Re: Final Symptoms and Proposed Remedies

Orpheus wrote: > - I would like to propose the following : the seating at the last table > is randomised as all the rest (the first are advantaged anyway for final > counting, and it doesn't advantage the players who saw each other's > decks, or lurked, or had outside info...). This is a bad idea. The ability to chose seating in the final is the only thing that rewards player for doing well in previous rounds, and rewards player skill at knowing where to sit. Which is a very significant part of the tournament rules. > The precise ranking of each > player is kept secret by the organisation (yes, it requires orga > integrity, but then what doesn't ?). Impossible to do, as there will always be a general knowledge of how most folks are doing. >And all players must play to win the game, period. That is already the case. As it stands, there are two ways to win a tournament: A) Win the final. B) Have the final tme out in a 5 way tie (give or take) and be the first seed going in. As the only way to win in situation (B) is to be the first seed, the other 4 players have all the incentive in the world to actively try and win--I can't for the life of me see why so many games time out in ties. Sure, first seed has incentive for the game to time out as a 5 way tie, but the other 4 players don't, so they should be trying their best to actively win. Peter D Bakija pd...@lightlink.com http://www.lightlink.com/pdb6 "How does this end?" "In fire." Emperor Turhan and Kosh

Hi all, I dunno how it is in the States, but in every big tournie I've seen in Europe the finals were static for a long time, mostly boring, all for a very simple reason : people weren't all trying to win the game, just to optimise their position according to their previous placement. For example, in this week's tournie (not a big one, but people here now are serious players) I played to win the game ; had I not, my interest was just survive and let my grand'prey kill his, this would have put me one rank above the one I ended up in ; in the finals of the Open de France, I was first qualified, and had I played to resist and not to win I would have ended up first instead of dying and ending up fifth. I see there a flaw in the tournament rules. So, in no particular order : - must the finals also be played to win the current game, of can they be played according to the position of each players in final ranking ? - I would like to propose the following : the seating at the last table is randomised as all the rest (the first are advantaged anyway for final counting, and it doesn't advantage the players who saw each other's decks, or lurked, or had outside info...). The precise ranking of each player is kept secret by the organisation (yes, it requires orga integrity, but then what doesn't ?). And all players must play to win the game, period. Immediate consequence : more daring, interesting games, where players actually try to score VPs instead of just sitting and waiting. - an alternative solution would be that only the final VPs count, the rest of the ties being solved as "usual" : with TPs and randomness. Or just : put everyone equal, like 1st player has 2 Vps, 2 tied 3rd players with 0,5 and 2 tied 5th player with nothing. It would have the same positive consequence, and change a little the ranking things, but nothing too lethal. Inputs, comments etc are welcome. Orpheus, pro-active finalist (whenever finalist at all).

Peter D Bakija a écrit : > Orpheus wrote: > > >>- I would like to propose the following : the seating at the last table >>is randomised as all the rest (the first are advantaged anyway for final >>counting, and it doesn't advantage the players who saw each other's >>decks, or lurked, or had outside info...). > > > This is a bad idea. The ability to chose seating in the final is the only > thing that rewards player for doing well in previous rounds, and rewards > player skill at knowing where to sit. Which is a very significant part of > the tournament rules. It rewards the skill if you know who you are facing. When you got to choose last but have no idea of what anyone else is playing, you actually have a big disadvantage on anyone who for some reason have that type of info. Not good IMO. >>The precise ranking of each >>player is kept secret by the organisation (yes, it requires orga >>integrity, but then what doesn't ?). > > > Impossible to do, as there will always be a general knowledge of how most > folks are doing. General, for sure. Not precise enough. There are often ties, sometimes "untied" by TPs (whom no one will ba able to calculate for everyone...). All in all, you'll get the general idea, but nothing more, and not even that in a big tournie (where everyone usually has between 9 and 6 VPs). >>And all players must play to win the game, period. > > That is already the case. As it stands, there are two ways to win a > tournament: > > A) Win the final. Normal game in my book. > B) Have the final tme out in a 5 way tie (give or take) and be the first > seed going in. Ugly but often seen. > As the only way to win in situation (B) is to be the first seed, the other 4 > players have all the incentive in the world to actively try and win--I can't > for the life of me see why so many games time out in ties. Sure, first seed > has incentive for the game to time out as a 5 way tie, but the other 4 > players don't, so they should be trying their best to actively win. Except that all but the fifth may fear to go down instead of up. WHich seems to be a factor for many good players, or else there is something I don't understand either. Also, do not underestimate the impact on the game of half the table playing to resist instead of winning. If you must go all-out to hurt your prey, you become an easy one for your predator. You take undue risks. So only 1-2 players are more than enough to "kill" a table. Deadly Yours, Orpheus

Orpheus wrote: > It rewards the skill if you know who you are facing. When you got to > choose last but have no idea of what anyone else is playing, you > actually have a big disadvantage on anyone who for some reason have that > type of info. Not good IMO. See, but a lot of the time, you have all the information you need either through direct contact or word on the street. I think the flaw here is not "having too much information" but "not having free access to information". Everyone, going into the finals should, at the very least, have a vague idea of what decks everyone is playing--we shouldn't be trying to make information *less* accessible. It should be more. > Normal game in my book. Me too. > Ugly but often seen. I haven't seen much of that. I was in one final where the game timed out with 4 players left (and I won, 'cause at the end of the final, I have 1.5 VPs where everyone else had .5 VP), but most of the time in games I've been in or seen, someone has actually won. > Except that all but the fifth may fear to go down instead of up. WHich > seems to be a factor for many good players, or else there is something I > don't understand either. Go down where? Either you win, or you don't. > Also, do not underestimate the impact on the game of half the table > playing to resist instead of winning. If you must go all-out to hurt > your prey, you become an easy one for your predator. You take undue > risks. So only 1-2 players are more than enough to "kill" a table. What do you mean "resist"? I go into a final round trying to win. If I don't win, it doesn't matter what place I come in--again, either you win or you don't. Personally, my additude is either win or die trying. I'd much rather be ousted trying to win a game and die on a gamble than hang on the whole 2 hours to get a .5 VP. But maybe that is just me. [ quoted text not captured ]

