VEKN Ratings

So I was wondering, january table wins are what determines who wins a tournament...so are the current rankings just getting tossed out? As Ben Peal has already proven you can get many VP, but not make a final table. Is it fair to still base the ratings system on something like VP? I could win every tournament, but Ben could always get more VP. He is ranked above me, but never wins a tournament? Seems very unfair. On the other side of the coin...I am finally in the positive score range and would hate to lose that. Any thoughts? -- Aaron The Nosferatu Stuff

"The Nosferatu Stuff" <roans...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:IweT7.9624$681.1...@typhoon.mw.mediaone.net... > So I was wondering, january table wins are what determines who wins a > tournament...so are the current rankings just getting tossed out? As Ben > Peal has already proven you can get many VP, but not make a final table. Is > it fair to still base the ratings system on something like VP? They have to be based on something. Why not continue to have them based on the fundamental goal of the game? > I could win > every tournament, but Ben could always get more VP. He is ranked above me, > but never wins a tournament? Seems very unfair. Not really, A sports team may win a majority of their games during the year, and hence be statistically "great", but if they don't win their sport's "championship" game, they are NOT thought of as "great", but only "really good". So, VPs *DO* count for a lot, and there doesn't need to be any special "gift" for winning tables, since by the mere act of winning tables you will be gaining lots of points on your rating. > Aaron > The Nosferatu Stuff Kevin M., Prince of Madison, WI (USA) "Know your enemy, and know yourself; in one-thousand battles you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, *The Art of War* "Contentment... Complacency... Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier

[ quoted text not captured ] I'm trying to figure out why it wouldn't be fair to base rankings on victory points? You're still trying to run up as many victory points as you can in every game. It's still the second level tiebreaker to determine who makes the finals - and with game wins being very small integers, VPs will often come into play. And in the finals the game win rule means nothing at all. Only victory points are important - yet the finals count as much as any other games do for purposes of rankings. Generally, I guess you'd like to see that the people who make the finals most often are the same as the highest ranked people but it's not strictly necessary. It isn't always true right now for at least a couple of reasons: due to the ratings from the final games themselves and due to people who often score just under what they need to make the finals vs. people who either flop horribly or do terrifically and make the finals. And I'm pretty sure that in the future, it will continue to be true in the vast majority of cases anyway, in spite or your concerns about your ranking relative to Mr. Peal. Fred

In message <3C1E4AF7...@removethis.com>, Frederick Scott <freds64_at_...@removethis.com> mumbled something about: >it will continue to be true in the vast majority of cases anyway, in spite or >your concerns about your ranking relative to Mr. Peal. Besides, you can always do what Ben did to get his high rating. ;) Oh, wait... I'm not supposed to show those pictures. Nevermind. -- "Grod come smash THAT vampire now."

> So I was wondering, january table wins are what determines who wins a > tournament...so are the current rankings just getting tossed out? As Ben > Peal has already proven you can get many VP, but not make a final table. Is > it fair to still base the ratings system on something like VP? I could win > every tournament, but Ben could always get more VP. He is ranked above me, > but never wins a tournament? Seems very unfair. It is fair. He ousted more people than you did. So his rating is going to be higher. Unless I'm mistaken, the only thing that game wins really affects is who gets into the final round. Beyond that.... *shrug*. The way the rating system works, you go up or down depending on who you oust and what their rating is. That and whether or not you are last man standing (thus getting your own VP). A person getting a game win with only 2 VPs shouldn't be ranked the same as a person getting a game win with 5 VPs. That aside, I still think the "game wins" rule is crap, but that's just my own personal opinion. Sorrow --- I'm not afraid of being sick, I'm more afraid of being well I'm not afraid to put the gun in my hand, I'm just afraid it will hurt like Hurt like hell

In message <6utT7.792$YE4.2...@newshog.newsread.com>, Sorrow <jcb...@yahoo.com> writes: >That aside, I still think the "game wins" rule is crap, but that's just my own >personal opinion. Assuming you found the table splitting situation (as exists now) objectionable/a problem (which the current Tournament Rules writers seem to), what alterations/alternate systems would you propose to deal with them? -- James Coupe PGP 0x5D623D5D It's been a long road, getting from there to here EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA213D7E It's been a long time, and my time is finally near 668C3695D623D5D I will see my dream come alive at last, I will touch the sky And they're not gonna hold me down no more, no they're not gonna change my mind

> >That aside, I still think the "game wins" rule is crap, but that's just my own > >personal opinion. > Assuming you found the table splitting situation (as exists now) > objectionable/a problem (which the current Tournament Rules writers seem > to), what alterations/alternate systems would you propose to deal with > them? I would make it tantamount to (though not as egregious as) collusion and punish it in a similar manner. Because, in effect, that's what it is. The fact that it happens in game is irrelevant, though it does make it so that it's not as steep an offense. Sitting there and saying "Well, if you let me oust these two people (or this person and withdraw or whatever) and I'll help you get those VPs then I'll roll over and die to give you my VP" is a form of collusion. With "game wins" being the determining factor, you can have a situation where 1 person has 4 VPs and 2 game wins and another has 5 VPs 1 game win. The guy with 5 VPs doesn't get into the final while the 4 VP guy squeeks in. How is that fair? I don't care how remote a possiblity that is, the simple fact that it can (and probably will) occur is enough to not have it as an option. One of the new rules that go hand in hand with the "game wins" rule that I don't like is the one where you *must* maximize your VPs and not do anything outside those boundries (paraphrase). That basically ties your hands and makes it so that you can't do alot of things that might ensure your survival. For example, it is frowned upon (if not outright disallowed, though I could be wrong about that) working to oust your predator to make sure that you can stay alive. Granted, you don't get the VP for your predator's oust, but you do make it so that you could survive and go on to get VPs of your own. If you are out of the game, there is absolutely NO chance that you'll ever get a VP. However, while you are still in it, there's always a chance. It's the same argument I had with Ben Peal one year at Dragon*Con. Sorrow --- "Our generation has had no Great Depression, no Great War. Our war is a spiritual war. Our depression is our lives." - Tyler Durden

In message <u1sti7k...@corp.supernews.com>, Sorrow <cbo...@apdi.net> writes: >> >That aside, I still think the "game wins" rule is crap, but that's just my own >> >personal opinion. >> Assuming you found the table splitting situation (as exists now) >> objectionable/a problem (which the current Tournament Rules writers seem >> to), what alterations/alternate systems would you propose to deal with >> them? > >I would make it tantamount to (though not as egregious as) collusion and >punish it in a similar manner. So you would leave set of rules in place which require VPs to be maximised, but prevent people from maximising their VPs. Do you not see the inherent contradiction in this? [ quoted text not captured ]

> >I would make it tantamount to (though not as egregious as) collusion and > >punish it in a similar manner. > So you would leave set of rules in place which require VPs to be maximised, > but prevent people from maximising their VPs. > Do you not see the inherent contradiction in this? I don't see that as being the case. Perhaps you'd care to elaborate? Sorrow --- "Just once I'd like a childhood memory I don't have to repress." - Malcolm

In message <u1suvsl...@corp.supernews.com>, Sorrow <cbo...@apdi.net> writes: >> >I would make it tantamount to (though not as egregious as) collusion and >> >punish it in a similar manner. >> So you would leave set of rules in place which require VPs to be maximised, >> but prevent people from maximising their VPs. >> Do you not see the inherent contradiction in this? > >I don't see that as being the case. Perhaps you'd care to elaborate? The currently legal table splits are VP maximising - (unless collusion, which is not VP maximising for all players concerned). Those that aren't are, obviously, not legal anyway. By making the currently legal, VP maximising table split deals illegal, you would be creating a situation where you would tell all players to maximise their VPs unless... This is more than a little difficult for a judge to adjudicate, because you have two entirely opposite instructions where following one will violate the other. [ quoted text not captured ]

> By making the currently legal, VP maximising table split deals illegal, > you would be creating a situation where you would tell all players to > maximise their VPs unless... This is more than a little difficult for a > judge to adjudicate, because you have two entirely opposite instructions > where following one will violate the other. I realize this might be what you meant shortly after I sent my previous message but wanted to verify that was indeed the case. Making deals it help increase your (chances of getting) VPs is one thing. Conceding your position as part of that deal is another matter altogether. And that is something you can both legislate and adjudicate against. And I'm sure that everyone will agree that the "currently legal table split" almost always involves one player conceding his position. This is something that can be prevented in some manner other than coming up with the unfair "game wins" system that is about to come into effect. Sorrow --- no hate no wars no ignorance no politics no pain no force no weapons no oppression no sorrow no chemicals no dust no leaders no violence no dust no leaders no leaders now it's time for the world to see a man with open eyes now it's time to realize we tell ourselves the best of lies

In message <u1t1jt1...@corp.supernews.com>, Sorrow <cbo...@apdi.net> writes: >Making deals it help increase your (chances of getting) VPs is one thing. >Conceding your position as part of that deal is another matter altogether. The legal table splitting deals - most specifically regarding combat decks - are making deals which help maximise your VPs without conceding your position. [ quoted text not captured ]

> >Making deals it help increase your (chances of getting) VPs is one thing. > >Conceding your position as part of that deal is another matter altogether. > The legal table splitting deals - most specifically regarding combat decks - > are making deals which help maximise your VPs without conceding your > position. And there isn't much of a problem with this. If they are cross table opponents, they are more than likely going to work on their respective prey (which could very well be the other's predator) in an attempt to oust and gain VPs. However, if it is where one is the predator of the other, then it's always going to be that one concedes his or her position as part of the deal. There's no way around it. This is a form of collusion and should be made illegal. I do not see how this would be overly difficult to disallow. Again, I think the "game wins" system was a poor choice for an alternative. Sorrow --- Oh father, tell me are you weeping? Your face, it seems wet to touch. Oh, then I'm so sorry father, I never thought I'd hurt you so much...

Sorrow wrote: >>However, if it is where one is the predator of the other, then it's always going to be that one concedes his or her position as part of the deal.>> Assuming that the main goal of the tournament is to maximize VPs (which is the case until January), and I am a combat deck and my prey is a combat deck, and I make a deal with him to leave him alone till it is down to him and me, at which point he promises to roll over (I get 2 VPs, he gets 2 or 3 VPs), how is that conceding my position? How is my prey conceding his position? If we are both combat decks, and we fight, we both get ousted--neither of us gets any VPs at all. If we make a table split deal, we both get some VPs--I get 2, he gets 2 or 3. We are both maximizing our VPs (which is the main goal of the current preliminary system), and neither of us are conceding out position, as we are actually improving our positions--if we fight, we both get ousted (as both of us have all of our vampires in torpor, and my predator rolls over both of us). If we split, we both get more VPs and we both do better than if we didn't split. Please explain how this is conceding either of our position. Peter D Bakija PD...@aol.com http://www.geocities.com/bakija6 "...and the only person I can stand to be around is a neutered vampire who cheats at kitten poker!" -Buffy

I haven't been on this group here in years, but, well, I have an opinion and a net connection at the same time again, so here goes.... Sorrow wrote: > > >Making deals it help increase your (chances of getting) VPs is one thing. > > >Conceding your position as part of that deal is another matter altogether. > > The legal table splitting deals - most specifically regarding combat decks - > > are making deals which help maximise your VPs without conceding your > > position. > > And there isn't much of a problem with this. If they are cross table opponents, > they are more than likely going to work on their respective prey (which could > very well be the other's predator) in an attempt to oust and gain VPs. However, > if it is where one is the predator of the other, then it's always going to be that > one concedes his or her position as part of the deal. There's no way around it. > This is a form of collusion and should be made illegal. I know there was an argument about the definition of collusion recently, but its one of those things that tournament players can't just agree to disagree about; everyone agrees that "collusion", whatever it is, is cheating and needs to be disallowed. You are certainly entitled to your opinion that a deal which involves allowing yourself to be ousted is automatically collusion. I just think you are wrong. Dealmaking is entirely within the spirit of the VTES world and perfectly allowable under the rules. Pretty much everyone agrees that deals along the lines of "vote for my krc and I'll vote for your con boon" are legal. A player is allowed to do what is necessary to increase his or her own chances of winning. Sometimes this requires trading favors with another player. Dealmaking is a skill, one which VTES rewards. The problem is that they introduce the possibilty of the game being affected by things other than player skill, like "vote for my krc and I'll trade you that rare card you want" or "vote for my con boon because we're both from Chicago and you'd rather that I win than some guy you don't know". Such arrangements are "collusion" and should clearly be banned from competetive play. Fortunately, the fact that they include elements from outside the game makes them easy to identify, and thus easy to ban. Personally, I see table splitting arrangements as deals of the first type. They include only in game elements. They exist to maximize the VPs gained by each person in the deal. A player who can get three VPs without help is not going to make a deal with another player in which he or she gains only two. Sure, it sucks for the other players at the table, but they don't have to sit there and take it - there are three of them after all. If they can't between them take on two other players, then they weren't going to win anyway. The main complaint I have heard about such table splitting propositions is that they invaraibly involve one player "rolling over" and being ousted intentionally, to give VPs to the other partner in the deal. People have called this "unsportsmanlike", on the grounds that all players should fight on to the bitter end in order to gain the most points possible. However, I consider this argument to be shortsighted. Sure, a player might stand to gain more VPs by breaking th deal at the end and not allowing himself to be ousted. However, if the table is such at the start of the game that that player has NO chance of getting ANY vps, then getting 2 vps from such a deal is indeed "sportsmanlike" - it is playing to win, within the confines of the rules. > I do not see how this > would be overly difficult to disallow. > Again, I think the "game wins" system was a poor choice for an alternative. > Again, your viewpoint baffles me. What could possibly be more fair in a tournament than rewarding wins? This is how pretty much every tournament for every other game under the sun works. In Magic, victory is determined my opponents defeated, not total damage inflicted. Chess tournaments are won by he who wins the most games, not he who removes the most total pieces. The game wins system will mean a change in the way tournaments work, but the change makes the system more intuitive. -Steve Wampler

