a reason contesting should change ? I don't see why !

Hi there ! i rarely post here, but i come often to see what's new on the newsgroup. it seems that every week or so, there is a new thread about a new way to handle vampire contesting. I just want to ask : why oh why would anyone reasonable want to change a rule that is already very interesting as it is, which makes quit perfect sense in terms of game mechanism, and has yet to see any abuse? Why change a fundamental things like retro transfers, governing down etc now 15 years after the game's creation ? Is there some creativity problem ? I don't understand. As i can't manage to read the 2 zillion + threads about that issue, can someone briefly explain me what's the reason for all that madness ? thank you.

Reyda ! wrote: > Hi there ! > i rarely post here, but i come often to see what's new on the > newsgroup. > > it seems that every week or so, there is a new thread about a new way > to handle vampire contesting. Really? There's been an on-going discussion lately, with some constructive input, over multiple threads. Hardly a fad-of-the-week change over, though. > I just want to ask : why oh why would anyone reasonable want to change > a rule that is already very interesting as it is, which makes quit > perfect sense in terms of game mechanism, and has yet to see any > abuse? Because, as covered extensively and repeatedly in the ongoing discussion, the effect of losing the uniquess lottery is too severe. > Why change a fundamental things like retro transfers, governing > down etc now 15 years after the game's creation ? Is there some > creativity problem ? Not on the end of the people suggesting fixes, no. > I don't understand. > As i can't manage to read the 2 zillion + threads about that issue, > can someone briefly explain me what's the reason for all that > madness ? When you face contesting, the effect it has on your game is overly harsh. The rule designed to address that, undo influence, is both too broad and not deep enough. So alternatives and enhancements are suggested.

> I don't understand. > As i can't manage to read the 2 zillion + threads about that issue, > can someone briefly explain me what's the reason for all that > madness ? Contesting vampires is random. Contesting vampires is arbitrary. The larger the vampires contested the proportionally larger the penalty for contesting that vampire. Contesting vampires is unbalancing.

[ quoted text not captured ] We don't really need another thread about this, but here goes: One of the bigger issues standing at the base of all this is LSJ stating to agree with lots of other players that the penalty for contesting seems somewhat harsh, and might need some attention. Maybe even a slight change in rules. I skipped a lot of conditions that apply to this very statement, but you really should allow yourself some time to read at least some of the bigger threads handling this subject - everything can be found in there. > I just want to ask : why oh why would anyone reasonable want to change a rule that is already very interesting as it is, Lots of folks that I tend to consider 'reasonable' agree that this very rule might need some attention - see other posts > which makes quit perfect sense in terms of game mechanism, Lots of folks disagree with you on this one - see other posts > and has yet to see any abuse? Examples of this are given as well, although 'abuse' might not be the right term for it. > Why change a fundamental things like retro transfers, governing down etc now 15 years after the game's creation? As I understand, the transfer-back rule was not in the original rules set. It's implied in the game later, and, as it seems, it's not perfect in any way. That's why it might need some change. > Is there some creativity problem ? No, there isn't. Folks are addressing an issue in the game(mechanics), and a possible adaptation/change in rules is being discussed. Some very good options are mentioned. You really should read some of the posts. The 'Contesting' one, with 300+ posts, will clarify almost everything that's going on.

On 26 elo, 18:13, "Reyda !" <rey...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi there ! > i rarely post here, but i come often to see what's new on the > newsgroup. > > it seems that every week or so, there is a new thread about a new way > to handle vampire contesting. > > I just want to ask : why oh why would anyone reasonable want to change > a rule that is already very interesting as it is, which makes quit > perfect sense in terms of game mechanism, and has yet to see any > abuse? Some argue that contesting can have a disproportionate effect in a given game, regardless of good, bad, or any kind of play on behalf of players. Also note that the issue is not about intentional contesting or playing popular vampires. > Why change a fundamental things like retro transfers, governing > down etc now 15 years after the game's creation ? Is there some > creativity problem ? Some argue that retro transfers didn't do what they were meant to do and powered up disciplines that were already the strongest disciplines in the game. [ quoted text not captured ]

"XZealot" <xze...@cox.net> a �crit dans le message de news: e3ccdb32-3513-4c3e...@z24g2000yqb.googlegroups.com... > Contesting vampires is random. > Contesting vampires is arbitrary. > The larger the vampires contested the proportionally larger the > penalty for contesting that vampire. > Contesting vampires is unbalancing. Having a predator influence 4 1-cap vampires that Computer Hack each turn is random. It's also arbitrary. The larger the Computer Hack the predator put into his deck, the more troubles you'll be into. It's kinda unbalancing as well. It just happens, same as contesting. Just deal with it. At the Heidelberg EC, I put Praxis Solomon in the deck just because I knew I was playing cards that were almost guaranteed to be contested (Parthenon, Succubus Club, the AAA vampires...). At the Prague EC, one of the most impressive table talk I've seen was Mirko, who convinced his grandprey Vratislav to yield a to-be-contested Antonio d'Erlette. Situations involving contests actually provide nice...err...Harraps dictionary says "revival", anyway, it provides unexpected changes in table dynamics. For instance, a Meth Graverobbing some vamp and relying on it might find herself surprised when the Meth who got it stolen influences another copy of it (I was on the low end of this in a final). Same as for Law Firm or AAA or whatever archetypes. Just knowing it can happen keeps you on the edge, and it's definitely more interesting that "oh, who cares if it happens, I've whined so much now I can get all the pool back". The game is *fine* as it is, and that includes contesting. Really. Please don't change it. Stone

> The game is *fine* as it is, and that includes contesting. Really. Please > don't change it. Reyda asked a question. I answered it. I can certainly understand that you like the status quo. I do not. We are having the discussion about the various points in another thread.

Stone wrote: > "XZealot" <xze...@cox.net> a �crit dans le message de news: > e3ccdb32-3513-4c3e...@z24g2000yqb.googlegroups.com... >> Contesting vampires is random. >> Contesting vampires is arbitrary. >> The larger the vampires contested the proportionally larger the >> penalty for contesting that vampire. >> Contesting vampires is unbalancing. > > Having a predator influence 4 1-cap vampires that Computer Hack each turn is > random. It's also arbitrary. The larger the Computer Hack the predator put > into his deck, the more troubles you'll be into. It's kinda unbalancing as > well. > It just happens, same as contesting. Just deal with it. As covered already, the game is about constructing your deck and playing it against the decks other players construct. So you can make choices about how to handle weenie Computer Hack or the like. Contesting (or rather, losing the uniqueness lottery) is not in that group ("the like"), however. You cannot meaningfully decide not to use unique crypt cards.

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> a �crit dans le message de news: h73lua$uiq$1...@news.eternal-september.org... > Contesting (or rather, losing the uniqueness lottery) is not in that group > ("the like"), however. You cannot meaningfully decide not to use unique > crypt cards. But that's what we do every day. I already gave the Praxis Solomon example ; and if you build a Ventrue Obf deck, then we choose if it's better to put Arika x4 or x2 or whatever. Sure, she's got an ubah special and the best discipline spread, but she's also likely to get contested. So if we really want Arika that bad, we decide whether it's worth to take the chance to have her contested and have few solutions if it happens, or if we should instead have less chance of having Arika in opening crypt but getting the benefit of less odds of contesting. Same with the library, with Parthenon being probably the most contested card these days, and it does have a huge influence on deckbuilding, number of master slots, card flow if contest does happen etc. It's risk management or whatever you call it. We've lived with it for years and the game's been fine as it is for years. And franky, yes there are some people who meaningfully decide not to use unique popular crypt cards. Other people instead tweak crypt+library to have backup plans if contest of a so-called star vampire should happen. Other people will use all the diplomacy skills at their disposal to get all the resources they can from the table to get an upper hand in the contest. In short, they use their brains to fit the nice set of rules we've been using for years instead of whining over the newsgroup. I hope it'll stay that way, instead of handing some gift-wrapped pool back to players, which will inevitably result in longer games and more time limits. Stone

On 26 elo, 19:20, "Stone" <mc_judgest...@yahoo.fr> wrote: > "LSJ" <vtes...@white-wolf.com> a crit dans le message de news: > h73lua$ui...@news.eternal-september.org... [ quoted text not captured ] Some argue that contesting can have a disproportionate effect in a [ quoted text not captured ]

Stone wrote: > "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> a �crit dans le message de news: > h73lua$uiq$1...@news.eternal-september.org... >> Contesting (or rather, losing the uniqueness lottery) is not in that group >> ("the like"), however. You cannot meaningfully decide not to use unique >> crypt cards. > > But that's what we do every day. I already gave the Praxis Solomon example ; > and if you build a Ventrue Obf deck, then we choose if it's better to put > Arika x4 or x2 or whatever. Sure, she's got an ubah special and the best > discipline spread, but she's also likely to get contested. Not likely at all, really. And, again, you can't choose not to put unique cards in your crypt. Not meaningfully anyway. All you're doing is adjusting the odds, odds which at their maximum (Arika) are still too small to warrant adjusting your deck away from its optimal form. > And franky, yes there are some people who meaningfully decide not to use > unique popular crypt cards. Popular isn't at issue. (Even less so in iteration.) Unpopular unique crypt cards can still lose the lottery. > In > short, they use their brains to fit the nice set of rules we've been using > for years instead of whining over the newsgroup. Or they'll use their brains to improve the rules of the game instead of whining about the idea of change. > I hope it'll stay that way, > instead of handing some gift-wrapped pool back to players, which will > inevitably result in longer games and more time limits. "time outs". And no, it won't even plausibly, much less inevitably, result in longer games. It will lead to games of the same length or, in the cases where the loss of uncontrolled region bloat matters, shorter.

On Aug 26, 11:13 am, "Reyda !" <rey...@gmail.com> wrote: > I just want to ask : why oh why would anyone reasonable want to change > a rule that is already very interesting as it is, which makes quit > perfect sense in terms of game mechanism, and has yet to see any > abuse? "Abuse" isn't the appropriate term. "Overly harsh penalty for what is essentially a completely random happenstance" is more appropriate. Contestation, at this point in the history of the game, when there are 1300+ unique vampires that can show up in any deck, is incredibly random. You can't avoid being in a situation where contestation can be an issue. You can't plan around it (other than by not using unique minions in your crypt, which isn't really available enough an option to even consider in the argument), you can't prepare for it. It is completely random. And often when it comes up, you just lose the game outright (I put 10 pool on my first 11 cap minion. My prey then brings out the exact same minion by pure chance. We both are likely completely screwed). It is kind of like if a rule was introduced to the game where at the start of the game, each player turned over their top card. If any players turned over the same card, they each lose 15 pool. Incredibly unlikely to come up. Not something you can plan to avoid. Totally debilitating when it happens. > Why change a fundamental things like retro transfers, governing > down etc now 15 years after the game's creation ? Is there some > creativity problem ? No. It has always been overly harsh. And no one is suggesting doing away with contestation. Just making it less of a harsh and arbitrary punishment for showing up. Examples of things that have been suggested: - When you yield a contested card, move all the blood from that card to your pool. This is my current favorite fix, as it is simple and laser guided. And mostly helps early game, not as much late game. - You may burn a minion in your uncontrolled region if bringing it into play would contest a minion in play. Move all blood on that minion to your pool. Maybe draw a new crypt card. May or may not come attached to "you may no longer use 2 transfers to move a blood from an uncontrolled minion to your pool". This, or some version of it, is what LSJ seems to favor. Totally reasonable in a design sense, but a lot of folks object to changing the untransfer rule. - Players alternate control of the contested minion in some fashion, either by uncontrolling the first one when the second comes into play, or by flipping them over during untap. This has a lot of fun, thematically appropriate reasons to recommend it, but also probably 'causes a lot of rules problems. So unlikely to actually go anywhere. -Peter

>> And franky, yes there are some people who meaningfully decide not to >> use unique popular crypt cards. Other people instead tweak >> crypt+library to have backup plans if contest of a so-called star >> vampire should happen. Other people will use all the diplomacy >> skills at their disposal to get all the resources they can from the >> table to get an upper hand in the contest. In short, they use their >> brains to fit the nice set of rules we've been using for years >> instead of whining over the newsgroup. I hope it'll stay that way, >> instead of handing some gift-wrapped pool back to players, which >> will inevitably result in longer games and more time limits. >> >> Stone > > Some argue that contesting can have a disproportionate effect in a > given game, regardless of good, bad, or any kind of play on behalf of > players. Also note that the issue is not about intentional contesting > or playing popular vampires. Yes, it has some huge effects, and as LSJ noted : no it has nothing to do with the popularity of the vampires - which itself has nothing to do with their efficiency. The last two instances I recall of contesting : - I'm playing in a "lend me your deck" tournament, so I don't choose what I play, and I happen to contest Lucinde, Alastor with my prey or pred (don't remember), who had a better hand than I, and I got screawed. Yes, the deck was badly balanced and there were too many Lucinde (the player who made the deck was new and used to play it with proxies) but still the situation was lost for me the moment my main vampire got contested, as the other player had gotten ways to influence more rapidly his. - I'm ally to 2 similar Lasombra Black Hand decks with Banjoko as the star, what are the chances of that a few years after they came out ? Their game was doomed from the beginning, first they chose not to contest, then it was all-out war, they both died painfully and given the situation on the table I had to make a losing deal with my prey. In the first instance I'd agree that the crypt was made of popular AND efficient vampires, and the deck was badly built to avoid such trouble ; but still, it destroys a game. And in the second instance, should the Lasombra players have included some Praxis Solomon or the odd Democritus in their deck ? Naaaah... ;-) Orpheus

Howdy, Having proposed one of the early 'solutions', I've been watching the discussion and thinking about the other proposals. This summary seems like a good place to add some more cents to my previous two: > Examples of things that have been suggested: > > - When you yield a contested card, move all the blood from that card > to your pool. This is my current favorite fix, as it is simple and > laser guided. And mostly helps early game, not as much late game. > > - You may burn a minion in your uncontrolled region if bringing it > into play would contest a minion in play. Move all blood on that > minion to your pool. Maybe draw a new crypt card. May or may not come > attached to "you may no longer use 2 transfers to move a blood from an > uncontrolled minion to your pool". This, or some version of it, is > what LSJ seems to favor. Totally reasonable in a design sense, but a > lot of folks object to changing the untransfer rule. > > - Players alternate control of the contested minion in some fashion, > either by uncontrolling the first one when the second comes into play, > or by flipping them over during untap. This has a lot of fun, > thematically appropriate reasons to recommend it, but also probably > 'causes a lot of rules problems. So unlikely to actually go anywhere. My original proposal was one of the latter, and I agree that it is probably too complicated to implement. For a while I was in favor of the 'modified transfer' proposals (not represented above - this is where you are allowed to transfer off of contested minions and/or transfer more quickly off of minions that could contest). I'm sympathetic to the former two solutions above (pool dumping solutions), but while they do reduce the penalty for contesting, neither they nor the modified transfer rules really help out contested star decks, which are counting on being able to use the star. It seems worthwhile to me to make star decks more viable - they're generally pretty tenuous right now, but seem worth promoting, as they are a great way of increasing deck diversity, as there are so many vampires with unique specials around which to base decks. (Ban Pentex Subversion.) If you're trying to mitigate contesting effects (as henrik suggests) in the deck design phase, well, you're writing off star decks altogether. So, I find myself returning to the 'alternating control' solutions. I kind of liked Damnans' proposal (infernal contesting!). I think I also remember someone suggesting a rule whereby each time you paid to contest in your untap, your copy of the vampire flips face up and all others flip face down, which seems like a pretty simple way to alternate control. (That wasn't your original suggestion, was it, Peter? I should probably look it up, but there's so much to wade through...) I'd probably combine either with the ability to recoup some or all blood on the vampire when yielding a contest. Hope that helps, Alex

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> a �crit dans le message de news: h73o19$d3f$1...@news.eternal-september.org... >> In short, they use their brains to fit the nice set of rules we've been >> using for years instead of whining over the newsgroup. > > Or they'll use their brains to improve the rules of the game instead of > whining about the idea of change. wow, this one has it all - the usual laconic sarcasm, plus a childish attitude in bad faith, all in one sentence. I'll leave you to what you call "using your brains", which is just nitpicking over the colour of the gift-wrap, really. over and out. Stone

> On Aug 26, 2:16 pm, wumpus <wump...@comcast.net> wrote: > > So, I find myself returning to the 'alternating control' solutions. I > kind of liked Damnans' proposal (infernal contesting!). I think I > also remember someone suggesting a rule whereby each time you paid to > contest in your untap, your copy of the vampire flips face up and all > others flip face down, which seems like a pretty simple way to > alternate control. (That wasn't your original suggestion, was it, > Peter? I should probably look it up, but there's so much to wade > through...) I'd probably combine either with the ability to recoup > some or all blood on the vampire when yielding a contest. > > Hope that helps, > Alex- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Or the Methusaleh who last influenced the vampire to full capacity gets control of the vampire until another Methusaleh influences their copy to full, and the existing copy gets set back to its owner's uncontrolled region, like Banishment. No contest need be paid. For example, if your prey gets Arika first, you could wait until Arika's spent two blood before bringing out your version and banishing your prey's. Then your prey has to spend two more pool in the influence phase to control her and banish your copy. Better yet, hope that somebody rushes her and does some damage. Even if both Arika's are full, control would pass back and forth, with each Deflection they play essentially being paid from pool. Table placement of the contested vamps, possibilities to rush and deplete contestable vampires, and the contested vampire's reactive abilities become very important. This type of contest fits in well with the flavor of the game - vampires ask "what have you done for me lately?" If they get too injured or depleted in the service of one Methusaleh, they switch over to the Methusaleh who's giving them all the resources they need.

