not in evidence. The only way E has foiled A > is to avoid A's attempt to oust him. In other words, E survived until > the end of the game. That is all E managed to accomplish -- not being > ousted. You can't be the last man standing without ousting someone or compelling your opponent to withdraw. The only reason your opponent would withdraw is 'cause you are in an advantageous position. If you are in a disadvantageous position? Your opponent does not withdraw. Do you actually play this game? > I think you're getting a bit carried away. There is no reason to > discuss collusion. If you prefer a different example, where A's > motives might be clearer, how about 4 player game: A ousts B, then > ousts C, then withdraws. E (wuss that he is) lets him. A wins 3 vp > to 1 vp standard rules (2.5 vp to 1 vp VEKN rules). Why does C withdraw? Unless E is in a strong position, C has zero reason to withdraw. If E is in a strong position, he gets a reward for forcing his opponent to withdraw. > Here we see that > A by withdrawing secures himself the game win. His motives are clear > enough. No, they aren't, 'cause people don't withdraw in situations like yo describe. Withdrawl only comes from either lucky desperation or negotiation. People in winning positions don't withdraw. The position you are proposing as evidence for your argument is one of a player in a winning position deciding to withdraw. Which doesn't happen. Unless they are in a losing position. In which case the other player is forcing them to withdraw. Which is as good as ousting them. [ quoted text not captured ]

Peter D Bakija wrote: > Being alive when the game times out holds no specific > accomplishment--as I note elsewhere, sometimes when you are alive > when the game times out, you are on the verge of a sweep. Just as > often, you are in a totally lost position, and the timeout saves > you from inevitable death. The timeout doesn't make a distinction. > It just gives you an average reward--.5 VP. If you want to predict the result of an unfinished game, the average future award is 1 for any player in any time-out situation. This is simple math, which I laid out for you (and you snipped). The simplest equation, in a two player context is (0+2)/2 = 1. We can't go further from here. The conversation is over. It seems we cannot even agree on whether the average of zero and two is one.

On Oct 21, 7:28 pm, nyst...@cs.com wrote: > Peter D Bakija wrote: > > Being alive when the game times out holds no specific > > accomplishment--as I note elsewhere, sometimes when you are alive > > when the game times out, you are on the verge of a sweep. Just as > > often, you are in a totally lost position, and the timeout saves > > you from inevitable death. The timeout doesn't make a distinction. > > It just gives you an average reward--.5 VP. > > If you want to predict the result of an unfinished game, the average > future award is 1 for any player in any time-out situation. This is > simple math, which I laid out for you (and you snipped). The simplest > equation, in a two player context is (0+2)/2 = 1. But you aren't predicting the results of an unfinished game. For that you need an old gypsy and a crystal ball. Everybody knows that. What are they teaching kids in school nowadays? > We can't go further from here. The conversation is over. It seems we > cannot even agree on whether the average of zero and two is one. AVG 0,0,0,2 != 1 Phfttt! Comments Welcome, Norman S. Brown, Jr XZealot Archon of the Swamp

[ quoted text not captured ] And AVG 42,17 != 1 Equally immaterial. However, AVG of 0,2 does indeed = 1, which is the point. If you'd like to extend to a 4p, AVG 0,0,0,4 = 1 This is not quite the point, though, since we aren't averaging all players' accumulations (which is trivially 1, given the basic games' VP rules). We're averaging the accumulations possible for one of the remaining players. In With 2p left, player A can either oust B (2,0), get ousted (0,2) or have either A or B withdraw (1,1). For A, these outcomes are 2,0, and 1. The average of that set is 1. (The former 0,2 evaluation was omitting the withdrawal cases, as it had previously mentioned it would be). If you want to go properly to 4p, then you have to evaluate the possibilities for player A at that point. That list, too, has a mean of 1 (this is also relatively intuitive after noting the zero-sum aspect of the basic games' VP rules, but requires a bit more analysis than the "average accumulation of all players" stat).

[ quoted text not captured ] The point is that in the rulebook there are no rules for a timed out game (i.e. results in no additional VPs scored). The game would just end. Hence the 0,0,0,2 example of an unfinished game with 2 players remaining (assuming a 4 player game) VKEN makes an allotment of .5 VPs for survival. This "improved" tournament scoring system in effect doubles that allotment in the name of "mathmatical purity" or "assuming that everyone ousts their prey" both of which are irrelavent to both designer intent (which doesn't account for unfinished games) and encouraging pro-active behavior (which will cease as soon as the player "accepts" that he can't score anymore victory points). [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] Oh? Where do you find "end with more than one player" in the rulebook? In the basic game, the game would not just end. > Hence the 0,0,0,2 example of an unfinished game with 2 players > remaining (assuming a 4 player game) And hence my response, since 0,0,0,2 is not at issue. But rather, the issue is the evaluation of how the game would end (averaging expected outcomes) from that point. > VKEN makes an allotment of .5 VPs for survival. > > This "improved" tournament scoring system in effect doubles that > allotment in the name of "mathmatical purity" or "assuming that > everyone ousts their prey" both of which are irrelavent to both > designer intent (which doesn't account for unfinished games) and > encouraging pro-active behavior (which will cease as soon as the > player "accepts" that he can't score anymore victory points). Neither here nor there. The point of AVG 0,2 = 1 is simply an identification of fact (analyzing the expected outcome). What one should do with that information is a matter of debate, but the information is TrueFact nonetheless.

On Oct 21, 8:28 pm, nyst...@cs.com wrote: > If you want to predict the result of an unfinished game, the average > future award is 1 for any player in any time-out situation. This is > simple math, which I laid out for you (and you snipped). The simplest > equation, in a two player context is (0+2)/2 = 1. If I oust you, I get 1VP. If I don't oust you, I get 0VP. Splitting the difference is .5VP. > We can't go further from here. The conversation is over. I was under the impression that the conversation was over two weeks ago, yet here we are anyway. Vast sweeping statements about the nature of the conversation are about as helpful as spending a lot of effort imagining the motives of the folks you are discussing things with. -Peter

Peter D Bakija wrote: > On Oct 21, 8:28 pm, nyst...@cs.com wrote: >> If you want to predict the result of an unfinished game, the average >> future award is 1 for any player in any time-out situation. This is >> simple math, which I laid out for you (and you snipped). The simplest >> equation, in a two player context is (0+2)/2 = 1. > > If I oust you, I get 1VP. If I don't oust you, I get 0VP. Splitting > the difference is .5VP. No, if I oust you, I get 2 VP -- one for the oust and one for last meth standing.

XZealot wrote: > VKEN makes an allotment of .5 VPs for survival. > > This "improved" tournament scoring system in effect doubles that > allotment in the name of "mathmatical purity" or "assuming that > everyone ousts their prey" both of which are irrelavent to both > designer intent (which doesn't account for unfinished games) and > encouraging pro-active behavior (which will cease as soon as the > player "accepts" that he can't score anymore victory points). Who are you quoting?

[ quoted text not captured ] The white wolf site is down right now, but in the "Anarchs" edition of the rulebook availible on the lasombra.com, it states that "As Methuselahs are ousted, players earn victory points; the winner is the player with the most victory points at the end of the game" and "The game continues until only one player is left." It doesn't say that a game can not end without multiple players present. Where do you see otherwise? There can certainly be an end to the game and a clear determination of whether a winner is declared if there are mulitple players left, when a secondary termination factor (time) is introduced. > In the basic game, the game would not just end. Correct, but there is a scoring system in place to make a determination of a winner in any event. > > Hence the 0,0,0,2 example of an unfinished game with 2 players > > remaining (assuming a 4 player game) > > And hence my response, since 0,0,0,2 is not at issue. But rather, the issue is > the evaluation of how the game would end (averaging expected outcomes) from that > point. Averaging Expected Outcomes is irrelevant and misleading. It is truly disingenuous to try to establish a methodology allocating unearned Victory Points as if they were actually earned. > > VKEN makes an allotment of .5 VPs for survival. > > > This "improved" tournament scoring system in effect doubles that > > allotment in the name of "mathmatical purity" or "assuming that > > everyone ousts their prey" both of which are irrelavent to both > > designer intent (which doesn't account for unfinished games) and > > encouraging pro-active behavior (which will cease as soon as the > > player "accepts" that he can't score anymore victory points). > > Neither here nor there. The point of AVG 0,2 = 1 is simply an identification of > fact (analyzing the expected outcome). What one should do with that information > is a matter of debate, but the information is TrueFact nonetheless. The information is irrelevant and is a perfect example of mathematics being turned into mathemadness. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Oct 22, 7:55 am, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > No, if I oust you, I get 2 VP -- one for the oust and one for last meth standing. Only if we are the last two players at the table. I am not assuming we are the last two people at the table. And apparently, neither are the timeout rules. -Peter

Peter D Bakija wrote: > I was under the impression that the conversation was over two weeks > ago, yet here we are anyway. That was because I hadn't the time. Now it's because we've reached an impasse.

XZealot wrote: > On Oct 22, 5:10 am, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: >> Oh? Where do you find "end with more than one player" in the rulebook? > > The white wolf site is down right now, but in the "Anarchs" edition of > the rulebook availible on the lasombra.com, it states that "As > Methuselahs are ousted, players earn victory points; the winner is the > player with the most victory points > at the end of the game" and "The game continues until only one player > is left." It doesn't say that a game can not end without multiple > players present. Where do you see otherwise? You just quoted it. >> And hence my response, since 0,0,0,2 is not at issue. But rather, the issue is >> the evaluation of how the game would end (averaging expected outcomes) from that >> point. > > Averaging Expected Outcomes is irrelevant and misleading. Incorrect. It is exactly the issue at hand, so it calling it misleading is misleading. > It is truly > disingenuous to try to establish a methodology allocating unearned > Victory Points as if they were actually earned. You seem to be using a weird definition of disingenuous. Averaging expected outcomes is natural. >> Neither here nor there. The point of AVG 0,2 = 1 is simply an identification of >> fact (analyzing the expected outcome). What one should do with that information >> is a matter of debate, but the information is TrueFact nonetheless. > > The information is irrelevant and is a perfect example of mathematics > being turned into mathemadness. Oooh, soundbites to counter facts. Maybe we should move this to talk.politics.

[ quoted text not captured ] No need to assume, it was an explicit given.

On Oct 22, 8:28 am, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > No need to assume, it was an explicit given. Explicitly given in the example where only 2 players are left at the table. It is not explicitly given in my example of not only 2 players left. I'm not quite sure what you are trying to get at here. -Peter

On Oct 22, 6:27 am, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > XZealot wrote: > > On Oct 22, 5:10 am, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > >> Oh? Where do you find "end with more than one player" in the rulebook? > > > The white wolf site is down right now, but in the "Anarchs" edition of > > the rulebook availible on the lasombra.com, it states that "As > > Methuselahs are ousted, players earn victory points; the winner is the > > player with the most victory points > > at the end of the game" and "The game continues until only one player > > is left." It doesn't say that a game can not end without multiple > > players present. Where do you see otherwise? > > You just quoted it. It states one condition for the game ending, but does not exclude any others. > >> And hence my response, since 0,0,0,2 is not at issue. But rather, the issue is > >> the evaluation of how the game would end (averaging expected outcomes) from that > >> point. > > > Averaging Expected Outcomes is irrelevant and misleading. > > Incorrect. So, you are supporting the awarding of 1 VP for survival to time. > It is exactly the issue at hand, so it calling it misleading is misleading. > > > It is truly > > disingenuous to try to establish a methodology allocating unearned > > Victory Points as if they were actually earned. > > You seem to be using a weird definition of disingenuous. > > Averaging expected outcomes is natural. > Only for mathematical models, for behaviour models averaging expected outcomes is not predictive. Since you are holding this up as "natural", you would be able to support that statistically. Could you please name one round of one tournament or game of VTES that ended with a score of 1,1,1,1,1? > >> Neither here nor there. The point of AVG 0,2 = 1 is simply an identification of > >> fact (analyzing the expected outcome). What one should do with that information > >> is a matter of debate, but the information is TrueFact nonetheless. > > > The information is irrelevant and is a perfect example of mathematics > > being turned into mathemadness. > > Oooh, soundbites to counter facts. > > Maybe we should move this to talk.politics. Maybe we should, because your "natural" averages belong there. [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] The example in which it was given and in which you respond: "0.5", which is incorrect. http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/72ca39627a6124e9

On Oct 22, 8:47 am, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > Peter D Bakija wrote: > The example in which it was given and in which you respond: "0.5", which is > incorrect. > > http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/72ca... In that example, I'm changing the assumption. I oust you, I get 1VP. I don't oust you, I get 0VP. I make no reference at all to one of us being the last person at the table. -Peter

[ quoted text not captured ] Then they are false quotes.