Sorrow wrote: > With "game wins" being the determining factor, you can have a situation > where 1 person has 4 VPs and 2 game wins and another has 5 VPs 1 > game win. The guy with 5 VPs doesn't get into the final while the 4 VP > guy squeeks in. How is that fair? I don't care how remote a possiblity > that is, the simple fact that it can (and probably will) occur is enough to > not have it as an option. It's fair: the person who won more games goes to the finals. > One of the new rules that go hand in hand with the "game wins" rule > that I don't like is the one where you *must* maximize your VPs and > not do anything outside those boundries (paraphrase). That basically > ties your hands and makes it so that you can't do alot of things that > might ensure your survival. Not true. Survival is allowed. Ensuring survival is part of maximizing VPs. > For example, it is frowned upon (if not > outright disallowed, though I could be wrong about that) working to > oust your predator to make sure that you can stay alive. Granted, Completely allowed. -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and tournament rules: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:3C1EC38D...@white-wolf.com... > Sorrow wrote: > > With "game wins" being the determining factor, you can have a situation > > where 1 person has 4 VPs and 2 game wins and another has 5 VPs 1 > > game win. The guy with 5 VPs doesn't get into the final while the 4 VP > > guy squeeks in. How is that fair? I don't care how remote a possiblity > > that is, the simple fact that it can (and probably will) occur is enough to > > not have it as an option. > > It's fair: the person who won more games goes to the finals. I think so too. I'd rather see people get into the final for winning more games rather than sweeping one table but getting 0VPs in the other 2 rounds. > > One of the new rules that go hand in hand with the "game wins" rule > > that I don't like is the one where you *must* maximize your VPs and > > not do anything outside those boundries (paraphrase). That basically > > ties your hands and makes it so that you can't do alot of things that > > might ensure your survival. > > Not true. > Survival is allowed. Ensuring survival is part of maximizing VPs. > > > For example, it is frowned upon (if not > > outright disallowed, though I could be wrong about that) working to > > oust your predator to make sure that you can stay alive. Granted, > > Completely allowed. I'm glad you said that, because I got the impression that this was illegal. I got cross tabled by a vote deck and also taken out ( by it ) first as it's predaor in a later round because I kept on Sudden Reversaling his minion taps in order to prevent him from getting out of control. I was very annoyed by this but it was perfectly justifiable, by getting rid of me he was free to totally crush everyone else. I find the act of taking out a highly threatening deck, even cross table, to be a good strategy and would be dissapointed to see this outlawed. Cross-table actions arising from out of game concerns or vindictiveness should of course be illegal.

Sorrow wrote: > > James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: > > > Sorrow wrote: > > > > > >That aside, I still think the "game wins" rule is crap, but that's just my own > > >personal opinion. > > > > Assuming you found the table splitting situation (as exists now) > > objectionable/a problem (which the current Tournament Rules writers seem > > to), what alterations/alternate systems would you propose to deal with > > them? > > I would make it tantamount to (though not as egregious as) collusion and > punish it in a similar manner. Because, in effect, that's what it is. Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't. In my experience, more than 3/4 of the time, it *actually* is collusion - not just "in effect" is collusion. Correctly, it should be be sanctioned by the tournament judge when it happens. But no one ever calls the judge over, though, because it would involve the judge ruling that one player or (in the case of a 2-2 or 2-2-1 tie) both players are settling for less than a win when he (or they) have a realistic chance to win. That ruling is subjective and incredibly arguable. Most players simply want to play the game, not sit around debating a subjective question which has no provable answer. So here's the problem with your suggestion: it's already been done. And it doesn't work. Even if it were written into the rules that players could not agree on a table split, I suspect there would be gray areas and those gray areas would become holes through players could drive Volkswagens through. The thing I like about the "Game Wins" rule is that there's no getting around it with fancy talking. Split it anyway you like, only one player can have the game win and that's the important thing. Fred

On Mon, 17 Dec 2001 21:59:45 -0500, Steve Wampler wrote: >Personally, I see table splitting arrangements as deals of the first type. >They include only in game elements. Not so. A table-split deal is commonly based upon trust - trust that the other party will roll over and die when the time comes. This trust is not based upon an in-game element as it is clearly not in a player's in-game interest to commit suicide. The trust is based upon out-of-game considerations of long-term reputation and fear of retaliation. These are obviously maximised when dealing with players that you know and play with regularly. The playing field is then not level - there is a bias in favour of players that you trust to cut their own throat for you. Stooges and cronies. >Again, your viewpoint baffles me. What could possibly be more fair >in a tournament than rewarding wins? This is how pretty much every >tournament for every other game under the sun works. You're right about that. The previous system could allow a good stooge to qualify for the final without ever winning a game in the qualifying rounds. That was unfair. Andrew

Sorrow wrote: > For example, it is frowned upon (if not outright disallowed, though I > could be wrong about that) working to oust your predator to make sure > that you can stay alive. It's definitely not disallowed. It's frowned upon because it very typically transfers the problem from your current predator to your new and 6-pool-and-1-VP-enhanced predator. > Granted, you don't get the VP for your predator's oust, but you do make > it so that you could survive and go on to get VPs of your own. If you are > out of the game, there is absolutely NO chance that you'll ever get a > VP. However, while you are still in it, there's always a chance. It's > the same argument I had with Ben Peal one year at Dragon*Con. Yeah, right after I had played in 4 tournament games in a row where someone pulled that tactic, only to have their prey win the game. Oh, and not only win the games - these preys took 19 of a possible 20 VP. As a last ditch tactic, yeah, it has some merit. My irritation with it at DragonCon that year was that it was clear that in some cases, it was being used as the main strategy (aka intercept-combat). You really need to bring something additional to the table if you want to have any shot at winning. - Ben Peal, Prince of Boston fu...@mindstorm.com

"Andrew S. Davidson" wrote: > On Mon, 17 Dec 2001 21:59:45 -0500, Steve Wampler wrote: > > >Personally, I see table splitting arrangements as deals of the first type. > >They include only in game elements. > > Not so. A table-split deal is commonly based upon trust - trust that > the other party will roll over and die when the time comes. This > trust is not based upon an in-game element as it is clearly not in a > player's in-game interest to commit suicide. The trust is based upon > out-of-game considerations of long-term reputation and fear of > retaliation. These are obviously maximised when dealing with players > that you know and play with regularly. The playing field is then not > level - there is a bias in favour of players that you trust to cut > their own throat for you. Stooges and cronies. This analysis is true for /all/ deals. Consider something which is pretty clearly an allowable deal: "Player A will bum's rush a vampire belonging to Player B's prey, and Player B will call a con boon to benefit player A." This deal is also base on trust. It is not in player B's interest to use a minion action and a vote card and possibly stealth or other cards or resources, just to aid Player A. (well, it might be, but it's legal to make this deal even if it isn't) Player A has to trust Player B to keep up his or her end of the bargain. The only difference between this deal and a table-split is the stakes. And it is silly and nigh impossible to enforce a prohibition only on deals which will have a large effect on the game. -Steve Wampler

Aaron Steele wrote: > So I was wondering, january table wins are what determines who wins a > tournament...so are the current rankings just getting tossed out? As Ben > Peal has already proven you can get many VP, but not make a final table. For the record, this had been proven long before I demonstrated it empirically. Also for the record, I had no problem whatsoever with not making the finals of that (unsanctioned) tournament, despite having the second-highest VP total. I did not accomplish the goal of the game in any of the three in which I played. In the game in which I got my highest VP total, I did not win. I lost 3-2. Suppose the following in the old (current) system: Player A gets 3 VP/60 TP in Round One, 3 VP/60 TP in Round Two, and 0 VP/12 VP in Round Three. Player B gets 2 VP/48 TP in Round One, 2 VP/48 TP in Round Two, and 2 VP/48 TP in Round Three. Is it really fair that Player A (132 TP) is ranked lower than Player B (144 TP), despite having clearly won two games while Player B won none at all? _That_ is why players make table-splitting deals and _that_ is what the Game Wins rule is designed to address. I did not make the finals of the Boston Bloodlines pre-release tournament because I did not deserve to do so. I have no problem whatsoever with this. Well, apart from the fact that my new preys just would not die. I will take it out on my next prey. > Is it fair to still base the ratings system on something like VP? I could > win every tournament, but Ben could always get more VP. He is ranked above > me, but never wins a tournament? Seems very unfair. On the other side of > the coin...I am finally in the positive score range and would hate to lose > that. Any thoughts? Is John Ivar Sandvik really better than Jason Dawson, even though in all probability they've never played against each other, or even against anyone who has played the other? I don't mean this as a slight to either player, nor do I mean to turn this into an argument of the merits of both players - I'm just trying to point out a more fundamental flaw with the ratings system. The ratings system is good at highlighting who the top players are within local groups of players, but it's horrible for trying to definitively and objectively determine how good a player is. There's just too much local context inherent in the scoring. I think this problem is much more significant to determining ratings than whether or not the ratings should be based on Game Wins rather than VP. I don't think there's a feasible solution to the issue I've mentioned, nor do I think we should make Todd Bannister's life any more of a hell than it already is without having to create a brand new one for him. :) [ quoted text not captured ]

On Tue, 18 Dec 2001 05:53:47 -0500, Steve Wampler wrote: >This analysis is true for /all/ deals. Consider something which is pretty >clearly an allowable deal: "Player A will bum's rush a vampire belonging to >Player B's prey, and Player B will call a con boon to benefit player A." This >deal is also based on trust. It is not in player B's interest to use a minion >action and a vote card and possibly stealth or other cards or resources, just >to aid Player A. (well, it might be, but it's legal to make this deal even if >it isn't) Player A has to trust Player B to keep up his or her end of the >bargain. >The only difference between this deal and a table-split is the stakes. There is a difference. In the table-split case, one player is committing suicide and so terminating their part in the game. This means that there is no possibility of any further deals or player interaction within the same game. This is not necessarily true of a lesser deal such as you describe. Of course, lesser deals can still involve cross-game issues of mutual trust and reputation. Where a deal is based upon such an out-of-game consideration then it is collusion. It's tricky to prove this though. But this doesn't mean that you shouldn't do something about the deals which are blatantly corrupt. Andrew P.S. I am constantly surprised by folk who reply at 5 in the morning like you and LSJ. Are you late birds or early risers? Me, I'm about to have lunch ...