[ quoted text not captured ] I'll give the counterpoint view to XZealot here... - Having someone else influence out the big minion you want bones your game. - Where you sit at a game and what deck your predator uses is randomised then optimised and doesn't take into account their crypt. - Nobody cares about contesting weenies. - Having 2 people influencing out a vampire because "they need the vampire" tends to throw games to the predators of those players. Possible solutions investigated: - Card based (Thanks for the Donation, Olugbenga, etc) - Change the CONTESTING rules (mostly to reduce the penalties, some "time-share agreement suggestions and others) - Change the TRANSFER rules to limit the impact of someone else influencing out the vampire you want before you can. (leads to issues regarding bloat, mechanics for it, "Will Dominate get more powerful???")

On Aug 26, 11:55 am, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > Contesting (or rather, losing the uniqueness lottery) is not in that group ("the > like"), however. You cannot meaningfully decide not to use unique crypt cards. However, as I tried to suggest in another thread, you can meaningfully make choices that affect your chances of contesting. Such choices are flying a bit under the radar, because, when such choices can be meaningfully made, players automatically choose to minimize the odds. Therefore, when they ARE screwed, it is for totally random reasons. However, if the cost of contestation were significantly reduced, it is possible to imagine a player deliberately choosing to play a deck that he knows or suspects is already being played by another player. This is a choice that one could not easily imagine someone making, for sportsmanlike motives, under the current rules.

John Whelan wrote: > On Aug 26, 11:55 am, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: >> Contesting (or rather, losing the uniqueness lottery) is not in that group ("the >> like"), however. You cannot meaningfully decide not to use unique crypt cards. > > However, as I tried to suggest in another thread, you can meaningfully > make choices that affect your chances of contesting. Yes. As I explicitly noted in this thread and several others. http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/eb4c99f89e78be5f et al. > Such choices are flying a bit under the radar, because, when such > choices can be meaningfully made, players automatically choose to > minimize the odds. Therefore, when they ARE screwed, it is for > totally random reasons. > > However, if the cost of contestation were significantly reduced, it > is possible to imagine a player deliberately choosing to play a deck > that he knows or suspects is already being played by another player. Um. OK. Not any drawback to the plan there. > This is a choice that one could not easily imagine someone making, for > sportsmanlike motives, under the current rules. OK.

On Aug 26, 8:27 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > > However, if the cost of contestation were significantly reduced, it > > is possible to imagine a player deliberately choosing to play a deck > > that he knows or suspects is already being played by another player. > > Um. OK. Not any drawback to the plan there. Sarcasm? Sure. There are obvious drawbacks, depending on the severity of the contestation rules and the likelihood of encountering the deck. But they might not counter the perceived benefits in a particular circumstance.

John Whelan wrote: > On Aug 26, 8:27 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: >>> However, if the cost of contestation were significantly reduced, it >>> is possible to imagine a player deliberately choosing to play a deck >>> that he knows or suspects is already being played by another player. >> Um. OK. Not any drawback to the plan there. > > Sarcasm? No. > Sure. There are obvious drawbacks, depending on the > severity of the contestation rules and the likelihood of encountering > the deck. But they might not counter the perceived benefits in a > particular circumstance. The uniqueness lottery is still nothing to be intentionally lost. Even with the cost lowered, it is still a disadvantage. The only advantages contesting would have are the ones it has already. So go ahead and meta into contesting. It seems that is much more difficult than even figuring out a combat or a vote meta, but YMMV.

Stone wrote: > "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> a �crit dans le message de news: > h73o19$d3f$1...@news.eternal-september.org... >>> In short, they use their brains to fit the nice set of rules we've been >>> using for years instead of whining over the newsgroup. >> Or they'll use their brains to improve the rules of the game instead of >> whining about the idea of change. > > wow, this one has it all - the usual laconic sarcasm, plus a childish > attitude in bad faith, all in one sentence. Actually, the sentence illustrates just a rhetorical device to expose the problems with the earlier statement which it so closely mirrors, and mirrors can be unflattering. No bad faith. No childish attitude. Just using the appropriate tools available to respond. Any subtext you read into the sentence is just as easily read into the one on which it is modeled.

During discussion about contesting opinions are always (almost always) based upon "because I think so". This kind of argumentation is hardly objective. So my voice in this topic will be a bit similar. > > I just want to ask : why oh why would anyone reasonable want to change > > a rule that is already very interesting as it is, which makes quit > > perfect sense in terms of game mechanism, and has yet to see any > > abuse? > > Because, as covered extensively and repeatedly in the ongoing discussion, the > effect of losing the uniquess lottery is too severe. Contesting vampires is severe to motivate people to avoid contesting. If 3 people go on 1 tournament with deck based on Lutz its just lame. When some good vampires show in latest expansion you should expect that they may appear with good representation on few closest tournaments. If you don't take it in consideration you are just not thinking (not to say anything more harsh). Personally I like Lutz and have deck including him and I know that taking it to tournament would mean high probability of contesting Lutz and I'm not afraid to ask (and not fool enough not to do it) if anybody else plays deck with him. > > Why change a fundamental things like retro transfers, governing > > down etc now 15 years after the game's creation ? Is there some > > creativity problem ? > > Not on the end of the people suggesting fixes, no. Creating random (often stupid) rule changes proposals because of lack of creativity while deck building isn't good creativity. I'd say it IS creativity problem but in different space than rules. In computer science there is a rule not to change running system. If something works don't change it because It will most likely spoil the system. Lot of games and other project died or became bad because of over- creativity in rule systems. > > I don't understand. > > As i can't manage to read the 2 zillion + threads about that issue, > > can someone briefly explain me what's the reason for all that > > madness ? > > When you face contesting, the effect it has on your game is overly harsh. > The rule designed to address that, undo influence, is both too broad and not > deep enough. > So alternatives and enhancements are suggested. IMHO reason for all that madness is whining of some influential US player(s) about contesting (casus belli for this flame war was Peter D Bakijas complaining about his friend contesting Lutz twice during 6 games). Learn2play guys not whine. LSJ people can avoid contests with a little help of table talk (best thing in this game not only IMHO and the one that makes vtes special and better than other card games). Contesting isn't harsh at all if you remember about it. Contesting Lutz, Arika, Enkidu, Cybele, Saulot, etc. is built in problems for decks based on this vampires. If somebody forgets about it and because of it looses the game he shouldn't justify his loss by anything else than his play. It is easier to search for splinter in others eyes or complaining about rules than see own mistakes.

Satrapa wrote: > Creating random (often stupid) rule changes proposals because of lack > of creativity while deck building isn't good creativity. True. But non-sequitur. We're not talking about random or stupid rules changes, nor changes stemming from a lack of creativity while deck building. > IMHO reason for all that madness is whining of some influential US > player(s) about contesting (casus belli for this flame war was Peter D > Bakijas complaining about his friend contesting Lutz twice during 6 > games). Learn2play guys not whine. Again non sequitur. This isn't about whining. Instead of all the whining about whining, I'd prefer constructive discussions. > LSJ people can avoid contests with a little help of table talk (best > thing in this game not only IMHO and the one that makes vtes special > and better than other card games). Contesting isn't harsh at all if > you remember about it. Not quite true. Being obliged to truthfully declare every minion to whom you intend to transfer counters is not "table talk". And anything less doesn't succeed in the goal of avoiding contests. > Contesting Lutz, Arika, Enkidu, Cybele, Saulot, etc. is built in > problems for decks based on this vampires. Yes. That won't change. The change under discussion is the degree to which it will be a problem, not eliminating the problematic aspect altogether. > If somebody forgets about > it and because of it looses the game he shouldn't justify his loss by > anything else than his play. Not true. His play may have been exemplary and he could still lose the uniqueness lottery and suffer unduly for it. See the myriad of times this has been covered already. > It is easier to search for splinter in > others eyes or complaining about rules than see own mistakes. True. But non-sequitur.

On Aug 27, 7:12 am, Satrapa <jedrzej.komorow...@gmail.com> wrote: > During discussion about contesting opinions are always (almost always) > based upon "because I think so". This kind of argumentation is hardly > objective. So my voice in this topic will be a bit similar. All argumentation is based upon "because I think so". Trying to discredit an argument because it is based on opinion is to throw the whole concept of debate out the window. > Contesting vampires is severe to motivate people to avoid contesting. And yet when it happens, it is super duper random. And occasionally isn't even something you can avoid--I go 2nd, put 10 pool on an 11 cap. My prey, who went third, gets that exact same 11 cap out first, but pure random chance. This is not something you can avoid, motivated or not. And even if you then choose not to contest, and instead choose to bring out a different vampire, it could very well be turn 5 or 6 and 20 pool before you have a minion out. And then you are dead. > Creating random (often stupid) rule changes proposals because of lack > of creativity while deck building isn't good creativity. I'd say it IS > creativity problem but in different space than rules. And people made the *exact* same argument against changing/banning Return to Innocence. And changing the version 2.0 aggravated damage rules. And yet both of those changes made the game infinitely better. > IMHO reason for all that madness is whining of some influential US > player(s) about contesting (casus belli for this flame war was Peter D > Bakijas complaining about his friend contesting Lutz twice during 6 > games). Learn2play guys not whine. Uh, learn to not be a douche bag. It was a convenient example. But not the only one. And while I have no need to make this into some sort of populist uprising, an awful lot of people who I know have well considered, intelligent decision making processes, at least on some level, agree that contestation could probably use a fix of some kind. Including the lead designer of the game. So while one could take the path of "stop whining and Learn2play!" (what are you, Prince?), one could also take the path of "Huh. Once and a while, game rules could use a tweaking to make the game better." -Peter

[ quoted text not captured ] Some argue that contesting can have a disproportionate effect in a [ quoted text not captured ]

On 27 Sie, 18:14, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > And occasionally > isn't even something you can avoid--I go 2nd, put 10 pool on an 11 > cap. My prey, who went third, gets that exact same 11 cap out first, > but pure random chance. Then you have l2p. Putting 10 pool on first vampire, where 7/8 is enought is just bad play. Nothing else.

Peter D Bakija wrote: > - You may burn a minion in your uncontrolled region if bringing it > into play would contest a minion in play. Move all blood on that > minion to your pool. Maybe draw a new crypt card. May or may not > come attached to "you may no longer use 2 transfers to move a blood > from an uncontrolled minion to your pool". This, or some version of > it, is what LSJ seems to favor. Totally reasonable in a design > sense, but a lot of folks object to changing the untransfer rule. NIT: It isn't "a lot of folks", Peter, it's **pretty much everyone** other than LSJ. This particular idea *without* the removal of the transfer-back rule is what I'd like to see ASAP. Excellent idea. Kevin M., Prince of Las Vegas "Know your enemy and know yourself; in one-thousand battles you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, *The Art of War* "Contentment...Complacency...Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier Please visit VTESville daily! http://vtesville.myminicity.com/ Please buy my cards! http://shop.ebay.com/kjmergen/m.html

On Aug 26, 9:52 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > > Sure. There are obvious drawbacks, depending on the > > severity of the contestation rules and the likelihood of encountering > > the deck. But they might not counter the perceived benefits in a > > particular circumstance. > > The uniqueness lottery is still nothing to be intentionally lost. > Even with the cost lowered, it is still a disadvantage. Still, it may be something to be intentionally risked, in situations where there is a specific reason to suspect a particular crypt is more likely to be encountered. In such situations, the severity of the penalty may effect the cost benefit analysis. > The only advantages contesting would have are the ones it has already. Such advantages -- including the ones we have already -- vary depending on circumstances. The only motivation required to RISK losing the uniqueness lottery, in situations where a player is aware of heightened danger, is simply a desire to play a particular deck, perhaps because it is thought to be particularly effective. > So go ahead and meta into contesting. > > It seems that is much more difficult than even figuring out a combat or a vote > meta, but YMMV. Indeed it may. As where the play-buddies of a designer of a new secret "broken" deck, whether acting independenly or not, decide to put together the same deck and bring it to the same 40-player tournament.

John Whelan wrote: > On Aug 26, 9:52 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: >>> Sure. There are obvious drawbacks, depending on the >>> severity of the contestation rules and the likelihood of encountering >>> the deck. But they might not counter the perceived benefits in a >>> particular circumstance. >> The uniqueness lottery is still nothing to be intentionally lost. >> Even with the cost lowered, it is still a disadvantage. > > Still, it may be something to be intentionally risked, in situations > where there is a specific reason to suspect a particular crypt is more > likely to be encountered. In such situations, the severity of the > penalty may effect the cost benefit analysis. Not really. The only advantage one could hope to gain by successfully predicting this unpredictable thing is to keep the card in question out of your opponent's control. That effect won't change with the proposed rules change. >> So go ahead and meta into contesting. >> >> It seems that is much more difficult than even figuring out a combat or a vote >> meta, but YMMV. > > Indeed it may. As where the play-buddies of a designer of a new > secret "broken" deck, whether acting independenly or not, decide to > put together the same deck and bring it to the same 40-player > tournament. Sure. And what advantage do they gain?

On Aug 28, 2:16 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > > Indeed it may. As where the play-buddies of a designer of a new > > secret "broken" deck, whether acting independenly or not, decide to > > put together the same deck and bring it to the same 40-player > > tournament. > > Sure. And what advantage do they gain? As indicated, they gain the advantage of playing a deck they regard as particularly effective, or otherwise have a particular desire to play. They also gain the advantage of surprise (against the majority of players). Against these advantages are weighed the risk of contesting and the severity of the contesting penalty. A less severe rule discourages, but to a lesser degree. It is possible that the cost-benefit analysis could change.

John Whelan wrote: > On Aug 28, 2:16 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: >>> Indeed it may. As where the play-buddies of a designer of a new >>> secret "broken" deck, whether acting independenly or not, decide to >>> put together the same deck and bring it to the same 40-player >>> tournament. >> Sure. And what advantage do they gain? > > As indicated, they gain the advantage of playing a deck they regard as > particularly effective, or otherwise have a particular desire to > play. They also gain the advantage of surprise (against the majority > of players). No. I mean what advantage do they gain with the new proposal. > Against these advantages are weighed the risk of contesting and the > severity of the contesting penalty. A less severe rule discourages, > but to a lesser degree. It is possible that the cost-benefit analysis > could change. Possible, given a different rule change, I guess. The current proposal offers no such encouragement, however.

On Aug 28, 2:32 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > John Whelan wrote: > > On Aug 28, 2:16 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > >>> Indeed it may. As where the play-buddies of a designer of a new > >>> secret "broken" deck, whether acting independenly or not, decide to > >>> put together the same deck and bring it to the same 40-player > >>> tournament. > >> Sure. And what advantage do they gain? > > > As indicated, they gain the advantage of playing a deck they regard as > > particularly effective, or otherwise have a particular desire to > > play. They also gain the advantage of surprise (against the majority > > of players). > > No. I mean what advantage do they gain with the new proposal. I reduction of the penalties associated with the course of action each is considering. > > Against these advantages are weighed the risk of contesting and the > > severity of the contesting penalty. A less severe rule discourages, > > but to a lesser degree. It is possible that the cost-benefit analysis > > could change. > > Possible, given a different rule change, I guess. > The current proposal offers no such encouragement, however. I was not aware that the discussion was restricted to a specific new proposal. But I cannot think of such proposal to which the above analysis could not be applied. It will apply more to some proposals than others, of course. But it seems to me that any reduction of penalties potentially effects cost-benefit analysis in such scenarios.