XZealot wrote: > On Oct 22, 6:27 am, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: >> XZealot wrote: >>> On Oct 22, 5:10 am, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: >>>> Oh? Where do you find "end with more than one player" in the rulebook? >>> The white wolf site is down right now, but in the "Anarchs" edition of >>> the rulebook availible on the lasombra.com, it states that "As >>> Methuselahs are ousted, players earn victory points; the winner is the >>> player with the most victory points >>> at the end of the game" and "The game continues until only one player >>> is left." It doesn't say that a game can not end without multiple >>> players present. Where do you see otherwise? >> You just quoted it. > > It states one condition for the game ending, but does not exclude any > others. Speaking of disingenuous. Shall the game end when the rules say, or whenever anyone feels like ending it (say, as soon as one methuselah gets a VP, she calls for an end)? Or do you refer to the golden rule (whereby, in theory, some card text could end the game)? The rules also state three conditions for getting VPs, but do not exclude any others. Are there others (again, other than card text)? >>>> And hence my response, since 0,0,0,2 is not at issue. But rather, the issue is >>>> the evaluation of how the game would end (averaging expected outcomes) from that >>>> point. >>> Averaging Expected Outcomes is irrelevant and misleading. >> Incorrect. > > So, you are supporting the awarding of 1 VP for survival to time. In the basic rules, there is no time limit. Surviving to the end (being the last meth standing) gets a 1 VP award, yes. >> It is exactly the issue at hand, so it calling it misleading is misleading. >> >>> It is truly >>> disingenuous to try to establish a methodology allocating unearned >>> Victory Points as if they were actually earned. >> You seem to be using a weird definition of disingenuous. >> >> Averaging expected outcomes is natural. > > Only for mathematical models, for behaviour models averaging expected > outcomes is not predictive. This looks like obfuscation. > Since you are holding this up as "natural", you would be able to > support that statistically. Could you please name one round of one > tournament or game of VTES that ended with a score of 1,1,1,1,1? That's not what I'm saying. The odds of a random player winning a 5p game is 20% (discounting ties). This is trivial. Similarly, the average number of VPs a random player in a game of VTES will accumulate is 1. >>>> Neither here nor there. The point of AVG 0,2 = 1 is simply an identification of >>>> fact (analyzing the expected outcome). What one should do with that information >>>> is a matter of debate, but the information is TrueFact nonetheless. >>> The information is irrelevant and is a perfect example of mathematics >>> being turned into mathemadness. >> Oooh, soundbites to counter facts. >> >> Maybe we should move this to talk.politics. > > Maybe we should, because your "natural" averages belong there. Oooh. Good one. Doesn't change the nature of the fact, though.

Peter D Bakija wrote: > On Oct 22, 8:47 am, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: >> Peter D Bakija wrote: >> The example in which it was given and in which you respond: "0.5", which is >> incorrect. >> >> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/72ca... > > In that example, I'm changing the assumption. Then you should have said so. As it is, you simply followed up with an incorrect statement. > I oust you, I get 1VP. I > don't oust you, I get 0VP. I make no reference at all to one of us > being the last person at the table. With only 2p, as per if you oust the other, then you are the last person at the table. Even if you want to play with unstated changes to the scenario, then you still get an average of 1, because you don't stop with just the first oust -- when analyzing expected outcomes, you analyze end-of-game scenarios, not "next oust".

On Oct 22, 11:02 am, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > Then you should have said so. Maybe I should have. I figured that by not addressing position of being last man or not, I was not addressing it. Shows what I know. > > I oust you, I get 1VP. I > > don't oust you, I get 0VP. I make no reference at all to one of us > > being the last person at the table. > > With only 2p, as per if you oust the other, then you are the last person at the > table. Nowhere do I specify only 2 players. If I oust you, I gain 1VP. If I don't oust you, I gain 0VP. This does not indicate if there are other players at the table or not. > Even if you want to play with unstated changes to the scenario, then you still > get an average of 1, because you don't stop with just the first oust -- when > analyzing expected outcomes, you analyze end-of-game scenarios, not "next >oust". The time out rules don't seem to want to analyze end-of-game scenarios. Otherwise, they might very well give you 1VP for being alive. Yet they only give you .5VP for being alive. -Peter

Peter D Bakija wrote: > On Oct 22, 11:02 am, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: >> Then you should have said so. > > Maybe I should have. I figured that by not addressing position of > being last man or not, I was not addressing it. Shows what I know. > >>> I oust you, I get 1VP. I >>> don't oust you, I get 0VP. I make no reference at all to one of us >>> being the last person at the table. >> With only 2p, as per if you oust the other, then you are the last person at the >> table. > > Nowhere do I specify only 2 players. Here's the quote: --- begin quote --- >> The simplest equation, in a two player context is (0+2)/2 = 1. > > If I oust you, I get 1VP. If I don't oust you, I get 0VP. Splitting > the difference is .5VP. --- end quote --- That is an incorrect statement, in the context in which it was given. >> Even if you want to play with unstated changes to the scenario, then you still >> get an average of 1, because you don't stop with just the first oust -- when >> analyzing expected outcomes, you analyze end-of-game scenarios, not "next >oust". > > The time out rules don't seem to want to analyze end-of-game > scenarios. Otherwise, they might very well give you 1VP for being > alive. Yet they only give you .5VP for being alive. Exactly. That's the point nystulc has been trying to make the whole time.

Peter wrote: > > The time out rules don't seem to want to analyze end-of-game > > scenarios. Otherwise, they might very well give you 1VP for being > > alive. Yet they only give you .5VP for being alive. LSJ wrote: > Exactly. That's the point nystulc has been trying to make the whole time. Nope. His point is that this situation should be changed. That the timeout rules don't care in any way about what might have been, is a positive item about the tournament rules.

On Oct 22, 1:04 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > That is an incorrect statement, in the context in which it was given. Ah. My error for not clarifiying the context. > Exactly. That's the point nystulc has been trying to make the whole time. He seems to want the timeout rules to prognosticate into the future and make predictions about final outcomes. Currently, they (the tournament rules) don't seem to want to make predictions about final outcomes. You could certainly change them to do so. But that is a significant change. -Peter

The Lasombra wrote: > Peter wrote: >>> The time out rules don't seem to want to analyze end-of-game >>> scenarios. Otherwise, they might very well give you 1VP for being >>> alive. Yet they only give you .5VP for being alive. > > LSJ wrote: >> Exactly. That's the point nystulc has been trying to make the whole time. > > Nope. > > His point is that this situation should be changed. That, too, yes. "don't want to analyze" "Otherwise" "might very well" and all that. > That the timeout rules don't care in any way about what might have > been, is a positive item about the tournament rules. OK. If you guys want to see disparity in the statement, that's fine. But that sort of thing leads to the never-ending spiral that this thread has become. At any rate, the zero-sum game is the foundation of the VP system. So the deviating from that is the thing that needs justification, not the adhering to it. The current V:EKN rules, like the DCI rules before them, deviate from that. Some justifications for that have been given (by myself and others), but the fact remains that it is a deviation from the paradigm established in the base rules.

Peter D Bakija wrote: > On Oct 22, 1:04 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: >> That is an incorrect statement, in the context in which it was given. > > Ah. My error for not clarifiying the context. > >> Exactly. That's the point nystulc has been trying to make the whole time. > > He seems to want the timeout rules to prognosticate into the future > and make predictions about final outcomes. Not make predictions, but analyze expected outcomes. If A and B play a game where 10% of the time A wins a dollar and 90% of the time B wins a dollar, then the expected outcome is 0.1 dollar for A. That is not the same thing as predicting that A will win a dime (indeed, that outcome is not possible). If the game can be called on time (and no suitable way exists to analyze how far from the expected norm the game state currently differs at any arbitrary point in the game), then a natural thing to do would be to award A a dime (the expected outcome; not the predicted outcome) when time is called. > You could certainly change them to do so. But that is a > significant change. True, the rules could be changed in any number of significant ways. But that's not the issue yet. All this noise over the facts prevents any sort of meaningful discussion toward that end. The first step is understanding what is being said so that the decision on change (if and how) could be approached.

On Oct 22, 7:57 am, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > XZealot wrote: > > Since you are holding this up as "natural", you would be able to > > support that statistically. Could you please name one round of one > > tournament or game of VTES that ended with a score of 1,1,1,1,1? > > That's not what I'm saying. > > The odds of a random player winning a 5p game is 20% (discounting ties). > This is trivial. > > Similarly, the average number of VPs a random player in a game of VTES will > accumulate is 1. Except that in a VEKN sanctioned event, the average number of VPs a random player will accumulate is somewhat less than 1 due to table time-outs. Jeff

[ quoted text not captured ] I knew that conversation would end at an impasse when I saw the first post. :) Jeff

[ quoted text not captured ] Um, yes. Exactly the disparity being addressed. My comment above was for the base game, as previously given. The OP's point was that (or "involved the fact that", for the spiralists out there) the time-out system used by the V:EKN produces a different result.

On Oct 22, 9:57 am, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > XZealot wrote: > > On Oct 22, 6:27 am, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > >> XZealot wrote: > >>> On Oct 22, 5:10 am, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > >>>> Oh? Where do you find "end with more than one player" in the rulebook? > >>> The white wolf site is down right now, but in the "Anarchs" edition of > >>> the rulebook availible on the lasombra.com, it states that "As > >>> Methuselahs are ousted, players earn victory points; the winner is the > >>> player with the most victory points > >>> at the end of the game" and "The game continues until only one player > >>> is left." It doesn't say that a game can not end without multiple > >>> players present. Where do you see otherwise? > >> You just quoted it. > > > It states one condition for the game ending, but does not exclude any > > others. > > Speaking of disingenuous. > > Shall the game end when the rules say, or whenever anyone feels like ending it > (say, as soon as one methuselah gets a VP, she calls for an end)? Do you know of a better way of handling a player getting up from the table and saying, "I quit"? If you do, then you need to tell White Wolf because that is the single biggest flaw with the online version of this game. > Or do you refer to the golden rule (whereby, in theory, some card text could end > the game)? > > The rules also state three conditions for getting VPs, but do not exclude any > others. Are there others (again, other than card text)? > > >>>> And hence my response, since 0,0,0,2 is not at issue. But rather, the issue is > >>>> the evaluation of how the game would end (averaging expected outcomes) from that > >>>> point. > >>> Averaging Expected Outcomes is irrelevant and misleading. > >> Incorrect. > > > So, you are supporting the awarding of 1 VP for survival to time. > > In the basic rules, there is no time limit. But you are introducing one in tournaments, and the "better" scoring system gives everyone 1 VP for twiddling their thumbs. > >> It is exactly the issue at hand, so it calling it misleading is misleading. > > >>> It is truly > >>> disingenuous to try to establish a methodology allocating unearned > >>> Victory Points as if they were actually earned. > >> You seem to be using a weird definition of disingenuous. > > >> Averaging expected outcomes is natural. > > > Only for mathematical models, for behaviour models averaging expected > > outcomes is not predictive. > > This looks like obfuscation. Throwing meaningless statistics > > Since you are holding this up as "natural", you would be able to > > support that statistically. Could you please name one round of one > > tournament or game of VTES that ended with a score of 1,1,1,1,1? > > That's not what I'm saying. But you just said it was "natural". Is eveyone earning 1 VP in a game a "natural" common occurence? > The odds of a random player winning a 5p game is 20% (discounting ties). > This is trivial. This is true, and.... > Similarly, the average number of VPs a random player in a game of VTES will > accumulate is 1. also true, but a meaningless statistic as it is practically impossible for a game of VTES to end with every player achieving an average outcome. I have never seen it happen. Have you? > >>>> Neither here nor there. The point of AVG 0,2 = 1 is simply an identification of > >>>> fact (analyzing the expected outcome). What one should do with that information > >>>> is a matter of debate, but the information is TrueFact nonetheless. > >>> The information is irrelevant and is a perfect example of mathematics > >>> being turned into mathemadness. > >> Oooh, soundbites to counter facts. > > >> Maybe we should move this to talk.politics. > > > Maybe we should, because your "natural" averages belong there. > > Oooh. > Good one. > > Doesn't change the nature of the fact, though. But it changes the relevancy of the fact to this application, and dismisses it as support for a "better" tournament scoring system. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <1193057215....@v23g2000prn.googlegroups.com>, XZealot <xze...@cox.net> writes: >Could you please name one round of one >tournament or game of VTES that ended with a score of 1,1,1,1,1? Prior to the change to the points awarded for withdrawal, I've seen a number of tables do this when there are five minutes to go and everyone is doing awfully. Or the equivalent on a 4 player table, of course. I have no vested interest in how you go on to yell at each other over this answer. I'm sure you all have ENORMOUS penises, and will continue to demonstrate this at, uh, length. -- James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D YOU ARE IN ERROR. EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 NO-ONE IS SCREAMING. 13D7E668C3695D623D5D THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.

XZealot wrote: > On Oct 22, 9:57 am, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: >> Similarly, the average number of VPs a random player in a game of VTES will >> accumulate is 1. > > also true, but a meaningless statistic as it is practically impossible > for a game of VTES to end with every player achieving an average > outcome. I have never seen it happen. Have you? Again, not the point. Expected value is not the same as a probable outcome. See the dime example.