"Frederick Scott" <freds64_at_...@removethis.com> wrote in message [clip] > So here's the problem with your suggestion: it's already been done. And it > doesn't work. Even if it were written into the rules that players could not > agree on a table split, I suspect there would be gray areas and those gray > areas would become holes through players could drive Volkswagens through. > The thing I like about the "Game Wins" rule is that there's no getting > around it with fancy talking. Split it anyway you like, only one player > can have the game win and that's the important thing. Right. We already got into trouble with the last tournament rules by trying to legislate a way of playing. The old tournament rules rewarded VPs while we were trying to legislate "playing to win". I much prefer to make the goal (Game Wins!) such that all of the play will fall into place naturally. -- Robert Goudie Chairman, V:EKN rob...@vtesinla.org

In message <u1t3gr...@corp.supernews.com>, Sorrow <cbo...@apdi.net> writes: >> >Making deals it help increase your (chances of getting) VPs is one thing. >> >Conceding your position as part of that deal is another matter altogether. >> The legal table splitting deals - most specifically regarding combat decks - >> are making deals which help maximise your VPs without conceding your >> position. > >And there isn't much of a problem with this. Now go back to my initial post which assumes this *is* a problem as a basic underpinning issue. You can argue with the Tournament Rules writers about whether or not this is a problem; this is a separate issue. However, if you assume that it is a problem (as they seem to have), you deal with a separate set of issues entirely. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <50454D218D829B50.E20D9F1F...@lp.airnew s.net>, Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> writes: >Not so. A table-split deal is commonly based upon trust - trust that >the other party will roll over and die when the time comes. This >trust is not based upon an in-game element as it is clearly not in a >player's in-game interest to commit suicide. The trust is based upon >out-of-game considerations of long-term reputation and fear of >retaliation. This is, however, true of all deals and, indeed, most non-instant interactions within the game (which are very few). It would be impossible to stop a player using out-of-game knowledge when they evaluate in-game considerations. [ quoted text not captured ]

On 18 Dec 2001 02:20:18 GMT, Peter D Bakija wrote: >Assuming that the main goal of the tournament is to maximize VPs (which is the >case until January), and I am a combat deck and my prey is a combat deck, and I >make a deal with him to leave him alone till it is down to him and me, at which >point he promises to roll over (I get 2 VPs, he gets 2 or 3 VPs), how is that >conceding my position? How is my prey conceding his position? If we are both >combat decks, and we fight, we both get ousted--neither of us gets any VPs at >all. If we make a table split deal, we both get some VPs--I get 2, he gets 2 or >3. We are both maximizing our VPs (which is the main goal of the current >preliminary system), and neither of us are conceding out position, as we are >actually improving our positions--if we fight, we both get ousted (as both of >us have all of our vampires in torpor, and my predator rolls over both of us). >If we split, we both get more VPs and we both do better than if we didn't >split. The end does not justify the means. You're from New York and so you may be familiar with the case of Mr Taubman, the billionaire proprietor of Sothebys. He made a price-fixing deal with his opposite number in Christies. This made great sense for both parties but the powers that be decided that this was against the public interest. Business rivals are supposed to compete, not rig the market and it's the same with predator and prey in VTES. Mr Taubman is now facing a prison sentence. Table-splitters have got off lightly. >Please explain how this is conceding either of our position. A player is conceding his position when he rolls over and allows himself to be ousted without a fight. One might forgive this when the position is hopeless. But when a player is riding high, it's illegal, unethical, unsporting and out-of-character. In boxing, it's called "taking a dive". You can probably get locked up for that too. If you find that you're stymied when your rush deck is sat next to another deck of the same kind, then maybe you can try other ways round the problem. Put a few Dramatic Upheaval in your deck and threaten to kill any vampire that votes against it. Or try and get some cross-table action going which puts pressure on your prey. Or just wall up, snipe at any player that looks like scoring a VP and hope that the game unjams before time runs out. Or just accept that you've guessed the metagame wrong. Your lack of options is your own fault so suck it up and take it like a man. Andrew

"Andrew S. Davidson" wrote: > On 18 Dec 2001 02:20:18 GMT, Peter D Bakija wrote: > > >Assuming that the main goal of the tournament is to maximize VPs (which is the > >case until January), and I am a combat deck and my prey is a combat deck, and I > >make a deal with him to leave him alone till it is down to him and me, at which > >point he promises to roll over (I get 2 VPs, he gets 2 or 3 VPs), how is that > >conceding my position? How is my prey conceding his position? If we are both > >combat decks, and we fight, we both get ousted--neither of us gets any VPs at > >all. If we make a table split deal, we both get some VPs--I get 2, he gets 2 or > >3. We are both maximizing our VPs (which is the main goal of the current > >preliminary system), and neither of us are conceding out position, as we are > >actually improving our positions--if we fight, we both get ousted (as both of > >us have all of our vampires in torpor, and my predator rolls over both of us). > >If we split, we both get more VPs and we both do better than if we didn't > >split. > > The end does not justify the means. You're from New York and so you > may be familiar with the case of Mr Taubman, the billionaire > proprietor of Sothebys. He made a price-fixing deal with his opposite > number in Christies. This made great sense for both parties but the > powers that be decided that this was against the public interest. > Business rivals are supposed to compete, not rig the market and it's > the same with predator and prey in VTES. Mr Taubman is now facing a > prison sentence. Table-splitters have got off lightly. The problem with this analogy is that "the powers that be" which you refer to are not god-like arbiters of all that is true and good in the world, they are public officials who have been elected by the public to serve "the public interest". In the case of price-fixing, yes, the public is hurt, so the chosen representatives of the public did something about it. In the case of table-splitting, it is the other three players at a table who are hurt. Unfortunately for them, the trournament judges are rule-makers are /not/ there to serve the interests of those players. They are there only to ensure that the playing field is level, that all players have a shot at winning if they are good and know how to maximize their ability to win. Sometimes, this maximization requires cutting a deal with another player. In vtes, as in life, it's good to have allies. Table-splitting is merely an extreme form of this kind of deal. The biggest problem with banning it, even if such were desireable, is that such a ban would be difficult to enforce without banning all deals. It is pretty easy to make an arrangement which will be tantamount to one player being ousted, without making that part explicit. But I still don't see why table-splititing is such a huge problem. Yes, it has extremem effects, but it only happens in situations which are extreme to begin with. Besides, if the three "victims" require some one else to protect them from the big bullies, then maybe they should seriously re-examine their strategies. "But we can't beat /them/, mister tourny judge, they made a /deal/!" > >Please explain how this is conceding either of our position. > > A player is conceding his position when he rolls over and allows > himself to be ousted without a fight. One might forgive this when the > position is hopeless. But when a player is riding high, it's illegal, > unethical, unsporting and out-of-character. In boxing, it's called > "taking a dive". You can probably get locked up for that too. Again, this is taking a very near-sighted view of the situation. If a player is only "riding high" because he cut a deal with another player, then his end is not so much "taking a dive" as it is "paying the piper". > > If you find that you're stymied when your rush deck is sat next to > another deck of the same kind, then maybe you can try other ways round > the problem. Put a few Dramatic Upheaval in your deck and threaten to > kill any vampire that votes against it. Or try and get some > cross-table action going which puts pressure on your prey. Or just > wall up, snipe at any player that looks like scoring a VP and hope > that the game unjams before time runs out. Or just accept that you've > guessed the metagame wrong. Your lack of options is your own fault so > suck it up and take it like a man. And if your deck is so flawed that it can't beat two other decks even with two allies of its own, then /you/ need to "suck it up and take it like a man." -Steve Wampler

"Andrew S. Davidson" wrote: > On Tue, 18 Dec 2001 05:53:47 -0500, Steve Wampler wrote: <snip> > >The only difference between this deal and a table-split is the stakes. > > There is a difference. In the table-split case, one player is > committing suicide and so terminating their part in the game. This > means that there is no possibility of any further deals or player > interaction within the same game. This is not necessarily true of a > lesser deal such as you describe. I might agree with you if table-split deals took the form "ok, you roll over for me, then I'll <do X>", but they don't. The "suicide" comes at the end. It is the price that one player pays for having made the deal. Kinda like how selling your soul doesn't matter til you die. Consider the case Peter likes to talk about, where a predator and prey both have potence IG rush decks. If they fought each other, they would both die. The "natural" case is for decks to attack their prey, so it is clear to see that the prey in this situation "should" be ousted before receiving a victory point. Were the player to notice this and simply transfer himself out (or somesuch), that would be unsportsmanlike and wrong- that is not playing to maximize VPs. However, if the player cuts a deal with his predator to cut him some slack, then he can go forward, and gain some VPs. But his predator needs to get something out of the deal, or it isn't any good for him. So they agree to share the VPs available at the table. The prey goes forward, gain 3, then rolls over. This is not the same as suicide, because we saw that in the "normal" case, this player would be dead anyway. Any and all VPs he has earned are due to the grace of his predator, who can naturally expect to get something for his kindness. Yes, it is true that the prey conceivably stands to gain 2 more points, so in the adsense of a deal, the only explanation for his action is collusion. However, if he is only alive in the first place because of a deal, when the deal ends, it is natural for him to die. His lifespan has already been unnaturally prolonged, so when the effect which has been doing so ends, he goes. > Of course, lesser deals can still involve cross-game issues of mutual > trust and reputation. Where a deal is based upon such an out-of-game > consideration then it is collusion. It's tricky to prove this though. > But this doesn't mean that you shouldn't do something about the deals > which are blatantly corrupt. Okay, I will grant you that a player intentionally worsening his or her own position to help another player is collusion and should not be allowed, to the extent that such is possible to enforce. However, I maintain that not all table-splitting deals involve either player doing this. In fact, most don't, simply because the card players who are willing to cheat to win are all playing Magic where there are cash prizes. > Andrew > > P.S. I am constantly surprised by folk who reply at 5 in the morning > like you and LSJ. Are you late birds or early risers? Me, I'm about > to have lunch ... It's finals... I haven't slept in a week.... -Steve Wampler

In message <3C208D49...@nyu.edu>, Steve Wampler <sjw...@nyu.edu> mumbled something about: >But I still don't see why table-splititing is such a huge problem. Yes, it has Because tournaments should be about the decks and the play of the decks themselves, not about "who can make the best deal." You obviously haven't seen many tournaments lately, where people have been sitting down and agreeing "3-2 split?" on turn TWO. This is ridiculous on the face of it -- if you didn't come to play the game, get the fuck out. >And if your deck is so flawed that it can't beat two other decks even with two >allies of its own, then /you/ need to "suck it up and take it like a man." This is, of course, a foolish statement. Very few decks can survive the focussed efforts of two decks that are prepared to deal out direct damage in some form or other. Many decks cannot do much cross-table damage -- straightforward bleed decks, bruise/bleed decks, etc. These decks have little to offer for a table-split deal, and as such end up being in the "carved up" portion of the table. The damage is magnified when it's something like two POT Rush decks sitting as predator/prey. A POT deck who doesn't have to worry about his predator can completely erase his prey. A POT deck who doesn't need to try to oust his prey can completely erase his predator. Once those two are neutralized, the third hapless victim is easy to terminate with two decks aimed at him -- he will only have got a VP if he's a super-fast bleed deck, and otherwise the table will just be filled with vamps in torpor. Then, the "prey" POT deck bleeds people out one by one, while the "predator" deck kills any vampires that leave torpor or are influenced out. This isn't V:TES, I'm sorry. It's crap. I've made deals like this (with vote decks) -- the ability to demolish the table is only magnified when you're able to direct your ally's actions to your own benefit. Even if the rest of the table DOES choose to band together against you, it's quite probable that their decks will not be able to significantly affect you. And they shouldn't be forced to band together in the first place -- they should be allowed to just play their decks if they so choose. -- "Grod come smash THAT vampire now."

Derek Ray wrote: > In message <3C208D49...@nyu.edu>, > Steve Wampler <sjw...@nyu.edu> mumbled something about: > > >But I still don't see why table-splititing is such a huge problem. Yes, it has > > Because tournaments should be about the decks and the play of the decks > themselves, not about "who can make the best deal." You obviously > haven't seen many tournaments lately, where people have been sitting > down and agreeing "3-2 split?" on turn TWO. This is ridiculous on the > face of it -- if you didn't come to play the game, get the fuck out. Yes, this does seem absurd, unless it is possible for these players to determine on turn 2 (when some decks haven't even gotten out a vampire, and most haven't taken an action) that they are in a bad place. This strikes me as a pretty clear example of collusion. However, just because it is possible to make a dirty table-split deal, doesn't mean that it is impossible to make a clean one. > >And if your deck is so flawed that it can't beat two other decks even with two > >allies of its own, then /you/ need to "suck it up and take it like a man." > > This is, of course, a foolish statement. Very few decks can survive the > focussed efforts of two decks that are prepared to deal out direct > damage in some form or other. Yes, 2 decks can beat 1. And 3 decks can beat 2, which is what I /said/. > Many decks cannot do much cross-table > damage -- straightforward bleed decks, bruise/bleed decks, etc. These > decks have little to offer for a table-split deal, and as such end up > being in the "carved up" portion of the table. > > The damage is magnified when it's something like two POT Rush decks > sitting as predator/prey. A POT deck who doesn't have to worry about > his predator can completely erase his prey. A POT deck who doesn't need > to try to oust his prey can completely erase his predator. Once those > two are neutralized, the third hapless victim is easy to terminate with > two decks aimed at him -- he will only have got a VP if he's a > super-fast bleed deck, and otherwise the table will just be filled with > vamps in torpor. Then how is the second POT deck "completely erasing" its predator? In the situation you describe, the guy who is sitting across the table from the two rush decks should get a VP, as all his predator and prey's vamps are dead, leaving him with no pressure and no resistance. If he can't exploit that situation to get a VP then he wasn't going to get one anyway. > Then, the "prey" POT deck bleeds people out one by > one, while the "predator" deck kills any vampires that leave torpor or > are influenced out. > > This isn't V:TES, I'm sorry. It's crap. I've made deals like this > (with vote decks) -- the ability to demolish the table is only magnified > when you're able to direct your ally's actions to your own benefit. > Even if the rest of the table DOES choose to band together against you, > it's quite probable that their decks will not be able to significantly > affect you. Why? They have half again as much of every resource. (3 players v 2). And more importantly, they have 3 different decks, which means more chances that someone brought the rock to one of the table-splitter's scissors. Every deck has an achilles heel, and between three of you, you should be able to find it. > And they shouldn't be forced to band together in the first > place -- they should be allowed to just play their decks if they so > choose. There was time when you could consider your predator and prey as your only enemies, but the game as long since matured. Now, "playing" a deck includes dealing with the whole table situation, and any tournament player needs to be prepared for that. -Steve Wampler