John Whelan wrote: > I was not aware that the discussion was restricted to a specific new > proposal. But I cannot think of such proposal to which the above > analysis could not be applied. It will apply more to some proposals > than others, of course. But it seems to me that any reduction of > penalties potentially effects cost-benefit analysis in such scenarios. It affects the analysis, sure. With no effect on the result. If you know someone is playing the same deck, you table talk about avoiding contesting. If not, then the analysis doesn't play into it.

On Aug 28, 2:08 pm, John Whelan <jwjbwhe...@gmail.com> wrote: > As where the play-buddies of a designer of a new > secret "broken" deck, whether acting independenly or not, decide to > put together the same deck and bring it to the same 40-player > tournament. You keep bringing this up. Have you ever actually seen it happen? John Eno

On 28 elo, 22:05, John Whelan <jwjbwhe...@gmail.com> wrote: > I was not aware that the discussion was restricted to a specific new > proposal. But I cannot think of such proposal to which the above > analysis could not be applied. It will apply more to some proposals > than others, of course. But it seems to me that any reduction of > penalties potentially effects cost-benefit analysis in such scenarios. Do you believe that the specific new proposal everybody else is talking about is likely to effect the cost-benefit analysis by any significant amount or are you just saying that rules changes that aren't thought out properly have a theoretical potential to be bad?

[ quoted text not captured ] The analysis I had in mind takes place before the tournament, not during the game. Perhaps, in this particular example, the players' knowledge of eachother's decks mitigates the damage (and the difference in damage) to some extent. It still seems to me that there remains a real danger of actual contestation, table talk notwithstanding.

On Aug 28, 3:51 pm, suoli <suoliruse...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 28 elo, 22:05, John Whelan <jwjbwhe...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > I was not aware that the discussion was restricted to a specific new > > proposal. But I cannot think of such proposal to which the above > > analysis could not be applied. It will apply more to some proposals > > than others, of course. But it seems to me that any reduction of > > penalties potentially effects cost-benefit analysis in such scenarios. > > Do you believe that the specific new proposal everybody else is > talking about is likely to effect the cost-benefit analysis by any > significant amount [...] I am not convinced that it might not be significant. But it probably depends on what you mean by "significant". If you feel that getting royally screwed by blind luck is a terrible tragedy, that seriously damages the game, then I am sure you will not feel that this is significant in comparison. Personally, I do not feel that losing the uniqueness / contestation lottery is such a terrible tragedy, that significantly damages the game. Yes, to SOME EXTENT, the is nothing one can do about the risk of contestation -- it is just blind luck (in those situations where it's just blind luck). That's fine with me, because if I can do nothing about it, I don't have to worry about it. I can ignore it, and be philosophical when it happens. Pentex Subversion bothers me more, precisely because there IS something I can do about it. I can put Sudden Reversal in my deck, a card which bores me to tears. > [...] or are you just saying that rules changes that > aren't thought out properly have a theoretical potential to be bad? I feel there is little basis for saying the contestation penalty is too great, until we thoroughly analyze all functions that the contestation penalty serves. I do not consider myself qualified to make that analysis with any authority. I am just making a tiny contribution by throwing out certain ideas.

On Aug 28, 3:26 pm, Johann von Doom <invisibleking...@gmail.com> wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] What do you think? It's a hypothetical.

On Aug 28, 8:26 pm, John Whelan <jwjbwhe...@gmail.com> wrote: > What do you think? I think I've never seen anyone show up to a tournament with a supersecret awesome new deck that trounces the competition. That's why your worry that four or five such decks would simultaneously overwhelm the tournament scene has seemed so odd to me, and why I wondered where that worry originated. > It's a hypothetical. Okay. John Eno

On 29 elo, 03:07, John Whelan <jwjbwhe...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Aug 28, 3:51 pm, suoli <suoliruse...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On 28 elo, 22:05, John Whelan <jwjbwhe...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > I was not aware that the discussion was restricted to a specific new > > > proposal. But I cannot think of such proposal to which the above > > > analysis could not be applied. It will apply more to some proposals > > > than others, of course. But it seems to me that any reduction of > > > penalties potentially effects cost-benefit analysis in such scenarios. > > > Do you believe that the specific new proposal everybody else is > > talking about is likely to effect the cost-benefit analysis by any > > significant amount [...] > > I am not convinced that it might not be significant. Doesn't sound like a 'yes' so I guess that's a 'no'? Sure, it 'might' be significant. Pretty much anything is possible. That much should be self-evident. > But it probably > depends on what you mean by "significant". Are people likely to build their decks differently (ignoring Betrayer- type decks and the possible elimination of influencing back to pool) if the contesting rules are changed in the proposed way? Will they use popular vampires more or as much as currently? Is the probability that they will big enough to worry about? > > [...] or are you just saying that rules changes that > > aren't thought out properly have a theoretical potential to be bad? > > I feel there is little basis for saying the contestation penalty is > too great, until we thoroughly analyze all functions that the > contestation penalty serves. I do not consider myself qualified to > make that analysis with any authority. I am just making a tiny > contribution by throwing out certain ideas. The intended functions and their lack of impact have already been discussed in other threads.

On Aug 28, 7:07 pm, John Whelan <jwjbwhe...@gmail.com> wrote: > I feel there is little basis for saying the contestation penalty is > too great, until we thoroughly analyze all functions that the > contestation penalty serves. It was done in the first part of this entire discussion. This is my analysis of a vampire contestation. First part of the analysis is "how many turns do you take to influence a vampire into play?" We can all agree that the larger the vampire that the longer it takes to get into play. It will either take 1, 2, 3 or 4 turns of transfers to put a vampire into play. Now in addition to taking turns to put into play, you are also investing pool between the amount of 1 to 11 pool on your vampire. When you contest a vampire that vampire is turned face down and removed from play. You must pay 1 pool to contest a vampire or that vampire is burned. So if you contest your first vampire you will effectively start the game with 30 - minus the capacity of the vampire you are contesting. So until you win the contestation, you effectively can start the game with as little as 19 pool (if the contested vampire was an 11 cap). If you lose the contestation then you actually start the game with as little as 19 pool. It will take several turns to get your next vampire into play. So regardless of whether you win or lose the contestation, then it will take several more turns for you to get your second vampire into play. So you are looking at taking your first action on turn 6 or 7. If most games only last 12 to 14 turns then you you have spent the first half of the game doing nothing. You have lost out on the chance to participate in any meaningful way for 50% of the game because your first vampire was contested. If you had the choice to not contest your first vampire after you saw another player put the same vampire into play and you chose to begin influencing another vampire into play instead of forcing the contest, then you have all the pool on that vampire until you can get it off. This can be as much as 10 pool. You still don't have a vampire in play, but you have 10 pool that is inaccessible until you influence it back off. So you effectivly start the game with 20 pool in the worst case scenario. You now begin to influence your second vampire. You are defenseless until you get your second vampire into play. You have still lost all those turns of playing to again get your first turn 6 or 7. If most games only last 12 to 14 turns then you you have spent the first half of the game doing nothing. You have lost out on the chance to participate in any meaningful way for 50% of the game because you chose not to contest your first vampire. There is no reasonable way to get your 10 pool back off your vampire and still be able to particpate in the game at all. The current remedy of transferring back the 10 pool means that you will spend the next 5 turns transferring back the pool while still not having a vampire in play to interact with the game. So now you will spend your first 8 or 9 turns just to get your pool onto a vampire who is brought into play by another player then transferring the pool back off. You will still need to influence another vampire into play. This will take a few more turns so by turn 10 or 11 you have your first vampire into play. The game is almost over at that point in time and you have done little or no playing of the game. Once contesting a vampire starts, you effectively lose 1 pool and 1 action from that vampire for every turn that you contest. So in addition to losing the pool and turns spent influencing that vampire into play which can be as many as 4 turns and 11 pool, you are not losing another turn to act and another pool. So on the first turn that you pay to contest, you have lost 12 pool. On the second turn that you pay to contest, you have lost 13 pool and so on. Now you have remember that you started with 30 pool. so by your second turn contesting you are at 17 pool less the amount that you have influenced onto your second vampire. There is no rule based remedy to contesting vampires other than on person loses all the pool invested on the vampire and all the pool spent contesting and all the turns spent contesting while the other player, who won the contest, merely loses all the pool spent contesting and all the turns spent contesting. With 1308 vampire in the game and the average crypt containing 12 vampire, the occurrence of contesting a vampire is rare in the extreme. There is one card based remedy to contesting vampires, Praxis Solomon. No other card in the game remedies the situation of contesting. There are a few other cards in game that modify how much you pay or who pays, but only one stops the contestation from continuing, Praxis Solomon. The occurence of contesting a vampire is rare in the extreme, so there is no reason for a player to include Praxis: Solomon in their deck. Even if a player did include Praxis: Solomon in their deck, they would have to draw it, play it without being blocked, and then get it to pass, it still doesn't alleviate the loss of pool or turns that is involved with contesting. Since you lose the capacity in pool, the turns spent influencing, the turns spent contesting, pool spent to contest, and there is no rule- based remedy to this, this disproportionately increases the cost of contesting the larger the capacity of the vampire is. This is shown in the following examples The schedule of contesting costs for contesting your first vampire for 12 turns Turn 1-Turn 2-Turn 3-Turn 4-Turn 5- Turn 6- Turn 7-Turn 8-Turn 9-Turn 10- Turn 11- Turn 12----Total Paid-- Pool Remain 1 Cap 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 12 18 2 Cap 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 13 17 3 Cap 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 14 16 4 Cap 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 15 15 5 Cap 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 15 15 -You will notice that Contesting doesn't start until the 3rd turn after the 5th pool is paid on turn 2 6 Cap 4 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 16 14 7 Cap 4 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 17 13 8 Cap 4 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 18 12 9 Cap 4 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 18 12 -You will notice that Contesting doesn't start until the 4rd turn after the 9th pool is paid on turn 3 10 Cap 4 4 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 19 11 11 Cap 4 4 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 20 10 You will notice that if you contested for the whole 12 turns of a game that the effective amount of costs for costing a 11 cap is 66% higher than the cost for contesting a 1 cap. The percentage difference actually increases the less time you contest. For example the difference in cost to contest your first vampire between a 1 cap and an 11 cap on turn 4 is 300%. So under the current contesting rules, if two players contest an 11 cap and neither of them yield then by turn 12 they will have 10 pool with which to play the game versus 30 pool for the other 3 players at the table. Comments Welcome, Norman S. Brown, Jr XZealot Archon of the Swamp

On Aug 29, 1:06 am, Johann von Doom <invisibleking...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Aug 28, 8:26 pm, John Whelan <jwjbwhe...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > What do you think? > > I think I've never seen anyone show up to a tournament with a > supersecret awesome new deck that trounces the competition. The design team is a cautious one, but it is the player's job to dream. I suspect that, in a local playgroup context, the severity of the contestation rule may well have the effect of inducing players to decks that they believe are different, and to avoid decks that they see their neighbors playing. This may in turn affect the less-intimate tournament setting, in that players are less likely to play in tournaments decks that they have not practiced in a playgroup setting. But my attempt to find an example of such considerations directly affecting tournament deck choices is probably a bit of a stretch. > That's why > your worry that four or five such decks would simultaneously overwhelm > the tournament scene has seemed so odd to me, and why I wondered where > that worry originated. As I previously stated, the origin of the idea was a post by Haze wherein Haze discussed an MtG phenomenon known as the "team attack".

On Aug 29, 9:47 am, Aleksi Nuora <aleksinu...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 29 elo, 03:07, John Whelan <jwjbwhe...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I am not convinced that it might not be significant. > > Doesn't sound like a 'yes' so I guess that's a 'no'? As far as I am concerned, this entire contestation discussion is about trivialities. I am uncertain whether a change will effect player deck choices, but I think there is a non-negligible possibility that it might. But I am rather more certain that changing the contestation rule will NOT result in a significant improvement in the game. Yeah, I know. It was a totally random screw that blew you apart like an atom bomb; thereby improving the odds that the game would finish within the time limit. So what? If you want a game of pure luck, go play chess. > Are people likely to build their decks differently (ignoring Betrayer- > type decks and the possible elimination of influencing back to pool) > if the contesting rules are changed in the proposed way? In the local playgroup setting -- yes, there is a significant possiblity that it might. > Will they use popular vampires more or as much as currently? Probably depends on whether someone else in the playgroup is already using him.

On Aug 29, 11:55 am, XZealot <xzea...@cox.net> wrote: <snip bulk of analysis> > So under the current contesting rules, if two players contest an 11 > cap and neither of them yield then by turn 12 they will have 10 pool > with which to play the game versus 30 pool for the other 3 players at > the table. I read this with some interest. I disagree with none of it, except for the implication that the analysis describes a situation that somehow ought to be changed. You noted that the contestation lottery, when it explodes, hurts fatties more than weenies. Seems thematically appropriate to me. If a Methuselah sets out to control an Antidiluvian, perhaps he should expect the unexpected. This is not chess. Skill is indeed involved, but blind luck and drastic twists of fate are part of the drama. If the contestation "problem" is not big enough to actually deter Methuselahs from trying to control Antidiluvians, then I see no problem to be solved. Another problem the game has, which to my mind seems more significant, is that of games going to time in a tournament setting, or otherwise not finishing. A random atom bomb that blows up one or more Methuselahs can be more of a blessing than a curse.

On 31 elo, 04:31, John Whelan <jwjbwhe...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Aug 29, 9:47 am, Aleksi Nuora <aleksinu...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On 29 elo, 03:07, John Whelan <jwjbwhe...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > I am not convinced that it might not be significant. > > > Doesn't sound like a 'yes' so I guess that's a 'no'? > > As far as I am concerned, this entire contestation discussion is about > trivialities. I am uncertain whether a change will effect player deck > choices, but I think there is a non-negligible possibility that it > might. Okay. I'm not convinced that the possibility is non-negligible. > But I am rather more certain that changing the contestation rule will > NOT result in a significant improvement in the game. Yeah, I know. > It was a totally random screw that blew you apart like an atom bomb; > thereby improving the odds that the game would finish within the time > limit. So what? If you want a game of pure luck, go play chess. Uhh. What kind of chess do you play? What if I want a game that uses several non-decisive random events to eliminate determinism without eliminating skill rather than a game that uses a few decisive random events that eliminate skill? [ quoted text not captured ]

suoli wrote: > On 31 elo, 04:31, John Whelan <jwjbwhe...@gmail.com> wrote: > > But I am rather more certain that changing the contestation rule will > > NOT result in a significant improvement in the game. Yeah, I know. > > It was a totally random screw that blew you apart like an atom bomb; > > thereby improving the odds that the game would finish within the time > > limit. So what? If you want a game of pure luck, go play chess. > > Uhh. What kind of chess do you play? Right. Read "pure skill" (I do that all the time) > What if I want a game that uses several non-decisive random events to > eliminate determinism without eliminating skill rather than a game > that uses a few decisive random events that eliminate skill? I'm not sure what exactly that means. But if that's how you feel, and V:tES does not fit your standards, then why would you be playing V:tES, as opposed to something else? Luck can be decisive in V:tES. I do not think this fact can be altered, and I don't see the point in trying.

On 31 elo, 14:46, John Whelan <jwjbwhe...@gmail.com> wrote: > suoli wrote: > > On 31 elo, 04:31, John Whelan <jwjbwhe...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > But I am rather more certain that changing the contestation rule will > > > NOT result in a significant improvement in the game. Yeah, I know. > > > It was a totally random screw that blew you apart like an atom bomb; > > > thereby improving the odds that the game would finish within the time > > > limit. So what? If you want a game of pure luck, go play chess. > > > Uhh. What kind of chess do you play? > > Right. Read "pure skill" (I do that all the time) > > > What if I want a game that uses several non-decisive random events to > > eliminate determinism without eliminating skill rather than a game > > that uses a few decisive random events that eliminate skill? > > I'm not sure what exactly that means. If the outcome of a game is decided by a few random events with big impact there isn't much room for skill. If the outcome of a game is decided deterministically the player that can think one step further than the others wins (not necessarily but ideally yes). If the outcome of a game is decided by several random events with small impact the players can make meaningful decisions that improve their overall odds of winning but they can only think so many steps ahead before uncertainty makes meaningful predictions impossible. > But if that's how you feel, and > V:tES does not fit your standards, then why would you be playing > V:tES, as opposed to something else? "Well if you don't like it why don't you move to Assganistan?" Hur hur. > Luck can be decisive in V:tES. I do not think this fact can be > altered, and I don't see the point in trying. Depends on what you mean. Luck serves a purpose in the game. This doesn't need to change. In some cases luck has an undesirable effect. This can and should be altered.