On Oct 23, 1:46 am, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: > In message <1193057215.987530.34...@v23g2000prn.googlegroups.com>, > > XZealot <xzea...@cox.net> writes: > >Could you please name one round of one > >tournament or game of VTES that ended with a score of 1,1,1,1,1? > > Prior to the change to the points awarded for withdrawal, I've seen a > number of tables do this when there are five minutes to go and everyone > is doing awfully. Or the equivalent on a 4 player table, of course. Bingo! Give that man a prize! For an additional $1, why was the system changed? [ quoted text not captured ]

On Oct 23, 1:46 am, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: > In message <1193057215.987530.34...@v23g2000prn.googlegroups.com>, > > XZealot <xzea...@cox.net> writes: > >Could you please name one round of one > >tournament or game of VTES that ended with a score of 1,1,1,1,1? > > Prior to the change to the points awarded for withdrawal, I've seen a > number of tables do this when there are five minutes to go and everyone > is doing awfully. Or the equivalent on a 4 player table, of course. Why do you think it was changed? Why do we currently only give .5 for withdrawls under VEKN? [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] They are summations. This is the mathematical purity claim I quote http://tinyurl.com/2rt8vg "Hence, my system extrapolates from the original rules, and preserves the principle, intended by Richard Garfield, that Jyhad be a "zero sum game", wherein the number of victory points distributed always equals the number of methuselahs playing. " and This is the "assuming everyone ousts their prey" http://tinyurl.com/2p28pj "Had the game continued, he might have ousted D, gaining an extra point bringing his total to 3; or he might have been ousted by D, thereby losing a victory point and ending at 1. Since neither of these things had a chance to happen, he remains at 2, exactly as though he had withdrawn from the game, or, alternatively, exactly as though D had withdrawn from the game. " Now those are exact quotes. [ quoted text not captured ]

XZealot wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] > Correct, but Nyst is holding that up as justification for awarding > everyone a VP at the timeout which as you state is not the same as > probably outcome. Correct. Expected outcome is the natural way of handling such things. Again, see the dime example. > Since, it is not predictive of probable outcome, > then it is irrelavent and does not support Nyst's theory of why > everyone should be awarded an entire V.P. for surviving to time. Incorrect. The fact that it is not predictive of probable outcome is irrelevant. But the fact that it is the expected outcome (value-wise) makes the argument extremely relevant. Indeed, it makes the argument less of an argument and more of a simple observation of the default state of affairs (a default which the current rules deviate from). Adhering to a default doesn't need an argument. Deviating from it does.

[ quoted text not captured ] Zoom! You just blew past me on that one. So you are saying, "it is not predictive outcome; it is expected outcome". The two words mean the same thing. Predictive- adjective-: to possess the quality to declare or indicate in advance; especially : foretell on the basis of observation, experience, or scientific reason Expected- to consider probable or certain Please elaborate on the minutiae of this hair-spitting definintion. <Jon Madden voice>You expect predictions, because predictions are what you should expect. That's what make the world go "round.<draws two circular aroows pointing at each other> [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] A wins 1.00 10% of the time and wins 0.00 90% of the time. Probable outcome: A wins zero. Expected value: 0.10

[ quoted text not captured ] Exactly, A wins a 5 player game 20% of the time. Probable out come A wins zero games. Expected value 1. Now a game gets called on time. A has 47 library cards, 3 vampires in torpor, 1 victory point, and 13 pool. B has 56 library cards, 4 vampires in torpor, 1 victory point and 15 pool. C has 33 library cards, 4 vampires, 0 victory points, and 7 pool. How do you divide up the points? According to the rulebook, A and B tie with 1 vp each. Based on the above facts, how do you justify allocated victory points? [ quoted text not captured ]

XZealot wrote: > On Oct 23, 8:00 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: >> A wins 1.00 10% of the time and wins 0.00 90% of the time. >> >> Probable outcome: A wins zero. >> Expected value: 0.10 > > Exactly, A wins a 5 player game 20% of the time. Probable out come A > wins zero games. Expected value 1. Exactly. That's the point. Awarding the expected value. > Now a game gets called on time. A has 47 library cards, 3 vampires > in torpor, 1 victory point, and 13 pool. B has 56 library cards, 4 > vampires in torpor, 1 victory point and 15 pool. C has 33 library > cards, 4 vampires, 0 victory points, and 7 pool. How do you divide up > the points? Already covered: since one cannot produce a formula for such details (the "perfect expected value"), you ignore the details and take the average (the "average expected value"). Overall, it is more fair. That is, taking the average expected value gets you closer to the perfect expected value than taking half the expected value. > According to the rulebook, A and B tie with 1 vp each. Well, except that the rulebook only deals with games without time limits, yeah. > Based on the above facts, how do you justify allocated victory points? How does one justify them? By noting they're closer to the ideal. How do I justify them? I don't have to -- the V:EKN rules use something else.

In message <1193174873.5...@e34g2000pro.googlegroups.com>, XZealot <xze...@cox.net> writes: >Why do you think it was changed? Why do we currently only give .5 for >withdrawls under VEKN? As I said, I have no interest in this argument. I was merely answering a question that had not been answered. Please, continue providing amusement for the rest of us with bizarre yelling. [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] That must have been in the section of the rulebook that Garfield wrote that didn't make it past the editors. There is nothing in the rulebook about short games and allocating unearned VPs. > How do I justify them? I don't have to -- the V:EKN rules use something else. And both for survival and withdrawl, VEKN rules allocate .5 VPs. Why is that? [ quoted text not captured ]

XZealot wrote: > On Oct 23, 9:08 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: >> XZealot wrote: >>> Based on the above facts, how do you justify allocated victory points? >> How does one justify them? By noting they're closer to the ideal. > > That must have been in the section of the rulebook that Garfield wrote > that didn't make it past the editors. There is nothing in the > rulebook about short games and allocating unearned VPs. How many tokens for this ride? There. Is. No. Time. Limit. In. The. Base. Game. >> How do I justify them? I don't have to -- the V:EKN rules use something else. > > And both for survival and withdrawl, VEKN rules allocate .5 VPs. Why > is that? Yes, it's already been noted that the VEKN rules purposefully deviate from the core "ideal".

[ quoted text not captured ] Yes, but "why"? It'd be kind of nice to see some "minutes" from VEKN discussion about this sort of thing. Might alleviate some of the redundant arguing that happens here, which doesn't directly t affect the final outcome of any rules changes. Jeff

[ quoted text not captured ] Only the main: To reduce the appeal of the things they are rewarding: Time outs and withdrawals. (The DCI established the first, the V:EKN added the second many years later).

<nys...@cs.com> wrote in message news:1193006669.6...@e34g2000pro.googlegroups.com... > Do you really have anything to say that has not been said before? Do you? > If not, why are you so proud of being "hot on my heels". Because you keep repeating the same already-demonstrately-flawed logic in some other context as it it were new. Then I answer it. Then you say to everyone, "I have an answer to Fred's answer: go gaze dumbly upon my massive tome of analysis posted lo those many years ago. Somewhere in there is proof you're wrong...." And nobody does because that's a silly answer. > I have > responded to all your points -- at considerable length --, and you > complain that they are too "long winded" and not "succinct" enough. > What do you expect me to do now? Either: 1) Start posting reasoning people can understand. or 2) Give up. Fred

<nys...@cs.com> wrote in message news:1193005275.5...@e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com... >> In a tournament game, >> being still alive when time runs out means nothing of the sort. It >> just means that you had at least 1 pool when time ran out. > > Or it could mean your prey had one pool when time ran out. There is > an equal chance of either. Stop skewing the facts in your favor. I don't care that much about the issue of trying to estimate whether E "deserves" the extra .5 VP based on what he accomplished. The game is rife with examples of players getting VPs they didn't deserve and not getting VPs they probably did deserve. It doesn't matter. But here is the big flaw in your logic: the assumption you're making here is that a neutral inability to judge how much a player accomplished before timing out implies equality of effort. It doesn't. You're right to say that it's impossible to place any value on the quality of play of any particular survivor. But it is clearly easier to build a deck that merely survives a timed game to time out than it is to build one that, on average, gets at least one VP for every one it loses in standard, non-timed play. >> Comparing the two is not really viable > > Seems viable to me. And that pair of alternative statements right there is probably as close to putting our fingers on the source of our disagreement as we will ever get. >> I have explained why I think your proposal de-incentivizes risk >> taking. And will do so again--if you get a full VP for simply >> surviving, if you are in a questionable position, you have all the >> incentive in the world to not try for the 1VP oust and and instead >> wall up and slow down the game. With .5VP for simply surviving, >> you have more incentive to take a risk for the oust if there is a >> chance for it. > > Okay. Since you won't provide an example, I will. > > A ousts B and C; D oust E. Now its E against A. One would think the first sentence implies it was now A against D. I'll assume you meant essentually that. For purposes of your example, I will just assume E was C's prey and ousted D. ... > A thinks he has a > chance to oust E, but it is very risky. E thinks he has a chance to > oust A, but it is very risky. > > Under current VEKN rules, E will not take the risk of trying to oust > A. He would rather go to time (if he can), and not risk losing the > game win (but if he knows he cannot make it to time, he will want to > oust before he gets ousted). Sure, he will get +1.5 vp for risking > and winning, just as he will lose only 0.5 for losing, but along with > that 0.5 he will also lose the game win -- That vp award is not > relevant when the game win is at stake. This was also a strange quote. It only makes sense - and I will assume you meant - "*A* will not take the risk of trying to oust *E*."...(etc., reverse A and E in the above.) > E, however, has every reason > to try to oust A, not mainly because of the extra 1.5 vps, but because > of the game win. > > Under either of my proposals, the dynamics will be exactly the same -- > the players will be focussed on the game win, and ignore the useless > half vp bribe. I'm confused what your point could possibly be. If the half vp bribe is, quote, "useless", unquote. Then no one should care about it. If you don't think a one-half victory point incentive makes any difference, then we shouldn't be having this debate. The fact that it matters to you is exactly why it does make a difference, why players _do_ care, and why it is not therefore "useless". The only area of disagreement is whether the effect is a good thing (as I believe) or a bad thing (as I take it you believe). So constructive debate should center on that issue. Claiming uselessness, in the context of a demand something should be eliminated is self-contradictory unless one is trying to assert the thing is a nuisance, which you are not. Fred

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:HB5Ti.47423$RX.1...@newssvr11.news.prodigy.net... > The Lasombra wrote: >> That the timeout rules don't care in any way about what might have >> been, is a positive item about the tournament rules. > > OK. If you guys want to see disparity in the statement, that's fine. But that sort of thing leads to the never-ending spiral that > this thread has become. No, it hasn't. What's led to the never-ending spiral is a refusal to see the issue for it is: a simple difference in values. You are correct in your disputes with Norm and Peter. If one wants to reward player behavior as per the expected value of the game WERE IT TO CONTINUE by granting them the expected number of victory points, then John has created a completely accurate proposal to do that. But that's only *IF* you wanted to reward player behavior that way. I don't, and I assume others who have debated against John do not. Jeff just stated the value judgement I've kept asserting over and over to John; John keeps insisting that so valuing player behavior at time out is "distorted", a description which we are to assume is a negative thing and we should therefore change it. But when you chase down what he means by "distortions", they always lead back to non-comforance with the original rules - the same ones which don't have to cover time-out scenarios - or non-conformance with the conservation-of-victory-points principal. Both are interesting to note. And I'll grant, both would be positive things on some level. But neither is particularly crucial and, considering that the game win award massively violates both concepts far more than how victory points are currently awarded, that's a damn good thing. In any case, it is not an issue of analysis, faulty analysis, or lack of analysis. Once this is accepted, I should think all parties could stop arguing past one another. Fred

Frederick Scott wrote: > "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message > news:HB5Ti.47423$RX.1...@newssvr11.news.prodigy.net... >> The Lasombra wrote: >>> That the timeout rules don't care in any way about what might have >>> been, is a positive item about the tournament rules. >> OK. If you guys want to see disparity in the statement, that's fine. But that sort of thing leads to the never-ending spiral that >> this thread has become. > > No, it hasn't. What's led to the never-ending spiral is a refusal to see the > issue for it is: a simple difference in values. > > You are correct in your disputes with Norm and Peter. If one wants to > reward player behavior as per the expected value of the game WERE IT TO > CONTINUE by granting them the expected number of victory points, then > John has created a completely accurate proposal to do that. But that's only > *IF* you wanted to reward player behavior that way. I don't, and I assume > others who have debated against John do not. Nicely stated. If only the others who disagreed would actually express their disagreements instead of attempting to tilt at windmill facts of the matter, then perhaps some progress would have come a lot sooner on this issue. > Jeff just stated the value judgement I've kept asserting over and over to > John; John keeps insisting that so valuing player behavior at time out is > "distorted", a description which we are to assume is a negative thing and > we should therefore change it. But when you chase down what he means by > "distortions", they always lead back to non-comforance with the original > rules - the same ones which don't have to cover time-out scenarios - or > non-conformance with the conservation-of-victory-points principal. > > Both are interesting to note. And I'll grant, both would be positive > things on some level. But neither is particularly crucial and, considering > that the game win award massively violates both concepts far more than how > victory points are currently awarded, that's a damn good thing. > > In any case, it is not an issue of analysis, faulty analysis, or lack > of analysis. Once this is accepted, I should think all parties could stop > arguing past one another. "Me too!"