>> Because tournaments should be about the decks and the play of the decks >> themselves, not about "who can make the best deal." You obviously >> haven't seen many tournaments lately, where people have been sitting >> down and agreeing "3-2 split?" on turn TWO. This is ridiculous on the >> face of it -- if you didn't come to play the game, get the fuck out. > >Yes, this does seem absurd, unless it is possible for these players to >determine on >turn 2 (when some decks haven't even gotten out a vampire, and most haven't >taken >an action) that they are in a bad place. This strikes me as a pretty clear >example >of collusion. However, just because it is possible to make a dirty >table-split >deal, doesn't mean that it is impossible to make a clean one. Careful now! You don't want to be wantonly throwing around the 'C' word... To quote Peter Bakija from the "That nutty collusion again..." thread... "Collusion, as I understand it, specifically deals with out of game discussion and pre-meditated game throwing. People from the same playgroup driving to a convention, all of whom agree to do everything they can to get player X into the finals, and then all doing stupid things in a game to help player X, even if player X is their predator or prey. That is collusion. Making a deal with some guy across the table you just met to split the table 2/3, even if it is not such a good deal for you, cannot be considered collusion, as there was no pre-meditation on the subject." In order for it to be collusion, the people in the 3/2 VP split have to have arranged things before the game. It's much more likely that they were looking for a 3/2 VP split, but hadn't actually planned anything before the game and then during the game, they made the deal. (Which isn't collusion but is probably unsportsmanlike conduct or some other violation(s)). It seems to me that this most likely results from an incomplete understanding of the theme/goal of Jyhad and the mechanics of the tournament rules. However, let's just hope that the table-wins aspect helps mitigate this problem. >Yes, 2 decks can beat 1. And 3 decks can beat 2, which is what I /said/. Yes, but it's not always in the third player's interest to help beat down the other two. If he works fast enough, he might be able to oust his prey in time or even manage to take advantage of the situation. Halcyan 2

Halcyan 2 wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] True... it just struck me that the only possible reason for players to make a splitting deal on turn 2 was such pre-meditation, as by turn 2 it is nigh impossible to tell what direction the game is going to take, so agreeing to take 2 VPs and give someone else 3 is almost certainly /some/ kind of unsportsmanlike conduct, most likely deriving from stupidity or collusion. I gave the players in the example the benefit of the doubt involving their intellect, though not their integrity. > In order for it to be collusion, the people in the 3/2 VP split have to have > arranged things before the game. It's much more likely that they were looking > for a 3/2 VP split, but hadn't actually planned anything before the game and > then during the game, they made the deal. (Which isn't collusion but is > probably unsportsmanlike conduct or some other violation(s)). Okay, I see your point, and agree that this is a somewhat different infraction. However, it baffles me slightly that someone would agree to take only 2 vps at a game where they hadn't even seen what others were playing yet. They brought a deck they have that little faith in to a tournament? > It seems to me that this most likely results from an incomplete understanding > of the theme/goal of Jyhad and the mechanics of the tournament rules. > > However, let's just hope that the table-wins aspect helps mitigate this > problem. Yes, the rule change is a good one. But was it really such a huge problem? Did people really sit down to each and every round of a tournament looking to make a 3-2 split regardless of the situation? Didn't they realize that as long as there were 3 or more tables, not everyone who agreed to be part of such deals (even every round) would make it to the finals? I honestly cannot fathom this. > >Yes, 2 decks can beat 1. And 3 decks can beat 2, which is what I /said/. > > Yes, but it's not always in the third player's interest to help beat down the > other two. If he works fast enough, he might be able to oust his prey in time > or even manage to take advantage of the situation. I agree. Yet another reason that simply making a table-split agreement does not guarantee victory. -Steve Wampler

> > Business rivals are supposed to compete, not rig the market and it's > > the same with predator and prey I think that's the heart of the issue: It's in the spirit of Jyhad to bleed your prey. Here's one way to look at it: Return to Innocence was banned, and Zip Gun disallowed from using ammo cards, to prevent those two strategies from killing off all the other strategies. To encourage variety in tournament-level decks. They were fair in that everyone could use them, yes, but they were game breakers in another sense: That you used them, or you probably lost. Table-splitting has this quality: You cannot reasonably take on two combat decks torporizing you, or two vote decks each hitting you with 2 KRC's every turn, without making an alliance of your own. Without the table wins rule, making a deal early seems like it would be more key in who gets into the finals than any other factor. And if that's the case, the other elements of Jyhad are undermined, and variety suffers.

In message <3C20ED8D...@nyu.edu>, Steve Wampler <sjw...@nyu.edu> mumbled something about: >True... it just struck me that the only possible reason for players to make a >splitting deal on turn 2 was such pre-meditation, as by turn 2 it is nigh >impossible to tell what direction the game is going to take, so agreeing to take >2 VPs and give someone else 3 is almost certainly /some/ kind of unsportsmanlike >conduct, most likely deriving from stupidity or collusion. I gave the players in >the example the benefit of the doubt involving their intellect, though not their >integrity. Or through previous knowledge of the other player's deck, for example -- or simple table talk after the first vampire comes out. "Uh oh, we're just going to beat each other up, aren't we? Wanna split?" Or just plain sitting down and saying "If we don't split 3/2 my way, I'll have to oust you backwards, because I don't think I can stand up to your deck AND oust my prey at the same time." ... whether or not it's true. >Okay, I see your point, and agree that this is a somewhat different infraction. >However, it baffles me slightly that someone would agree to take only 2 vps at a >game where they hadn't even seen what others were playing yet. They brought a >deck they have that little faith in to a tournament? If you get 2VP in each round, you had a fairly good chance of making the final with 6VP and lots of tourney points from never being ousted. And when you're faced with a threat of an upstreamer and gaining 0VP, sometimes it's worth it. >But was it really such a huge problem? Did people really sit down to each and Yes. >every round of a tournament looking to make a 3-2 split regardless of the >situation? Didn't they realize that as long as there were 3 or more tables, not Yes. >everyone who agreed to be part of such deals (even every round) would make it to >the finals? I honestly cannot fathom this. But it was happening. >> >Yes, 2 decks can beat 1. And 3 decks can beat 2, which is what I /said/. No. There is no reason for the 3 decks to cooperate. Observe: Table A -> B -> C -> D -> E Decks A and E are in cahoots to split 3/2, with E getting the last 2. A and E are both in great shape as long as the other 3 people on the table are gone. Theoretically, to stop A and E, all three other decks will have to band together and oust them first. But that means player D gets 2VPs right off the bat, and will have a good chance of getting the rest. Player D can't offer players B and C anything in return, really, because of the following "gotcha": if player D makes a deal with B to give C's and his own VP to B, then player C will no longer go along with the OTHER part of the deal, as he gets screwed either way. Same if player D makes a deal with C. Splitting 2/2/1 is not viable, as the person who gets 1 is getting screwed and will not cooperate. So what ends up happening is, all three decks who aren't part of The Alliance(tm) end up going "out for themselves" to try to snag as much as they can out from under The Alliance's nose. And the Alliance ends up facing a 2 on 1 on 1 on 1 instead of a 2 on 3, and wins. And this no longer even REMOTELY looks like V:TES, which is why it needed to be beaten down. [ quoted text not captured ]

[snip very amusing if slightly inapt price-fixing analogy] >> Please explain how this is conceding either of our position. > > A player is conceding his position when he rolls over and allows > himself to be ousted without a fight. One might forgive this when the > position is hopeless. But when a player is riding high, it's illegal, > unethical, unsporting and out-of-character. In boxing, it's called > "taking a dive". You can probably get locked up for that too. But you probably won't, if you make it plausibly deniable. It's hard to prove that you just plain let your guard down and chose to fall to the floor. Same in VTES. You can always keep transferring out vampires and tapping out hunting at the end of the game, saying you "figure he wouldn't bleed me after I tapped out; only people with Wakes in hand tap out and I was trying to Fake him Out," or the like. It's the saying "I'll roll over" part that seems somewhat legislatable. At the least, you can make "roll over" deals illegal. Back to the boxing analogy. You can do it, but you'd have to make sure no one else finds out about it, but there are no private discussions in VTES. I'm sure players could try and come up with code words in advance, but then that's collusion, which is already illegal. Still, a damn headache for the judge. Far easier to institute the Table Wins, so the guy who takes 2 VP gets the credit they deserve for taking the dive. > If you find that you're stymied when your rush deck is sat next to > another deck of the same kind, then maybe you can try other ways round > the problem. Put a few Dramatic Upheaval in your deck and threaten to > kill any vampire that votes against it. Or try and get some > cross-table action going which puts pressure on your prey. Or just > wall up, snipe at any player that looks like scoring a VP and hope > that the game unjams before time runs out. Or just accept that you've > guessed the metagame wrong. Your lack of options is your own fault so > suck it up and take it like a man. I stuck this in the middle of another post as a rant once, and got no comments, so I'll say it again. Rush players are talking out of both sides of their mouths. They counter arguments that rush decks are just "spoiler decks" by saying that any deck that can't handle one just didn't bring enough combat defense. But, get another Rush deck as your predator or prey, and the record plays backwards: suddenly, there's "nothing they can do about it," and they'll just "give the VPs" to someone else, which somehow forces them to the table-split. It's plainly hypocrisy of Potence rush decks that hoped not to sit next to Potence rush decks, and lost the bet...and they desperately don't want their ignominious table-splitting loophole closed. As to the counterargument "Why can't the other 3 players do something about it by banding together?" Among other things, the 2 rush players in a row being ousted gives both VPs to only one of the players. Then what? Split the table? That argument basically says "You *can't* beat them, just join them." Aggravate that by trying to split a table 3 ways, when one guy already has 2 VPs from the deal (Table Wins or no Table Wins). Not to mention when there are 4 players, as happens at many tables. Sure, if the two decks can actually work together to oust both rush decks, that leaves one guy with 2 VPs, who can "roll over" for the other guy to get 2 VPs. But that's back to robbing Peter to pay Paul. And, in both cases, that's under the somewhat ridiculous assumption that the other 3 players (worse yet, the other 2) have the capacity to oust across table while simultaneously standing up to the efforts of 2 rush decks. The rush buddies only have to kill one threat (the biggest one) at a time. Again, an admitted pain to judge, so I'm glad that the Table Wins see that the 2VP toady gets his just desserts. Even moreso for the 4 player table, where the 2-2 rollover split stiffs them both. Better for the truly ruthless Methuselah who breaks the deal and gets all 4 to be in the finals. -- Pat Ricochet Soul Jar'rn Fool of Atlanta

>True... it just struck me that the only possible reason for players to make a >splitting deal on turn 2 was such pre-meditation, as by turn 2 it is nigh >impossible to tell what direction the game is going to take, so agreeing to >take >2 VPs and give someone else 3 is almost certainly /some/ kind of >unsportsmanlike >conduct, most likely deriving from stupidity or collusion. I gave the >players in >the example the benefit of the doubt involving their intellect, though not >their >integrity. If you can figure out what an opponent is playing by turn two, then you might want to deal to avoid having to contend with it. In some cases, it's quite obvious what a deck does that quickly. For example, last constructed I played in, in the final round, my prey brought up Huang on his first turn and played Fame on his second turn. I played very conservatively as soon as I saw that to provide no encouragement for backwards rushes. If I were playing, say, weenie Potence and it wasn't the final, I would be all for some sort of table split. Two combat decks going at it may be exciting and all, but it doesn't do either of them any good.