> The precise ranking of each player is kept secret by the > organisation (yes, it requires orga integrity, but then > what doesn't ?). Not possible. The formula for calculating rankings is known (and must be to have any value), therefore anyone who wishes to can work out the rankings for themselves. Of course, possibly not everybody could be bothered. -- * lehrbuch (lehr...@gmail.com)

Orpheus wrote: > - must the finals also be played to win the current game, of can they be > played according to the position of each players in final ranking ? The players' rankings are part of the final game (unless some alternate rules are being used), so playing to win naturally accomodates playing according to those rankings. -- LSJ (vtesr...@TRAPwhite-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep (remove spam trap to reply) Links to V:TES news, rules, cards, utilities, and tournament calendar: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/

Peter D Bakija a écrit : > Orpheus wrote: > > >>It rewards the skill if you know who you are facing. When you got to >>choose last but have no idea of what anyone else is playing, you >>actually have a big disadvantage on anyone who for some reason have that >>type of info. Not good IMO. > > > See, but a lot of the time, you have all the information you need either > through direct contact or word on the street. I think the flaw here is not > "having too much information" but "not having free access to information". > Everyone, going into the finals should, at the very least, have a vague idea > of what decks everyone is playing--we shouldn't be trying to make > information *less* accessible. It should be more. Interesting idea. So what do you suggest ? Going around and asking people ? Each player describes his deck ? The easiest way maybe would be : when you put your vampire on the table for final placement, you also have to show your whole crypt. >>Ugly but often seen. > > I haven't seen much of that. I was in one final where the game timed out > with 4 players left (and I won, 'cause at the end of the final, I have 1.5 > VPs where everyone else had .5 VP), but most of the time in games I've been > in or seen, someone has actually won. Variant : someone moved and was the only one to die. >>Except that all but the fifth may fear to go down instead of up. WHich >>seems to be a factor for many good players, or else there is something I >>don't understand either. > > > Go down where? Either you win, or you don't. Quite right. But some people 2 is better than 5 in most player's books. >>Also, do not underestimate the impact on the game of half the table >>playing to resist instead of winning. If you must go all-out to hurt >>your prey, you become an easy one for your predator. You take undue >>risks. So only 1-2 players are more than enough to "kill" a table. > > > What do you mean "resist"? I go into a final round trying to win. If I don't > win, it doesn't matter what place I come in--again, either you win or you > don't. Personally, my additude is either win or die trying. I'd much rather > be ousted trying to win a game and die on a gamble than hang on the whole 2 > hours to get a .5 VP. But maybe that is just me. It isn't just you, but I believe it's a minority. I do like your mentality, though. Hope we get to play together (and maybe you got some of that Babylon 5 cards left for an initiation ?). ;) Orpheus

Orpheus wrote: > Hi all, > > I dunno how it is in the States, but in every big tournie I've seen in > Europe the finals were static for a long time, mostly boring, Yes, in Germany its called "french playing style". Balance the table so long that everyone is dying of boredom. ;-) But its successful.

> See, but a lot of the time, you have all the information you need either > through direct contact or word on the street. You mean "scouting" and "collusion"?

> > - I would like to propose the following : the seating at the last table > > is randomised as all the rest (the first are advantaged anyway for final > > counting, and it doesn't advantage the players who saw each other's > > decks, or lurked, or had outside info...). > > This is a bad idea. The ability to chose seating in the final is the only > thing that rewards player for doing well in previous rounds, other than, you know, getting to the finals in the first place. > and rewards player skill at knowing where to sit. Which is a very > significant part of the tournament rules. which is a skill that can pretty much only be exercised at a final.

x5m...@gmx.de a écrit : [ quoted text not captured ] 2 weeks ago, i won the Coupe de Paris, in a final that lasted for 1 hour and 25 minutes. So no, all the french finals are not resulting to boring timeouts :) reyda

On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 06:21:22 -0500, Gregory Stuart Pettigrew <ethe...@sidehack.sat.gweep.net> scrawled: >> See, but a lot of the time, you have all the information you need either >> through direct contact or word on the street. > >You mean "scouting" and "collusion"? the word 'scout' or 'scouting' does not appear at all in the vekn tournament rules. the closest thing to a 'no-scouting' rule in the vekn rules i could find is in section 2.4: "Players have the right to request that any person, other than tournament officials, not observe their game. All such requests must be made through a judge." and collusion needs to have some sort of attempt to change a game's outcome. i am not sure player A telling player B "don't sit next to C, he's playing stinky weenie dom!" is collusion, before the game has even started (especially if A isn't even in the final). it's just .... words. and may well be a complete lie! ;) salem http://www.users.tpg.com.au/adsltqna/VtES/index.htm (replace "hotmail" with "yahoo" to email)

On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 23:42:48 +0100, Orpheus <orphe...@DEADfree.fr> scrawled: >Except that all but the fifth may fear to go down instead of up. WHich >seems to be a factor for many good players, or else there is something I >don't understand either. only offer prizes for game wins. each GW in prelim rounds gets you a prize. a GW in the final gets you a bigger prize. 2nd through 5th in the final round gets you nothing. presumably, if you're in the final you already got your ranking's worth from the prior rounds you won to get to the final. this way, 2nd through 5th place (going into the finals) have big incentive to go nuts and try and win the final, as if they 'sit' and try not to do anything, they are definately going to get no more prizes. only 1st place has incentive to draw or time out the final. and if only one person is doing it, it's not going to work so well. :) [ quoted text not captured ]

Gregory Stuart Pettigrew <ethe...@sidehack.sat.gweep.net> wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] I do not think these words mean what you think they mean. Could define them for us? Kevin M., Prince of Henderson, NV (USA) "Know your enemy, and know yourself; in one-thousand battles you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, *The Art of War* "Contentment... Complacency... Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier

Orpheus <orphe...@DEADfree.fr> wrote: > I dunno how it is in the States, but in every big tournie I've seen in > Europe the finals were static for a long time, mostly boring, all for > a very simple reason : people weren't all trying to win the game, > just to optimise their position according to their previous > placement. If I understand correctly, in L.A. they have been recently giving all the prizes to the winner of the tournament, and NOTHING to the other four people at the final table. I believe this to be an excellent idea and one worthy of major conventions (hint hint). When I run tournaments, I personally also give prizes to those players that achieve a GW. > Orpheus, pro-active finalist (whenever finalist at all). Kevin M., Prince of Henderson, NV (USA) [ quoted text not captured ]

Kevin M. wrote: > If I understand correctly, in L.A. they have been recently giving all the > prizes to the winner of the tournament, and NOTHING to the other four > people at the final table. I believe this to be an excellent idea and one > worthy of major conventions (hint hint). I do the same. I would prefer that no prizes be given to the winner of the final table unless he also garnered a GW according to the normal rules (2+ VP, more than anyone else), but I acknowledge it's a can of worms, and haven't actually gone that far.... yet. It's been a while since I actually read the V:EKN Rules. IIRC, you have a pretty free hand in how you dole out the prizes. -- David Cherryholmes david.che...@gmail.com "OK. So be it. It's not my view, but whatever makes you happy, right? I'm all about making you happy, Dave. :-)" -- LSJ, V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc.