Frederick Scott wrote: > "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message > news:HB5Ti.47423$RX.1...@newssvr11.news.prodigy.net... > > The Lasombra wrote: > >> That the timeout rules don't care in any way about what might > >> have been, is a positive item about the tournament rules. > > > > OK. If you guys want to see disparity in the statement, that's > > fine. But that sort of thing leads to the never-ending spiral > > that this thread has become. > > No, it hasn't. What's led to the never-ending spiral is a refusal > to see the issue for it is: a simple difference in values. I hope you are not trying to imply that I have refused to acknowledge that fact. I have acknowledged it many times. Indeed, I seem to recall that it was I who first stated the problem in such terms. That is why I keep suggesting we either agree to disagree, or move the subject to some area where we can have some common ground upon which we can base a discussion. > You are correct in your disputes with Norm and Peter. If one > wants to reward player behavior as per the expected value of the > game WERE IT TO CONTINUE by granting them the expected number of > victory points, then John has created a completely accurate > proposal to do that. But that's only *IF* you wanted to reward > player behavior that way. I don't, and I assume others who have > debated against John do not. > > Jeff just stated the value judgement I've kept asserting over and > over to John; John keeps insisting that so valuing player behavior > at time out is "distorted", a description which we are to assume > is a negative thing and we should therefore change it. But when > you chase down what he means by "distortions", they always lead > back to non-comforance with the original rules - the same ones > which don't have to cover time-out scenarios - or non-conformance > with the conservation-of-victory-points principal. You seem to be very preoccupied to my use of the word distortion. What do you think "distortion" means? It merely refers to the deviation from a norm which the speaker values, and towards which deviation the speaker therefore has a negative attitude -- and it is always in accordance with the speakers values -- which are always, ultimately, "arbitrary". I have explained the norm I have in mind. I have explained what I mean by distortion, and what the norm is that it is being distorted from. The negative word I chose reflects my negative attidute towards these changes and deviations. As I explained to you many times -- I am a fan of one game; you are a fan of another. If you have a more positive attitude, you can use a more positive word. Choose your own words and let me choose mine. I have acknowledged your claim that you reject all my values and prefer different values. Until and unless we can find norms and values we agree on, we have nothing to discuss. So why do you keep harping on this? Why do you feel the need to keep telling me, again and again and again and again, ad nauseam, that my opinions are just my opinions. Such accusations are always true, and it is the most worthless non-contribution to a discussion that I can imagine. If I say "the sky is blue" and someone answers "that's just your opinion", there is nothing further to be said.

Frederick Scott wrote: > <nys...@cs.com> wrote in message > news:1193005275.5...@e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com... > >> In a tournament game, > >> being still alive when time runs out means nothing of the sort. > >> It just means that you had at least 1 pool when time ran out. > > > > Or it could mean your prey had one pool when time ran out. > > There is an equal chance of either. Stop skewing the facts in > > your favor. > > I don't care that much about the issue of trying to estimate > whether E "deserves" the extra .5 VP based on what he > accomplished. The game is rife with examples of players getting > VPs they didn't deserve and not getting VPs they probably did > deserve. It doesn't matter. In short, we agree. > But here is the big flaw in your logic: the assumption you're > making here is that a neutral inability to judge how much a player > accomplished before timing out implies equality of effort. It > doesn't. You have already agreed with my only point. You are now disagreeing with something I did NOT say. > You're right to say that it's impossible to place any > value on the quality of play of any particular survivor. In short, we agree. > But it > is clearly easier to build a deck that merely survives a timed > game to time out than it is to build one that, on average, gets > at least one VP for every one it loses in standard, non-timed play. To the extent that I understand your gist, you seem to be saying something along the lines of the following: A player who (under the standard rules zero-sum game paradigm) scores 1,1,1 in 3 preliminary rounds (because he merely survived), should be ranked lower than a player who, in the same three rounds, scores 0,0,3 (getting ousted in the first two games, and winning in the last, because of his risk taking strategies), even though both have scored, per the standard rules, 3 total vps. You seem to be saying that the latter is more deserving of making it to the finals. Am I correct? If that is what you are saying, I agree 100% I am in favor of preserving, intact, the vp system during tournament play, for purposes of determining a game winner in accordance to the standard rules, and/or time out rules in keeping with what I (however arbitrarily) regard as in keeping with the standard rules. This does not, however, mean that I want tournament ranking to be based solely on vps. For me, the primary purpose of VPs is to be used for scoring an individual game, particularly for determining a winner. Once they have served that purpose, they can be dispensed with, and other considerations may be used to determine tournament ranking. First, imagine a tournament scoring system where VPs were the primary means of tournament ranking, but that the standard rules were followed with 1 full vp granted for time out, and no other consideration trumped. Under this system the 1,1,1 player would do as well as the 0,0,3 player. This would be a Bad Thing! But I am not advocating such a system! Second, here come the DCI's rules. The DCI decides to solve this problem by creating a half-point discount for survival in unfinished games. Now the do-nothing, non-risk taking player gets .5,.5,.5, for a total of 1.5, while the 0,0,3 player gets either 2.5 or 3 -- depending on whether his last game finished -- but in either case beats the do-nothing player. This is an improvement, at least in terms of the problem we are discussing. (My only objection would be that the same result could have been achieved on a tournament level without distorting the victory conditions on an in-game level). Third, the VEKN introduces the Game Win system. Now the do-nothing player still gets .5, .5, .5; and the risk taker still gets 0,0,2.5 or 0,0,3. However, now the risk taker gets something alot more valuable thatn 1.5 extra vps. He gets a GAME WIN, which trumps any number of VPs. Now the incentive to PLAY TO WIN becomes even stronger. (The in- game victory conditions, however, remain distorted from the standard rules -- unnecessarily in my view). Fourth, here comes my initial proposal from my initial thread. Now the do nothing player once again gets 1, 1, 1, for a total of 3; the risk taker now gets 0,0,3. They are once again tied for VPs, but this barely matters any more because the risk taker has a GAME WIN and the do-nothing player has not. Because of this all important difference, System Fourth no longer has the flaw of System First. But still, this does not punish the do-nothing player quite as much as the third proposal did, and it remains possible that this do-nothing player might still make the finals in a very small tournament. Hence, my Second proposal (System Fifth, below) Fifth, here comes my second proposal. Now the do-nothing player gets . 2,.2,.2 (or other appropriate figure, for instance, if one prefers to keep it at 0.5) for a total of 0.6, while the 0,0,3 player gets 3, plus a GAME WIN. Now, even in a small tournament generating less than 5 game winners, the 1,1,1 do nothing player will not only lose to the 0,0,3 game winning risk taker, but will also lose to the moderate 0,1,2 risk taker who fails to score a game win (this guy gets 0,.2,1.5 -- for a total of 1.7). This is achieved without actually distorting the victory conditions of the original game, because the unmodified victory points are used only for in-game purposes, and the modified victory points (or "victory score") is used for ranking purposes. You cannot, in fairness, accuse me of desiring to reward the do- nothing player. Only for in-game purposes do I want him to get a full vp, and for in-game purposes that full point is useless to him unless he can get two more. In the standard game, the victory point is merely an intermediate step to determining the identity of the winner, and the relative ranking of the remaining players.

Frederick Scott wrote: > <nys...@cs.com> wrote in message > > Under either of my proposals, the dynamics will be exactly the > > same -- the players will be focussed on the game win, and ignore > > the useless half vp bribe. > > I'm confused what your point could possibly be. If the half vp > bribe is, quote, "useless", unquote. Yes -- useless for the purpose under discussion -- the incentivizing of risk. > Then no one should care about it. Illogical. A dog with rabies is usless for the purpose of herding sheep. That does not mean nobody should care about it. > If > you don't think a one-half victory point incentive makes any > difference, then we shouldn't be having this debate. In theory we could have a debate over other issues. We COULD debate whether my second proposal is MORE effective at incentivizing risk; which is in fact my position. We could also discuss my distortions -- except you have already indicated you don't care about those -- so lets not. We could also discuss my claim that these alleged "risk incentives" are more effective at causing player frustration and dissatisfaction at time out than they are at actually preventing time outs. I think we have already reached impass on those issues though. > The fact that it matters to you is exactly why it does make a > difference, why players _do_ care, and why it is not > therefore "useless". The only area of disagreement is whether the > effect is a good thing (as I believe) or a bad thing (as I take it > you believe). So constructive debate should > center on that issue. Constructive debate might be possible if you made a good faith attempt to understand what I am actually saying. I cannot help wondering if you are really trying. I could understand you equating "useless" with a denial that it is a "good thing"; it is bizarre to claim I have contradicted my position that it is a "bad thing". > Claiming uselessness, in the context of a demand > something should be eliminated is self-contradictory unless one is > trying to assert the thing is a nuisance, which you are not. I'm not? Surely you know better than this.

> So why do you keep harping on this? Why do you feel the need to keep > telling me, again and again and again and again, ad nauseam, that my > opinions are just my opinions. Actually, what we've all been trying to tell you is that the withdrawl rules used to say that you got a whole VP from withdrawing and players discovered how to abuse it by whole tables withdrawing before a timeout. Your "better" tournament system is even easier to abuse because you don't even have to withdraw. "By abuse" what I mean is "earn V.P.s from something other than ousting your prey." [ quoted text not captured ]

XZealot wrote: > Actually, what we've all been trying to tell you is that the > withdrawl rules used to say that you got a whole VP from > withdrawing and players discovered how to abuse it by whole tables > withdrawing before a timeout. Your "better" tournament system is > even easier to abuse because you don't even have to withdraw. Under the prior rules, there was incentive for withdrawal abuse because different types of deadlock received different rewards. Surviving to time out got .5 vp, wereas withdrawal got 1 vp. Now they are valued equally, so there is no artificial incentive to withdraw. Under my system, survival and withdrawal are once again valued the same. Hence, no abnormal incentive to withdraw. > "By abuse" what I mean is "earn V.P.s from something other than > ousting your prey." By "abuse" I mean earn VPs from some other method than ousting your prey and survival. The theme of the game is to devour one's enemy and try not to be devoured oneself -- eat or be eaten. There should be no other methods of winning or losing. My proposal restores that purity. A person may gain a victory point for withdrawing, but he does not gain an advantage over his opponent (or over players at other tables) by doing so -- he merely survives, and leaves his opponents equally alive as he found them. The current system does not have that purity. The worst abuses are removed, but other potential opportunities remain. It is still possible to gain an advantage by forcing one's opponent to withdraw (which is neither eating nor being eaten). Also, if, at the end of a deadlocked game, one player has an ancilla empowerment in his hand, players can all cooperate to reduce their pool to an appropriate level, and then vote for the ancilla empowerment, simultaneously ousting everyone. Such a situation is not a vicious "eat or be eaten" struggle, but an incestuous "lets all eat each other" orgy. It ends in a 5-way tie, but with 1, 1, 1, 1, 1 instead of .5, .5, .5, .5, .5. It ends the game, but without any player getting the better of anyone else. Such situations may be rare, but they can occur, and they violate the spirit of the game. My proposal avoids that. The only way to get an advantage is to oust your enemy -- and not let your enemy oust you.

On Oct 24, 11:51 pm, nyst...@cs.com wrote: > XZealot wrote: > > Actually, what we've all been trying to tell you is that the > > withdrawl rules used to say that you got a whole VP from > > withdrawing and players discovered how to abuse it by whole tables > > withdrawing before a timeout. Your "better" tournament system is > > even easier to abuse because you don't even have to withdraw. > > Under the prior rules, there was incentive for withdrawal abuse > because different types of deadlock received different rewards. > Surviving to time out got .5 vp, wereas withdrawal got 1 vp. Now they > are valued equally, so there is no artificial incentive to withdraw. > > Under my system, survival and withdrawal are once again valued the > same. Hence, no abnormal incentive to withdraw. > > > "By abuse" what I mean is "earn V.P.s from something other than > > ousting your prey." > > By "abuse" I mean earn VPs from some other method than ousting your > prey and survival. The theme of the game is to devour one's enemy and > try not to be devoured oneself -- eat or be eaten. There should be no > other methods of winning or losing. My proposal restores that > purity. A person may gain a victory point for withdrawing, but he > does not gain an advantage over his opponent (or over players at other > tables) by doing so -- he merely survives, and leaves his opponents > equally alive as he found them. See this is the fundamental disagreement. The so-called "purity" is actually an excuse to justify a means that can lead to abuse. > My proposal avoids that. The only way to get an advantage is to oust > your enemy -- and not let your enemy oust you. The rules don't regard "survival" as a means to victory. They never have. They reward a single V.P. for last man standing, which is completely different from 2,3,4 or 5 last players at timeout. The creation of a mechanism to reward survivalbility rewards non-agressive play. If you can't understand why this is bad then we are all just wasting our time. [ quoted text not captured ]

Jeff Kuta wrote: > > Yes, it's already been noted that the VEKN rules purposefully > > deviate from the core "ideal". > > Yes, but "why"? > > It'd be kind of nice to see some "minutes" from VEKN discussion > about this sort of thing. I doubt you'll find any. The DCI rules are old. I cannot remember a time they were not in effect. One function suggested was a "risk incentivization" device, and also possibly intended to serve similar function to the game win system -- insure that a player who scored 0,0,3 in three preliminary rounds got a higher tournament score than he who merely survived til time and got what might otherwise have been 1,1,1. Nowadays, the former would be ranked higher anyway, because he gets a GAME WIN in addition to his 3 vps. But under the DCI rules, the game win system was not yet in effect, so the do-nothing survivor instead gets reduced to 0.5, 0.5, 0.5 (total 1.5) and is well behind the player with 0, 0, 3. Now we have both the DCI discount and the Game Win system, and it is not clear (to me) that we need both. The DCI discount created a distortion, however, where one type of deadlock was worth more than another. Players realized if they were deadlocked by the clock, they could cooperate for mutual profit and create another type of deadlock. Thus, they maximized their vps by cooperation rather than by vicious competition -- totally in violation of the spirit of the game. Nobody eats or gets eaten, but everyone makes a profit. The VEKN put a stop to this by reducing the withdrawal award to 0.5 -- making it once again the same as the survival award. This eliminated the artificial withdrawal incentive -- one however, that would never have been present in the first place but for the half vp discount. > Might alleviate some of the redundant > arguing that happens here, which doesn't directly t affect the > final outcome of any rules changes. Not really. If we knew why the DCI rules were originally put in effect, or why withdrawal was discounted by the VEKN, we would meely know some other guy's opinion. We can have our own opinions, and do our own analysis, without access to his mind. Each system, and each change, is laid out before us in black and white.