Derek Ray wrote: <snip> > If you get 2VP in each round, you had a fairly good chance of making the > final with 6VP and lots of tourney points from never being ousted. And > when you're faced with a threat of an upstreamer and gaining 0VP, > sometimes it's worth it. Not if there are at least 3 tables in which each is won by a 3-2 split deal. That involves 6 people getting 6-9 VPs each (assuming 3 rounds). One of these people is not goint to the finals, even if the tie-breaking goes down to a coin toss. <snip> > >> >Yes, 2 decks can beat 1. And 3 decks can beat 2, which is what I /said/. > > No. There is no reason for the 3 decks to cooperate. Observe: > > Table A -> B -> C -> D -> E > > Decks A and E are in cahoots to split 3/2, with E getting the last 2. A > and E are both in great shape as long as the other 3 people on the table > are gone. Theoretically, to stop A and E, all three other decks will > have to band together and oust them first. So why don't B and C (or C and D) cut /the exact same deal/ that A and E have. Yes, this leaves someone out, but there's no reason why the two "alliances" shouldn't be relatively equal against each other, leaving the table relatively destablilized, giving the "odd man" a fighting chance. And the main point of the three-way alliance is not to acutally do it, but to have the threat of it dissuade people from making split deals except under extreme duress. > But that means player D gets 2VPs right off the bat, and will have a > good chance of getting the rest. Player D can't offer players B and C > anything in return, really, because of the following "gotcha": if > player D makes a deal with B to give C's and his own VP to B, then > player C will no longer go along with the OTHER part of the deal, as he > gets screwed either way. Same if player D makes a deal with C. > Splitting 2/2/1 is not viable, as the person who gets 1 is getting > screwed and will not cooperate. How is he getting screwed if he was going to get zero by not co-operating? > So what ends up happening is, all three decks who aren't part of The > Alliance(tm) end up going "out for themselves" to try to snag as much as > they can out from under The Alliance's nose. And the Alliance ends up > facing a 2 on 1 on 1 on 1 instead of a 2 on 3, and wins. > > And this no longer even REMOTELY looks like V:TES, which is why it > needed to be beaten down. I agree that it is not desireable for this to happen frequently. However, it is my opinion that there is sufficient dissuasion in most normal situations that it shouldn't come up. -Steve Wampler

In message <3C210E3F...@nyu.edu>, Steve Wampler <sjw...@nyu.edu> mumbled something about: >Derek Ray wrote: >> If you get 2VP in each round, you had a fairly good chance of making the >> final with 6VP and lots of tourney points from never being ousted. And >> when you're faced with a threat of an upstreamer and gaining 0VP, >> sometimes it's worth it. > >Not if there are at least 3 tables in which each is won by a 3-2 split deal. That >involves 6 people getting 6-9 VPs each (assuming 3 rounds). One of these people is >not goint to the finals, even if the tie-breaking goes down to a coin toss. If three different people have all got 6VP and max tourney points, then the chances of any given one going to the final are 66%. I'll bet on that all day long. But realistically, someone will disrupt the pot, and 6VP will likely be enough to make it in just on the tourney-points tiebreaker. ><snip> >> No. There is no reason for the 3 decks to cooperate. Observe: >> >> Table A -> B -> C -> D -> E >> >> Decks A and E are in cahoots to split 3/2, with E getting the last 2. A >> and E are both in great shape as long as the other 3 people on the table >> are gone. Theoretically, to stop A and E, all three other decks will >> have to band together and oust them first. > >So why don't B and C (or C and D) cut /the exact same deal/ that A and E have. Yes, >this leaves someone out, but there's no reason why the two "alliances" shouldn't be >relatively equal against each other, leaving the table relatively destablilized, >giving the "odd man" a fighting chance. If the odd man really DOES have a fighting chance, then why would you make such a deal in the first place and give him that chance? Nobody wants to set themselves up in a position where 2 guys fight 2 other guys to a standstill and the 5th sneaks in and sweeps. Not to mention how this reduces the game to complete silliness... I didn't start playing this game to play Diplomacy, I wanted to play V:TES. >And the main point of the three-way alliance is not to acutally do it, but to have >the threat of it dissuade people from making split deals except under extreme duress. If threatened by a prospective 3-way alliance, I'd say 'Fine, do it. I know my deck can' and go from there. And I'd have the advantage, because I will have built my deck specifically to have lots to offer -- because I knew I was going to start offering 3-2 deals from the minute I walked in. >> But that means player D gets 2VPs right off the bat, and will have a >> good chance of getting the rest. Player D can't offer players B and C >> anything in return, really, because of the following "gotcha": if >> player D makes a deal with B to give C's and his own VP to B, then >> player C will no longer go along with the OTHER part of the deal, as he >> gets screwed either way. Same if player D makes a deal with C. >> Splitting 2/2/1 is not viable, as the person who gets 1 is getting >> screwed and will not cooperate. > >How is he getting screwed if he was going to get zero by not co-operating? 1VP each round isn't enough to make the final, and pretty much means you need to sweep a different round to make it in. I expect the first thing he'd do is say "nah, I can get 2 out of this" and try to screw the other 2 over as soon as possible. Since he's sitting as predator to one of the other 2, it will be fairly easy for him. >> So what ends up happening is, all three decks who aren't part of The >> Alliance(tm) end up going "out for themselves" to try to snag as much as >> they can out from under The Alliance's nose. And the Alliance ends up >> facing a 2 on 1 on 1 on 1 instead of a 2 on 3, and wins. >> >> And this no longer even REMOTELY looks like V:TES, which is why it >> needed to be beaten down. > >I agree that it is not desireable for this to happen frequently. However, it is my >opinion that there is sufficient dissuasion in most normal situations that it >shouldn't come up. But mine, and many other people's experience is that it DOES come up. It started happening right when people started to realize that letting fast decks get set up and blow through their initial prey was a good way to let that deck sweep the table -- so they started playing decks that could hand cross-table damage out more. It naturally grew from there. [ quoted text not captured ]

Andrew wrote: >>The end does not justify the means. You're from New York and so you may be familiar with the case of Mr Taubman, the billionaire proprietor of Sothebys. He made a price-fixing deal with his opposite number in Christies. This made great sense for both parties but the powers that be decided that this was against the public interest.>> See, but price fixing is specifically illegal. Various laws exists to discourage price fixing. The current (till January) rules of VTES tournament play exist to encourage maximizing victory points. If making a deal maximizes your victory points by turning a high chance at zero victory points into a certain chance of 2 VPs, you are maximizing your VPs, and consequently playing by the rules. >>Business rivals are supposed to compete, not rig the market and it's the same with predator and prey in VTES. Mr Taubman is now facing a prison sentence. Table-splitters have got off lightly.>> People who split the table in a situation where they are virtually assured zero VPs without the table split (like when 2 potence combat decks sit right next to each other) are playing by the rules--they are attempting to maximize their VPs. >>A player is conceding his position when he rolls over and allows himself to be ousted without a fight.>> Those were the terms of the deal made to get to that position--if the deal was not made, there would be no postion at all. A player is making a deal--that deal is "I trade zero VPs for 3 VPs and then ousting myself". Getting 3 VPs is maximizing your VPs when the original likelyhood was zero VPs, and there is nothing against the rules about ousting yourself. >>One might forgive this when the position is hopeless.>> If you can forgive it in situation A, why not situation B, when neither are against the rules? >>But when a player is riding high, it's illegal, unethical, unsporting and out-of-character.>> Nope. There is nothing illegal about ousting ones self. There is nothing unethical about living up to a valid agreement (it strikes me as far more unethical to go back on a leagl deal made in good faith). There is nothing unsporting about playing by the rules. Out of character? How is it out of character to attempt to maximize VPs, when the rules specifically encourage you to maximize VPs? >>In boxing, it's called "taking a dive". You can probably get locked up for that too.>> In boxing, taking a dive is connected to collusion--the dive is taken to benefit a deal made outside of the ring. An in game deal to maximize VPs (getting 2 or 3, rather than zero) is not connected to collusion. >>If you find that you're stymied when your rush deck is sat next to another deck of the same kind, then maybe you can try other ways round the problem. Put a few Dramatic Upheaval in your deck and threaten to kill any vampire that votes against it.>> Or you could make a legal, non collusive deal to split the table 3-2 in the name of maximizing your VPs. >>Or try and get some cross-table action going which puts pressure on your prey.>> Yup. Or you could make a legal, non collusive deal to split the table 3-2 in the name of maximizing your VPs. >>Or just wall up, snipe at any player that looks like scoring a VP and hope that the game unjams before time runs out.>> That isn't maximizing your VPs, which the rules encourage. Making a 3-2 table split is. >>Or just accept that you've guessed the metagame wrong.>> Or, you could make a legal, non collusive deal to split the table 3-2 in the name of maximizing your VPs. >>Your lack of options is your own fault so suck it up and take it like a man.>> Why do that, when you can make a legal, non collusive deal to split the table 3-2 in the name of maximizing your VPs. This is all completely moot, however, as the new Table Wins rule makes a 3-2 split useless for the guy getting 2 VPs. Thus it generally won't ever come up again. Peter D Bakija PD...@aol.com http://www.geocities.com/bakija6 "...and the only person I can stand to be around is a neutered vampire who cheats at kitten poker!" -Buffy

On 20 Dec 2001 01:54:29 GMT, Peter D Bakija wrote: >See, but price fixing is specifically illegal. Various laws exists to >discourage price fixing. The current (till January) rules of VTES tournament >play exist to encourage maximizing victory points. If you commit suicide to help a weaker player then you are not maximising your victory points. That's precisely why it is currently illegal. >>>One might forgive this when the position is hopeless.>> > >If you can forgive it in situation A, why not situation B, when neither are >against the rules? Both are against the rules. But there's little need to punish a player who is resigning - declining to play out a hopeless position. One should save serious sanction for the players that deserve it - the table-splitters. Thay are deliberately trying to cheat the system. >There is nothing unethical about living up to a valid agreement >(it strikes me as far more unethical to go back on a leagl deal >made in good faith). The game and the real world do not have the same ethical code. If I punch you on the nose in the real world, then this will usually be both illegal and contrary to Christian ethics (YMMV). If I do the same thing in a boxing match then this is not just permitted, it is expected. In the real world, if you make a deal with someone, then it is expected to be binding, both in law and as a matter of personal honour. But, in the game, deals are not binding and so you should break them if they get in the way of the game's objective. If you refuse do so so for the sake of real-world ethics ("my word is my bond") then this is muddled thinking - failure to understand that you are no longer supposed to be in the real world but are in the World of Darkness instead. If you refuse to break deals for the sake of your metagame reputation ("if I break this deal then he won't deal with me in the next game") then this is blatant collusion - putting your out-of-game relationship ahead of your in-game one. >In boxing, taking a dive is connected to collusion--the dive is taken to >benefit a deal made outside of the ring. Not necessarily - a boxer might take a dive to avoid getting hurt. This is understandable but you shouldn't go in the ring if that's how you feel. You're expected to make a fight of it before you throw in the towel. Failure to fight when you are able to do so is just not playing the game. >This is all completely moot, however, as the new Table Wins rule makes a 3-2 >split useless for the guy getting 2 VPs. Thus it generally won't ever come up >again. I'm not convinced - 2 VPs is better than nothing, as you say. But what do you actually plan to do now if you find yourself playing Rush with Rush as your prey? And what do you do in ordinary, one-off games where tournament rules and scoring do not apply? Andrew

> See, but price fixing is specifically illegal. Various laws exists to > discourage price fixing. Price fixing wasn't illegal before the laws were in place. It was determined to be unfair to those not included in the deal, and is now illegal. > The current (till January) rules of VTES tournament > play exist to encourage maximizing victory points. Table splitting was also determined to be unfair to those not included in the deal, and will soon be illegal. > If making a deal maximizes your victory points by turning a high chance at zero > victory points into a certain chance of 2 VPs, you are maximizing your VPs, and > consequently playing by the rules. It was understood that the rules allowed for it. The question was whether they should have. > >>A player is conceding his position when he rolls over and allows himself to > be ousted without a fight.>> > > Those were the terms of the deal made to get to that position--if the deal was > not made, there would be no postion at all. A player is making a deal--that > deal is "I trade zero VPs for 3 VPs and then ousting myself" At what cost? If the other three players are denied a reasonable chance of victory, and this happens every round, and they give up tournament V:TES, was it worth it? What if I bring 8 players to your tourney, and we all play the same type of rush deck, just to do this every game? Each player must be presented with some hope for victory, or the game loses its appeal. With the above example, only the people on "Team Brian" have a reasonable hope for victory. > There is nothing > unethical about living up to a valid agreement (it strikes me as far more > unethical to go back on a leagl deal made in good faith). I disagree. I say it is unethical to live up to any agreement which is in itself unethical. > >>If you find that you're stymied when your rush deck is sat next to > another deck of the same kind, then maybe you can try other ways round > the problem. Put a few Dramatic Upheaval in your deck and threaten to > kill any vampire that votes against it.>> > > Or you could make a legal, non collusive deal to split the table 3-2 in the > name of maximizing your VPs. > > >>Or try and get some cross-table action going which puts pressure on your > prey.>> > > Yup. Or you could make a legal, non collusive deal to split the table 3-2 in > the name of maximizing your VPs. > > >>Or just wall up, snipe at any player that looks like scoring a VP and hope > that the game unjams before time runs out.>> > > That isn't maximizing your VPs, which the rules encourage. Making a 3-2 table > split is. > > >>Or just accept that you've guessed the metagame wrong.>> > > Or, you could make a legal, non collusive deal to split the table 3-2 in the > name of maximizing your VPs. > > >>Your lack of options is your own fault so suck it up and take it like a > man.>> > > Why do that, when you can make a legal, non collusive deal to split the table > 3-2 in the name of maximizing your VPs. You have offered the table-split option as preferable to each of 5 alternatives, which suggests to me that it is indeed too powerful, crippling other strategies and homogenizing gameplay. > This is all completely moot, however, as the new Table Wins rule makes a 3-2 > split useless for the guy getting 2 VPs. That's what I like to hear.