Orpheus wrote: [...] > - must the finals also be played to win the current game, of can they be > played according to the position of each players in final ranking ? Finals must be played to win the tournament (not just to win the game). > - I would like to propose the following : the seating at the last table > is randomised as all the rest (the first are advantaged anyway for final > counting, and it doesn't advantage the players who saw each other's > decks, or lurked, or had outside info...). The precise ranking of each > player is kept secret by the organisation (yes, it requires orga > integrity, but then what doesn't ?). And all players must play to win > the game, period. Immediate consequence : more daring, interesting > games, where players actually try to score VPs instead of just sitting > and waiting. I also think this is not a good idea because, among other reasons, finalists are not prohibited from telling each other their respective GWs and VPs gotten during the previous rounds. Besides, having privileges in the final round (such as choosing seating) depending on your preformante in the previous rounds encourages players to do their best in those rounds. However, I agree that static and, therefore, boring finals are a problem. But that's the result of bad play on some players' part (too speculating players who sometimes give up to win too soon, thus breaking the play- to-win rule). -- Damnans http://www.almadrava.net/damnans http://www.vtes.net http://es.groups.yahoo.com/group/vteshispania/

Damnans wrote: > Finals must be played to win the tournament (not just to win the game). This is incorrect. Playing to win that game usually coincides with winning the tournament. But if they are somehow at odds, you must play to win that game. [ quoted text not captured ]

David Cherryholmes wrote: > This is incorrect. Playing to win that game usually coincides with > winning the tournament. But if they are somehow at odds, you must play > to win that game. I have been corrected. LSJ has clearly stated that you do not have to play to win the final game, if not playing to win will win you the tournament, citing Jared Strait's 2002 NAC win. This is spectacularly retarded and inconsistent, but there it is. [ quoted text not captured ]

Gregory wrote: >You mean "scouting" and "collusion"? A) "Collusion" is people working together to fix the results of a game un-naturally. There is no possible way that "collusion" fits into this particular angle of this discussion. B) "Scouting" is only illegal if it is illegal (and when it is illegal, it is a really stupid thing to be illegal). When you play a tournament, it makes zero sense at all that you know what half the decks in the game do, 'cause you sat at a table with them, yet don't know what the other decks do, 'cause you didn't. There is no reasonable way to keep people from walking through a room full of games and having them look at tables as they walk by. There is no reasonable way to make people not watch other games when they are ousted. There is no reasonable way to make people not ask their freinds what kind of decks they were playing against. Basically, there is no reasonable way to prevent people from "scouting"--anyone who was involved with Babylon 5 back in the day will remember the insane discussions involving the insane lengths people were trying to go to to prevent "scouting". And in the end, it was all futile. And insane. So when you walk into a final round, it is perfectly reasonable to expect to know what all the decks are (ya know, barring a "multi deck" tournament, but that is a completely different animal), 'cause you probably played against a couple of them, and you probably either saw or heard about the other ones. Given this, it is really stupid to try and prevent people from knowing what decks folks are playing, and it is really stupid to not tell folks what people are playing when they are choosing a seat, 'cause, say, if 4 people at the table know what every deck does, and the last guy hasn't seen a few for whatever reason, they are at a dumb disadvantage. And I realize that there is no way to formalize making sure everyone knows what everyone else's deck does. But it is very easy to not penalize folks for sharing information--when I'm in a final round, if someone asks me what my deck is, I'll tell them, 'cause it is likely that most of the other folks already know. -Peter

"David Cherryholmes" <david.che...@duke.edu> wrote in message news:3adgmrF...@individual.net... > David Cherryholmes wrote: > > > This is incorrect. Playing to win that game usually coincides with > > winning the tournament. But if they are somehow at odds, you must play > > to win that game. > > I have been corrected. LSJ has clearly stated that you do not have to > play to win the final game, if not playing to win will win you the > tournament, citing Jared Strait's 2002 NAC win. This is spectacularly > retarded and inconsistent, but there it is. Incorrect. You do have to play to win. In the finals, "winning" is determined by number of VPs, with ties on VPs broken by rank going into the final (unlike in the preliminary rounds, where ties remain unbroken and are simply ties). This is spectacularly logical and consistent. -- LSJ (vtesr...@TRAPwhite-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep (Remove spam trap to reply). V:TES homepage: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/ Though effective, appear to be ineffective -- Sun Tzu

LSJ wrote: > You do have to play to win. In the finals, "winning" is determined > by number of VPs, with ties on VPs broken by rank going into the final > (unlike in the preliminary rounds, where ties remain unbroken and are > simply ties). It is consistent once you have decided to apply an arbitrary, different standard for the final game compared to the previous games. That is the inconsistency to which I was referring. But in fact, my disagreement is even more profound. There is no logical necessity for a tie breaking system. It is my opinion that game play would be enhanced if ties were left simply for what they were, games in which no one achieved a victory. [ quoted text not captured ]