XZealot wrote: > The rules don't regard "survival" as a means to victory. They > never have. They reward a single V.P. for last man standing, which > is completely different from 2,3,4 or 5 last players at timeout. > The creation of a mechanism to reward survivalbility rewards non- > agressive play. > > If you can't understand why this is bad then we are all just > wasting our time. Evidently so. When I worked with the mentally retarded, there used to be a policy of giving them little gold stars as rewards for good behavior. Though retarded, they were still smart enough not to care. They knew that the little gold stars, though pretty, were completely useless. Occasionally, efforts were made to address this problem by promising a meaningful reward if enough little gold stars could be accumulated. So please explain, why are you so afraid that people will get a WHOLE victory point that they get for mere survival. What do you think they are going to do with that victory point. Are you worried that they will stick it on their hat, take it home, and proudly show it to mommy? Or sell it on ebay? Or take it to the streat corner and buy a dime bag of crack cocaine? What do you think they want it for? In casual games, the only thing it is really good for is that, like the little gold stars, if you collect enough of them, you can get something you really want -- a GAME WIN. This is also their primary function in tournaments -- though they also have a secondary function as second tier tie breakers (though they don't have to be used this way). A person who is satisifed to earn just one vp, earns nothing for his trouble. He certainly is not going to get into the finals in any tournament where more than 5 players score game wins. This "reward" for survivability that you are so afraid of is as illusory as the "reward" of the little gold stars. To achieve anything worthwhile, you need more than one vp. You need to oust your opponents. You need to get the better of your opponents, and merely surviving does not help you do that.

> You need to get the better of your opponents, and merely > surviving does not help you do that. Yes, and your system is not an improvement over the system currently in place. It is more complicated, with multiple victory conditions. It is infact a step backwards as it incentifies stalling as a method of gathering unearned V.P.s. You need to address these facts. [ quoted text not captured ]

<nys...@cs.com> wrote in message news:1193276608....@y27g2000pre.googlegroups.com... >> Jeff just stated the value judgement I've kept asserting over and >> over to John; John keeps insisting that so valuing player behavior >> at time out is "distorted", a description which we are to assume >> is a negative thing and we should therefore change it. But when >> you chase down what he means by "distortions", they always lead >> back to non-comforance with the original rules - the same ones >> which don't have to cover time-out scenarios - or non-conformance >> with the conservation-of-victory-points principal. > > You seem to be very preoccupied to my use of the word distortion. > What do you think "distortion" means? It merely refers to the > deviation from a norm which the speaker values, and towards which > deviation the speaker therefore has a negative attitude -- and it is > always in accordance with the speakers values -- which are always, > ultimately, "arbitrary". We disagree about this in the following way: words are used to convey an idea. Ergo, if one uses the word, "distortion" to imply - as you say - "deviation from a norm", then the *automatic* expectation is not simply in relation to the *speaker's* values but the assumption is being made that the *listener* also holds those same values. This is why your method of expressing this bothers me (and quite possibly others). I wouldn't mind hearing you say, "*I* think this is distorted because..." and give your reasons, possibly subjective or alternatively possibly logically strung back to values you're confident we all share (then we could bicker about whether the logic is valid or not). But when you state simply, "This *IS* distorted" - as if a statement of fact - you automatically imply we all share these values. That's really obnoxious when you know the listener may or may not share them. You have repeatedly done the latter. And when I point out the implications of this to other folks who you've just pulled the same omission on, you get mad and insist that I've somehow misreprestented you. > So why do you keep harping on this? Because the above tactics are misleading and obnoxious, in my opinion. > If I say "the sky is blue" and someone answers "that's just > your opinion", there is nothing further to be said. Let me note this is another manifestation of the same bad habit. Note how the analogy automatically compares your values vis-a-vis 'distortation' to saying something as reasonable as, "The sky is blue." But never mind that. More to the point, we can all see the sky and form our own conclusion what color it is. Your basis for referring to the scoring system as "distorted" is, in turn, based upon other values you are not very forthright about when explaining yourself. If you're not going to give your listeners the chance to understand that point, I will. Besides, why would you care? As long I'm truthful in my harping, all I'm doing is wasting some bandwidth. Fred

XZealot wrote: > > You need to get the better of your opponents, and merely > > surviving does not help you do that. > > Yes, and your system is not an improvement over the system > currently in place. It is more complicated, with multiple victory > conditions. It is infact a step backwards as it incentifies > stalling as a method of gathering unearned V.P.s. > > You need to address these facts. I just did. I addressed your claim that it incentives stalling, and showed how it is based on the false premise that victory points have inherent value independent of their usefulness to obtain game wins. You snipped it. It is no more complicated than the current system, only different. In fact, my first proposal is LESS complicated

<nys...@cs.com> wrote in message news:1193281848.4...@e34g2000pro.googlegroups.com... > Frederick Scott wrote: >> But it >> is clearly easier to build a deck that merely survives a timed >> game to time out than it is to build one that, on average, gets >> at least one VP for every one it loses in standard, non-timed play. > > To the extent that I understand your gist, you seem to be saying > something along the lines of the following: A player who (under the > standard rules zero-sum game paradigm) scores 1,1,1 in 3 preliminary > rounds (because he merely survived), should be ranked lower than a > player who, in the same three rounds, scores 0,0,3 (getting ousted in > the first two games, and winning in the last, because of his risk > taking strategies), even though both have scored, per the standard > rules, 3 total vps. You seem to be saying that the latter is more > deserving of making it to the finals. Am I correct? No. I'm not sure how missed this but YOU CANNOT COMPARE A TIMEOUT IN A TOURNAMENT GAME TO *ANYTHING* IN A STANDARD RULES GAME. Or at least, this is my position, OK? So what I wrote above is a manifestation of that point. It is easier to build a deck to gain a survival-to-timeout result in a tournament game than it is to build a deck that gains 1 VP on average in a standard rules game. You may disagree on this judgment but that's what I think. (elided explanation of goals and resultant proposals) > You cannot, in fairness, accuse me of desiring to reward the do- > nothing player. No, I can not. I erred in insisting to others that this was your end. I thought it was obvious because it appeared to me to have that effect. But I have tried to back away from stating what I thought were your goals after you denied it and, after that moment, tried to stick to what I thought the effects of your proposals would be. My apologies if I was not always clear about this. Fred

<nys...@cs.com> wrote in message news:1193283144.1...@e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com... > > Frederick Scott wrote: >> <nys...@cs.com> wrote in message >> > Under either of my proposals, the dynamics will be exactly the >> > same -- the players will be focussed on the game win, and ignore >> > the useless half vp bribe. >> >> I'm confused what your point could possibly be. If the half vp >> bribe is, quote, "useless", unquote. > > Yes -- useless for the purpose under discussion -- the incentivizing > of risk. > >> Then no one should care about it. > > Illogical. A dog with rabies is usless for the purpose of herding > sheep. That does not mean nobody should care about it. Yea, but you're changing your story now. You snuck the, "for the purposes of herding sheep". And, to clarify, I was counting all uses, positive and negative, of the 'dog' ('useless half vp bribe'). A dog with rabies is 'useful' for biting people and giving them rabies. If I'm a soldier besieging a city, such a dog could be useful if I could somehow release it inside the city's walls. > Constructive debate might be possible if you made a good faith attempt > to understand what I am actually saying. And constructive debate might likewise be possible if you made the good faith attempt to understand what others are saying. I have stated repeated what positive use the half VP serves. As with your PoV about distortions, you can't debate effectively or constructively by ignoring such differences. Fred

Frederick Scott wrote: > We disagree about this in the following way: words are used to > convey an idea. Ergo, if one uses the word, "distortion" to > imply - as you say - "deviation from a norm", then the *automatic* > expectation is not simply in relation to the *speaker's* values > but the assumption is being made that the *listener* also holds > those same values. This is why your method of expressing this > bothers me (and quite possibly others). I wouldn't mind hearing > you say, "*I* think this is distorted because..." and give your > reasons, possibly subjective or alternatively possibly logically > strung back to values you're confident we all share (then we > could bicker about whether the logic is valid or not). But when > you state simply, "This *IS* distorted" - as if a statement of > fact - you automatically imply we all share these values. No. It implies *I* hold those values. I am expressing my own opinion and making no apologies. The words I choose reflect my opinions and attitudes. Choose your words and let me choose mine. > That's really obnoxious when you know the listener may or may not > share them. I guess we will just have to leave it to others to decide who is being obnoxious here.

Frederick Scott wrote: > <nys...@cs.com> wrote in message news:1193283144.1...@e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com... > > > > Frederick Scott wrote: > >> <nys...@cs.com> wrote in message > >> > Under either of my proposals, the dynamics will be exactly the > >> > same -- the players will be focussed on the game win, and ignore > >> > the useless half vp bribe. > >> > >> I'm confused what your point could possibly be. If the half vp > >> bribe is, quote, "useless", unquote. > > > > Yes -- useless for the purpose under discussion -- the > > incentivizing of risk. > > > >> Then no one should care about it. > > > > Illogical. A dog with rabies is usless for the purpose of > > herding sheep. That does not mean nobody should care about it. > > Yea, but you're changing your story now. You snuck the, "for the > purposes of herding sheep". Analogous to "...useless for the purposes of incentivizing risk," which is what I meant by "useless" in the original context. > And, to clarify, I was counting all > uses, positive and negative, of the 'dog' ('useless half vp > bribe'). I was discussing a specific type of uselessness. I really think this was clear enough in context. In any event, even if it was not clear, I have now clarified the matter. It is my meaning we are discussing. Who gets to say what I mean? Me or you?

<nys...@cs.com> wrote in message news:1193294293.9...@e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com... > Frederick Scott wrote: >> We disagree about this in the following way: words are used to >> convey an idea. Ergo, if one uses the word, "distortion" to >> imply - as you say - "deviation from a norm", then the *automatic* >> expectation is not simply in relation to the *speaker's* values >> but the assumption is being made that the *listener* also holds >> those same values. This is why your method of expressing this >> bothers me (and quite possibly others). I wouldn't mind hearing >> you say, "*I* think this is distorted because..." and give your >> reasons, possibly subjective or alternatively possibly logically >> strung back to values you're confident we all share (then we >> could bicker about whether the logic is valid or not). But when >> you state simply, "This *IS* distorted" - as if a statement of >> fact - you automatically imply we all share these values. > > No. It implies *I* hold those values. I am expressing my own opinion > and making no apologies. The words I choose reflect my opinions and > attitudes. Choose your words and let me choose mine. No. It implies *everyone* holds those values. You've been using distortion as an end reason in a lot of your posts - logic which is valid only if everyone accepted at as a reason. This, in turn, implies everyone accepts it as a value. Put it this way: in argumentation, it's considered a good idea to acknowledge assumptions you use in your reasoning that you're aware your opponents are not likely to share, if for no other reason than to avoid wasting time. In my book, you aren't as sensitive to this as you could be. You may have your own opinion about that but I'm just saying... >> That's really obnoxious when you know the listener may or may not >> share them. > > I guess we will just have to leave it to others to decide who is being > obnoxious here. Sure. I'll go with that. Fred

<nys...@cs.com> wrote in message news:1193294944....@y27g2000pre.googlegroups.com... > Frederick Scott wrote: >> <nys...@cs.com> wrote in message news:1193283144.1...@e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com... >> > >> > Frederick Scott wrote: >> >> <nys...@cs.com> wrote in message >> >> > Under either of my proposals, the dynamics will be exactly the >> >> > same -- the players will be focussed on the game win, and ignore >> >> > the useless half vp bribe. >> >> >> >> I'm confused what your point could possibly be. If the half vp >> >> bribe is, quote, "useless", unquote. >> > >> > Yes -- useless for the purpose under discussion -- the >> > incentivizing of risk. >> > >> >> Then no one should care about it. >> > >> > Illogical. A dog with rabies is usless for the purpose of >> > herding sheep. That does not mean nobody should care about it. >> >> Yea, but you're changing your story now. You snuck the, "for the >> purposes of herding sheep". > > Analogous to "...useless for the purposes of incentivizing risk," > which is what I meant by "useless" in the original context. But it *IS* useful in incentizing risk - for about the 3,000,000th time already!!! It discourages unresolved games by rewarding being last-man-standing. >> And, to clarify, I was counting all >> uses, positive and negative, of the 'dog' ('useless half vp >> bribe'). > > I was discussing a specific type of uselessness. I really think this > was clear enough in context. In any event, even if it was not clear, > I have now clarified the matter. > > It is my meaning we are discussing. Who gets to say what I mean? Me > or you? I get to have an opinion when you appear to be contridicting your own meaning. Or when your meaning appears to have no meaning. Fred

Frederick Scott wrote: > No. I'm not sure how missed this but YOU CANNOT COMPARE A TIMEOUT > IN A TOURNAMENT GAME TO *ANYTHING* IN A STANDARD RULES GAME. Or > at least, this is my position, OK? If we are not allowed to compare, how can we discuss? > So what I wrote above is a manifestation of that point. And my response was addressed to that manifestation. We cannot agree on the broad strokes -- I thought we could perhaps discuss details. If there is a problem with my strategy, it is not because I fail to punish the do-nothing player. That is exactly who I focus on. > It is > easier to build a deck to gain a survival-to-timeout result in > a tournament game than it is to build a deck that gains 1 VP on > average in a standard rules game. You may disagree on this > judgment but that's what I think. I don't know whether that deck is "easier" to build or not, I just don't think it deserves to make the finals. I think a deck that has 33% chance of a game win with 3 vp versus a 67% chance of being ousted with 0 vp is more deserving than a deck that has 100% chance of just sitting their and surviving til time out. I thought we could agree on that much, surely. But I think you are probably right about survival being easier. That is because survival is the first step any player achieves while learning to play. It is a necessary step. If he cannot last five minutes, then he does not get to play his cards, learn the game, and rethink his strategies. He also does not get to have any fun. Often, it is only later that he learns to combine staying power with efficient ousting, and perhaps learns that he does not need as much staying power if he can oust fast enough.