pd...@aol.comANTISPAM (Peter D Bakija) wrote in message news:<20011219205429...@mb-cp.aol.com>... <snip umpteenth table-split discussion> > > This is all completely moot, however, as the new Table Wins rule makes a 3-2 > split useless for the guy getting 2 VPs. Thus it generally won't ever come up > again. > I'm not too sure about that. 2 weeks ago we had a tourney here in Mechelen with only 10 participants and (due to lack of time) only 2 prelims. Total numer of table wins to be distributed: 4. If in such a (small) tourney, on guy gets 2 table-wins and 2 guys get 1, there are still 3 places in the finals for people with 0 table-wins. If a rush deck manages to split 3-2 - and takes the 2 VP -twice, It is almost sure to get in the finals. In small tourneys the new rules make it actually easier for proposing a 3-2 split to your prey, because it gives him a table win. For larger tourneys, this is obbiously not the case, because there'll be more people with table-wins. Let's see: 10 people, 3 prelims => 6 TW to be scored, with at least 2 people getting 2TW or one guy with 3TW (not unlikely) there's still a place in the final for someone with 0 TW and 6VP. This scenario still assumes that all games end in a Table-win for someone, wich is not the case. Maybe the best stategy for a rush deck (under the new rules) in a small tourney is to make a table-splitting deal with their prey, no matter what. And on a 5 player table secretly try to give its grand predator a VP: 2/0/1/0/2, result: 2 VP and no-one gets a table win. In the above example, that would bring the total number of TW to 3. Just a tought, Jeroen

On Wed, 19 Dec 2001 07:51:21 -0500, Steve Wampler wrote: >The biggest problem with banning it, even if such were desireable, >is that such a ban would be difficult to enforce without banning all >deals. It is pretty easy to make an arrangement which will be tantamount >to one player being ousted, without making that part explicit. Mr Taubman thought that he'd covered his tracks well by writing nothing down. He didn't reckon on his CEO ratting on him. Maybe he shouldn't have said that she'd "look good in stripes". <grin> The authorities in this case decided that it was feasible to make the case stick. It's mostly a matter of political will. If you make an example of a high profile offender, then it encourages others to follow the rules. If you fail do so then you get something like the Magic tournament scene which, by many accounts, used to be quite corrupt with many cases of rampant cheating being winked at. >Again, this is taking a very near-sighted >view of the situation. If a player is >only "riding high" because he cut a deal >with another player, then his end is not >so much "taking a dive" as it is "paying the piper". But the game does not require him to do so. The deal is not sanctioned or regulated by the game rules - it's just some table talk. There's never a valid in-game reason for committing suicide - it's contrary to the specified objective and to the general spirit of the game - a Machiavellian power struggle. >And if your deck is so flawed that it can't beat two other decks even with two >allies of its own, then /you/ need to "suck it up and take it like a man." One possible result of the change to the tournament rules is that decks might become more toolboxy rather than focussed as there's less emphasis on sweeping tables and more on just getting your nose in front to take the win. This may make for a metagame in which the three targets of the rush decks are indeed better able to look after themselves in combat. But it appears that the general trend since Sabbat War has been for rush decks to proliferate. What happens when you have more than two of them in a tournament game? From reports here, it sounds like the game gets ugly. I still think that the ultimate answer is to ban Bum Rush. <grin> Andrew

In message <2584C0144278E30E.F1079FB4...@lp.airnew s.net>, Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> writes: >>And if your deck is so flawed that it can't beat two other decks even with two >>allies of its own, then /you/ need to "suck it up and take it like a man." > >One possible result of the change to the tournament rules is that >decks might become more toolboxy rather than focussed as there's less >emphasis on sweeping tables and more on just getting your nose in >front to take the win. Possibly. This is likely to be metagame dependent, however, as each different area seems to focus on different issues. Toolboxes tend to do better in an environment which has a number of toolboxes knocking around, in my experience. For instance, in another environment, emphasis may shift to fast decks that die after turn 4 but which have ousted several people as fast as they could - an extremely focused bleed deck, for instance, or a deck with multiple actions possible, allowing bleed, followed by some form of damaging action, or whatever (perhaps a DoC style deck, bleeding, together with Freak Drive and Choir, say). These sort of decks might do well. In the current environment, you'd get everyone's back up - and the final player would certainly have time to prepare. In the altered environment, such would mean that getting 2 Meths out quickly, with the possibility of a third, is likely to be potentially very powerful indeed. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <80bafd85.01122...@posting.google.com>, Brian <firstco...@aol.com> writes: >> The current (till January) rules of VTES tournament >> play exist to encourage maximizing victory points. > >Table splitting was also determined to be unfair to those not included >in the deal, and will soon be illegal. For some values of illegal. There will still be some situations where a player cannot win (in the sense of a Game Win) and so is allowed to die however they want, gaining 2 VPs in the process, allowing a second Methuselah the other 3 VPs (and a game win). These will be less prevalent than before and less possible - since both Methuselahs will "need" the other Methuselah to be the one who rolls over for a Game Win - but it is not entirely impossible. [ quoted text not captured ]

Brian wrote: >>Table splitting was also determined to be unfair to those not included in the deal, and will soon be illegal.>> I don't believe it will be illegal, just not a good idea. If getting 2 VPs in the 2-3 split doesn't get you a table win, there is limited incentive to attempt it. >>It was understood that the rules allowed for it. The question was whether they should have.>> There is no way to prevent it outright (as it isn't collusion), so making a "table win" rule that discurages a 3-2 table split is certainly a way to discourage it, but I'm sure it will still occasionally happen. >>At what cost? If the other three players are denied a reasonable chance of victory, and this happens every round, and they give up tournament V:TES, was it worth it? What if I bring 8 players to your tourney, and we all play the same type of rush deck, just to do this every game?>> That falls under the rubric of collusion, which is specifically illegal. >>Each player must be presented with some hope for victory, or the game loses its appeal. With the above example, only the people on "Team Brian" have a reasonable hope for victory.>> Depends on the seating. Everyone seems to think that this 3-2 table split thing is some sort of epidemic. It really isn't--it just shouldn't come up that much. To pull it off, you need to have two players who are certain that they can't get any VPs unless they try and split. This doesn't come up that much. If I feel I can kill my prey, I'll kill him. If my prey feels I can't hurt him, he won't make a deal (as if I can't hurt him, he is likely to get more than 3 VPs). >>I disagree. I say it is unethical to live up to any agreement which is in itself unethical.>> You are free to say anything you like--I am yet to be convinced that making a 3-2 table split deal, under the current (until January) tournament rules is unethical. The rules encourage maximizing VPs. Some times the only way to maximize your VPs is to split 3-2. >>You have offered the table-split option as preferable to each of 5 alternatives, which suggests to me that it is indeed too powerful, crippling other strategies and homogenizing gameplay.>> Nope. It doesn't come up all that often. If I can hurt you, I'm not going to sacrifice my position to give you more VPs. If I can't hurt you, you have no incentive to take a deal, and I have no leverage for making such a deal. The factors neccessary to make such a deal both lucrative and viable are few and far between. [ quoted text not captured ]

Andrew wrote: >>If you commit suicide to help a weaker player then you are not maximising your victory points.>> You are in the sense that without the deal, you were getting zero VPs. Rolling over after getting three VPs gets you three VPs. Thus, maximizing VPs. >> That's precisely why it is currently illegal.>> Maximizing VPs isn't manditaory, it is just what he rules encourage. If it were *illegal* to not maximize VPs, it would be illegal to play a bad deck, which it is not. >>Both are against the rules. But there's little need to punish a player who is resigning - declining to play out a hopeless position. One should save serious sanction for the players that deserve it - the table-splitters.>> How are they against the rules? It is not illegal to oust yourself. It is not illegal to play and not get any VPs. The rules exist to encourage maximizing your VPs, but they do not make it illegal to not do this--again, otherwise, it would be illegal to play a bad deck--certainly there is a deck you could be playing that could get more VPs, isn't there? >>Thay are deliberately trying to cheat the system.>> How? They are trying to maximize their VPs, which the rules exist to encourage. >>The game and the real world do not have the same ethical code. If I punch you on the nose in the real world, then this will usually be both illegal and contrary to Christian ethics (YMMV). If I do the same thing in a boxing match then this is not just permitted, it is expected. In the real world, if you make a deal with someone, then it is expected to be binding, both in law and as a matter of personal honour. But, in the game, deals are not binding and so you should break them if they get in the way of the game's objective.>> This deal doesn't get in the way with the objective of the game. It gets you more VPs that you would have gotten without the deal. >>Not necessarily - a boxer might take a dive to avoid getting hurt. This is understandable but you shouldn't go in the ring if that's how you feel. You're expected to make a fight of it before you throw in the towel. Failure to fight when you are able to do so is just not playing the game.>> That is not taking a dive at the request of your opponent. Different issue all together. That is deciding to give up. You can decide to give up in a game of VTES whenever you want. >>I'm not convinced - 2 VPs is better than nothing, as you say. But what do you actually plan to do now if you find yourself playing Rush with Rush as your prey?>> Might make a deal, might not. Depends on what else is at the table. >>And what do you do in ordinary, one-off games where tournament rules and scoring do not apply?>> I don't make such deals, as there is zero incentive to do so in non tournament play. [ quoted text not captured ]

On 20 Dec 2001 22:12:20 GMT, Peter D Bakija wrote: >It is not illegal to oust yourself. The tournament rules say that you're supposed to play towards the objective of the game and that is to score more VP than any other player. Helping someone else win is clearly contrary to that objective. The quid pro quo (ousting yourself) is a lesser offense because it typically occurs after the game is decided. You should really stop play once one player has 3 out of 5 VP. That would make the self-oust issue moot. >it would be illegal to play a bad deck--certainly there is a deck >you could be playing that could get more VPs, isn't there? I don't think it's possible to construct a deck which incapable of scoring VPs and winning the game, is it? There is no way to say with certainty whether one deck is better than another and so the point is moot. >That is not taking a dive at the request of your opponent. Different issue all >together. That is deciding to give up. You can decide to give up in a game of >VTES whenever you want. The game rules include a procedure for withdrawing from the game. And the tournament rules provide a procedure for conceding. "Giving up" in some other way is therefore illegal. >>nd what do you do in ordinary, one-off games where tournament rules and >>coring do not apply?>> > >I don't make such deals, as there is zero incentive to do so in non tournament >play. It's good that there is some common ground between us. Andrew

Andrew wrote: >>The tournament rules say that you're supposed to play towards the objective of the game and that is to score more VP than any other player. Helping someone else win is clearly contrary to that objective. The quid pro quo (ousting yourself) is a lesser offense because it typically occurs after the game is decided. You should really stop play once one player has 3 out of 5 VP. That would make the self-oust issue moot.>> It isn't clearly contrary--the rules say get as many VPs as you can, and get more than anyone else. If you get 3 VPs, you have succedded in that goal. Sure, you could go on and try for 4 VPs, if not 5, but the only reason you got 3 is 'cause of the deal you made in the first place. If living up to a deal still gets you 3 VPs and more than anyone else, you have done all you are required to do. >>I don't think it's possible to construct a deck which incapable of scoring VPs and winning the game, is it? There is no way to say with certainty whether one deck is better than another and so the point is moot.>> Of course there is a way to say with certainty that one deck is objectively better than another. I have a Malk S+B deck with 35 various Dom bleed cards, 25 various Steath Cards, 20 various Master cards, and a crypt vampires averaging around 5 capacity, all with Dom and Obf. You have a Malk S+B deck that has 5 Threats, 80 Night Moves, 5 Gird Minions, and a crypt that consists of 12 Roxxane, Retrix of the 13th Floors. Deck A is simply better than deck B. I see people all the time in tournaments playing bad decks--decks that I would never in a million years consider worth playing, 'cause they aren't any good. Maybe it is because they are new to the game and don't know any better. Maybe they just like playing experimental decks. Whatever. Regardless, that they are playing a bad deck is deleterious to the game--whomever their prey is will get a free ride and have a noticable advantage. Sure, it is understandable in many cases (i.e. with a new player) and not something that you can legislate against, but it certainly is something that affects a given game in a negative sense. Hmm. Much like how many view a certain other point of discussion on the table... >>The game rules include a procedure for withdrawing from the game. And the tournament rules provide a procedure for conceding. "Giving up" in some other way is therefore illegal.>> No it isn't. That is completely absurd. There is nothing in the rules that prohibit influencing out more vampires than you can afford ("But I *need* this extra vampire even though it brings me down to 1 pool!"). There is nothing in the rules that prevent you from not taking any actions ("I need to block!"). People do this all the time without specifically planning to give up--it is just bad play. There are no rules governing bad play (just like there aren't any rules governing bad deck design) and the line between bad play and simply giving up are too thin to look for. >>It's good that there is some common ground between us.>> See, again here I have reason to believe you have some sort of deranged view of me, that is simply not accurate. I don't go to tournaments and make 3-2 table splits in every game, and laugh at all the people I screw over. I believe in my years of competetive VTES, I have made a table split one time, ever (as the guy who got the 2 VPs...) And boy, was Aaron pissed :-) A couple of games I have played involved weird deals with people that involved them ousting themselves, but other than that first example, they all involved a sort of "hey--let me get one VP, guy who has 3 already, and then I'll kill myself, 'cause it gets you 4 anyways and it'll be easier than trying to oust me" deal. Not table splits. They don't come up all that often, they are difficult to arrange, and usually simply not a good idea, let alone viable. I fully understand that table splitting pisses people off and is contrary to the intent of the game (yet still occasionally a good idea to attempt), but previous to the Jan 1 tournament rules, there was no strictly definable way that they were illegal, and even after the "table-wins" rule becomes in effect, they simply become much less attractive rather than illegal. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <E13FA82A8BC9105D.76974FEF...@lp.airnew s.net>, Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> writes: >On 20 Dec 2001 22:12:20 GMT, Peter D Bakija wrote: >>It is not illegal to oust yourself. > >The tournament rules say that you're supposed to play towards the >objective of the game and that is to score more VP than any other >player. Helping someone else win is clearly contrary to that >objective. No. Look up LSJ's rulings on this one for further clarification. However, if you are going to die (and another player can ask the judge to rule on this one, if necessary), you can choose the manner in which you die - be that ousting yourself, being bled out or whatever, that's up to you. For instance, under "ousting yourself" you may deny your predator putting that final Corruption counter onto a vampire you control, for instance. -- James Coupe "I think Christmas has lost it's meaning... PGP 0x5D623D5D we're all too busy wrapped up in the commercial aspects EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 of the season that we forget the true meaning... 13D7E668C3695D623D5D it's as if Santa died on the cross in vane for us all!"