"David Cherryholmes" <david.che...@duke.edu> wrote in message news:3adhbdF...@individual.net... > LSJ wrote: > > > You do have to play to win. In the finals, "winning" is determined > > by number of VPs, with ties on VPs broken by rank going into the final > > (unlike in the preliminary rounds, where ties remain unbroken and are > > simply ties). > > It is consistent once you have decided to apply an arbitrary, different > standard for the final game compared to the previous games. That is the > inconsistency to which I was referring. > But in fact, my disagreement is even more profound. There is no logical > necessity for a tie breaking system. It is my opinion that game play > would be enhanced if ties were left simply for what they were, games in > which no one achieved a victory. You don't feel that ties should be broken. That's fine. But that would be an issue with the V:EKN tournament rules themselves, not with the vagaries of "play to win". Casting it as the latter, especially with the hyperbolic vitriol, clouds the issue, as we've just discovered. There are benefits to having tie-breakers, though. You have a winner, which is beneficial to things like continental championships were unique (and indivisible) prizes like rings and artwork are awarded. [ quoted text not captured ]

Kevin M. wrote: > Orpheus <orphe...@DEADfree.fr> wrote: > > I dunno how it is in the States, but in every big tournie I've seen in > > Europe the finals were static for a long time, mostly boring, all for > > a very simple reason : people weren't all trying to win the game, > > just to optimise their position according to their previous > > placement. > > If I understand correctly, in L.A. they have been recently giving all the > prizes to the winner of the tournament, and NOTHING to the other four > people at the final table. I believe this to be an excellent idea and one > worthy of major conventions (hint hint). Well that's close. We'll give the same token prize for 2nd through 5th and the great majority of prizes to 1st place. It was intended to not reward players for quickly selling-out to another player in order to come in 2nd place. While this prize distribution doesn't prohibit the practice, it at least doesn't reward it. -Robert

Robert Goudie a écrit : > Well that's close. We'll give the same token prize for 2nd through 5th > and the great majority of prizes to 1st place. It was intended to not > reward players for quickly selling-out to another player in order to > come in 2nd place. While this prize distribution doesn't prohibit the > practice, it at least doesn't reward it. > > -Robert that's quite good ! i remember a tournament in LA.A where i had absolutely nothing for being 5th qualified despite all my efforts to move forward. But you will always have players who prefer to stand on prelim results (like being 2nd) rather than trying to take riske and try to get on top :)

Gregory wrote: >which is a skill that can pretty much only be exercised at a final. Sure. But it makes the final into something special and different. The current final system of getting to choose your seat based on score going in might not be the best possible system. But it is a system, and it is an interesting one, and one of the side effects of it is that it gives a concrete advantage to being the top seed going in (much like in a squash ladder type seeding system used in sports and one on one games generally results in the strongest seed matching against the weakest seed in the first round). Again, it might not be the best possible option, but it gives an interesting angle to the game--you can gain advantage through appropriate seating choice, assuming that you know what the other decks are. The flaw is, however, that there is no way to know that any given player will know what all the decks are, and while it is likely that you might know what most of the decks do, there is always a possibility that you won't, and due to a lack of even distribution of information, people will be at a disadvantage to eachother, possibly. This can be dealt with in two ways: A) Outlaw "scouting". This is kind of insane, as it is almost completely impractical--unless you have folks playing their games in individual rooms and as soon as someone is ousted they are led to a private cell to be sequestered until the next game, there is no way at all to keep people from looking around at other games, other tables, or asking their friends over lunch "How'd your last round go--what were folks playing?" On the up side, you strictly control information--everyone only knows what the decks are that they have already seen, so in all likelyhood, everyone in the final is going to be in likely the same boat in terms of total information. On the down side, again, completely impractical, and completely insane to even attempt such a thing. B) Allow free access to information. Let people watch games in progress (assuming they aren't annoying anyone) to see what decks folks are playing. Assume folks are going to share information with their friends. When someone gets to the finals and says "Huh. That is the one player whose deck I haven't seen--anyone wanna tell me what it does in one scentence or less?", people can tell him without being accused of collusion or something. On the up side, it puts everyone on a pretty much even keel and doesn't take any extra effort. On the down side, it, um, uhh, yeah, I got nothing. -Peter

> much even keel and doesn't take any extra effort. On the down side, it, > um, uhh, yeah, I got nothing. You know, even though you having nothing on the downside is exactly your point, I find it quite amusing that Peter "spew forth with all gusto, but not with quite as much ungodly endurance as Fred" Bajika has got absolutely nothing. I would have expected you to make something up that relates to pink bunnies or something. Just to take up space. I mean, come on! People expect things from ya Peter. Satisfy your fans! :) Ankur

In message <4241560d$0$18383$79c1...@nan-newsreader-06.noos.net>, reyda <true_...@hotmail.com> writes: >2 weeks ago, i won the Coupe de Paris, I feel honoured that someone went to the trouble of cloning me. Can I claim royalties? Unless I'm the clone... -- James Coupe "Why do so many talented people turn out to be sexual PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D deviants? Why can't they just be normal like me and EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 look at internet pictures of men's cocks all day?" 13D7E668C3695D623D5D -- www.livejournal.com/users/scarletdemon/

Orpheus wrote: > Interesting idea. So what do you suggest ? Going around and asking > people ? Each player describes his deck ? The easiest way maybe would be > : when you put your vampire on the table for final placement, you also > have to show your whole crypt. As I mentioned elsewhere, I don't think there is a really practical way to do this formally. But it is really easy to find out what most other folks are playing simply by walking around and looking at games, which people already do, and then maybe asking around between rounds. I think the thing to do is simply to remove any idea that "scouting" is somehow illegal, and let people ask folks when their opponent's decks do before the finals--like, yeah, you might not feel like telling me what your deck does, but the guy standing next to you probably will be willing. [ quoted text not captured ]

Ankur Gupta wrote: > You know, even though you having nothing on the downside is exactly your > point, I find it quite amusing that Peter "spew forth with all gusto, but > not with quite as much ungodly endurance as Fred" Bajika has got > absolutely nothing. I would have expected you to make something up that > relates to pink bunnies or something. Just to take up space. > > I mean, come on! People expect things from ya Peter. Satisfy your fans! Yeah, see, well, um, the downside of the "free information" theory is that, um, it, um, makes, um, the game work better? Uhh, it really upsets people who have bizzare control issues? There are bunnies? [ quoted text not captured ]

>> I mean, come on! People expect things from ya Peter. Satisfy your fans! > > Yeah, see, well, um, the downside of the "free information" theory is > that, um, it, um, makes, um, the game work better? Uhh, it really upsets > people who have bizzare control issues? There are bunnies? Sorry to say this man, but. . . it needs work. :) Ankur