On Oct 25, 1:24 am, nyst...@cs.com wrote: > XZealot wrote: > > > You need to get the better of your opponents, and merely > > > surviving does not help you do that. > > > Yes, and your system is not an improvement over the system > > currently in place. It is more complicated, with multiple victory > > conditions. It is infact a step backwards as it incentifies > > stalling as a method of gathering unearned V.P.s. > > > You need to address these facts. > > I just did. I addressed your claim that it incentives stalling, and > showed how it is based on the false premise that victory points have > inherent value independent of their usefulness to obtain game wins. > You snipped it. Can you explain it to me without insinuating that I'm mentally retarded and scared, because that's how it came across. > It is no more complicated than the current system, only different. In > fact, my first proposal is LESS complicated multiple victory conditions is more complicated than a single victory condition by default. Please explain why this is necessary. As to why a whole victory point is a bad thing to reward people who survive to time, it is because they didn't earn it. It is much, much easier to merely survive than it is to try and oust your prey while surviving your predator. [ quoted text not captured ]

<nys...@cs.com> wrote in message news:1193296410.8...@t8g2000prg.googlegroups.com... > Frederick Scott wrote: >> No. I'm not sure how missed this but YOU CANNOT COMPARE A TIMEOUT >> IN A TOURNAMENT GAME TO *ANYTHING* IN A STANDARD RULES GAME. Or >> at least, this is my position, OK? > > If we are not allowed to compare, how can we discuss? You're using a different version of the word "compare" here. Sure, you may rhetorically compare any two things you please. You can compared benevolence to daffodils if you want. Just not in any useful way. (Probably...I don't want to set anyone on a quest, here...) Go ahead, knock yourself out. Just don't expect to convince anyone of anything. You can think surviving-to-timeout compares approximately to withdrawal if you want. But I don't and others you seem to be debating about it seem to share my skepticism. So again, if that's the root of the disagreement than why continue any further? That's what you keep doing: continuing on down the road as if you were going to somehow logically convince people to accept the point. You're not. It's not based in logic; it's a judgment. If you wanted to, I suppose you could ask us to drag out the reasoning behind the judgment but you don't seem interested in it. So WtF? >> So what I wrote above is a manifestation of that point. > > And my response was addressed to that manifestation. We cannot agree > on the broad strokes -- I thought we could perhaps discuss details. Why? What's the point? If someone doesn't accept a prime underpinning of your position, the rest doesn't matter. >> It is >> easier to build a deck to gain a survival-to-timeout result in >> a tournament game than it is to build a deck that gains 1 VP on >> average in a standard rules game. You may disagree on this >> judgment but that's what I think. > > I don't know whether that deck is "easier" to build or not, I just > don't think it deserves to make the finals. I think a deck that has > 33% chance of a game win with 3 vp versus a 67% chance of being ousted > with 0 vp is more deserving than a deck that has 100% chance of just > sitting their and surviving til time out. I thought we could agree on > that much, surely. Huh? I don't understand: yes, I certainly agree with that. It's your VP system that valued both the same. This looks like a reversal of position on your part. Peter was defending the .5 VP dock that a survivor-to-time got over the original VP system. Do you now agree with that penalty? Fred

Frederick Scott wrote: > But it *IS* useful in incentizing risk - for about the 3,000,000th > time already!!! It discourages unresolved games by rewarding being > last-man-standing. Perhaps you have lost the context. The example under discussion -- one I chose -- refers to the player who has already scored two ousts, and has 2 vp in the bank. There is one player left for him to devour. If he ousts that last player he gains 1.5 vp (compared to time out); if he gets ousted, he loses (compared to time out) 0.5 vp AND A GAME WIN. Because the game win is worth 3,000,000 vps in this context, it is impossible to bribe the player with vps. He is worried about losing the game win. My (second) system does not attempt to bribe THIS player to finish the game. Instead, it bribes his opponent. His opponent either has 0 vp or 1 vp, and therefore, under my second proposal, will have incentives equal to (if he has 1 vp) or greater than (if he has 0 vp) those offered by the current system. Hence I encourage him to take the offensive. My system bribes the player who can be bribed. So, my system incentivizes risk taking in all contexts, because there is always a player with less than 2 vp who can be bribed. I bribe the player with 0 vp, and I bribe the player with 1 vp. I do not try to bribe the player with 2 vp, because I know that is impossible -- no vp bribe will be outweigh what he has to lose. I do not bother bribing the player with 3 vp, because I figure he is doing well enough, and also because continued escalation of reward will make 5-player tables too valuable compared to 4-player tables. He already has a game win fer crissakes -- no matter what happens -- even if he gets ousted. A game that goes to time after a game winner has already been firmly and irrevocably determined is not a priority for me. I really think I have all bases covered -- the 0 vp player gets greater incentives than currently; the 1 vp player get incentives equal to or greater than those that exist currently depending on context(and which do not only come into play when there are 2 players left); I have shown that incentivizing the 2 vp player is a lost cause. That leaves only the player with 3 vps, who has already scored a game win, regardless of whether he later gets ousted. Do you really think the latter guy needs an incentive? If you don't like my example, choose another one. Any example you mention (with the possible exception of the 3 vp case), I can show that my system offers the more effective incentives to ousting and risk taking -- regardless of whether the next oust will result in last man standing.

XZealot wrote: > As to why a whole victory point is a bad thing to reward people who > survive to time, it is because they didn't earn it. It is much, > much easier to merely survive than it is to try and oust your prey > while surviving your predator. Why do you care whether they "deserve" it? If they cannot use it to get a game win, what use is it to them? Let them put it in their pipe and smoke it, if that's what they want it for. You normally need two ousts for a game win. My proposal does not change that. The only other thing victory points can be used for is second tier tie breakers for tournament ranking. To the (very minimal) extent that this may be a problem (in tournaments where less than 5 players score game wins), my second proposal takes care of that problem, and ensures that the do-nothing player receives a minimal score -- barely above the player who is ousted with no vp -- and far below the non-winner who manages a 2 vp tie.

<nys...@cs.com> wrote in message news:1193298341....@v3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com... > > Frederick Scott wrote: >> But it *IS* useful in incentizing risk - for about the 3,000,000th >> time already!!! It discourages unresolved games by rewarding being >> last-man-standing. > > Perhaps you have lost the context. The example under discussion -- > one I chose -- refers to the player who has already scored two ousts, > and has 2 vp in the bank. There is one player left for him to > devour. If he ousts that last player he gains 1.5 vp (compared to > time out); if he gets ousted, he loses (compared to time out) 0.5 vp > AND A GAME WIN. Because the game win is worth 3,000,000 vps in this > context, it is impossible to bribe the player with vps. He is worried > about losing the game win. It all depends. Sure, one GW is worth any number of victory points but that doesn't mean 1.5 VP is useless, as you keep implying. Nor does it mean the guy with 2 VP in the bank will always play conservatively in preference to risking a little to get the extra 1.5 VP. It depends on his perception of the risks of losing the game and rewards in the tournament standings of 1.5 extra victory points. People with game wins miss out on the finals for lack of 1.5 VP all the time. Hell, it's not infrequent that tournament points (the tie-breaker after VPs) make the difference. > My (second) system does not attempt to bribe THIS player to finish the > game. Instead, it bribes his opponent. His opponent either has 0 vp > or 1 vp, and therefore, under my second proposal, will have incentives > equal to (if he has 1 vp) or greater than (if he has 0 vp) those > offered by the current system. Hence I encourage him to take the > offensive. My system bribes the player who can be bribed. Actually, if I understood your second proposal, I believe the other player was a wash. He got 1.5 "table score" for two victory points and thus was playing 1.5 whatevers ("table score" in your second proposal, VPs in the current system), so it's the same either way. All your second proposal does is _remove_ the 0.5 table score bribe in this situation. > So, my system incentivizes risk taking in all contexts, because there > is always a player with less than 2 vp who can be bribed. If you want to look at it that way, the current system incentizes risk taking even more! It incentizes it at least as much for the player holding 1 VP and adds and additional incentive - over the 1 VP it provides in your system - on top. > I do not bother bribing the player with 3 vp, because I figure he is > doing well enough, and also because continued escalation of reward > will make 5-player tables too valuable compared to 4-player tables. Fine, whatever. But the existing system provides even more of an incentive with the threaten 0.5 VP dock. And the 0.5 VP is certainly worth something. It is _not_ "useless". > I really think I have all bases covered -- the 0 vp player gets > greater incentives than currently; the 1 vp player get incentives > equal to or greater than those that exist currently depending on > context(and which do not only come into play when there are 2 players > left); I have shown that incentivizing the 2 vp player is a lost > cause. I don't agree you've shown any such thing. In fact, it's a disincentive in my book. A guy with 1 VP who may or may not oust someone near time stands to gain 1.5 table score if he does. In the current rules, it's only worth 1.5 if it resolves the game. In your second proposal, it's worth 1.5 whether or not it resolves the game - thus, disincentive. But worse, a player who got 2 ousts and got ousted actually *loses* 0.5 table score in your second proposal. In my book, a guy who got ousted after gaining 2 VP has done a lot to resolve a game and this change is a distinct disincentive to take risks. > That leaves only the player with 3 vps, who has already scored > a game win, regardless of whether he later gets ousted. Do you really > think the latter guy needs an incentive? Well, certainly yes. I do. You know that. > If you don't like my example, choose another one. I like your example just fine. It just doesn't show what you claim. Fred

Frederick Scott wrote: > <nys...@cs.com> wrote in message > > I don't know whether that deck is "easier" to build or not, I > > just don't think it deserves to make the finals. I think a deck > > that has 33% chance of a game win with 3 vp versus a 67% chance > > of being ousted with 0 vp is more deserving than a deck that has > > 100% chance of just sitting their and surviving til time out. I > > thought we could agree on that much, surely. > > Huh? I don't understand: yes, I certainly agree with that. It's > your VP system that valued both the same. That is because you are focussing on the vps and ignoring the whole proposal, forgetting that, for tournament scoring purposes, vps now assume second rate importance. My first proposal gives one player a game win, which it denies the other. The fact that they both receive the same 3 vps is trivial in comparison with the fact that the more deserving player gets a game win. You can argue that this proposal does not punish the less deserving player enough. But you cannot argue that it treats him the same. Hence, there is no inconsistency in me saying that the less deserving player is less deserving. Under my second proposal, they do not even get the same second-tier score. The score of the less deserving player is effectively reduced to 0.6 (versus 3 for the more deserving player, who also still receives a gamw win on top of that.) > This looks like a reversal of > position on your part. Peter was defending the .5 VP dock that a > survivor-to-time got over the original VP system. Do you now agree > with that penalty? No. I oppose that penalty, but not because I am opposed to incentivizing risk, and not because I believe do-nothing players should be rewarded. Peter and I never got to the point of a meaningful discussion of the best way to incentivize risk, because we could never agree on basic concepts.