On Aug 27, 4:05 pm, Raziel <angelofc...@gmail.com> wrote: > Then you have l2p. Putting 10 pool on first vampire, where 7/8 is > enought is just bad play. Nothing else. Ok. Sooooo not the point. Sure. Put 7 pool on an 11 cap. And then your prey gets him out. You are *still* completely screwed. If your deck is big vampires (which are decks that are both viable and often very good), it is going to be another 2-3 turns before you get someone out. And then another 3 turns before you get your 7 pool investment back if you just give up before you bring him out. That is 5-6 turns with no vampires. And starting from a 7 pool deficit. Don't get caught up in irrelevant details. -Peter

On Aug 30, 9:17 pm, John Whelan <jwjbwhe...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Aug 29, 11:55 am, XZealot <xzea...@cox.net> wrote: > > <snip bulk of analysis> > > > So under the current contesting rules, if two players contest an 11 > > cap and neither of them yield then by turn 12 they will have 10 pool > > with which to play the game versus 30 pool for the other 3 players at > > the table. > > I read this with some interest. I disagree with none of it, except > for the implication that the analysis describes a situation that > somehow ought to be changed. You are certainly allowed your opinion.

On Aug 30, 9:18 pm, John Whelan <jwjbwhe...@gmail.com> wrote: > As I previously stated, the origin of the idea was a post by Haze > wherein Haze discussed an MtG phenomenon known as the "team attack". All kinds of things happen in Magic tournaments that have nothing to do with VTES. While I can see why you think that contestation may be one of this reasons that this particular one hasn't been imported from the former to the latter, there are so many more reasons that it hasn't that a change to the contestation rules isn't going to change that. John Eno

On Aug 31, 8:41 am, suoli <suoliruse...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 31 elo, 14:46, John Whelan <jwjbwhe...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > What if I want a game that uses several non-decisive random events to > > > eliminate determinism without eliminating skill rather than a game > > > that uses a few decisive random events that eliminate skill? > > > I'm not sure what exactly that means. > > If the outcome of a game is decided by a few random events with big > impact there isn't much room for skill. I disagree. I feel that there is plenty room for skill in V:tES, despite the possibility that your 11-cap will be torpored by Igo the Hungry and diablerized by Basil because you lacked any combat cards in your opening hand. The main difference I see is that losing by contesting him seems more thematically fitting. > If the outcome of a game is decided deterministically the player that > can think one step further than the others wins (not necessarily but > ideally yes). > > If the outcome of a game is decided by several random events with > small impact the players can make meaningful decisions that improve > their overall odds of winning but they can only think so many steps > ahead before uncertainty makes meaningful predictions impossible. There is also plenty of room for skill when random events with huge impact are relatively unlikely. > > But if that's how you feel, and > > V:tES does not fit your standards, then why would you be playing > > V:tES, as opposed to something else? > > "Well if you don't like it why don't you move to Assganistan?" Hur > hur. No "hur hur" about it. V:tES is a game where luck can have huge impact in rare instances. I don't want to change it, and I see no point in trying. By the time you succeed, it will be a different game -- possibly a good one, by some standards. > > Luck can be decisive in V:tES. I do not think this fact can be > > altered, and I don't see the point in trying. > > Depends on what you mean. Luck serves a purpose in the game. This > doesn't need to change. In some cases luck has an undesirable effect. > This can and should be altered. I see no logical basis for the conclusion that luck has an undesireable effect in this circumstance. I realize some players have their own arbitrary preferences, but the arbitrary preferences of other players, plus 16 years of tradition, plus the rule "if it ain't broke don't fix it" stand in their way. Yes, some players bitch when they get nuked by Lady Luck. If we change this rule, then next week they will be bitching about something else.

On Aug 31, 11:25 am, Johann von Doom <invisibleking...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Aug 30, 9:18 pm, John Whelan <jwjbwhe...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > As I previously stated, the origin of the idea was a post by Haze > > wherein Haze discussed an MtG phenomenon known as the "team attack". > > All kinds of things happen in Magic tournaments that have nothing to > do with VTES. I know, but if you don't want me to keep telling you the origin of the idea, stop asking.

On 31 elo, 18:40, John Whelan <jwjbwhe...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Aug 31, 8:41 am, suoli <suoliruse...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On 31 elo, 14:46, John Whelan <jwjbwhe...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > What if I want a game that uses several non-decisive random events to > > > > eliminate determinism without eliminating skill rather than a game > > > > that uses a few decisive random events that eliminate skill? > > > > I'm not sure what exactly that means. > > > If the outcome of a game is decided by a few random events with big > > impact there isn't much room for skill. > > I disagree. I feel that there is plenty room for skill in V:tES, > despite the possibility that your 11-cap will be torpored by Igo the > Hungry and diablerized by Basil because you lacked any combat cards in > your opening hand. The main difference I see is that losing by > contesting him seems more thematically fitting. Torporing and dibbing is a long chain of random and non-random events, not a single random event. > > If the outcome of a game is decided deterministically the player that > > can think one step further than the others wins (not necessarily but > > ideally yes). > > > If the outcome of a game is decided by several random events with > > small impact the players can make meaningful decisions that improve > > their overall odds of winning but they can only think so many steps > > ahead before uncertainty makes meaningful predictions impossible. > > There is also plenty of room for skill when random events with huge > impact are relatively unlikely. Sure. And even more room when random events with huge impact are even more unlikely. > > > But if that's how you feel, and > > > V:tES does not fit your standards, then why would you be playing > > > V:tES, as opposed to something else? > > > "Well if you don't like it why don't you move to Assganistan?" Hur > > hur. > > No "hur hur" about it. V:tES is a game where luck can have huge > impact in rare instances. I don't want to change it, and I see no > point in trying. By the time you succeed, it will be a different game > -- possibly a good one, by some standards. I do see a point in trying. > > > Luck can be decisive in V:tES. I do not think this fact can be > > > altered, and I don't see the point in trying. > > > Depends on what you mean. Luck serves a purpose in the game. This > > doesn't need to change. In some cases luck has an undesirable effect. > > This can and should be altered. > > I see no logical basis for the conclusion that luck has an > undesireable effect in this circumstance. I realize some players have > their own arbitrary preferences, but the arbitrary preferences of > other players, It's not clear that the majority of players prefer the current contesting rules. > plus 16 years of tradition, Heh. > plus the rule "if it ain't > broke don't fix it" stand in their way. It has come to light that it might be broken. > Yes, some players bitch when they get nuked by Lady Luck. If we > change this rule, then next week they will be bitching about something > else. Arrogant and irrelevant to the discussion.

On Aug 31, 11:42 am, John Whelan <jwjbwhe...@gmail.com> wrote: > I know, but if you don't want me to keep telling you the origin of the > idea, stop asking. I just can't get you to respond to the point I made (the second sentence of my post, which you cut) rather than the evidence (the sentence you replied to), huh? John Eno

On Aug 31, 1:45 pm, Johann von Doom <invisibleking...@gmail.com> wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] Why do you want me to discuss MtG with you? Sorry, but I don't think I am qualified.

On Aug 31, 2:46 pm, John Whelan <jwjbwhe...@gmail.com> wrote: > Why do you want me to discuss MtG with you? Sorry, but I don't think > I am qualified. Look at those goalposts go! WHY DO YOU THINK PLAYGROUPS WILL TEAM ATTACK IN VTES IF THE CONTESTATION PENALTIES ARE REDUCED? John Eno

On Aug 31, 2:57 pm, Johann von Doom <invisibleking...@gmail.com> wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] I DID NOT SAY THAT PLAYGROUPS WILL TEAM ATTACK IN VTES IF THE CONTESTATION PENALTIES ARE REDUCED!!!!!

[ quoted text not captured ] FYI, here is the last thing I said to you on the subject: -------------------------------- The design team is a cautious one, but it is the player's job to dream. I suspect that, in a local playgroup context, the severity of the contestation rule may well have the effect of inducing players to decks that they believe are different, and to avoid decks that they see their neighbors playing. This may in turn affect the less-intimate tournament setting, in that players are less likely to play in tournaments decks that they have not practiced in a playgroup setting. But my attempt to find an example of such considerations directly affecting tournament deck choices is probably a bit of a stretch. -----------------------------

On Aug 31, 3:06 pm, John Whelan <jwjbwhe...@gmail.com> wrote: > I DID NOT SAY THAT PLAYGROUPS WILL TEAM ATTACK IN VTES IF THE > CONTESTATION PENALTIES ARE REDUCED!!!!! Good to know that you agree that this is a non-issue in terms of changes to contestation severity being considered, then. John Eno

On Aug 31, 3:40 pm, Johann von Doom <invisibleking...@gmail.com> wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] I don't claim to know one way or the other.

On Aug 31, 12:38 pm, suoli <suoliruse...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 31 elo, 18:40, John Whelan <jwjbwhe...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I disagree. I feel that there is plenty room for skill in V:tES, > > despite the possibility that your 11-cap will be torpored by Igo the > > Hungry and diablerized by Basil because you lacked any combat cards in > > your opening hand. The main difference I see is that losing by > > contesting him seems more thematically fitting. > > Torporing and dibbing is a long chain of random and non-random events, > not a single random event. I see little difference from the perspective of the victim. He has no say in any of the factors that result in the death of his fattie. He has been destroyed for reasons that have nothing to do with his skills. Generally speaking, I tend to agree that a single factor should not have enormous effect. But exceptions to this rule need not have some kind of earth-shattering justification. > > There is also plenty of room for skill when random events with huge > > impact are relatively unlikely. > > Sure. And even more room when random events with huge impact are even > more unlikely. Of course. Somewhere inside the continuum of games of pure chance (such as bingo) and games of pure skill (chess) lies V:tES. Sure, this CAN be tweaked. We CAN further nudge it in the direction of emphasizing skill. But it does not thereby follow that we should. > > > > Luck can be decisive in V:tES. I do not think this fact can be > > > > altered, and I don't see the point in trying. > > > > Depends on what you mean. Luck serves a purpose in the game. This > > > doesn't need to change. In some cases luck has an undesirable effect. > > > This can and should be altered. > > > I see no logical basis for the conclusion that luck has an > > undesireable effect in this circumstance. I realize some players have > > their own arbitrary preferences, but the arbitrary preferences of > > other players, > > It's not clear that the majority of players prefer the current > contesting rules. Nor is it clear that a majority of players prefer a change. I don't claim to know one way or the other. I only know that my own playgroup seems totally uninterested in the proposed change. I do suspect, however, that the advocates of keeping things the way they are are less vocal. > > plus 16 years of tradition, > > Heh. > > > plus the rule "if it ain't > > broke don't fix it" stand in their way. > > It has come to light that it might be broken. By what definition of "broken"?

On Aug 31, 12:38 pm, suoli <suoliruse...@gmail.com> wrote: > Sure. And even more room when random events with huge impact are even > more unlikely. In addition to what I said before, I would like to add... It is possible that, for an extremely unlikely event to serve its function in the game, it SHOULD have enormous impact.

On 1 syys, 00:41, John Whelan <jwjbwhe...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Torporing and dibbing is a long chain of random and non-random events, > > not a single random event. > > I see little difference from the perspective of the victim. He has no > say in any of the factors that result in the death of his fattie. He > has been destroyed for reasons that have nothing to do with his > skills. And everything to do with the skills of the acting player. > Generally speaking, I tend to agree that a single factor should not > have enormous effect. But exceptions to this rule need not have some > kind of earth-shattering justification. Who's asking for "earth-shattering justification"? > > > There is also plenty of room for skill when random events with huge > > > impact are relatively unlikely. > > > Sure. And even more room when random events with huge impact are even > > more unlikely. > > Of course. Somewhere inside the continuum of games of pure chance > (such as bingo) and games of pure skill (chess) lies V:tES. Sure, > this CAN be tweaked. We CAN further nudge it in the direction of > emphasizing skill. But it does not thereby follow that we should. No, it doesn't. Nobody is saying that we should because we can. The contesting rules should instead be tweaked because when they matter the impact they have is too big. > > It's not clear that the majority of players prefer the current > > contesting rules. > > Nor is it clear that a majority of players prefer a change. I don't > claim to know one way or the other. I only know that my own > playgroup seems totally uninterested in the proposed change. > > I do suspect, however, that the advocates of keeping things the way > they are are less vocal. I suspect that they just don't have any real arguments. > > > plus 16 years of tradition, > > > Heh. > > > > plus the rule "if it ain't > > > broke don't fix it" stand in their way. > > > It has come to light that it might be broken. > > By what definition of "broken"? Lessens the fun.

On Aug 31, 5:57 pm, suoli <suoliruse...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 1 syys, 00:41, John Whelan <jwjbwhe...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Torporing and dibbing is a long chain of random and non-random events, > > > not a single random event. > > > I see little difference from the perspective of the victim. He has no > > say in any of the factors that result in the death of his fattie. He > > has been destroyed for reasons that have nothing to do with his > > skills. > > And everything to do with the skills of the acting player. The example assumes otherwise -- that luck, not skill, is involved. The example does not even assume that torporizing the fattie was a good play on the part of the acting player. It does not require much skill to have a bum's rush and a wolf's claws in one's deck, though it might require some luck to draw both at the same time. Sure, skill will increase the acting player's odds. > > Generally speaking, I tend to agree that a single factor should not > > have enormous effect. But exceptions to this rule need not have some > > kind of earth-shattering justification. > > Who's asking for "earth-shattering justification"? It just came up, when I was accused of coming up with justifications that were not adequately "significant". > > > > There is also plenty of room for skill when random events with huge > > > > impact are relatively unlikely. > > > > Sure. And even more room when random events with huge impact are even > > > more unlikely. > > > Of course. Somewhere inside the continuum of games of pure chance > > (such as bingo) and games of pure skill (chess) lies V:tES. Sure, > > this CAN be tweaked. We CAN further nudge it in the direction of > > emphasizing skill. But it does not thereby follow that we should. > > No, it doesn't. Nobody is saying that we should because we can. The > contesting rules should instead be tweaked because when they matter > the impact they have is too big. You cannot prove that the impact is "too big". Not when faced with someone like me, who does not share your underlying assumptions. > > > It's not clear that the majority of players prefer the current > > > contesting rules. > > > Nor is it clear that a majority of players prefer a change. I don't > > claim to know one way or the other. I only know that my own > > playgroup seems totally uninterested in the proposed change. > > > I do suspect, however, that the advocates of keeping things the way > > they are are less vocal. > > I suspect that they just don't have any real arguments. My arguments are just as "real" as yours. But it just sounds cooler to be on the side of skill factor, than to be a defender of the luck factor. > > By what definition of "broken"? > > Lessens the fun. I disagree. I think reducing the penalty lessens the fun. And my argument is as "real" as yours.

[ quoted text not captured ] If it is something controlled by the players, yeah. Long shots should have big payoffs. When it is simply randomness that doesn't involve the players, then no. It should have minimal impact.

On 1 syys, 01:26, John Whelan <jwjbwhe...@gmail.com> wrote: > > No, it doesn't. Nobody is saying that we should because we can. The > > contesting rules should instead be tweaked because when they matter > > the impact they have is too big. > > You cannot prove that the impact is "too big". Not when faced with > someone like me, who does not share your underlying assumptions. In that case there isn't much to discuss. From what you've said I gather that you like the luck factor for it's own sake, others don't. Based on that premise, I can see why you wouldn't want to change the contesting rules.

On Aug 31, 6:45 pm, suoli <suoliruse...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 1 syys, 01:26, John Whelan <jwjbwhe...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > No, it doesn't. Nobody is saying that we should because we can. The > > > contesting rules should instead be tweaked because when they matter > > > the impact they have is too big. > > > You cannot prove that the impact is "too big". Not when faced with > > someone like me, who does not share your underlying assumptions. > > In that case there isn't much to discuss. From what you've said I > gather that you like the luck factor for it's own sake, others don't. To be more precise, perhaps I value it MORE than some others. But if one did not value the luck factor at all, I cannot see why one would be playing V:tES at all. V:tES is a storytelling game, with thematic features. The intervention of the incalculable is part of the romance (in the old sense of the word) and part of the drama. Drastic unexpected twists of fate, and all that. > Based on that premise, I can see why you wouldn't want to change the > contesting rules. Right.