LSJ wrote: > But that would be an issue with the V:EKN tournament rules themselves, > not with the vagaries of "play to win". Casting it as the latter, > especially with the hyperbolic vitriol, clouds the issue, as we've > just discovered. Yeah, well, my apologies for the vitriol. Posted in a moment of irritation at other things, FWIW. But I don't think it could have been hyperbolic, because I don't understand hyperbole. ;) [ quoted text not captured ]

salem a écrit : [ quoted text not captured ] Very interesting solution, Salem. I'm proposing it or a variant to my playgroup. Orpheus

> But in fact, my disagreement is even more profound. There is no logical > necessity for a tie breaking system. It is my opinion that game play > would be enhanced if ties were left simply for what they were, games in > which no one achieved a victory. Totally agreed with that, even though LSJ has a point concerning the first player. Solutions like : "same prize for all players but the first" or "Prize only for GWs" appeal to me, and don't change the rules, only the way prize are handled, which has nothing to do with VEKN rules and is only an organisational decision. Fine with me. Orpheus

"Kevin M." <you...@imaspammer.org> wrote in message news:rhe0e.60896$xt.56863@fed1read07... > Gregory Stuart Pettigrew <ethe...@sidehack.sat.gweep.net> wrote: >> Peter D Bakija <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote: >>> See, but a lot of the time, you have all the information you >>> need either through direct contact or word on the street. >> >> You mean "scouting" and "collusion"? > > I do not think these words mean what you think they mean. Could define > them for us? Bah. It's one thing to take a quick cheap shot and watch others react to defend their positions against imagined attacks. It's quite another to actually propose a thoughtful objection to what someone else is saying and then stick around to defend that objection. Do not concern yourselves. Fred

pd...@lightlink.com wrote: > ...due to a lack of even distribution of information, > people will be at a disadvantage to eachother, possibly. This can be > dealt with in two ways: > > A) Outlaw "scouting". ... > > B) Allow free access to information. Or C) Allow people to play a different deck in the final round. Or even a different deck every round. I'm fine with the existing system. Just pointing out an option.

Emmit Svenson wrote: > Or C) Allow people to play a different deck in the final round. Or even > a different deck every round. As I pointed out elsewhere, multi-deck tournaments are a whole other animal. Allowing folks to play different decks every round is already a possibility, and a completely different discussion than the one that is going on here. [ quoted text not captured ]

"reyda" <true_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:42419e1d$0$3354$79c1...@nan-newsreader-05.noos.net... > But you will always have players who prefer to stand on prelim results (like being 2nd) rather than trying to take riske and try > to get on top :) Here is where I see a general problem with the game: that it should seem like such a risk to most good players to try to get an oust that they choose to play conservatively. My take on Orpheus's original problem, which seems to be more true in some areas and less true in others, is that the game encourages conservatism and reactionary play in general - not pro-active work at winning. Thus, the reason he identifies these issues in the finals and not in the preliminary rounds is that the finals are where five competant players are. It's the INcompetant players (or more diplomatically, the "less competant players" - like me) who tend to make the game more dynamic and interesting by doing incompetant things and making targets of themselves. The competant ones, unless they see good opportunity, tend to turtle-up, bloat, build up defenses, or do whatever it is they do to get ready for an oust opportunity, and break out when the opportunity does present itself. I'm not saying a good offense isn't a helpful tool, even to this form of play. I'm just saying the 'defense-first-keep-a-low-profile' philosophy seems to pay off in the long run and the proof of that is in tournament finals: where you see the five most successful players gather together instead of random groupings of just any five in the tournament. And it's interesting that when they don't have their usual means of winning at hand, they're not as adept at devising a secondary strategy. Hence you often see them negotiating frenetically trying to create one. If so, the overall game balance needs a shift. I'm not sure how to shift it, as I wouldn't want to go back to the days of stealth-bleed- bounce being the king of everything. But I'd sure like to see ways of pushing actions through that could ignore or frustrate intercept sometimes. I see far too much intercept in the metagames I play in, at least for my subjective tastes. I'd like to see more stuff like Crocadile's Tongue and Dominion or something that would make it somewhat less comfortable to just load up on intercept and expect that nothing bad will happen to you. (Of course, lots of intercept is not the only reason for this what-I-see-as-a-problem, but discouraging it to some extent couldn't hurt in my book.) My 0.02. Fred

"Damnans" <damna...@ono.comNOSPAM> wrote in message news:Bvf0e.25137$dr.1...@news.ono.com... > However, I agree that static and, therefore, boring finals are a problem. > But that's the result of bad play on some players' part (too speculating > players who sometimes give up to win too soon, thus breaking the play- > to-win rule). Considering where Orpheus observes this problem - in the finals - that seems like a very questionable theory. The five best players in the tournament didn't get to the final by giving up on games too soon. I think the game win rule, as currently implement, works very well and it does a good job of rewarding players who do the 'right' thing. I think the tournament final works as well as possible, too. Thus I don't think the static-n-boring finals problem has to do with bad play. It makes a lot more sense to me to conclude that it has to do with too much _good_ play in a single game! Fred

"David Cherryholmes" <david.che...@duke.edu> wrote in message news:3adhbdF...@individual.net... > LSJ wrote: >> You do have to play to win. In the finals, "winning" is determined >> by number of VPs, with ties on VPs broken by rank going into the final >> (unlike in the preliminary rounds, where ties remain unbroken and are >> simply ties). > > It is consistent once you have decided to apply an arbitrary, different > standard for the final game compared to the previous games. That is the > inconsistency to which I was referring. > > But in fact, my disagreement is even more profound. There is no logical > necessity for a tie breaking system. It is my opinion that game play > would be enhanced if ties were left simply for what they were, games in > which no one achieved a victory. I absoultely don't see the problem with the current tournament system. If you understand and like the game rule, you should like the finals rule the way it is. And it is the tie-break mechanism that makes it as perfect AS POSSIBLE. As it stands, at least four players have a strong incentive to make sure the game DOESN'T wind up stultifying into a big standoff. The fact that this doesn't look exactly like a preliminary round game is beside the point. It does exactly the job it needs to do. The fact that all this doesn't seem to prevent stultification near as often as it should ought to tell us that we need to be looking elsewhere to find the problem and the solution. Fred