On 23 Dec 2001 14:20:38 GMT, Peter D Bakija wrote: >It isn't clearly contrary--the rules say get as many VPs as you can, and get >more than anyone else. If you get 3 VPs, you have succedded in that goal. Sure, >you could go on and try for 4 VPs, if not 5, but the only reason you got 3 is >'cause of the deal you made in the first place. If living up to a deal still >gets you 3 VPs and more than anyone else, you have done all you are required to >do. The rules say that the players score victory points for doing various things. They say that the player with the most victory points is the "winner". They explain how you can play for ante and so win or lose cards. The last part is quite clear but nobody plays that way. Otherwise, one might suppose that winning is the only thing that matters but folk like you and LSJ keep saying that the object is to maximise VPs even though, so far as I can see, the rules say no such thing. These three objectives are multi-dimensional. For example, suppose that you have 1 VP and no-one else has any. You are currently winning the game. If winning the game is what matters then you want to keep things that way. But if maximising VPs is the object of the game then you might want to score another VP even if this means that another player does even better and you end up losing 2-3. Play with ante too and you obviously get a weighting of VPs, depending on the ante cards associated with them. Alan Kwan posed the issue of the game's objective over 5 years ago but didn't get much response. In practise, the matter is still unresolved. If real players are prepared to do losing deals in the final of a tournament then, AFAIC, this is broken. >Of course there is a way to say with certainty that one deck is objectively >better than another. I have a Malk S+B deck with 35 various Dom bleed cards, 25 >various Steath Cards, 20 various Master cards, and a crypt vampires averaging >around 5 capacity, all with Dom and Obf. You have a Malk S+B deck that has 5 >Threats, 80 Night Moves, 5 Gird Minions, and a crypt that consists of 12 >Roxxane, Retrix of the 13th Floors. Deck A is simply better than deck B. You can say this in a 2-player game but VTES is normally multi-player. Once you have players deliberately joining forces against decks that appear to be strong then strength can become weakness and vice versa. You also have the scissors/paper/stone issue. You therefore cannot construct a strength function for a deck which independent of the circumstances in which it finds itself. >No it isn't. That is completely absurd. There is nothing in the rules that >prohibit influencing out more vampires than you can afford ("But I *need* this >extra vampire even though it brings me down to 1 pool!"). This is the defense of the rules-lawyer. In the situation where one player is stronger than the other, a deliberate suicide by the strong player is clear enough. As a judge, I would have little hesitation in ruling against this and penalising one or both players for collusion. >I fully understand that table splitting pisses people off and is contrary to >the intent of the game (yet still occasionally a good idea to attempt), but >previous to the Jan 1 tournament rules, there was no strictly definable way >that they were illegal, and even after the "table-wins" rule becomes in effect, >they simply become much less attractive rather than illegal. It seems that you're just fighting some nit-picking point about strict definitions. This is not really the point - we're talking about what's right or wrong and you seem to understand that well enough. Mr Taubman is not just on his way to prison because of the form of words in a statute. His conviction also depended upon the opinion of the judge and jury. It's not possible to regulate such matters in a completely algorithmic manner and that's why VTES has judges too. Andrew

Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> wrote in message news:<253E55F869EB4C5D.054F19D4...@lp.airnews.net>... > On 23 Dec 2001 14:20:38 GMT, Peter D Bakija wrote: > >Of course there is a way to say with certainty that one deck is objectively > >better than another. I have a Malk S+B deck with 35 various Dom bleed cards, 25 > >various Steath Cards, 20 various Master cards, and a crypt vampires averaging > >around 5 capacity, all with Dom and Obf. You have a Malk S+B deck that has 5 > >Threats, 80 Night Moves, 5 Gird Minions, and a crypt that consists of 12 > >Roxxane, Retrix of the 13th Floors. Deck A is simply better than deck B. > You can say this in a 2-player game but VTES is normally multi-player. > Once you have players deliberately joining forces against decks that > appear to be strong then strength can become weakness and vice versa. > You also have the scissors/paper/stone issue. You therefore cannot > construct a strength function for a deck which independent of the > circumstances in which it finds itself. Under what circumstances is deck B above better than A? Zero? Less? 'A' may well find itself in the sights of a bum rush or PTO or whatever because it's doing too well, but there's the underlying premise that it is in fact doing well, whereas B never will be threatening. It reminds me of something Charles Barkley reportedly said to some young idiot that was trying to trash talk him about his age: I'm a has-been, you're a never-was. If A gets cross tabled and then ousted because it's "the threat," and B (sitting at the same table) gets bleed out because it's a piece of shit, I'd imagine their post game chat to be as above.

On 3 Jan 2002 02:00:35 -0800, Shaun McIsaac wrote: >If A gets cross tabled and then ousted because it's "the threat," >and B (sitting at the same table) gets bleed out because it's a >piece of shit, I'd imagine their post game chat to be as above. The winner in this situation is likely to be deck C, which is strong enough to hold its own but not so strong that it becomes the threat. Deck C is therefore stronger than deck A because it is weaker. What this tells you is that there is no universal measure of strength. If there were then then you'd be able to construct the perfect deck and the game would be solved. Andrew

"Andrew S. Davidson" wrote: > On 23 Dec 2001 14:20:38 GMT, Peter D Bakija wrote: > Otherwise, one might suppose that winning is the only thing that > matters but folk like you and LSJ keep saying that the object is to > maximise VPs even though, so far as I can see, the rules say no such > thing. You intentionally misstate my position on the matter. Tsk. -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and tournament rules: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/

"Andrew S. Davidson" <a...@csi.com> wrote in message news:82DAF2A4945CCE6E.F7C64102...@lp.airnews.net... [ quoted text not captured ] WTF, Andrew, are you a ignoramus or do you just talk in generalities for apparent reason? Play to win. Figure it out. I have seen lots of players try to haggle the table apart and rarely have I seen them win because of it. Often it gains alot of attention and then the person ends up winning, so people think, "Hey, he politicked alot and won, then that must be why." In fact, he had good deck design and he ran his mouth enough to keep you looking somewhere else. So perhaps you should focus on these chatterboxes rather than on what they are pointing at. Also, these so to speak table splitting deals are in theory a great obstruction to the fair play of the game, but we are all still governed by the Cardinal Sin of Greed. We want the most, more than anyone else. If you don't want to win, why play? I see them at the big tournaments but more than anything else, all this politicing does is make the rounds go to time rather than give anyone an advantage. As David Anderson-Davila said, "Lets keep the politics political." Comments Welcome, Norman S. Brown, Jr. XZealot Archon of the Swamp

Andrew wrote: >>You can say this in a 2-player game but VTES is normally multi-player.>> That is just silly. There is absolutely no (reasonably occurring) situation where deck B (the really bad one) would ever be better than deck A (the reasonably built one). The multiplayer dynamic is all well and good, but some decks are completely objectively better than others, regardless of the situation. >>Once you have players deliberately joining forces against decks that appear to be strong then strength can become weakness and vice versa.>> Again, just silly. There is no situation where deck B can ever be a more effective deck than deck A, as presented above. None. >>You also have the scissors/paper/stone issue.>> The two decks presented for example are very similar--no differences in a rock/paper/scissors sense. >>You therefore cannot construct a strength function for a deck which independent of the circumstances in which it finds itself.>> Trying to come up with a situation where deck B will be more effective than deck A is completely futile. Deck B, as presented as close to completely useless as possible without being totally unplayable. If you'd like, I'll give a much easier to discern example of two decks where one is objectively just better then the other: Deck A: Ben Peal's Short Leash Bleed, the winner of the National Championships. Deck B: My deck that consists of 90 Protracted Investements and a crypt of 12 Uriah Winters. There is no situation where one could claim that deck B is going to be a more effective deck than deck A. Even under the most adverse conditions and table oposition, deck A is always going to be more effective. Always. >>This is the defense of the rules-lawyer.>> Your point? >>In the situation where one player is stronger than the other, a deliberate suicide by the strong player is clear enough. As a judge, I would have little hesitation in ruling against this and penalising one or both players for collusion.>> As a judge, I would have little hesitation of calling it a perfectly legal and viable action. There is no evidence to support any sort of collusion (assuming the deal was made completely within the confines of the game in question), and the actions of the players are completely justifiable. >>It seems that you're just fighting some nit-picking point about strict definitions.>> Nope. I'm pointing out that under the previous tournament rules (and to a lesser extent, even under the current tournament rules), such a deal is perfectly legal. >>This is not really the point - we're talking about what's right or wrong and you seem to understand that well enough.>> What's right or wrong? To whom? You seem to think that it is wrong to make a 3/2 table split deal, even under the most justifiable conditions. I disagree. >>It's not possible to regulate such matters in a completely algorithmic manner and that's why VTES has judges too.>> It seems likely that under identical situations, you would rule one way, and I would rule in the exact opposite. What are you gonna do? [ quoted text not captured ]

On 03 Jan 2002 22:35:29 GMT, Peter D Bakija wrote: >Deck A: Ben Peal's Short Leash Bleed, the winner of the National Championships. > >Deck B: My deck that consists of 90 Protracted Investements and a crypt of 12 >Uriah Winters. > >There is no situation where one could claim that deck B is going to be a more >effective deck than deck A. Even under the most adverse conditions and table >oposition, deck A is always going to be more effective. Always. I don't agree. For example, if all the other decks are ferocious Rush decks then deck B might work out better. But we're wandering off at a tangent here. If you have some mathematical algorithm for objectively proving that a given deck is better than another then let's hear it - it would be a useful thing to know. But, otherwise let's stick to the point. Even if you can define it, poor play is not the same as illegal play. The essential difference is what real lawyers call "mens rea" - a knowing intent to do wrong. >What's right or wrong? To whom? You seem to think that it is wrong to make a >3/2 table split deal, even under the most justifiable conditions. I disagree. I don't think that there are any justifiable conditions for a 3-2 split deal. >It seems likely that under identical situations, you would rule one way, and I >would rule in the exact opposite. What are you gonna do? I would rule one way and you would rule the other. This happens when you have human judges making decisions. In games with frequent judgement calls, such as baseball, it happens a lot. To minimise such variation in VTES then you either want a free-for-all where anything goes and all kinds of collusive deals take place without question (the current situation). Or you want an environment in which there is little negotiation and dealing - players just take each play as it comes and pursue their own interest (the situation in other CCG). I prefer the latter. Andrew

Andrew wrote: >>I don't agree. For example, if all the other decks are ferocious Rush decks then deck B might work out better.>> You are just plain wrong. There is no situation, whatsoever, where the second deck would be preferable. >>But we're wandering off at a tangent here. If you have some mathematical algorithm for objectively proving that a given deck is better than another then let's hear it - it would be a useful thing to know.>> Again, just a silly concept. You are attempting to claim that there is no objective way to absolutely state that one deck is better than another. You are mistaken. >>But, otherwise let's stick to the point. Even if you can define it, poor play is not the same as illegal play.>> If illegal play is not actually illegal by any viable defenition, then the difference is nill. >>I don't think that there are any justifiable conditions for a 3-2 split deal.>> And I think you are misaken. I have presented a situation where I feel that such a deal is justified many times, and there are no rules that contradict me. >>Or you want an environment in which there is little negotiation and dealing - players just take each play as it comes and pursue their own interest (the situation in other CCG). I prefer the latter.>> And often their own interest includes making what in the end could appear to be losing deal, but isn't in actuality (i.e. dealing to get 2 VPs when without such a deal you get zero VPs). Second place is better than third place when first isn't an option. This sort of thing never happens in, say, Shadowfist because there is no second place--either you win or you don't. This is one of the design benefits of Fist when compared to VTES. In *any* multiplayer game where there is a second place, there will often be incentive for someone to make a deal to get there. Why? Because given the choice between coing in second and coming in last, most folks will choose coming in second. In pretty much any game. This is a factor of any multiplayer game where there is a quantifiable way of determining a finishing place. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <1C28924E07A63651.69009102...@lp.airnew s.net>, Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> writes: >I don't think that there are any justifiable conditions for a 3-2 >split deal. Regardless of what you think, it is clear that such is possible, even if, potentially extremely, unlikely. -- James Coupe You remind me of the babe. What babe? PGP 0x5D623D5D The babe with the power. What power? EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 Power of voodoo. Who do? 13D7E668C3695D623D5D You do. Do what? Remind me of the babe.