<nys...@cs.com> wrote in message news:1193299101.9...@z9g2000hsf.googlegroups.com... > XZealot wrote: >> As to why a whole victory point is a bad thing to reward people who >> survive to time, it is because they didn't earn it. It is much, >> much easier to merely survive than it is to try and oust your prey >> while surviving your predator. > > Why do you care whether they "deserve" it? If they cannot use it to > get a game win, what use is it to them? It's worth 1 VP in the tie-break system. 1 VP is absolutely worth something. The only other thing victory points can be used for is second tier tie > breakers for tournament ranking. To the (very minimal) extent that > this may be a problem (in tournaments where less than 5 players score > game wins), It makes a difference every time players 5 and 6 are tied for number of game wins - which is almost all the time. Furthermore, it makes a difference in seat-selection advantage and in the tie-breaking between players in the finals with equal numbers of game wins and finals VPs - which also happens quite frequently. Dude, if you think you're going to talk people into the concept that victory points are meaningless, you have a HUGE uphill climb to make. I don't think you're going to talk anybody into that one. Fred

On Oct 25, 2:58 am, nyst...@cs.com wrote: > XZealot wrote: > > As to why a whole victory point is a bad thing to reward people who > > survive to time, it is because they didn't earn it. It is much, > > much easier to merely survive than it is to try and oust your prey > > while surviving your predator. > > Why do you care whether they "deserve" it? 1) I didnt' say "deserve". I said "earn". There is a big diffference between the two. I don't "deserve" my paycheck. I earn my paycheck. You have to work for it. Victory Points are the same way. You have to work to get them. 2) I care because it is the backbone of the system which decides who is the winner. > If they cannot use it to > get a game win, what use is it to them? Let them put it in their pipe > and smoke it, if that's what they want it for. All value is based upon scarcity. If you are giving them away for nothing then they aren't worth anything. You are devaluing Victory Points. > You normally need two ousts for a game win. My proposal does not > change that. Actually, your proposal states that "For uncompleted games, 3 victory points (including the one for not being ousted, if applicable) are required for a game win. For completed games, one can still get a game win with 2 victory points (on those very rare occasion when no-one else has 2 victory points). " So you are misrepresenting yourself. You have two victory conditions, which set the default Game Win to 3 victory points as per your "freebie" VP rule. Sure it is in effect 2 ousts, but why do we need it? Oh Yeah, we need this clunky rule, because VPs have been devalued and therefore we have to introduce multiple victory conditions. <snip feature that current system already possesses> [ quoted text not captured ]

<nys...@cs.com> wrote in message news:1193300642....@50g2000hsm.googlegroups.com... > Frederick Scott wrote: >> <nys...@cs.com> wrote in message >> > I don't know whether that deck is "easier" to build or not, I >> > just don't think it deserves to make the finals. I think a deck >> > that has 33% chance of a game win with 3 vp versus a 67% chance >> > of being ousted with 0 vp is more deserving than a deck that has >> > 100% chance of just sitting their and surviving til time out. I >> > thought we could agree on that much, surely. >> >> Huh? I don't understand: yes, I certainly agree with that. It's >> your VP system that valued both the same. > > That is because you are focussing on the vps and ignoring the whole > proposal, forgetting that, for tournament scoring purposes, vps now > assume second rate importance. I'm making the obvious leap in comparing the existing system to your second proposal: compare current VPs to table score from the latter. So forgive me if I sometimes refer to table score as "victory points". > My first proposal gives one player a > game win, which it denies the other. The fact that they both receive > the same 3 vps is trivial in comparison with the fact that the more > deserving player gets a game win. Sure. But the existing system does that much and more. > You can argue that this proposal does not punish the less deserving > player enough. But you cannot argue that it treats him the same. > Hence, there is no inconsistency in me saying that the less deserving > player is less deserving. No. It's just beside the point. Like John F. Kennedy and Richard Nixon agreeing that Kruschev was too liberal in 1960. So what? It's not the issue which divides them. Agreeing Kruschev is too liberal wouldn't make Kennedy as conservative as Nixon, which is (as a comparison) as much sense as I can make out of where you're going with this. > Under my second proposal, they do not even get the same second-tier > score. The score of the less deserving player is effectively reduced > to 0.6 (versus 3 for the more deserving player, who also still > receives a gamw win on top of that.) OK, sure. But it also reduces the value of the guy who got an oust and got ousted from 3 VP to 0.6 table score ALSO. This is a disincentive to taking risks. On balance, I believe this aspect of your second proposal is bad. And it's not the only bad thing, as I've been pointing out. I'm not even all that impressed that reducing the time out guys (from only 1.5 VP, unlike the oust-and-got-ousted guys who are being reduced from a MUCH higher level) to 0.6 table score is very worth much in terms of incentizing risk. I mean, it does - but how much? >> This looks like a reversal of >> position on your part. Peter was defending the .5 VP dock that a >> survivor-to-time got over the original VP system. Do you now agree >> with that penalty? > > No. I oppose that penalty, but not because I am opposed to > incentivizing risk, and not because I believe do-nothing players > should be rewarded. Doesn't matter. It has that effect, whatever its intent. > Peter and I never got to the point of a meaningful discussion of the > best way to incentivize risk, because we could never agree on basic > concepts. I won't speak for Peter but I have a feeling his bones of contention aren't that different from mine. Fred

Frederick Scott wrote: > <nys...@cs.com> wrote in message > > Why do you care whether they "deserve" it? If they cannot use > > it to get a game win, what use is it to them? > > It's worth 1 VP in the tie-break system. 1 VP is absolutely worth > something. Yes, an extra VP might matter to a player who also demonstrates he can score at least one game win. But it will not help a do-nothing player who only scores 1 vp per game in a 15+ player tournament. Moreover, my second proposal fully addresses any second-tier concerns regarding the do-nothing player, or the part-time do-nothing player. It gives him even LESS of a second-tier score than the current system does. > > The only other thing victory points can be used for is second > > tier tie breakers for tournament ranking. To the (very minimal) > > extent that this may be a problem (in tournaments where less > > than 5 players score game wins), > > It makes a difference every time players 5 and 6 are tied for > number of game wins - which is almost all the time. In which case, we are hardly talking about do-nothing players. We are talking about players who scored game wins. > Furthermore, it makes a > difference in seat-selection advantage and in the tie-breaking > between players in the finals with equal numbers of game wins and > finals VPs - which also happens quite frequently. > > Dude, if you think you're going to talk people into the concept > that victory points are meaningless, you have a HUGE uphill climb > to make. I don't think you're going to talk anybody into that one. My second proposal gives do-nothing players even less than they get currently on the second-tier level (even if the are only part-time do- nothings who score game wins on other rounds). Why does this not adequately address your second-tier concerns?

On Oct 25, 1:52 am, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: > <nyst...@cs.com> wrote in message > news:1193300642....@50g2000hsm.googlegroups.com... > > Frederick Scott wrote: > >> <nyst...@cs.com> wrote in message > >> > I don't know whether that deck is "easier" to build or not, I > >> > just don't think it deserves to make the finals. I think a deck > >> > that has 33% chance of a game win with 3 vp versus a 67% chance > >> > of being ousted with 0 vp is more deserving than a deck that has > >> > 100% chance of just sitting their and surviving til time out. I > >> > thought we could agree on that much, surely. > > >> Huh? I don't understand: yes, I certainly agree with that. It's > >> your VP system that valued both the same. > > > That is because you are focussing on the vps and ignoring the whole > > proposal, forgetting that, for tournament scoring purposes, vps now > > assume second rate importance. > > I'm making the obvious leap in comparing the existing system to your > second proposal: compare current VPs to table score from the latter. > So forgive me if I sometimes refer to table score as "victory points". I was referring to my first proposal AND the current system. My second proposal does not give victory points second-rate importance -- it replaces them with something else on the second-tier scoring level. > > My first proposal gives one player a > > game win, which it denies the other. The fact that they both receive > > the same 3 vps is trivial in comparison with the fact that the more > > deserving player gets a game win. > > Sure. But the existing system does that much and more. I was addressing your question. You asked me whether it was inconsistent with my position to state that 0,0,3 deserves more than 1,1,1. It is not -- not even with regard to my original proposal. To the extent that your complaint is that it does not do enough to punish the less deserving -- you know my answer already. I wrote a second proposal to address that issue. > > You can argue that this proposal does not punish the less deserving > > player enough. But you cannot argue that it treats him the same. > > Hence, there is no inconsistency in me saying that the less deserving > > player is less deserving. > > No. It's just beside the point. Dude, I am answering precisely the question you asked me. If the answer was "beside the point" then so was the question. > Like John F. Kennedy and Richard > Nixon agreeing that Kruschev was too liberal in 1960. So what? It's > not the issue which divides them. Agreeing Kruschev is too liberal > wouldn't make Kennedy as conservative as Nixon, which is (as a > comparison) as much sense as I can make out of where you're going with > this. What the hell are you talking about? Did you not want me to answer the question you asked me? > > Under my second proposal, they do not even get the same second-tier > > score. The score of the less deserving player is effectively reduced > > to 0.6 (versus 3 for the more deserving player, who also still > > receives a gamw win on top of that.) > > OK, sure. But it also reduces the value of the guy who got an oust and > got ousted from 3 VP to 0.6 table score ALSO. Dude, that's just the way the cookie crumbles. My loyalty is to the base game. My goal is to preserve the reward structure of the original rules -- and the original rules say that the ousted ouster and the do-nothing survivor get the exact same score. You may "arbitrarily" think the ousted ouster deserves more, and the current VEKN rules "arbitrarily" agree with you. Well, the base rules "arbitrarily" disagree with the VEKN rules, and so do I. > This is a disincentive to taking risks. By what standard? As far as I can tell, the way you analyse risk taking is to measure what the player stands to gain and to lose while he still has an opportunity to act. By this standard my proposal incentivises risk. The victory score incentive at this stage is admittedly minimal; he stands to lose 1.3 and stands to gain 1.5. This could be easily changed by juggling the numbers. The reason I give a minimal incentive at this stage is that the 1 vp player is withing striking distance of a game win, and I figure this will so dominate his motivations that vp incentives become irrelevant. Therefore, I find it more productive to focus the vp incentives on the 0 vp player -- but this could be altered. The best test case I can think of for the principle that the ousted ouster deserves more than the do-nothing survivor is the case where 5 players are close to time out, and one player plays an ancilla empowerment, ousting everyone simultaneously (perhaps everyone votes in favor after reducing their pool per agreement). The result under the current rules -- everyone gets 1, 1, 1, 1, 1 instead of .5, .5, . 5, .5, .5. I don't think they deserve this benefit, because they did nothing to get the better of their opponents -- they just arranged a different kind of 5-way tie. It's just another variation of the old withdrawal abuse. > On balance, I believe this aspect of your second proposal > is bad. And it's not the only bad thing, as I've been pointing out. I can only respond to specifics. > I'm not even all that impressed that reducing the time out guys (from > only 1.5 VP, unlike the oust-and-got-ousted guys who are being > reduced from a MUCH higher level) to 0.6 table score is very worth > much in terms of incentizing risk. >From the perspective of the base rules, the ousted ouster and the do- nothing survivor get reduced from the exact same level. > I mean, it does - but how much? It focusses incentives on the 0 vp player -- and does so to a greater than the current system. For the 1 vp player and the 2vp player, the game win will dominate motivations. The 3 vp player already has a game win, and needs no incentives from anyone. This puts the focus on the right place. The point in the game where everyone has 0 vp is the point where the game is the slowest. Eliminate half these players and the problem is almost solved, and the game proceeds much more quickly thereafter. > >> This looks like a reversal of > >> position on your part. Peter was defending the .5 VP dock that a > >> survivor-to-time got over the original VP system. Do you now agree > >> with that penalty? > > > No. I oppose that penalty, but not because I am opposed to > > incentivizing risk, and not because I believe do-nothing players > > should be rewarded. > > Doesn't matter. It has that effect, whatever its intent. Again -- did I not just answer EXACTLY the question you asked me? Please don't ask me questions if you do not want to hear the answer.

On Oct 25, 1:39 am, XZealot <xzea...@cox.net> wrote: > Oh Yeah, we need this clunky rule, because VPs have been devalued > and therefore we have to introduce multiple victory conditions. I have thought it over, and decided you are right. Therefore, future versions of the proposal will simply say "3 victory points are required for a game win." That's even more elegant and less clunky than the current "game win" rule. I had preferred the "clunky" version because I wanted to preserve the game win conditions of the standard rules. I have decided, however, that this is an illusory concern. The standard rules are only concerned with individual games, and say nothing about how various "game winners" should be ranked for tournament purposes.

[ quoted text not captured ] I still don't think this is an improvement over the current system, but if you want to continue to discuss an improved tournament system other than the one you posted at the top of this thread, then you should start a new thread. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Oct 25, 2:09 pm, XZealot <xzea...@cox.net> wrote: > > I have thought it over, and decided you are right. Therefore, future > > versions of the proposal will simply say "3 victory points are > > required for a game win." That's even more elegant and less clunky > > than the current "game win" rule. > > > I had preferred the "clunky" version because I wanted to preserve the > > game win conditions of the standard rules. I have decided, however, > > that this is an illusory concern. The standard rules are only > > concerned with individual games, and say nothing about how various > > "game winners" should be ranked for tournament purposes. > > I still don't think this is an improvement over the current system, > but if you want to continue to discuss an improved tournament system > other than the one you posted at the top of this thread, then you > should start a new thread. That's what I will do -- just as I did with version 2.