Emmit Svenson a écrit : > pd...@lightlink.com wrote: > >>...due to a lack of even distribution of information, >>people will be at a disadvantage to eachother, possibly. This can be >>dealt with in two ways: >> >>A) Outlaw "scouting". ... >> >>B) Allow free access to information. B' : every player in the finals reveals his crypt (it leaves part for some surprises, but if you see some Eurobrujahs, lots of Beast, all !Malkies or big Lasombras with Pre you might have an idea what you're up against...) ; variant : the players reveal their crypt after they have chosen their table position. C : random positions in the finals. This subject ("about finals placement and information"), and the one about how to discourage insipid, boring finals seem to spring simultaneously in various forums or threads (not all on my instigation) and might warrant a close look from the authorities up-on-high. -------------- Orpheus

>>But you will always have players who prefer to stand on prelim results (like being 2nd) rather than trying to take riske and try >>to get on top :) > > > Here is where I see a general problem with the game: that it should seem > like such a risk to most good players to try to get an oust that they > choose to play conservatively. > > My take on Orpheus's original problem, which seems to be more true in > some areas and less true in others, is that the game encourages conservatism > and reactionary play in general - not pro-active work at winning. Thus, > the reason he identifies these issues in the finals and not in the > preliminary rounds is that the finals are where five competant players > are. It's the INcompetant players (or more diplomatically, the "less > competant players" - like me) who tend to make the game more dynamic > and interesting by doing incompetant things and making targets of > themselves. The competant ones, unless they see good opportunity, tend > to turtle-up, bloat, build up defenses, or do whatever it is they do to > get ready for an oust opportunity, and break out when the opportunity > does present itself. It is an interesting analysis, and I must agree with it to some degree. Yes, at a very good table the first to make a bad move is the dead one, and bold move often equals bad move. On the other hand, as you mention in your next post, the guys sitting there have made their GW before, so they must have acted at some point or another before the time limit. So I'd rather think that the incentive to go forward is much stronger in the prelims than in the finals, even if the better game level is a factor (if only because no one will open the way with bad play). > I'm not saying a good offense isn't a helpful tool, even to this form > of play. I'm just saying the 'defense-first-keep-a-low-profile' > philosophy seems to pay off in the long run and the proof of that is in > tournament finals: where you see the five most successful players gather > together instead of random groupings of just any five in the tournament. Sure, but as already mentionned even a low profile has to blow sometime in the game if you wanna win. > And it's interesting that when they don't have their usual means of > winning at hand, they're not as adept at devising a secondary strategy. > Hence you often see them negotiating frenetically trying to create one. This would mean that being a good player is only possible when you have bad players at the table you can use. While it may be true for me ;) as I'm not "that" good, I'd hate to think it is the case for most good players, or the best of them. > If so, the overall game balance needs a shift. It has shifted a lot frequently and certainly will with each coming extension (ok, combat is balanced now, no more please) and player trends, wherever these come from. I'm not sure how to > shift it, as I wouldn't want to go back to the days of stealth-bleed- > bounce being the king of everything. But I'd sure like to see ways of > pushing actions through that could ignore or frustrate intercept > sometimes. I see far too much intercept in the metagames I play in, > at least for my subjective tastes. I might agree on a personnal level, but then why would a trend be more despicable than another ? Because it makes the game too static ? If you despise intercept abuse (as I do, although well used it can be quite a sight, as any other strategy of the game if well-played) you have a few counter strategies available : - full rush : intercept will certainly have less fight than you and die painfully (just pack something against Rötshit) - bruise'n'bleed : see how these blue cards stack in your opponent's hand... - swarm with no stealth - it is well known that stealth always over-ride intercept, especially if all your base actions are at +1 stealth : just pack more stealth, some perms, and a way to cycle a lot ! And of course : I'd like to see more stuff like > Crocadile's Tongue and Dominion or something that would make it > somewhat less comfortable to just load up on intercept and expect that > nothing bad will happen to you. (Of course, lots of intercept is not > the only reason for this what-I-see-as-a-problem, but discouraging it > to some extent couldn't hurt in my book.) PLAY NECROMANCY !!!! :) --------------- Orpheus http://necrobones.free.fr

"Orpheus" <orphe...@DEADfree.fr> wrote in message news:42433b09$0$5101$626a...@news.free.fr... > It is an interesting analysis, and I must agree with it to some degree. > Yes, at a very good table the first to make a bad move is the dead one, > and bold move often equals bad move. On the other hand, as you mention > in your next post, the guys sitting there have made their GW before, so > they must have acted at some point or another before the time limit. So > I'd rather think that the incentive to go forward is much stronger in > the prelims than in the finals, even if the better game level is a > factor (if only because no one will open the way with bad play). I'm sorry, you'll have to restate this for me. You don't justify your statement here. (WHY does this make you think there's more incentive to go forward in the preliminary rounds?) My point is that in the preliminary rounds, it works well to "turtle-up", bide your time, and wait for a sucker to expose himself. The difference in play level is *huge* - or so it seems to me, in the larger tournaments I attend. (The smallish ones don't seem to have this problem.) >> And it's interesting that when they don't have their usual means of >> winning at hand, they're not as adept at devising a secondary strategy. >> Hence you often see them negotiating frenetically trying to create one. > > This would mean that being a good player is only possible when you have > bad players at the table you can use. Huh?!? No, it means no such thing. It just means that good players get more game wins when they have bad players at the table they can use - which is why they DO get more games in the preliminary rounds than in the final. This is exactly the problem you started out complaining about, as I interpret it. The only tweak I'd throw into your original desciption is that the finalists aren't acting any different in the finals than they act in the preliminary rounds - they're just not getting as good result from it. >> If so, the overall game balance needs a shift. > > It has shifted a lot frequently and certainly will with each coming > extension (ok, combat is balanced now, no more please) and player > trends, wherever these come from. But (lately), it hasn't shifted in a way which will help avoid this stagnation-in-the-finals problem. >> I'm not sure how to >> shift it, as I wouldn't want to go back to the days of stealth-bleed- >> bounce being the king of everything. But I'd sure like to see ways of >> pushing actions through that could ignore or frustrate intercept >> sometimes. I see far too much intercept in the metagames I play in, >> at least for my subjective tastes. > > I might agree on a personnal level, but then why would a trend be more > despicable than another ? Because it makes the game too static? Well, you started this whole huge thread for a reason, I assume. For me, I'll openly confess, there's also personal preferences. I don't care much for reactionary play. It's too boring. I'd rather force play myself and make others react to me if I can. But I see this kind of play as not working well in the current metagame. (It's also quite possible that I suck at what I'm trying to do and I wouldn't dispute that. Still, I'd feel better if I saw OTHER, BETTER players doing what I wanted to do successfully. I don't. I tend to see the better players playing more reactively in most cases.) > If you despise intercept abuse (as I do, although well used it can be > quite a sight, as any other strategy of the game if well-played) you > have a few counter strategies available : Bleh. No, thank you. I don't want to get sucked into a "strategy-by- strategy" debate over how to beat intercept. You missed the point: it's not "How does Fred beat intercept?" It's that more and more usable intercept-beating things should exist so that people the world over wind up choosing to use less intercept. That, in my humble opinion, would be a good thing. Fred