On Aug 31, 6:44 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > John Whelan wrote: > > On Aug 31, 12:38 pm, suoli <suoliruse...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Sure. And even more room when random events with huge impact are even > >> more unlikely. > > > In addition to what I said before, I would like to add... > > > It is possible that, for an extremely unlikely event to serve its > > function in the game, it SHOULD have enormous impact. > > If it is something controlled by the players, yeah. Long shots should have big > payoffs. Even when players, through the use of their brains, have some basis for believing a vampire is more likely to be contested (for example, due to his knowledge of the habits of a specific playgroup), actual contestation is still a bit of a long shot. Ergo. A big payoff (or in this case a big penalty) is needed. > When it is simply randomness that doesn't involve the players, then no. > It should have minimal impact. "Pure-luck" variety contestation does indeed have minimal impact, because it happens so rarely. But I see no need for it to have negligible impact when it does happen.

A reason contesting should change. Any change in contesting will benefit the players skilled at talking the table. If you can convince it is in their best interest to yield, you get to play your game. with or without keeping a deal Any change may open new options to exploit and close old ones. It is doubtful that superstar decks will benefit. You must have a viable alternative. There will still be minions/situations the contest continues until an oust. strategic contesting may have more options pool gain comes to mind

On Mon, 31 Aug 2009 17:22:31 -0700 (PDT), John Whelan wrote: >> When it is simply randomness that doesn't involve the players, then no. >> It should have minimal impact. >"Pure-luck" variety contestation does indeed have minimal impact, >because it happens so rarely. >But I see no need for it to have negligible impact when it does happen. So, you would have preferred that I sat at your second round table on Saturday and gotten Enkidu out before you?

On Aug 31, 5:45 pm, wedge <matt...@gmail.com> wrote: > A reason contesting should change. We may see research on contesting. Tournament reports could include contests or potential ones, the vampires in question, the time in the game it happened blah blah

> It's not clear that the majority of players prefer the current > contesting rules. > Actually, Extrala has been running polls on this subject recently and it is quite clear that a substantial majority DO NOT want the rules to be changed for contestation or transfering back. http://extrala.blogspot.com/2009/08/poll-results-do-you-like-proposed-rule.html Status Quo and all that I guess.

John Whelan wrote: > On Aug 31, 6:44 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: >> John Whelan wrote: >>> On Aug 31, 12:38 pm, suoli <suoliruse...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> Sure. And even more room when random events with huge impact are even >>>> more unlikely. >>> In addition to what I said before, I would like to add... >>> It is possible that, for an extremely unlikely event to serve its >>> function in the game, it SHOULD have enormous impact. >> When it is simply randomness that doesn't involve the players, then no. >> It should have minimal impact. > > "Pure-luck" variety contestation does indeed have minimal impact, > because it happens so rarely. That's circular. It happens rarely. But when it happens, it should have minimal impact, since it is just random, not player-decision-based.

On 1 syys, 03:13, John Whelan <jwjbwhe...@gmail.com> wrote: > To be more precise, perhaps I value it MORE than some others. But if > one did not value the luck factor at all, I cannot see why one would > be playing V:tES at all. Because luck has secondary value in V:TES, as I've already explained. It also has side-effects that are, fortunately, rare enough to only ruin a few games out of a dozen.

On Sep 1, 1:38 am, Octagon <aaron.con...@gmail.com> wrote: > > It's not clear that the majority of players prefer the current > > contesting rules. > > Actually, Extrala has been running polls on this subject recently and > it is quite clear that a substantial majority DO NOT want the rules to > be changed for contestation or transfering back. > > http://extrala.blogspot.com/2009/08/poll-results-do-you-like-proposed... > > Status Quo and all that I guess. Wow, the poll has been up for a week and no one has bothered to mention it. I didn't even know it existed.

On Sep 1, 3:47 pm, XZealot <xzea...@cox.net> wrote: > Wow, the poll has been up for a week and no one has bothered to > mention it. I didn't even know it existed. There's another poll running for about a week now and still open for a couple of hours today, which asks the question how players feel about the contesting in general. It's on the main page of the blog (see link below) on the upperside of the side bar. Feel free to vote! I know the poll is not reprentative nor can I actually prevent people from voting multiple times if they want to, but it does give an impression how players/readers think about this topic. Best regards, Ralf ==================== http://extrala.blogspot.com

[ quoted text not captured ] Yes, I have access to about 140 computers. I could vote under 140 unique identities.

[ quoted text not captured ] Like most players, I prefer the thrill of victory to the agony of defeat. But I am sure the rest of the table would have found our dilemma quite amusing.

On Sep 1, 12:05 pm, John Whelan <jwjbwhe...@gmail.com> wrote: > Like most players, I prefer the thrill of victory to the agony of > defeat. But I am sure the rest of the table would have found our > dilemma quite amusing. Actually, while I cannot comment on the game in question, if I'm at an event and two players other than myself cripple each other with a hard fought contestation - even if its to my benefit - should I manage to win such a table there is regret that I did not get to face 4 able- bodies opponents. No one wants to have a game handed to them, everybody want to come by their victories through their own actions, not someone else's.

Aleksi Nuora wrote: > On 1 syys, 03:13, John Whelan <jwjbwhe...@gmail.com> wrote: > > To be more precise, perhaps I value it MORE than some others. But if > > one did not value the luck factor at all, I cannot see why one would > > be playing V:tES at all. > > Because luck has secondary value in V:TES, as I've already explained. I cannot see the significance of saying that luck, in V:tES, has "secondary value". Luck currently exists in the game at the level that it currently exists, and this role has not measurably increased or reduced since the release of the game. It is one of the features of this game, and, when existing at the level that it does, presumably attracts the sort of player who likes to play this sort of game. Hence, whether "secondary" or not, I can see no reason to alter the level at which luck currently operates. > It also has side-effects that are, fortunately, rare enough to only > ruin a few games out of a dozen. A few times out of a dozen seems a mighty high estimate for contesting. But I do not agree that a game is "ruined" just because the intervention of luck helps eliminate one or more players, and thereby helps the game finish within the time limit. Sometimes, contested players succeed against steep odds. It's all part of the drama. All part of the fun.

On 1 syys, 20:25, John Whelan <jwjbwhe...@gmail.com> wrote: > Aleksi Nuora wrote: > > On 1 syys, 03:13, John Whelan <jwjbwhe...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > To be more precise, perhaps I value it MORE than some others. But if > > > one did not value the luck factor at all, I cannot see why one would > > > be playing V:tES at all. > > > Because luck has secondary value in V:TES, as I've already explained. > > I cannot see the significance of saying that luck, in V:tES, has > "secondary value". It removes chess-like determinism. That's the value luck in V:TES has for me. > Luck currently exists in the game at the level > that it currently exists, and this role has not measurably increased > or reduced since the release of the game. It is one of the features > of this game, and, when existing at the level that it does, presumably > attracts the sort of player who likes to play this sort of game. It also attracts the sort of player that I am. If I find one small aspect of the rules to be lacking in an otherwise awesome game I will rather discuss changing that rule than look for a game that is already perfect. > Hence, whether "secondary" or not, I can see no reason to alter the > level at which luck currently operates. > > > It also has side-effects that are, fortunately, rare enough to only > > ruin a few games out of a dozen. > > A few times out of a dozen seems a mighty high estimate for > contesting. Contesting is not the only possible single, luck-dependent high impact event in the game. > But I do not agree that a game is "ruined" just because > the intervention of luck helps eliminate one or more players, and > thereby helps the game finish within the time limit. > > Sometimes, contested players succeed against steep odds. It's all > part of the drama. All part of the fun. I'm glad you like it.

John P. wrote: > On Sep 1, 12:05 pm, John Whelan <jwjbwhe...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Like most players, I prefer the thrill of victory to the agony of > > defeat. But I am sure the rest of the table would have found our > > dilemma quite amusing. > > Actually, while I cannot comment on the game in question, [...] Neither can I, since it never happened. > [...] if I'm at an > event and two players other than myself cripple each other with a hard > fought contestation - even if its to my benefit - should I manage to > win such a table there is regret that I did not get to face 4 able- > bodies opponents. No one wants to have a game handed to them, > everybody want to come by their victories through their own actions, > not someone else's. You have somehow subtly switched the subject, from blaming Lady Luck to blaming other players. But violating PTW is illegal; and poor play is simply the reason why some players win more often than others. But if your ambition is to win without giving due credit to Lady Luck, then I think this is silly. You should always give due credit to Lady Luck when you win (as you gloat obnoxiously over your evil victory), just as you should always give due credit to your opponents when you lose (as you die screaming, cursing and gnashing your teeth).

On Sep 1, 3:59 pm, John Whelan <jwjbwhe...@gmail.com> wrote: > You have somehow subtly switched the subject, from blaming Lady Luck > to blaming other players. But violating PTW is illegal; and poor play > is simply the reason why some players win more often than others. Blame? Violating PTW? You're off and running on a tangent here. Let me know when you get back on track. I did not change the subject. You commented that in your hypothetical game with Jeff that the other players at the table would have found the situation amusing. I commented to the contrary. I don't like to see anybody's game screwed over by contestation, even if it is to my benefit. Does that mean I don't take advantage of it? No. But I am a free willed individual who has the right and privilege of determining my own preferences thank you very much. If I prefer to win without contestation assisting me, thats my call. > But if your ambition is to win without giving due credit to Lady Luck, > then I think this is silly. You should always give due credit to Lady > Luck when you win (as you gloat obnoxiously over your evil victory), > just as you should always give due credit to your opponents when you > lose (as you die screaming, cursing and gnashing your teeth). You obviously have a different approach to vtes, religion (your worship of lady luck) and life in general than I. Luck plays a role in any game that is not determined in advance. As you have repeatedly refused to differentiate between the luck of someone else's deck focusing on the same key minion and what you term "luck" in regards to say a minion being torpored and diablerized by a 1 cap (which can be mitigated numerous defenses that you choose to overlook) I don't think there's a point in continuing this. Regards, John P. Winnipeg

Aleksi Nuora wrote: > On 1 syys, 20:25, John Whelan <jwjbwhe...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I cannot see the significance of saying that luck, in V:tES, has > > "secondary value". > > It removes chess-like determinism. That's the value luck in V:TES has > for me. That says very little to me, Chess being an extreme example. Luck plays no role in chess at all. > > Luck currently exists in the game at the level > > that it currently exists, and this role has not measurably increased > > or reduced since the release of the game. It is one of the features > > of this game, and, when existing at the level that it does, presumably > > attracts the sort of player who likes to play this sort of game. > > It also attracts the sort of player that I am. If I find one small > aspect of the rules to be lacking in an otherwise awesome game I will > rather discuss changing that rule than look for a game that is already > perfect. Certainly. But we are at the point of the discussion where it only remains to be seen whether my side outvotes yours. I cannot see that you have any claim to the better argument.

John P. wrote: > On Sep 1, 3:59 pm, John Whelan <jwjbwhe...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > You have somehow subtly switched the subject, from blaming Lady Luck > > to blaming other players. But violating PTW is illegal; and poor play > > is simply the reason why some players win more often than others. > > Blame? Violating PTW? You're off and running on a tangent here. I was obviously referring to the exact wording of your last sentence. > Let me know when you get back on track. I'm not sure why you lacked the patience to simply proceed to the next paragraph. > > But if your ambition is to win without giving due credit to Lady Luck, > > then I think this is silly. You should always give due credit to Lady > > Luck when you win (as you gloat obnoxiously over your evil victory), > > just as you should always give due credit to your opponents when you > > lose (as you die screaming, cursing and gnashing your teeth). > > You obviously have a different approach to vtes, religion (your > worship of lady luck) and life in general than I. Quite possibly. In "real life" we are merely surfers on the powerful waves of fate and chance. I like it that games reflect this to some extent. It's more realistic, and it hones the same decision-making skills. > Luck plays a role in any game that is not determined in advance. Like chess? > As > you have repeatedly refused to differentiate between the luck of > someone else's deck focusing on the same key minion and what you term > "luck" in regards to say a minion being torpored and diablerized by a > 1 cap (which can be mitigated numerous defenses that you choose to > overlook) I don't think there's a point in continuing this. The situations are obviously different. No-one has explained to me, in terms that matter to me, why the the difference should be regarded as critical for current purposes. You say the risk of your minion being burned can be mitigated. However, my example assumed that you did mitigate this risk, and Lady Luck foiled your efforts by not putting the cards you needed in your hand. I did not "choose to overlook" this factor. I directly addressed it. To the extent I can do nothing about risk of contestation, I am perfectly happy. I need not worry where worry will do me no good. It's much more annoying to try to decide whether to put a boring "Sudden Reversal" in my deck when I'd rather use the slot for something interesting. Moreover, those who say that contestation cannot be mitigated often overstate their case. You refer to a "key minion" but nothing requires a player to base his deck around a single "key minion"; just as nothing requires him to use an 11-cap. Those who claim that the risk fo contestation cannot be avoided should focus their arguments on a deck of 12 different vampires with capacities 2 through 7, where the plan it is to bring out the lo-caps first and the hi-caps later.

On 2 syys, 00:52, John Whelan <jwjbwhe...@gmail.com> wrote: > Aleksi Nuora wrote: > > On 1 syys, 20:25, John Whelan <jwjbwhe...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > I cannot see the significance of saying that luck, in V:tES, has > > > "secondary value". > > > It removes chess-like determinism. That's the value luck in V:TES has > > for me. > > That says very little to me, Chess being an extreme example. Luck > plays no role in chess at all. In chess it is at least theoretically a viable strategy to look at the pieces on the board and, if there is one, figure out the game plan that guarantees a 100% certain win. In V:TES nearly every play has some chance to backfire or be ineffective. This means that a V:TES player can only viably plan a certain number of moves ahead before the risks involved stack up too high. Therefore the V:TES player is to some extent forced to rely on a good strategy and make moves that improve his overall position, whereas the chess player only has to rely on the particular tactic that will guarantee the win. And that is the value luck has for me in this game. > > It also attracts the sort of player that I am. If I find one small > > aspect of the rules to be lacking in an otherwise awesome game I will > > rather discuss changing that rule than look for a game that is already > > perfect. > > Certainly. But we are at the point of the discussion where it only > remains to be seen whether my side outvotes yours. It doesn't really matter which side outvotes the other. LSJ wins by default. > I cannot see that > you have any claim to the better argument. Sure. As you've mentioned, we're basing our arguments on different assumptions.

suoli wrote: > In chess it is at least theoretically a viable strategy to look at the > pieces on the board and, if there is one, figure out the game plan > that guarantees a 100% certain win. Except this "theory" is based upon a false premise: a player with unlimited intellect. > In V:TES nearly every play has > some chance to backfire or be ineffective. This means that a V:TES > player can only viably plan a certain number of moves ahead before the > risks involved stack up too high. Therefore the V:TES player is to > some extent forced to rely on a good strategy and make moves that > improve his overall position, whereas the chess player only has to > rely on the particular tactic that will guarantee the win. In short, once the false premise is removed: no difference. > And that is the value luck has for me in this game. There must be more to it than that. > > Certainly. But we are at the point of the discussion where it only > > remains to be seen whether my side outvotes yours. > > It doesn't really matter which side outvotes the other. LSJ wins by > default. Perhaps this entire discussion does not matter. But I thought we were discussing what OUGHT to be done. Presumably, if most players don't want the rule to change, and there is no objective basis for believing their preferences are somehow in error, no change ought to happen.

On 2 syys, 02:37, John Whelan <jwjbwhe...@gmail.com> wrote: > suoli wrote: > > In chess it is at least theoretically a viable strategy to look at the > > pieces on the board and, if there is one, figure out the game plan > > that guarantees a 100% certain win. > > Except this "theory" is based upon a false premise: a player with > unlimited intellect. > > > In V:TES nearly every play has > > some chance to backfire or be ineffective. This means that a V:TES > > player can only viably plan a certain number of moves ahead before the > > risks involved stack up too high. Therefore the V:TES player is to > > some extent forced to rely on a good strategy and make moves that > > improve his overall position, whereas the chess player only has to > > rely on the particular tactic that will guarantee the win. > > In short, once the false premise is removed: no difference. The difference is that the upper limit for the advantage a chess player gains from thinking ahead is his capacity to do so. This naturally leads to both players applying every ounce of their mental resources on the game. V:TES, on the other hand, has a built-in upper limit. This allows more relaxed playing and less 10-minute planning phases. > > And that is the value luck has for me in this game. > > There must be more to it than that. > > > > Certainly. But we are at the point of the discussion where it only > > > remains to be seen whether my side outvotes yours. > > > It doesn't really matter which side outvotes the other. LSJ wins by > > default. > > Perhaps this entire discussion does not matter. But I thought we were > discussing what OUGHT to be done. Presumably, if most players don't > want the rule to change, and there is no objective basis for believing > their preferences are somehow in error, no change ought to happen. I can see a purpose in discussing the motivations of each side. Some people might not have defined their preferences as clearly as you or have just drawn bad conclusions. I saw many people saying something to the effect of "I don't like Arika so contesting rules are fine" in the other threads.