>Trying to come up with a situation where deck B will be more effective than >deck A is completely futile. Deck B, as presented as close to completely >useless as possible without being totally unplayable. If you'd like, I'll >give >a much easier to discern example of two decks where one is objectively just >better then the other: > >Deck A: Ben Peal's Short Leash Bleed, the winner of the National >Championships. > >Deck B: My deck that consists of 90 Protracted Investements and a crypt of 12 >Uriah Winters. > >There is no situation where one could claim that deck B is going to be a more >effective deck than deck A. Even under the most adverse conditions and table >oposition, deck A is always going to be more effective. Always. B can still win due to the multiplayer nature of the game. So, even if you believe that one will necessarily be more effective than the other, does it matter?

On 04 Jan 2002 03:11:13 GMT, Peter D Bakija wrote: >Again, just a silly concept. You are attempting to claim that there is no >objective way to absolutely state that one deck is better than another. You are >mistaken. So what is your method then? So far as I can see, your method is to look at the deck and perform some sort of mental assessment in the light of your experience of the game. This is not objective. >>>I don't think that there are any justifiable conditions for a 3-2 split >deal.>> > >And I think you are misaken. I have presented a situation where I feel that >such a deal is justified many times, and there are no rules that contradict me. So far as VEKN tournaments are concerned, they are rules 5.1 Cheating and 5.2. Unsportsmanlike Conduct. >This sort of thing never happens in, say, Shadowfist because there is no second >place--either you win or you don't. This is one of the design benefits of Fist >when compared to VTES. In *any* multiplayer game where there is a second place, >there will often be incentive for someone to make a deal to get there. Why? >Because given the choice between coing in second and coming in last, most folks >will choose coming in second. In pretty much any game. In Shadowfist, there are tournament systems for allocating places. These are usually based upon that game's equivalent of victory points, feng shui sites. I don't like to use these because they encourage players to play for a place rather than to win. When players stop trying to win then the game is spoilt and the same is true of VTES. Andrew

In message <894889D44680D408.21ACDBF3...@lp.airnew s.net>, Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> writes: >On 04 Jan 2002 03:11:13 GMT, Peter D Bakija wrote: >>Again, just a silly concept. You are attempting to claim that there is no >>objective way to absolutely state that one deck is better than >>another. You are >>mistaken. > >So what is your method then? So far as I can see, your method is to >look at the deck and perform some sort of mental assessment in the >light of your experience of the game. This is not objective. In general terms, comparisons of the play of each deck over a period of time. This will, of course, still be limited but it will be as close to objective as can be easily ascertained. A secondary method - equally useful in its own fashion - is pouring over the deck-list, with a fine tooth-comb, taking into account different facets, seeing where the deck can be exploited. A deck which, when examined in that manner, has a relatively secure method of advance and relatively few exploits may well be a better way of determining this. (This sort of thing has been going on for years. The old articles enshrining bleed, vote and combat options for each clan are available, and are a useful way of thinking about such. Take that to a more detailed level and you have a close approximation of a more useful 'ranking' system.) >>>>I don't think that there are any justifiable conditions for a 3-2 split >>deal.>> >> >>And I think you are misaken. I have presented a situation where I feel that >>such a deal is justified many times, and there are no rules that >>contradict me. > >So far as VEKN tournaments are concerned, they are rules 5.1 Cheating >and 5.2. Unsportsmanlike Conduct. It is certainly true that there are situations where a proposed 3-2 deal will fall under these rules. It is also clear - from LSJ's posts - that there are, in his authoritative view, that there are situations where this will also not be the case, however difficult these may be to attain. A lot of the current situation has been nullified with the introduction of the game- win rule (now in force, folks), though certainly not all. Two decks will both need and want to go for a game win to advance so there is a *lot* more difference between a 3-2 split now and previously since only one person can get a game-win (of which there are only a maximum of 3 available to a deck in most tournaments), whereas a deck being one VP down with a possibility of up to 10 on other tables (again, assuming a 3 round+final set-up) is less significant and certainly acts to get more VPs than it currently has. Most such proposed deals will have a situation where one player would have to give up their chance of a game win. In such an instance, a judge can be asked to rule. However, it is far from impossible that all given situations will necessitate such - even under the old V:EKN rules, the idea that a player could not ever be in a situation where their fate was decided was not true. >In Shadowfist, there are tournament systems for allocating places. >These are usually based upon that game's equivalent of victory points, >feng shui sites. I don't like to use these because they encourage >players to play for a place rather than to win. This is certainly a valid objection (even if, in the grand scheme of things, you're in a minority). It is clear that Shadowfist was designed on all-or-nothing situation, from what I can tell and the (extremely little) experience I have of the game. However, Jyhad was always designed - from the beginning - with the predator-prey/VP dynamic for all practical purposes. This acts to encourage certain styles of play that the game was designed around. In the same way as trying to attach ranking to Shadowfist violates a number of the design principles - in that it certainly seems possible in many such games that a certainly style of deck could function 'well' whilst evading or, at least, slightly foxing the ranking criteria because the game was not set up with that in mind - trying to remove the scoring system from V:TES similarly violates it. The game is and always was set up to give players scores, determining a winner in the process. >When players stop >trying to win then the game is spoilt and the same is true of VTES. Potentially true, for any given group of people. It is unlikely that any person turns up to a competitive tournament aiming to play for second (and those who do not play competitively can potentially be dealt with by a judge). However, what you are asking is that a person who sees that they cannot win because of a number of facets cannot use their skills at diplomacy to advance their position at that table - seemingly based on a desire to create an all-or-nothing situation because of your personal disposition towards such a set of scoring criteria. Diplomacy was built into the game from the very start. Garfield knew that in *any* multiplayer game it was going to be impossible to prevent. So the cards and rules were designed to fight the diplomacy, but not render it entirely useless. You appear to be arguing for the removal of another fundamental design tenet. It seems clear that Jyhad is not, was never designed to be and would require a fundamental reworking to be the game you envisage. There would potentially be nothing wrong with that game. It's simply not this game. You don't want Shadowfist reworked into a scored, second-place-potential game like Jyhad. Why should we want Jyhad reworked into an all-or- nothing game like Shadowfist? [ quoted text not captured ]

Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> wrote in message news:<894889D44680D408.21ACDBF3...@lp.airnews.net>... > >And I think you are misaken. I have presented a situation where I feel that > >such a deal is justified many times, and there are no rules that contradict me. > So far as VEKN tournaments are concerned, they are rules 5.1 Cheating > and 5.2. Unsportsmanlike Conduct. Yep. And I think that is enough attention it should get on the rules level. Rest left to judges. I suppose it could be good idea to apply curfew during night because most of violent crimes are done during night-time, but would it? Think for a minute please. Lots of players keep the possibility to table-talk as a very important aspect of this game, which differentiates this game from most other CCGs. This group include me, my friends and most of other VTES players I know. If look at this through economics point of view there is the issue of oligopolies and monopolies. It's important to regulate monopolies and oligopolies when there exists a situation where: forming an alliance results directly in a consistent winning situation (on the expense of others) in the starting position AND there doesn't exist ANY incentives to break that alliance later on. (There are lots of other situations that can be considered bad - like for instance where some players on the market clearly cannot do anything to gain good position etc.) These hold only in when really collusive behaviour is seen (two people that have agreed beforehand to make decks that support each other and that it doesn't matter to them which positions they get as long one or the other wins). But even as the RL markets are as they are the regulation is done by external force (government body etc.) with the aid of regulations (antitrust laws)- but alliances and DEALS are not banned all together, because this would hinder the development of the markets. So it is true that some (a very small fraction of VTES players) could gain unjustified benefit from the current open atmosphere (collusion). But IMHO Judges are enough of a solution to hinder collusive behaviour. Normal table talk and short-term deals are really fine - and so are table split deals if they are done in a situation which is clearly impossible for the players participating. You can always choose the events you take part in. It's quite unreasonable to expect that there are "collusive" groups of more several people attending tournaments just to win as a group. (in such a large numbers that they could really have considerable effect on the rankings) > In Shadowfist, there are tournament systems for allocating places. > These are usually based upon that game's equivalent of victory points, > feng shui sites. I don't like to use these because they encourage > players to play for a place rather than to win. When players stop > trying to win then the game is spoilt and the same is true of VTES. I play the game for fun. YMMW. I play at tournaments to win yes, but I wouldn't play this game if it wasn't fun (even if I won tournaments). If the rules are too strict, I wouldn't enjoy them as much. The new tournament victory conditions (the tablewin mechanism) sounds like great idea. It changes peoples behaviour, but doesn't RESTRICT gameplay. Conclusion: So either way you have people that are unhappy - either they are unhappy because of crappy luck (seating and the decks on your sides) you have only 1% of winning or you are unhappy because two players made an alliance and you have only 5% winning. But on the first situation you have also 20% of the people unhappy because they just cannot have fun because of very the strict rules that demand they just play to win. Jukka Lindström Well thats my two cents (just getting used to them - still look a bit weird). PS I am sorry for the capital words ;) I hope that nobody got offended of my shouting.

Andrew wrote: >>So what is your method then? So far as I can see, your method is to look at the deck and perform some sort of mental assessment in the light of your experience of the game. This is not objective.>> The whole original point of this tangent was that there is nothing preventing folks from playing badly, and playing a bad deck at a tournament is playing badly. Can you numerically prove that a given deck is bad? Probably not. However, some decks are simply a bad idea, and playing them in a tournament is tantamount to playing to lose from the get go. Such a deck does not need to consist of 90 Tourtured Confessions to be a bad deck. You can't prevent someone from playing a bad deck, nor can you prevent someone from making stupid strategy decisions or using bad tactics. If you can't prevent someone from doing this, you can't prevent someone from outsting themself for whatever reason. >>So far as VEKN tournaments are concerned, they are rules 5.1 Cheating and 5.2. Unsportsmanlike Conduct.>> But you are mistaken. There is nothing saying that making a deal to get 2 VPs instead of 0 VPs is cheating--how is that cheating? What rule does it break? How is it unsportsmanlike? You are making a deal to get more VPs than you would otherwise, therfore trying to do your best possible in a given game. As trying to win (the stated goal of the game) is tantamount to trying to do the best possible in a given game, you are doing what you are supposed to do. There are some situations where you are virtually assured 0 VPs unless you do something like a table split deal. If making this deal gets you 2 VPs instead of 0 VPs, you are playing to do the best possible in the situation. >>In Shadowfist, there are tournament systems for allocating places.>> Yeah, but they are highly questionable and somewhat nebulous. And basically a bad idea. >>These are usually based upon that game's equivalent of victory points, feng shui sites. I don't like to use these because they encourage players to play for a place rather than to win.>> They don't really, 'cause getting that second place is so highly mutable and random--you gain and lose "VPs" all the time. You could be in "second place" at the end of your turn, and be in last place (due to being bombed back to the stone age) before your next turn even starts. Thus, trying for that second place is really difficult, and helping someone get first place in no way assures you second. In Fist, essentially, someone wins and the other three people are given a nominal ranking based on very fluid factors. You can't realistically at some point claim "I can't win, but I can get second if I help *you* win"--there are rarely, if ever situations where a given player will be unable to win, but capable of coming in secnd place. Thus, limited, if any, incentive to play for second place. You can pretty much always pull a win out in Fist, as it is far more dynamic in terms of player interaction--the multi player aspect is far more of a factor than in VTES. In VTES, not so much. >>When players stop trying to win then the game is spoilt and the same is true of VTES.>> I agree, yet splitting a table 3/2 when you are assured 0 VPs otherwise is not playing not to win. It is necessary for a game of VTES to work to play to win. However, if you are in a losing position and assured 0 VPs otherwise, making a deal to get 2 VPs is optimizing your position and playing to do better than you would have otherwise. [ quoted text not captured ]