Orpheus wrote: > B' : every player in the finals reveals his crypt (it leaves part for > some surprises, but if you see some Eurobrujahs, lots of Beast, all > !Malkies or big Lasombras with Pre you might have an idea what you're up > against...) ; variant : the players reveal their crypt after they have > chosen their table position. Meh. Doesn't necessarily provide any worthwhile information. And really, most players have already seen most decks in action, which provides much more information. Having someone tell me "Ben is playing !Toreador tap -N- bleed" is going to give me far more information than looking at his crypt. The problem is that when you get to the finals, there is a good chance that someone will have zero idea of what one player is playing, when most other players probably know. The solution is to not make it a problem to look at games in progress after you are ousted (assuming you aren't annoying) and not a problem to ask folks what other people are playing. > C : random positions in the finals. This is certainly a possibility. But then, for one, I *like* that the finals have a unique, interesting element to them that specifically rewards doing well in the preliminary rounds. As most folks already know, a lot of this game often comes down to what decks you randomly sit next to, which has an unsatisfying element to it, especially in a "finals" round. I like that the finals minimize randomness and have an increased deterministic element to them, and that is the current seating system. Again, the only flaw is the uneven distribution of information going in--if I know what all 4 of the other decks in the finals are, and you only know 3 of them, I have a very distinct advantage, especially if we are, like, top and second seed. The solution, really, is to let people watch games in progress and let people discuss what decks people are playing (which people already do, but there is some mostly unfounded idea that "scouting" is illegal, which makes people cranky). > This subject ("about finals placement and information"), and the one > about how to discourage insipid, boring finals seem to spring > simultaneously in various forums or threads (not all on my instigation) > and might warrant a close look from the authorities up-on-high. I don't know what to do about insipid finals. But making all the prizes go to 1st place certainly would help (like, say, give 1st place the bulk of the prizes, and give 2-5th place identical token prizes, like a couple boosters or something). I suspect that this would go a long way towards encouraging people trying to actually win--if there was no measurable difference between 2nd and 5th place, then there would be no incentive to try and get 2nd place. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 19:10:42 -0500, Peter D Bakija <pd...@lightlink.com> scrawled: >Orpheus wrote: > >> B' : every player in the finals reveals his crypt (it leaves part for >> some surprises, but if you see some Eurobrujahs, lots of Beast, all >> !Malkies or big Lasombras with Pre you might have an idea what you're up >> against...) ; variant : the players reveal their crypt after they have >> chosen their table position. > >Meh. Doesn't necessarily provide any worthwhile information. especially if they do this after they choose their table position, as orph suggested. defeats the purpose, no? >And really, >most players have already seen most decks in action, which provides much >more information. Having someone tell me "Ben is playing !Toreador tap -N- >bleed" is going to give me far more information than looking at his crypt. not, however, if Ben is playing pot/dom bruise and bleed, and this random person just lied. >The problem is that when you get to the finals, there is a good chance that >someone will have zero idea of what one player is playing, when most other >players probably know. The solution is to not make it a problem to look at >games in progress after you are ousted (assuming you aren't annoying) and >not a problem to ask folks what other people are playing. not really a solution, rather than how it works now. but the problem with this is, the people getting GWs, and thus being the ones to choose seating in a final, tend not to be the ones who have time 'after they are ousted' to go look at other games. i kind of like the crypt idea as an addition to the current was things run. while it won't fix the information disparity, it could go some way towards contracting the gap between the most informed and least informed players. >> C : random positions in the finals. > >This is certainly a possibility. But then, for one, I *like* that the finals >have a unique, interesting element to them that specifically rewards doing >well in the preliminary rounds. me too. it encourages 'play to do the best you can' rather than 'play to do just good enough'. although the tie breakers on prior positions for the final round also helps this somewhat. > As most folks already know, a lot of this >game often comes down to what decks you randomly sit next to, which has an >unsatisfying element to it, especially in a "finals" round. I like that the >finals minimize randomness and have an increased deterministic element to >them, and that is the current seating system. yay current system! i just wish i didn't suck at choosing positions. ;) >Again, the only flaw is the uneven distribution of information going in--if >I know what all 4 of the other decks in the finals are, and you only know 3 >of them, I have a very distinct advantage, especially if we are, like, top >and second seed. The solution, really, is to let people watch games in >progress and let people discuss what decks people are playing (which people >already do, but there is some mostly unfounded idea that "scouting" is >illegal, which makes people cranky). it might possibly be interesting to compile a list of 'assumed rules that really aren't' to distribute to tourney attendees, to fix some of these continued fallacies ('you have to break the deal! play to win rule!') salem http://www.users.tpg.com.au/adsltqna/VtES/index.htm (replace "hotmail" with "yahoo" to email)