"John P." <jtpa...@mts.net> wrote in message news:8006873e-7fbd-4601...@l34g2000vba.googlegroups.com... [ quoted text not captured ] I usually don't like to post just to say ditto. But, ditto. It serves no important function I can see to punish people spectacularly for losing the metagame in that way while using a superstar deck. It's not like there's some great advantage to using a superstar that needs a balancing disadvantage of this sort to keep people on their toes. As I mentioned in another post, it's just a calculated risk gone bad. I don't think vampire uniqueness has any real game function at all, comes down to it. It's just there for thematic reasons. And to encourage some variety in the game, maybe. But aside from a few corner case cards, you could waive the rule and it likely wouldn't make a whit of difference to the metagame. Fred

"wedge" <mat...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:9bfb6939-57b0-45c9...@i4g2000prm.googlegroups.com... > > > I don't think vampire uniqueness has any real game function at all, comes > > down to it. It's just there for thematic reasons. And to encourage some > > variety in the game, maybe. But aside from a few corner case cards, you > > could waive the rule and it likely wouldn't make a whit of difference to > > the metagame. > > > > Please recant that. > > Are you trolling? No, but I could be totally forgetting something. What did I forget? (And, yes, for any who are wondering: I haven't read the vast majority of posts in this thread. I applaud any who have!) Fred

On Tue, 1 Sep 2009 20:50:35 -0700, "Frederick Scott" wrote: >> > I don't think vampire uniqueness has any real game function at all, comes >> > down to it. It's just there for thematic reasons. And to encourage some >> > variety in the game, maybe. But aside from a few corner case cards, you >> > could waive the rule and it likely wouldn't make a whit of difference to >> > the metagame. >> Please recant that. >> Are you trolling? >No, but I could be totally forgetting something. What did I forget? Without vampire uniqueness, there is a fear that all decks will have Arika, so that you would sit at a tournament table with Arika x5. See also: Legendre's dramatization of Aug 28, 2009 http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/browse_thread/thread/996dfaf316f01a63#

[ quoted text not captured ] > Legendre's dramatization of Aug 28, 2009http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/browse_t... I don't want to see my predator with 12 Stick(3 cap ANI) in play etc....

wedge wrote: > The Lasombra <TheLasom...@hotmail.com> wrote: >> "Frederick Scott" wrote: >>>>> I don't think vampire uniqueness has any real game function at >>>>> all, comes down to it. It's just there for thematic reasons. And >>>>> to encourage some variety in the game, maybe. But aside from a >>>>> few corner case cards, you could waive the rule and it likely >>>>> wouldn't make a whit of difference to the metagame. >>>> Please recant that. >>>> Are you trolling? >>> No, but I could be totally forgetting something. What did I forget? >> >> Without vampire uniqueness, there is a fear that all decks will have >> Arika, so that you would sit at a tournament table with Arika x5. >> > I don't want to see my predator with 12 Stick(3 cap ANI) in play > etc.... Well, you could make crypt cards unique within your own region. So, everyone could play Arika, but no one could have more than one Arika in-play. But, as stated, you'd have issues with minion stealing, etc. so easier just to keep minions=unique. Kevin M., Prince of Las Vegas "Know your enemy and know yourself; in one-thousand battles you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, *The Art of War* "Contentment...Complacency...Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier Please visit VTESville daily! http://vtesville.myminicity.com/ Please buy my cards! http://shop.ebay.com/kjmergen/m.html

On Sep 2, 11:29 am, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: > "John P." <jtpat...@mts.net> wrote in message [ quoted text not captured ] Actually it's about resource limitation. No table needs to have 5 Anneke's on it. That just causes mayhem. It's bad enough to have to sit there at a game with 1 Anneke on the table and be saying "Excuse me cross-table, do you have issues with me doing what I'm supposed to do and OUST MY PREY???" Sure if people want to cross-table Eagle Sight that kind of thing, I can't do heaps to stop them, but 5 Anneke's on the table and you have to ask everyone if they have a beef with you doing anything other than playing a master, using transfers and discarding a card... sounds fun for everybody. Superstar decks are often fairly powerful once they get operating. They can be borderline indestructable juggernauts... downsides - contesting, getting blocked early/too often, getting eaten mid-game (things which turn most people's games to crud). There are honestly a small pool of vampires likely to be contested (either as Key Vamp or Superstar Vamp) and people who bring those decks to tournaments need to understand that is a key weakness of their deck. I'm all for helping you get out of the " I had one transfer and he had 4 and brought out the 8 Cap I wanted... and have 5 pool on..." situation. But contesting probably doesn't really need any kind of edit in and of itself. Transfer rules may need editing based on contesting situations.

LSJ wrote: > John Whelan wrote: > > On Aug 31, 6:44 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > >> John Whelan wrote: > >>> On Aug 31, 12:38 pm, suoli <suoliruse...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>> Sure. And even more room when random events with huge impact are even > >>>> more unlikely. > >>> In addition to what I said before, I would like to add... > >>> It is possible that, for an extremely unlikely event to serve its > >>> function in the game, it SHOULD have enormous impact. > > >> When it is simply randomness that doesn't involve the players, then no. > >> It should have minimal impact. > > > > "Pure-luck" variety contestation does indeed have minimal impact, > > because it happens so rarely. > > That's circular. I don't see the circularity. There used to be a time when there were much fewer vampires, contesting -- even contesting of the purely random sort -- was therefore less rare, and "pure-luck" variety contestation therefore had more impact than it does now. > It happens rarely. But when it happens, it should have minimal impact, since it > is just random, not player-decision-based. I'm not sure I see the logic. If it happens at all, it ought to have an impact. There is value, in gaming, in obliging players to cope with the unexpected. But if rarity implies minimal impact, perhaps we should introduce card- based mechanisms into the game that make contesting less unlikely, despite the vast number of vampires. For instance, cards that steal vampires (with no blood) from another methuselahs uncontrolled region.

Frederick Scott wrote: > It serves no important function I can see to punish people spectacularly > for losing the metagame in that way while using a superstar deck. I can see no important function to the entire enterprise. It is just a game. > It's > not like there's some great advantage to using a superstar that needs a > balancing disadvantage of this sort to keep people on their toes. The disadvantage does not stop people playing "superstars". So neither do we need to remove the disadvantage. Overall, the constesting rule is balancing since it disfavors the more powerful vampires. Thematically, it SHOULD be risky for a Methuselah to try to control a fellow Methuselah. (Thematically, an 11-cap represents a 4th generation vampire, or perhaps a titled 5th generation vampire). > I don't think vampire uniqueness has any real game function at all, comes > down to it. It's just there for thematic reasons. There's an important game function right there. Yes, I know: the best players play this game like it was "Dog Poo: The Eternal Struggle" and don't give a whit about thematics. But for bad players like me (pobably representing the silent majority) thematics matters a good deal. > And to encourage some > variety in the game, maybe. There's another important game function.

"wedge" <mat...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:611752f3-3afa-4c27...@z4g2000prh.googlegroups.com... On Sep 1, 9:00 pm, The Lasombra <TheLasom...@hotmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, 1 Sep 2009 20:50:35 -0700, "Frederick Scott" wrote: > >> > I don't think vampire uniqueness has any real game function at all, comes > >> > down to it. It's just there for thematic reasons. And to encourage some > >> > variety in the game, maybe. But aside from a few corner case cards, you > >> > could waive the rule and it likely wouldn't make a whit of difference to > >> > the metagame. > >> Please recant that. > >> Are you trolling? > >No, but I could be totally forgetting something. What did I forget? > > Without vampire uniqueness, there is a fear that all decks will have > Arika, so that you would sit at a tournament table with Arika x5. I would posit that it isn't fear of uniqueness which prevents this. Arika isn't _that_ good. Well, maybe it does a little bit. > I don't want to see my predator with 12 Stick(3 cap ANI) in play > etc.... Right. That part was a brain fart. You definitely need to have uniqueness amongst your own vampires, at least. (Then, there's an awkwardness about what happens if you take control of someone else's Stick when you already have one. However, as with the corner case cards, this isn't really all that big a deal in terms of game utility.) Fred

"John Whelan" <jwjbw...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:025bda22-deb0-49cc...@t13g2000yqn.googlegroups.com... > Frederick Scott wrote: >> It serves no important function I can see to punish people spectacularly >> for losing the metagame in that way while using a superstar deck. > > I can see no important function to the entire enterprise. It is just > a game. > >> It's >> not like there's some great advantage to using a superstar that needs a >> balancing disadvantage of this sort to keep people on their toes. > > The disadvantage does not stop people playing "superstars". So > neither do we need to remove the disadvantage. Overall, the > constesting rule is balancing since it disfavors the more powerful > vampires. (Assuming the alternative was uniqueness within a single player's control area...) 1) It doesn't disfavor them very much. 2) They don't need disfavoring for balance anyway. > Thematically, it SHOULD be risky for a Methuselah to try to control a > fellow Methuselah. (Thematically, an 11-cap represents a 4th > generation vampire, or perhaps a titled 5th generation vampire). Thematically, I could accept the argument. >> I don't think vampire uniqueness has any real game function at all, comes >> down to it. It's just there for thematic reasons. > > There's an important game function right there. I really don't know why you say that. It seems quite obvious to me that it isn't. > Yes, I know: the best players play this game like it was "Dog Poo: > The Eternal Struggle" and don't give a whit about thematics. But for > bad players like me (pobably representing the silent majority) > thematics matters a good deal. OK. I like the backstory, too. Of course, I'm not one of the best players so I don't play Dog Poo. >> And to encourage some >> variety in the game, maybe. > > There's another important game function. It's nice. It's not important as a game function, though. Fred

I wrote in message news:lupnm.53$4t6...@newsfe06.iad... > "John Whelan" <jwjbw...@gmail.com> wrote in message > news:025bda22-deb0-49cc...@t13g2000yqn.googlegroups.com... >> Thematically, it SHOULD be risky for a Methuselah to try to control a >> fellow Methuselah. (Thematically, an 11-cap represents a 4th >> generation vampire, or perhaps a titled 5th generation vampire). > > Thematically, I could accept the argument. > >>> I don't think vampire uniqueness has any real game function at all, comes >>> down to it. It's just there for thematic reasons. >> >> There's an important game function right there. > > I really don't know why you say that. It seems quite obvious to me that > it isn't. Oh, carp. I read that wrong. It's late at night. OK, my real response to that is that I view "game function" as being the opposite of "themes". I'm not saying themes are worthless. I'm saying that the _definition_ of what I mean by a "game function" is only relevant to Dog Poo. That is, an "important game function" is something that makes a difference to who wins and loses, which backstories and themes never do in board game (which is what a CCG essentially is, setting the cardowning and deckbuilding aspects of CCGs aside). [ quoted text not captured ]

John Whelan wrote: >> It happens rarely. But when it happens, it should have minimal impact, since it >> is just random, not player-decision-based. > > I'm not sure I see the logic. If it happens at all, it ought to have > an impact. There is value, in gaming, in obliging players to cope > with the unexpected. Agreed. But making the unexpected too harsh (overly difficult to cope with) isn't good for the game. The current contesting rules are that way. The proposed rules stil require the player to cope, but give the player the prospect of successfully coping. > But if rarity implies minimal impact, Strawman. Randomness (out of the player's control both at deck building and at the table) should imply minimal impact.

[ quoted text not captured ] That should be "out of the players' control at"

On Sep 1, 5:36 pm, John Whelan <jwjbwhe...@gmail.com> wrote: > John P. wrote: > > On Sep 1, 3:59 pm, John Whelan <jwjbwhe...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Blame? Violating PTW? You're off and running on a tangent here. > > I was obviously referring to the exact wording of your last sentence. The last sentence in my previous post: " No one wants to have a game handed to them,everybody want to come by their victories through their own actions, not someone else's. " And you inject PTW in there? I have no clue where you get that. I play a game, two other people contest and destroy each others game, if I happen to win I feel I did not win fully and would rather have won without the contestation and you implicitly accuse me (in this hypothetical situation) of violating PTW? wtf? > > Luck plays a role in any game that is not determined in advance. > > Like chess? Irrelevant but lets wander down that path. There is a role of luck in chess. Not in what happens when move X is made but in breaking down why player A didn't forsee that move 12 moves ahead because he unluckily stubbed his toe on the curb that morning and the pain in his toe was a real distraction. Oooooh look. I can be totally off topic too. > > As > > you have repeatedly refused to differentiate between the luck of > > someone else's deck focusing on the same key minion and what you term > > "luck" in regards to say a minion being torpored and diablerized by a > > 1 cap (which can be mitigated numerous defenses that you choose to > > overlook) I don't think there's a point in continuing this. > > The situations are obviously different. No-one has explained to me, > in terms that matter to me, why the the difference should be regarded > as critical for current purposes. So what you are saying is that in your world you cannot come to grips with the reasons for this discussion because you defined all the terms of reference to exclude other arguments as involving things that do not matter to you. But I'm apparently masochistic so here goes: A player can choose to build their deck with different concentrations of the cards that would save their minion from the above situation (more obedience, more secret horde, more chump blockers, things to hose weenies, etc). They cannot mitigate someone contesting their vampire the turn after it comes out in any way shape or form. They have absolutely no control where in the torpor/diablerize situation they can build their deck to deal with it. Does it work every time? Probably not. But they can affect the odds. Whereas for contestation they cannot do anything other than have played a different crypt. > You say the risk of your minion being burned can be mitigated. > However, my example assumed that you did mitigate this risk, and Lady > Luck foiled your efforts by not putting the cards you needed in your > hand. I did not "choose to overlook" this factor. I directly > addressed it. But you fail to see the ability to affect probability in the library choice. It is a choice internal to the deck designer. Another player's choice to contest you is not internal to the player. > Moreover, those who say that contestation cannot be mitigated often > overstate their case. You refer to a "key minion" but nothing > requires a player to base his deck around a single "key minion"; just > as nothing requires him to use an 11-cap. Those who claim that the > risk fo contestation cannot be avoided should focus their arguments on > a deck of 12 different vampires with capacities 2 through 7, where the > plan it is to bring out the lo-caps first and the hi-caps later. Contestation can happen with any vampire and have a significant impact on your game (aside from if you are playing weenies where the impact is usually minimal). Either way you are suddenly without a minion, and are at least one or more turns from having another minion, as a result of a choice totally beyond your control. TOTALLY beyond your control. I think I should say it one more time... TOTALLY beyond your control. It can be a six cap, an eleven cap or anything. Its not inherent only to superstar decks, it just hits them harder. John P.