Frederick Scott wrote: > <nys...@cs.com> wrote in message > news:1193294293.9...@e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com... > > Frederick Scott wrote: > >> We disagree about this in the following way: words are used to > >> convey an idea. Ergo, if one uses the word, "distortion" to > >> imply - as you say - "deviation from a norm", then the *automatic* > >> expectation is not simply in relation to the *speaker's* values > >> but the assumption is being made that the *listener* also holds > >> those same values. This is why your method of expressing this > >> bothers me (and quite possibly others). I wouldn't mind hearing > >> you say, "*I* think this is distorted because..." and give your > >> reasons, possibly subjective or alternatively possibly logically > >> strung back to values you're confident we all share (then we > >> could bicker about whether the logic is valid or not). But when > >> you state simply, "This *IS* distorted" - as if a statement of > >> fact - you automatically imply we all share these values. > > > > No. It implies *I* hold those values. I am expressing my own > > opinion and making no apologies. The words I choose reflect my > > opinions and attitudes. Choose your words and let me choose > > mine. > > No. It implies *everyone* holds those values. In whose mind? Exactly who is being fooled by this evil deception of mine. Who is this *everyone* who I am claiming shares my values. Does it include you? Does it include Lasombra? You are desperate to put words in my mouth and engage in idiot arguments with an imaginary opponent, so you might as well supply the details. My words are my words. They reflect my own attitudes and underlying assumptions. Yes, it does make the hopeful assumption that *someone* might share my values, and therefore might have some basis for discussion with me. It does make the hopeful assumption that *someone* values the base game, and would understand why I regard certain types of deviations from it as "distortions". It makes no assumptions about *everyone*. As I told you, I am the fan of one game; you are the fan of one game. When I speak of distortions from the base game on this newsgroup, I assume that there are at least some who will share this interest -- considering that this is in fact a newsgroup devoted to that game. Fans of the tournament game should agree to disagree, until we can find some common basis for discussion. We have already established a zillion times that when I say "distortions" I mean "distortions from the base game that I like" and not "distortions from the tournament game that you like." Why are you stuck on this? Why can't you move on? Your ongoing harrassment on this issue is little more than heckling -- reminding me, again and again and again and again -- ad nauseam -- that my opinion is just my opinion, and you do not share it. Reminding me -- again and again and again -- that I am outnumbered, and therefore have no right to my opinion, and therefore should go away. That's what this really is about. > You've been using > distortion as an end reason in a lot of your posts - logic which is > valid only if everyone accepted at as a reason. If you had prefered a more "neutral" term, like "deviations", which could be used by everyone, you could have suggested it long ago. But this is not what this really is about. You just want to tell me that I am outnumbered, and should go away. > This, in turn, implies everyone accepts it as a value. In whose idiot mind? Even you were not fooled. Who was? > Put it this way: in argumentation, it's considered a good idea to > acknowledge assumptions you use in your reasoning that you're > aware your opponents are not likely to share, if for no other > reason than to avoid wasting time. In my book, you aren't as > sensitive to this as you could be. If you preferred a more neutral term, to use as a basis for discussion, you could have suggested it long ago. But that is not what is really about. Rather, you are accusing me of not acknowledging my assumptions, though I have done so again and again and again and again. The accusation is a lie, which you have continued to tell again and again and again and again. Bottom line here is that you do not think I have the right to my opinion, unless I can prove that others share it. I have never claimed to speak for anyone but myself; but for some reason that makes you SO MAD. You do not seem to think I have that right. >From now on I shall use the term "deviations"; and when I say "deviations" I mean deviations from the base game, or the paradigms and values of the base game. I hope this puts an end to your bullshit on this issue finally and once and for all.

In article <yPYTi.32881$bL7....@newsfe09.phx>, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: > I won't speak for Peter but I have a feeling his bones of contention > aren't that different from mine. Pretty much. Peter D Bakija pd...@lightlink.com http://www.lightlink.com/pdb6/vtes.html "Find hungry samurai." -The Old Man

Frederick Scott wrote: > You can think surviving-to-timeout compares approximately to > withdrawal if you want. I do, and I have pointed out objectively verifiable similarites. The standard rules follow the following formula: Each player starts with 1 vp gains 1 vp every time he ousts, and loses 1 vp if he gets ousted. Period (no need to add anything for withdrawal or last man standing). The formula does not have to be stated this way (and in fact was not stated this way) but the end result always complies with this simple formula. To avoid subtracting of vps, the standard rules do not award the "starting" 1 vp (the one the player brings to the table) until it is determined that he will keep it -- that he will not be ousted. Hence, he gains 1 vp when he withdraws, becausd that is when it is determined he will not be ousted. Hence, when the game ends, any player still in the jyhad(there can be only one per the standard rules) gets 1 vp. The standard rules do not like even scores -- the players are supposed to play until they eat or get eaten; deadlock is regrettable. Hence, withdrawal is made almost impossible unless your prey decides to let you. But when some kind of deadlock regrettably occurs, the withdrawer gets 1 vp. This is not to "reward" him for withdrawing (this is something the rules actively discourage by making withdrawal virtually impossible) -- it simply to acknowledge the fact that he was never ousted, and therefore is still owed the vp he would get under the simple formula mentioned above. Time-out is an equally regrettable deadlock -- a necessary evil. Under the same philosophy, time outers should get 1 vp; not to "reward" them, but simply to acknowledge the fact that they were never ousted. You can argue, as you do, that they should be treaded differently, to incentivize risk. But I have certainly pointed out how they are similar and it is silly to pretend I have not. It is simply a rude refusal to acknowlege your opponent's position. > But I don't and others you seem to be > debating about it seem to share my skepticism. I imagine that is why they are "debating" me -- because they disagree. Somehow, you always come back to this -- telling me that I am outvoted and therefore wrong. You always appeal to the will of the heckling mob.

XZealot wrote: > All value is based upon scarcity. If you are giving them away for > nothing then they aren't worth anything. You are devaluing Victory > Points. Well yes. I have devalued that FIRST victory point -- it will be worth less -- indeed, it will be worth scarcely any more than the half vp is worth under the current VEKN rules. The reason why is obvious -- alot more people will be getting it. That, of course, is precisely why all this concern about its being an undeserved or unearned victory point is mostly illusory. But you are wrong about the next two victory points -- the ones one gets from ousting. They are worth as much as ever, because they are the two victory points one needs for a game win.

Frederick Scott wrote: > Sure, one GW is worth any number of victory points but > that doesn't mean 1.5 VP is useless, as you keep implying. I never said any such thing, and I never implied any such thing. I said that the extra half vp it was useless FOR THE PURPOSE OF INCENTIVIZING RISK in a particular context -- those contexts where the player stands to lose or gain a game win. Perhaps it would be clearer if I said it was INEFFECTIVE for that purpose. I don't think bananas are useless either, in the general sense, but if car dealers decide to give away a free banana with each SUV they sell, it is unlikely to do much to improve sales.

nyst...@cs.com wrote: > Frederick Scott wrote: > > Dude, if you think you're going to talk people into the concept > > that victory points are meaningless, you have a HUGE uphill climb > > to make. I don't think you're going to talk anybody into that > > one. To add to what I said before ... you are once again tackling a straw man. I never took the position that vps are meaningless.

[ quoted text not captured ] See that is where you are wrong. You are increasing the supply of victory points. You are lowering the value of ALL victory points by giving away a full victory point for survival. It is simple supply and demand. If you increase the supply while keeping the demand constant then the the value of each is worth less. Economics of VTES 101 [ quoted text not captured ]

XZealot wrote: > See that is where you are wrong. You are increasing the supply of > victory points. You are lowering the value of ALL victory points by > giving away a full victory point for survival. It is simple supply > and demand. If you increase the supply while keeping the demand > constant then the the value of each is worth less. > > Economics of VTES 101 If you increase the supply of one metal, it will typically reduce the value of that metal, but not of all metals. An increased supply of gold will result in an reduced price for gold, but need hardly result in a reduced price for copper, especially when you need the copper for a purpose that gold will not serve. Two ousts will still get you game win, and are generally needed as well. You cannot get a game win merely by surviving. Those two ousts, and the vps that come with them, are as scarce as ever.

Frederick Scott wrote: > <nys...@cs.com> wrote in message > > That leaves only the player with 3 vps, who has already scored > > a game win, regardless of whether he later gets ousted. Do you > > really think the latter guy needs an incentive? > > Well, certainly yes. I do. You know that. I do now, since you have said so. But I still have trouble taking you seriously. I cannot believe that you, or anyone else, lies awake at night worrying about how to solve the problem of the player who almost sweeps a five player table, firmly securing a game win by scoring 3 ousts, and then get bored and decide not to devour his last remaining victim. Has there been some kind of epidemic of such cases that I have not heard about? And why would anyone care if their was? Under the instant proposal, he gets 1 more vp for his last meal, which exactly balances the 1 vp he would lose if he gets ousted. So there is no particular risk incentive at this late late stage. The current VEKN system gives him a bit more -- but who cares really? I certainly don't, but if you say you do, that is fine. I can't help wondering how such a player would suddenly "wall up". Would he surreptitiously switch his efficient table-sweeping ousting deck for a wall deck somehow, while no-one was looking?

On Oct 29, 12:43 am, nyst...@cs.com wrote: > I cannot believe that you, or anyone else, lies awake at > night worrying about how to solve the problem of the player who almost > sweeps a five player table, firmly securing a game win by scoring 3 > ousts, and then get bored and decide not to devour his last remaining > victim. Has there been some kind of epidemic of such cases that I > have not heard about? And why would anyone care if their was? Not that I am in any way invested in this discussion any longer, but, ya know, isn't this the exact situation that you proposed as an example of how last man standing doesn't necessarily do anything to become last man standing, i.e. you gave an example of someone ousting 3 players firmply securing a game with with three ousts and then deciding to withdraw? Just throwing that out there... -Peter

[ quoted text not captured ] So? Whatever my point was, it was certainly not to say how upset I am that he withdraw and we must structure the rules to as to make sure he never does so again. I did not care whether he withdrew then, and I still don't care now. > Just throwing that out there... Yes ... but why?

In article <1193667197.0...@v23g2000prn.googlegroups.com>, nys...@cs.com wrote: > So? Whatever my point was, it was certainly not to say how upset I am > that he withdraw and we must structure the rules to as to make sure he > never does so again. I did not care whether he withdrew then, and I > still don't care now. > > > Just throwing that out there... > > Yes ... but why? 'Cause you proposed that example as something that somehow supported your argument. And then came back and used the exact example as something that never actually happened and wondered if there was some sort of epidemic of that you hadn't heard of. Just seemed, what do you say, incongruous. To use something that you recognize as something that never actually happens as support for your argument. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Oct 29, 6:57 pm, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > > > Just throwing that out there... > > > Yes ... but why? > > 'Cause you proposed that example as something that somehow supported > your argument. And then came back and used the exact example as > something that never actually happened [...] Huh? When did I claim that such things "never actually happened"??? > [...] and wondered if there was some > sort of epidemic of that you hadn't heard of. Just seemed, what do you > say, incongruous. > To use something that you recognize as something that > never actually happens as support for your argument. It might be incongruous, if I had ever claimed that such things "never actually happened."

In article <1193701087.4...@z9g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, nys...@cs.com wrote: > Huh? When did I claim that such things "never actually happened"??? You wrote: "But I still have trouble taking you seriously. I cannot believe that you, or anyone else, lies awake at night worrying about how to solve the problem of the player who almost sweeps a five player table, firmly securing a game win by scoring 3 ousts, and then get bored and decide not to devour his last remaining victim. Has there been some kind of epidemic of such cases that I have not heard about? And why would anyone care if their was? " While you didn't actually use the literal words "never actually happened", I'm not seeing that as an inappropriate summation of the above statement. [ quoted text not captured ]

Peter D Bakija wrote: > In article <1193701087.4...@z9g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, > nys...@cs.com wrote: > > Huh? When did I claim that such things "never actually > > happened"??? > > You wrote: > "But I still have trouble taking you > seriously. I cannot believe that you, or anyone else, lies awake > at night worrying about how to solve the problem of the player who > almost sweeps a five player table, firmly securing a game win by > scoring 3 ousts, and then get bored and decide not to devour his > last remaining victim. Has there been some kind of epidemic of > such cases that I have not heard about? And why would anyone care > if their was? " > > While you didn't actually use the literal words "never actually > happened", I'm not seeing that as an inappropriate summation of > the above statement. It is certainly an "inappropriate summation". Allow me to now clarify: (1) When I questioned an "epidemic" I was not claiming such cases never occur, but merely questioned whether such cases were common; (2) My point was also that, when such cases do occur, I cannot see anyone getting particularly upset about them; (3) My earlier point was addressed to an entirely different issue; (4) My earlier point was based on a theoretical possibility in withdrawal under such circumstances -- it did not depend on the assumption that such situations commonly occur -- and I explicitly said so; (5) my earlier example did not assume that the winning player withdrew out of boredome or because of lack of interest in ousting his final prey; indeed, though I considered it irrelevant to my point, I indicated, when you pressed me, that the most likely explanation for such a scenario is that, having run out of cards, he decided he was unable to do any better.

On Oct 30, 8:18 am, nyst...@cs.com wrote: > It is certainly an "inappropriate summation". Dude. It was just snark. Relax. -Peter

Peter D Bakija <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote: > nyst...@cs.com wrote: >> It is certainly an "inappropriate summation". > > Dude. It was just snark. Relax. Peter, you should know better than to troll someone like nystulc, given how serious he is about his proposal(s). May I suggest that you instead either a)treat him deadly serious, or b)ignore him? :) 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

On Oct 31, 3:34 pm, "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote: > Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > > > nyst...@cs.com wrote: > >> It is certainly an "inappropriate summation". > > > Dude. It was just snark. Relax. > > Peter, you should know better than to troll someone like nystulc, given > how serious he is about his proposal(s). May I suggest that you instead > either a)treat him deadly serious, or b)ignore him? :) Well, what can I say. Congratulations to Peter on a successful troll.

In article <9O4Wi.1$pr...@newsfe06.phx>, "Kevin M." <you...@imaspammer.org> wrote: > Peter, you should know better than to troll someone like nystulc, given > how serious he is about his proposal(s). May I suggest that you instead > either a)treat him deadly serious, or b)ignore him? :) Yeah, I suppose I was kind of asking for that... [ quoted text not captured ]