On Sep 2, 12:31 pm, "John P." <jtpat...@mts.net> wrote: > On Sep 1, 5:36 pm, John Whelan <jwjbwhe...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > John P. wrote: > > > On Sep 1, 3:59 pm, John Whelan <jwjbwhe...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Blame? Violating PTW? You're off and running on a tangent here. > > > I was obviously referring to the exact wording of your last sentence. > > The last sentence in my previous post: > " No one wants to have a game handed to them,everybody want to come by > their victories through their own actions, not someone else's. " > > And you inject PTW in there? I have no clue where you get that. You seemed to refer to "someone else" handing you the game, through his actions. This implies either bad play, or a violation of PTW, on the part of this "someone else". I briefly mentioned both possibilities, before moving on to the role of Lady Luck, the "someone else" we had previously been discussing. > I play > a game, two other people contest and destroy each others game, if I > happen to win I feel I did not win fully and would rather have won > without the contestation and you implicitly accuse me (in this > hypothetical situation) of violating PTW? wtf? Obviously, I accused "you" of nothing; not even within the "hypothetical". If "someone else" in choosing to contest, violated PTW, I can see how you would feel that your victory was tainted. Similarly, if "someone else" in choosing to contest, made a bad play, I can see how you would be less proud of your victory than of a victory gained against competent players. However, if Player A ("someone else"), in deciding to expend substantial resources to contest player B, makes a good and rational move, but, due to the uncertainties inherent in the game, ends up weakening both himself and Player B so much that he ends up handing the game to Player C ("you"), then I do not see how one could reasonably regard that as a tainted victory. It seems no different, in principle, from a player who influences out many minions, and then goes for a lunge, leaving himself open, on the rational belief that he will oust his prey and gain enough pool to survive; but whose prey "gets lucky" and draws just the cards he needs to survive one more turn, thereby effectively handing 2 victory points to his predator. It is just the nature of the game. > So what you are saying is that in your world you cannot come to grips > with the reasons for this discussion because you defined all the terms > of reference to exclude other arguments as involving things that do > not matter to you. I'm not even sure what that means. Please resist the urge to put words in my mouth. > But I'm apparently masochistic so here goes: I don't know if you are masochistic, but your tone sure is obnoxious. > A player can choose to > build their deck with different concentrations of the cards that would > save their minion from the above situation (more obedience, more > secret horde, more chump blockers, things to hose weenies, etc). Sure. They can do things to mitigate and minimize the risk (of being rushed and burned). They cannot completely eliminate the risk by any reasonable means. > They > cannot mitigate someone contesting their vampire the turn after it > comes out in any way shape or form. Incorrect. As with the rush scenario, they can do several things to mitigate or minimize the risk, but, as with the rush scenario, they cannot completely eliminate the risk. Things they can do include the following: (1) come up with their own decks - at least to the extent of being original to the playgroup -- as distinct from using decks they see their buddies play; (2) avoid decks relying on multiple copies of a single "key minion"; but instead have a crypt of 12 different unique minions of varying capacities. (3) focus on low to mid-cap vampires (ie. 1 thru 8; or 2 thru 7). (4) follow a strategy where you influence out the low-caps first, the mid-caps next, and the high-caps later. (5) avoid "popular" vampires. Hell, it is even possible to COMPLETELY avoid the risk of contesting by playing an Aabbt Kindred vote deck. That may not be a fair example, but in contrast, it is hard to imagine a strategy that completely avoids the risk of being rushed and burned. > They have absolutely no control > where in the torpor/diablerize situation they can build their deck to > deal with it. Does it work every time? Probably not. But they can > affect the odds. They can affect the odds in both cases. > Whereas for contestation they cannot do anything > other than have played a different crypt. They can play a different crypt, and they can play it differently. > > You say the risk of your minion being burned can be mitigated. > > However, my example assumed that you did mitigate this risk, and Lady > > Luck foiled your efforts by not putting the cards you needed in your > > hand. I did not "choose to overlook" this factor. I directly > > addressed it. > > But you fail to see the ability to affect probability in the library > choice. I see it fine. I have acknowledged it. > It is a choice internal to the deck designer. So is crypt choice. > Another player's > choice to contest you is not internal to the player. Neither is his choice to rush you. > > Moreover, those who say that contestation cannot be mitigated often > > overstate their case. You refer to a "key minion" but nothing > > requires a player to base his deck around a single "key minion"; just > > as nothing requires him to use an 11-cap. Those who claim that the > > risk fo contestation cannot be avoided should focus their arguments on > > a deck of 12 different vampires with capacities 2 through 7, where the > > plan it is to bring out the lo-caps first and the hi-caps later. > > Contestation can happen with any vampire and have a significant impact > on your game (aside from if you are playing weenies where the impact > is usually minimal). Ditto for being rushed & burned. > Either way you are suddenly without a minion, Ditto for being rushed & burned. > [...] and > are at least one or more turns from having another minion, [...] As with being rushed and burned, it depends on the circumstances and timing of the contestation.

John Whelan wrote: > On Sep 2, 12:31 pm, "John P." <jtpat...@mts.net> wrote: >> On Sep 1, 5:36 pm, John Whelan <jwjbwhe...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> John P. wrote: >>>> On Sep 1, 3:59 pm, John Whelan <jwjbwhe...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> Blame? Violating PTW? You're off and running on a tangent here. >>> I was obviously referring to the exact wording of your last sentence. >> The last sentence in my previous post: >> " No one wants to have a game handed to them,everybody want to come by >> their victories through their own actions, not someone else's. " >> >> And you inject PTW in there? I have no clue where you get that. > > You seemed to refer to "someone else" handing you the game, through > his actions. This implies either bad play, or a violation of PTW, on > the part of this "someone else". Not at all. It could easily be PTW and good play -- once the "someone else" has discovered that xe has lost the uniqueness lottery and has no reasonable chance for a VP, every action, including beginning the contest, is PTW.

[ quoted text not captured ] That sounds to me merely like a subset of of the third possibility to which I then proceeded -- a good play on the part of the Player A, wherein Player B is unfortunate, and Player C reaps the benefits. But I thought it was generally understood that the "truly lost" scenario, while theoretically possible, was too rare to factor into any kind of general analysis. A player almost always has some basis for choosing one course of action over another.

John Whelan wrote: > On Sep 2, 8:27 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: >> John Whelan wrote: >>> On Sep 2, 12:31 pm, "John P." <jtpat...@mts.net> wrote: >>>> On Sep 1, 5:36 pm, John Whelan <jwjbwhe...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> John P. wrote: >>>>>> On Sep 1, 3:59 pm, John Whelan <jwjbwhe...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> Blame? Violating PTW? You're off and running on a tangent here. >>>>> I was obviously referring to the exact wording of your last sentence. >>>> The last sentence in my previous post: >>>> " No one wants to have a game handed to them,everybody want to come by >>>> their victories through their own actions, not someone else's. " >>>> And you inject PTW in there? I have no clue where you get that. >>> You seemed to refer to "someone else" handing you the game, through >>> his actions. This implies either bad play, or a violation of PTW, on >>> the part of this "someone else". >> Not at all. It could easily be PTW and good play -- once the "someone else" has >> discovered that xe has lost the uniqueness lottery and has no reasonable chance >> for a VP, every action, including beginning the contest, is PTW. > > That sounds to me merely like a subset of of the third possibility to > which I then proceeded -- a good play on the part of the Player A, > wherein Player B is unfortunate, and Player C reaps the benefits. No. It has nothing to do with A's play. > But I thought it was generally understood that the "truly lost" > scenario, while theoretically possible, was too rare to factor into > any kind of general analysis. A player almost always has some basis > for choosing one course of action over another. As you wish. Beginning the contest could still be the best play available to "someone else", as xer game is already wrecked and this could be the best hope to get unwrecked. And it may not be enough.

On Sep 2, 5:38 pm, John Whelan <jwjbwhe...@gmail.com> wrote: > You seemed to refer to "someone else" handing you the game, through > his actions. This implies either bad play, or a violation of PTW, on > the part of this "someone else". I briefly mentioned both > possibilities, before moving on to the role of Lady Luck, the "someone > else" we had previously been discussing. the phrase "the game handed to them" encompasses more than you imply: it simply refers to a victory being easier than it should be, because two players (without going into those player's motivations, reasons, or whatever contest each other. Kingmaking is an accepted part of vtes if the Kingmaker is in a lost position and would constitute "handing the game" to someone. > > I play > > a game, two other people contest and destroy each others game, if I > > happen to win I feel I did not win fully and would rather have won > > without the contestation and you implicitly accuse me (in this > > hypothetical situation) of violating PTW? wtf? > > Obviously, I accused "you" of nothing; not even within the > "hypothetical". My misread then. Your original statement was very unclear to myself as whom you were suggesting was violating PTW. > However, if Player A ("someone else"), in deciding to expend > substantial resources to contest player B, makes a good and rational > move, but, due to the uncertainties inherent in the game, ends up > weakening both himself and Player B so much that he ends up handing > the game to Player C ("you"), then I do not see how one could > reasonably regard that as a tainted victory. I dislike in any contest when someone does my work for me. Its not tainted, just not as glorious or personally rewarding. > It seems no different, in principle, from a player who influences out > many minions, and then goes for a lunge, leaving himself open, on the > rational belief that he will oust his prey and gain enough pool to > survive; but whose prey "gets lucky" and draws just the cards he needs > to survive one more turn, thereby effectively handing 2 victory points > to his predator. > > It is just the nature of the game. I'm not arguing it happens, I just do not have to enjoy that element of the game. But I feel there is a difference between defeating someone with your deck and defeating someone crippled by contesting. I see a difference. You don't see one? Fine. But your arguments appear generally worded in such a fashion to exclude differing points of view from being considered. Back when I joined this thread you expressed a viewpoint, I expressed an alternate viewpoint which you then felt compelled to dispute. As at least one other person agreed with my viewpoint I would suggest that your views are not all encompassing or even universally followed (and I do note that you do not explicitly state that you believe this) > > So what you are saying is that in your world you cannot come to grips > > with the reasons for this discussion because you defined all the terms > > of reference to exclude other arguments as involving things that do > > not matter to you. > > I'm not even sure what that means. Please resist the urge to put > words in my mouth. Why when you do not exrcise that same self control? > > But I'm apparently masochistic so here goes: > > I don't know if you are masochistic, but your tone sure is obnoxious. I try not to read tone into usenet posts. The written word is notoriously difficult to communicate tone in any real accuracy. I'll acknowledge however that my posts (though not their tone) may be obnoxious due to frustration that I cannot get my very basic point across to you. > > A player can choose to > > build their deck with different concentrations of the cards that would > > save their minion from the above situation (more obedience, more > > secret horde, more chump blockers, things to hose weenies, etc). > > Sure. They can do things to mitigate and minimize the risk (of being > rushed and burned). They cannot completely eliminate the risk by any > reasonable means. Very true > > They > > cannot mitigate someone contesting their vampire the turn after it > > comes out in any way shape or form. > > Incorrect. As with the rush scenario, they can do several things to > mitigate or minimize the risk, but, as with the rush scenario, they > cannot completely eliminate the risk. It you are going to nitpick they can eliminate the risk of being rushed. They can play a 60 card ascendance deck (although I guess a 60 card Ashur Tablet deck is faster now) and not influence any minions. It does not matter what vampire you influence out (other than the non- unique minions), really. If someone else at the table influences out that same vampire you are punished due to the severity of the transfer/ contestation rules. the fact that someone else at the table had that vampire and decides to bring it into play without saying anything to you in advance is RANDOM from the point of view that you had no control or warning and could not affect it in any way. If this is your first vampire its going to hurt. Similarly if you are influencing out Crusher (a very low use vampire, should be safe from contesting) and with 8 pool on him someone else influences out Crusher before you get yours. Your game will be hurt be a random occurrence as you attempt to get another vampire out and transfer your pool back. Random. Random. Random. You cannot mitigate this unless you know what vampires are being played by your opponents in advance. > Things they can do include the following: > (1) come up with their own decks - at least to the extent of being > original to the playgroup -- as distinct from using decks they see > their buddies play; you can still be screwed by contestation, even random contestation. > (2) avoid decks relying on multiple copies of a single "key minion"; > but instead have a crypt of 12 different unique minions of varying > capacities. See crusher example above, does not help. > (3) focus on low to mid-cap vampires (ie. 1 thru 8; or 2 thru 7). So losing 7 pool on a contested minion does not hurt? Some pool gain you must have going there to be able to recover that before your first minion hits the table. > (4) follow a strategy where you influence out the low-caps first, the > mid-caps next, and the high-caps later. Does not affect the crusher example. It could just as easily be Patriza giovanni rather than crusher. > (5) avoid "popular" vampires. It can still happen. Its beyond your control. > Hell, it is even possible to COMPLETELY avoid the risk of contesting > by playing an Aabbt Kindred vote deck. That may not be a fair > example, but in contrast, it is hard to imagine a strategy that > completely avoids the risk of being rushed and burned. Alright... I'll throw out the minionless deck example if you throw out the non-unique crypt examples. > > They have absolutely no control > > where in the torpor/diablerize situation they can build their deck to > > deal with it. Does it work every time? Probably not. But they can > > affect the odds. > They can affect the odds in both cases. Your deck is a discrete, real and has a calculatable probability of drawing a particular card. If I'm playing Arika and 11 other vampires with superior dominate the rush deck is nerfed by a 60 obedience deck. Does the rush deck have card X to foil that? The extreme examples all have a counter examples and are pointless. > > Whereas for contestation they cannot do anything > > other than have played a different crypt. > > They can play a different crypt, and they can play it differently. I sit down, you sit down, you influence out rare vampire Y and screw over my game cause I had 7 of 8 pool invested in vampire Y as well. It still happens. It cannot be controlled without collusion or pre- arranged crypts. > > > You say the risk of your minion being burned can be mitigated. > > > However, my example assumed that you did mitigate this risk, and Lady > > > Luck foiled your efforts by not putting the cards you needed in your > > > hand. I did not "choose to overlook" this factor. I directly > > > addressed it. > > > > > But you fail to see the ability to affect probability in the library > > choice. > > I see it fine. I have acknowledged it. The ability to affect contestation by your crypt selection is too weak for a high opportunity cost. Contestation can occur at any time, to any non-unique vampire that you happen to play. Picking a motley collection of rarely played vampires (with the assumption that the rarely played vampires are rarely played either because they do not go well with other vampires or they suck in and of themselves) is not a practical solution, yet people find practical solutions to weenie rush decks all the time. > > It is a choice internal to the deck designer. > > So is crypt choice. The ability to affect contestation by your crypt selection is too weak for a high opportunity cost. Contestation can occur at any time, to any non-unique vampire that you happen to play. Picking a motley collection of rarely played vampires (with the assumption that the rarely played vampires are rarely played either because they do not go well with other vampires or they suck in and of themselves) is not a practical solution, yet people find practical solutions to weenie rush decks all the time. > > Another player's > > choice to contest you is not internal to the player. > > Neither is his choice to rush you. No but you have minion in play, granting you the ability to affect the game. When your contestation happens after you bring out your first vampire or just before you try to bring out your vampire you cannot affect the game in a meaningful way other than to threaten to self oust. > > > Moreover, those who say that contestation cannot be mitigated often > > > overstate their case. You refer to a "key minion" but nothing > > > requires a player to base his deck around a single "key minion"; just > > > as nothing requires him to use an 11-cap. Those who claim that the > > > risk fo contestation cannot be avoided should focus their arguments on > > > a deck of 12 different vampires with capacities 2 through 7, where the > > > plan it is to bring out the lo-caps first and the hi-caps later. > > > Contestation can happen with any vampire and have a significant impact > > on your game (aside from if you are playing weenies where the impact > > is usually minimal). > > Ditto for being rushed & burned. But you are in the game and can affect events. You might have a card to prevent it you might not. At least the possibility exists. Contestation can deny you a minion and your ability to affect the game in a meaningful way regardless of what you do. At a cost of deck speed and pool investment. I cannot believe that you do not see the difference. Which happens more? Probably the rush and diablerie, or at least the attempt. But it requires a deck to be built to do it, and no defense. Contestation just requires someone to randomly make the same choice as you. "I feel like playing Harrod today". John P.

LSJ wrote: > John Whelan wrote: > >> It happens rarely. But when it happens, it should have minimal impact, since it > >> is just random, not player-decision-based. > > > > I'm not sure I see the logic. If it happens at all, it ought to have > > an impact. There is value, in gaming, in obliging players to cope > > with the unexpected. > > Agreed. But making the unexpected too harsh (overly difficult to cope with) > isn't good for the game. By assuming the "too harsh" premise, you also assume the conclusion that you draw. If a random event has any impact at all, it has some potential to be decisive. The opportunity to contest a vampire has some potential to be decisive. I see value in obliging players to cope with unexpected events of various levels of impact. > The current contesting rules are that way. The current rules have some potential to be decisive, but there may also be considerable potential for coping. I cannot see that they are any more harsh than any other events in the game that are heavily influenced by Lady Luck. There is value, to my mind, to obliging a player to occasionally deal with "harsh" turns of fate. > The proposed rules stil require the player to cope, [...] But still have some potential to be decisive. > [,,,] but give the player the prospect of successfully coping. As do the current rules, possibly to a lesser extent in some scenarios. > > But if rarity implies minimal impact, > > Strawman. No strawman. I was describing my own thoughts, not yours. A higher level of rarity of a random event DOES tend to imply a smaller level of impact on the game as a whole. I had mentioned this this earlier in the post, and was carrying the thought forward. > Randomness (out of the [players'] control both at deck building and at > the table) should imply minimal impact. I disagree. The proposition seems contrary to the philosophy of a game that requires players to shuffle their decks. In any event, it has no objective validity. Moreover, your definition of "randomness", seems unduly restrictive for current purposes. Any time a player is forced to cope with the unknown and the unknowable (as when he makes a deck without knowing what his opponents will play), outcomes are essentially "random" to some extent from that players POV. And that seems the only relevant issue when contrasting the impact of a player's luck versus his skill. As in Rock Scissors Paper, there is no choice a player can make that does not run the risk of being royally hosed by the choices of his opponents. If I accept your definition of "random", then contestation is not random. It is merely the result of two players making the same decision during deck contruction.

John Whelan wrote: > LSJ wrote: >> John Whelan wrote: >>>> It happens rarely. But when it happens, it should have minimal impact, since it >>>> is just random, not player-decision-based. >>> I'm not sure I see the logic. If it happens at all, it ought to have >>> an impact. There is value, in gaming, in obliging players to cope >>> with the unexpected. >> Agreed. But making the unexpected too harsh (overly difficult to cope with) >> isn't good for the game. > > By assuming the "too harsh" premise, you also assume the conclusion > that you draw. If a random event has any impact at all, it has some > potential to be decisive. The opportunity to contest a vampire has > some potential to be decisive. Yes. Any effect can have an effect. And effects outside the realm of players' control should have as little effect as possible. > I see value in obliging players to cope with unexpected events of > various levels of impact. Yes. As we've both already covered. Having the players cope with rolling a d100 at the beginning of each game with any player rolling a 1 having to start with 8 less pool than normal and be prohibited from using transfers on xer first two turns is similar. There can be value in this sort of thing, sure. But there is more value in not having this sort of thing.

LSJ wrote: > John Whelan wrote: > > LSJ wrote: > >> John Whelan wrote: > > By assuming the "too harsh" premise, you also assume the conclusion > > that you draw. If a random event has any impact at all, it has some > > potential to be decisive. The opportunity to contest a vampire has > > some potential to be decisive. > > Yes. Any effect can have an effect. > > And effects outside the realm of players' control should have as little effect > as possible. > > > I see value in obliging players to cope with unexpected events of > > various levels of impact. > > Yes. As we've both already covered. I thought the "various levels" element was an additional clarification of my own position. > Having the players cope with rolling a d100 at the beginning of each game with > any player rolling a 1 having to start with 8 less pool than normal and be > prohibited from using transfers on xer first two turns is similar. > > There can be value in this sort of thing, sure. > > But there is more value in not having this sort of thing. I agree that, overall, the rule is not a good one. But not for the reasons you state. Nor do I believe the rule is bad for reasons that can be extended to the contesting rule in its current form. For one thing, the rule has no thematic value. For another, it has no effect on encouraging variety of deck construction at the level of the local playgroup. For another, the rule is cumbersome, requiring 100 rolls of two ten sided dice (or similar random generator) for every single time it has an effect on the game. Finally, the rule is redundant, since the game already provides countless far less burdensome mechanisms, outside the meaningful control of the player, by which he can find himself at a significant disadvantage at any point in the game. If I accepted your logic, I might be inclined to think that this hypothetical rule would be better if only the penalty were reduced from 8 pool to (say) 1 pool. But I don't think this would make the rule better. I think that, if anything, it would make it worse.

John Whelan wrote: > For another, it has no effect > on encouraging variety of deck construction at the level of the local > playgroup. By which I do not mean that a good rule must serve this specific function, but rather that efficient design tends to serve multiple functions.

On Sep 4, 5:22 am, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > John Whelan wrote: > > LSJ wrote: > >> John Whelan wrote: > >>>> It happens rarely. But when it happens, it should have minimal impact, since it > >>>> is just random, not player-decision-based. > >>> I'm not sure I see the logic. If it happens at all, it ought to have > >>> an impact. There is value, in gaming, in obliging players to cope > >>> with the unexpected. > >> Agreed. But making the unexpected too harsh (overly difficult to cope with) > >> isn't good for the game. > > > By assuming the "too harsh" premise, you also assume the conclusion > > that you draw. If a random event has any impact at all, it has some > > potential to be decisive. The opportunity to contest a vampire has > > some potential to be decisive. > > Yes. Any effect can have an effect. > > And effects outside the realm of players' control should have as little effect > as possible. LSJ> To completely refute your assertion that "external events should have limited impact". The most significant determining factor in tournaments for the success/failure of your deck is MORE OFTEN seating as opposed to contesting. This is always out of players control and has a more frequent impact, often with just as dramatic results, as contesting (since contesting is mostly a subset of "bad seating" situations). > > > I see value in obliging players to cope with unexpected events of > > various levels of impact. > > Yes. As we've both already covered. > > Having the players cope with rolling a d100 at the beginning of each game with > any player rolling a 1 having to start with 8 less pool than normal and be > prohibited from using transfers on xer first two turns is similar. This is your pet favourite straw man. Tournament seating is closer to the draw of a football season as opposed to the random chance of rolling dice. Tournament seating is heavily impacted by the trends of metagames (i.e. if Arika decks are flavour of the month, there is significantly lower chance of avoiding putting two Arika decks on the one table). This also goes for unique equipment, highly popular locations, etc. If you read your metagame and compensate for it, then you have a better chance of avoiding being a deck in a position where you may contest a vampire. While there are "fashions" and "fads" in metagames, there will be contesting of vampires that suit that strategy and are most likely to succeed in that metagame. If you find you are contesting often, change your decks and work against the metagame to change it.

[ quoted text not captured ] That is not my assertion. And it has been covered already. The game in inherently about pitting your deck against other players' decks. No need to try and change that. No reason to change it. And no possibility of changing it. >>> I see value in obliging players to cope with unexpected events of >>> various levels of impact. >> Yes. As we've both already covered. >> >> Having the players cope with rolling a d100 at the beginning of each game with >> any player rolling a 1 having to start with 8 less pool than normal and be >> prohibited from using transfers on xer first two turns is similar. > > This is your pet favourite straw man. You misspelled direct parallel. But it has been covered extensively already, as well.

[ quoted text not captured ] Some argue that contesting can have a disproportionate effect in a given game, regardless of good, bad, or any kind of play on behalf of players. Also note that the issue is not about intentional contesting or playing popular vampires.

John P. wrote: > the phrase "the game handed to them" encompasses more than > you imply: Okay. But what I have been trying to tell you is that "the game being handed to me" does not bother me, except in the situations I mentioned: violating PTW and bad play. And I don't even really care about bad play. The game needs the "bad" players too. > it simply refers to a victory being easier than it should > be, because two players (without going into those player's > motivations, > reasons, or whatever contest each other. Kingmaking is an accepted > part of vtes if the Kingmaker is in a lost position and would > constitute > "handing the game" to someone. I feel "truly lost" positions are far too rare to add anything meaningful to the discussion. Situations where a player sincerely thinks his position is lost, but isn't, are just subsets of the "bad play" scenario. > I dislike in any contest when someone does my work for me. Its not > tainted, just not as glorious or personally rewarding. Glory is great; but you can't always get what you want. Letting your prey expend resources to damage your grandprey is one of the ways you eventually get them both. > > I'm not even sure what that means. Please resist the urge to put > > words in my mouth. > > Why when you do not exrcise that same self control? I do. I have long since corrected and clarified any mistaken impression you may have had to the contrary. > I'll > acknowledge however that my posts (though not their tone) may be > obnoxious due to frustration that I cannot get my very basic point > across to you. Fine. But just so you know, I find that comment to reek of condescention and arrogance. > > Incorrect. As with the rush scenario, they can do several things to > > mitigate or minimize the risk, but, as with the rush scenario, they > > cannot completely eliminate the risk. > > It you are going to nitpick they can eliminate the risk of being > rushed. They can play > a 60 card ascendance deck (although I guess a 60 card Ashur Tablet > deck is faster now) and not influence any minions. If you want to be that bizarre, I can point to Aabbt Kindred decks, which completely avoid the risk of contestations, and actually win games. In any event, I don't see how the comparison favors your POV. > It does not matter what vampire you influence out (other than the non- > unique minions), really. Actually it does, since some minions are more likely to be contested than others. > the fact that someone else at the table had that > vampire and decides to bring it into play without saying anything to > you in advance is RANDOM from the point of view that you had no > control or warning and could not affect it in any way. False as previously pointed out. You cannot completely eliminate the risk (barring aabt kindred decks, and the like), but you can behave in ways that minimize the risk or mitigate the damage. > If this is your first vampire its going to hurt. It will hurt much less if you bring out small caps first. > Similarly if you are influencing out > Crusher (a very low use vampire, should be safe from contesting) [,,,] Indeed. > [...] and > with 8 pool on him someone else influences out Crusher before you get > yours. Extremely unlikely. I note you are not claiming you have ever seen this actually happen. But you could have brought out Crusher (your high cap) last, and you did not need to leave 8 pool on him at the end of your turn -- 5 should have been enough. Then, with your low-to-mid- caps already in play, you would have had the option of transfering back the pool, which could have been fully achieved in 3 turns. > You cannot mitigate this unless you know what vampires are > being played by your opponents in advance. False, as I keep pointing out. > > Things they can do include the following: > > (1) come up with their own decks - at least to the extent of being > > original to the playgroup -- as distinct from using decks they see > > their buddies play; > > you can still be screwed by contestation, even random contestation. Much less likely. Assuming you take the risk of going with High-caps at all, then choosing Lucretia over Anson will probably avoid contestation at least 9 times out of 10 (I imagine -- I did not check the stats on the list recently posted)./ > > (2) avoid decks relying on multiple copies of a single "key minion"; > > but instead have a crypt of 12 different unique minions of varying > > capacities. > > See crusher example above, does not help. Generally, it DOES help, though perhaps not with the crusher example. I made other suggestions relevant to the crusher example. > > (3) focus on low to mid-cap vampires (ie. 1 thru 8; or 2 thru 7). > > So losing 7 pool on a contested minion does not hurt? No more than other things that are far more likely to happen to you. And these things do tend to happen, which is why games occasionally end before the two hour time limit. But if you bring out the low-caps first, and the 7-cap last, the cost of someone contesting the 7-cap is likely to be 4 pool rather than 7. And of course, if you delay in bringing out your high-caps, you are less likely to contest them unless you choose to. > > (4) follow a strategy where you influence out the low-caps first, the > > mid-caps next, and the high-caps later. > > Does not affect the crusher example. It sure does, unless Crusher is your lowest capacity vampire. And if he is then you are not following my advice in suggestion No 3 > It could just as easily be > Patriza giovanni rather than crusher. In which case you have much less invested in the vampire (5 rather than 9), and have been much less severely damaged. > > (5) avoid "popular" vampires. > > It can still happen. Its beyond your control. By this logic, the entire game is beyond your control. There are no absolute guarantees. That does not mean you cannot effect the odds. > Alright... I'll throw out the minionless deck example if you throw out > the non-unique crypt examples. I won't mention it again if you concede my example is far far better than yours. > I sit down, you sit down, you influence out rare vampire Y and screw > over my game cause I had 7 of 8 pool invested in vampire Y as well. > It still happens. It cannot be controlled without collusion or pre- > arranged crypts. It can be controlled / mitigated by the factors I have mentioned, unless you demand absolute guarantees, to which you are not entitled. > > > > You say the risk of your minion being burned can be mitigated. > > > > However, my example assumed that you did mitigate this risk, and Lady > > > > Luck foiled your efforts by not putting the cards you needed in your > > > > hand. I did not "choose to overlook" this factor. I directly > > > > addressed it. > > > > > > > But you fail to see the ability to affect probability in the library > > > choice. > > > > I see it fine. I have acknowledged it. > > The ability to affect contestation by your crypt selection is too weak > for a high opportunity cost. Contestation can occur at any time, to > any non-unique vampire that you happen to play. Picking a motley > collection of rarely played vampires [...] Picking a "motley collection" was not among my suggestions. > [...] (with the assumption that the > rarely played vampires are rarely played either because they do not go > well with other vampires or they suck in and of themselves) is not a > practical solution, yet people find practical solutions to weenie rush > decks all the time. The situation, as I see it, is not really that nothing can be done about mitigating contestation. Rather, players decide to ignore the the things they can do to mitigate contestation, because they see the occurrence as too rare to be worth considering. So they go ahead and play Anson, or Alexandria or Arika or Enkidu. Then, when on some rare occasion, their calculated risk comes to bite their butts, they reason that this should not have happened, because they made the "right" decision and therefore don't deserved to be "punished". And I am unsympathetic. Whether their decision was "right" or not, they took a calculated risk. If they are so sure their decision was "right" then they can just go on playing Anson, et al., and not whining when their calculated risk occasionally returns to haunt them. > No but you have minion in play, granting you the ability to affect the > game. When your contestation happens after you bring out your first > vampire or just before you try to bring out your vampire you cannot > affect the game in a meaningful way other than to threaten to self > oust. If you brought out low-caps first, you should still be able to affect the game in a meaningful way. > But you are in the game and can affect events. You might have a card > to prevent it you might not. Luck determines whether you "might not" just as luck determines whether you are vulnerable to being contested. > At least the possibility exists. The possibility also exists that you don't get contested. A rather high probability in fact. > Contestation can deny you a minion and your ability to affect the game > in a meaningful way regardless of what you do. So can being rushed and burned. Both are a possibility before they happen and a certainty after they happen. > Which happens more? Probably the rush and diablerie, or at > least the attempt. I'm sure the reality happens more often as well. > But it requires a deck to be built to do it, and no > defense. Contestation requires the right deck as well. > Contestation just requires someone to randomly make the same > choice as you. "I feel like playing Harrod today". It requires a bit more than that. But, as you already admitted, "I feel like playing rush and burn today" is far far far more likely.

On Sep 3, 6:17 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > The game in inherently about pitting your deck against other players' decks. > > No need to try and change that. No reason to change it. And no possibility of > changing it. The contesting rules are an aspect of pitting your deck against the decks of other players. It is indeed feasible to change it, and many of the proposals to do so are indeed feasible. But that still leaves me with the "No reason to change it" sentiment, with which I wholeheartedly agree. I know you consider the contesting penalty "too harsh", but it seems to me to be no more harsh than many many far-more-likely disasters that are inherent in the elaborate game of rock-scissors-paper that occurs when you pit your deck against the decks of other players.

On Sep 3, 6:32 am, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > John Whelan wrote: > > On Sep 2, 8:27 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > >> John Whelan wrote: > >>> You seemed to refer to "someone else" handing you the game, through > >>> his actions. This implies either bad play, or a violation of PTW, on > >>> the part of this "someone else". > >> > >> Not at all. It could easily be PTW and good play -- once the "someone else" > >> has discovered that xe has lost the uniqueness lottery and has no reasonable > >> chance for a VP, every action, including beginning the contest, is PTW. > > > That sounds to me merely like a subset of of the third possibility to > > which I then proceeded -- a good play on the part of the Player A, > > wherein Player B is unfortunate, and Player C reaps the benefits. > > No. It has nothing to do with A's play. I thought that when you said "it could easily be PTW and a good play" this was, in context, a reference to A's play. > > But I thought it was generally understood that the "truly lost" > > scenario, while theoretically possible, was too rare to factor into > > any kind of general analysis. A player almost always has some basis > > for choosing one course of action over another. > > As you wish. Beginning the contest could still be the best play available to > "someone else", as xer game is already wrecked and this could be the best hope > to get unwrecked. And it may not be enough. Okay. But what I am trying to say, in response to such thoughts, is that if I (Player C) benefit under such circumstances, I do not feel my victory is tainted, and see no basis for regarding it as tainted. Yes, it would be more glorious for me if an entire table of top-ranked players, playing excellent decks, all ganged up on me and tried to destroyed me, and yet, I crushed them all one by one beneath my iron heel, despite hand jam, horrible seating and a lousy crypt draw, due to my general super-duper awesomeness. But more realistically, my victory will depend to a large degree on my luck, and upon the willingness of my fellow players to hurt eachother rather than me.

On Sep 3, 6:29 pm, suoli <suoliruse...@gmail.com> wrote: > Also note that the issue is not about intentional contesting > or playing popular vampires. People keep saying things like this, and I cannot see what it means. Seems to me, that one must look at the larger picture, and the larger picture clearly includes intentional contesting and playing popular vampires.

On Thu, 03 Sep 2009 15:22:21 -0400, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > Yes. Any effect can have an effect. > > And effects outside the realm of players' control should have as little > effect as possible. > >> I see value in obliging players to cope with unexpected events of >> various levels of impact. > > Yes. As we've both already covered. > > Having the players cope with rolling a d100 at the beginning of each > game with any player rolling a 1 having to start with 8 less pool than > normal and be prohibited from using transfers on xer first two turns is > similar. > > There can be value in this sort of thing, sure. > > But there is more value in not having this sort of thing. So there could be a set of changes that makes contestation less severe (and also changes some other things, perhaps to be more in line with the original designer intent). However I think more people would be like "man, V:tES is *so* not what it used to be like" than "wow, they're not afraid to change fundamental rules after so many years if it fixes stuff, no matter how small the benefit". -- Regards, Daneel