>>Orpheus wrote: >> >> >>>B' : every player in the finals reveals his crypt (it leaves part for >>>some surprises, but if you see some Eurobrujahs, lots of Beast, all >>>!Malkies or big Lasombras with Pre you might have an idea what you're up >>>against...) ; variant : the players reveal their crypt after they have >>>chosen their table position. >> >>Meh. Doesn't necessarily provide any worthwhile information. > > > especially if they do this after they choose their table position, as > orph suggested. defeats the purpose, no? You misunderstood. I meant : first players puts his card on the table, reveals his crypt, so player 2 knows what he's up against ; player 2 does the same, Player 3 chooses position, etc. And part of the skill of this game also is knowing what a crypt can do. Sure, if you see lots of midcap !Tores, you'll wonder if it's a Palla embrace, a gun deck, a voter, or an Art of Pain deck, but really there are chances that without Miller, any titled vamp, and with lots of Jost Werner it's only a Palla... Orpheus

>>It is an interesting analysis, and I must agree with it to some degree. >>Yes, at a very good table the first to make a bad move is the dead one, >>and bold move often equals bad move. On the other hand, as you mention >>in your next post, the guys sitting there have made their GW before, so >>they must have acted at some point or another before the time limit. So >>I'd rather think that the incentive to go forward is much stronger in >>the prelims than in the finals, even if the better game level is a >>factor (if only because no one will open the way with bad play). > > > I'm sorry, you'll have to restate this for me. Do I ? Nah, I'll assume I'm free of doing whatever. But I may if you ask nicely. ;) You don't justify your > statement here. Didn't think I'd have to. It seems pretty obvious to me. (WHY does this make you think there's more incentive to > go forward in the preliminary rounds?) Uh, let me think... Because if you don't actually WIN the prelims you don't even get near the fucking finals ? > My point is that in the preliminary rounds, it works well to "turtle-up", > bide your time, and wait for a sucker to expose himself. The difference > in play level is *huge* - or so it seems to me, in the larger tournaments > I attend. (The smallish ones don't seem to have this problem.) It is only part of the whole. Don't let "your point" blind you to other elements. I've seen enough finalists play in prelims before, and I can assure you that not only do they, effectively, benefit from lesser players' mistakes, but also they are more eager to do as many VPs as they can, logically, while in the finals 0,5 could be quite enough. >>>And it's interesting that when they don't have their usual means of >>>winning at hand, they're not as adept at devising a secondary strategy. >>>Hence you often see them negotiating frenetically trying to create one. >> >>This would mean that being a good player is only possible when you have >>bad players at the table you can use. > > Huh?!? No, it means no such thing. It just means that good players get > more game wins when they have bad players at the table they can use - > which is why they DO get more games in the preliminary rounds than in > the final. ALso, the finals is just ONE game so they couldn't get as many GWs as in the prelims, right ? ;) But I get what you really meant. And again, it's only part of the reason. This is exactly the problem you started out complaining > about, as I interpret it. Please let me judge of what I started talking about. The "problem", to me, is the "nothing happens" finals, and has nothing to do with the general tendency of the game. The only tweak I'd throw into your original > desciption is that the finalists aren't acting any different in the > finals than they act in the preliminary rounds - they're just not > getting as good result from it. On this we do disagree. I repeat, if the finalists had been as attentists in the prelims, they wouldn't have gotten any games. Fighting lesser players of course makes it easier to win tables, but this is also true if you play very forward : a good table will know how to fight a stealth bleeder, or will gang up on a dangerous deck, while a lesser table will wait too long for that and give him the game. Not every good player is a waiting player (although I agree that there is part of that). >>>If so, the overall game balance needs a shift. >> >>It has shifted a lot frequently and certainly will with each coming >>extension (ok, combat is balanced now, no more please) and player >>trends, wherever these come from. > > But (lately), it hasn't shifted in a way which will help avoid > this stagnation-in-the-finals problem. True. The opposite if anything. >>>I'm not sure how to >>>shift it, as I wouldn't want to go back to the days of stealth-bleed- >>>bounce being the king of everything. But I'd sure like to see ways of >>>pushing actions through that could ignore or frustrate intercept >>>sometimes. I see far too much intercept in the metagames I play in, >>>at least for my subjective tastes. >> >>I might agree on a personnal level, but then why would a trend be more >>despicable than another ? Because it makes the game too static? > > > Well, you started this whole huge thread for a reason, I assume. I didn't start this (not so) huge thread because of a general tendency in the game, or any "I hate intercept" reason. Some players despise bleed, stealth, vote, fight, whatever, and it proves the game is mostly balanced (I'd never have thought intercept could actually win anything before the Barcelona EC). I did start this thread because the finals were attentist, even when players play all but intercept. It is YOUR proposition that centers around the EYE thing, not mine. > For me, I'll openly confess, there's also personal preferences. That's a welcome confession. Ego te absolvo. ;) > I > don't care much for reactionary play. It's too boring. I'd rather > force play myself and make others react to me if I can. But I see > this kind of play as not working well in the current metagame. Personnaly, I play very proactive, and it does bring me to a final or two. Of course, if you act dangerous and look dangerous, you probably will get ganged up by the whole table. Doing your bit without raising alarm is also a big part of the skill in this game, as you must know. > (It's also quite possible that I suck at what I'm trying to do and > I wouldn't dispute that. Still, I'd feel better if I saw OTHER, > BETTER players doing what I wanted to do successfully. I don't. > I tend to see the better players playing more reactively in most > cases.) I don't. Good players don't act reactively. They install, wait for their moment, and then move forward so fast you can't do a thing. Or maybe it began turns ago but you didn't see it because they *were* good. Many winning decks use very few defense (I don't count the frigging Direct Intervention as direct defense, although it counters so many things it's despicable). >>If you despise intercept abuse (as I do, I'll underline "abuse" for you here. As I said, any strategy is valid in itself. Everyone playing it, including playing it bad, I dislike. Intercept, like fight, will ruin your games without winning them if in the hands of bad players (while a bad stealth bleeder will usually kill at least his first prey). although well used it can be >>quite a sight, as any other strategy of the game if well-played) you >>have a few counter strategies available : > > Bleh. No, thank you. I don't want to get sucked into a "strategy-by- > strategy" debate over how to beat intercept. You missed the point: > it's not "How does Fred beat intercept?" I don't care what Fred does. I just say that there are existing strategies still valid against intercept, and that if your metagame is very intercepty you have the choice between adapting (which as I showed is possible no matter what type of deck you're playing) or stopping complaining. > It's that more and more > usable intercept-beating things should exist You mean, more than big stealth bleed or vote, bruise and bleed, bruise and vote, rush, Toreador Grand Ball vote, necro or !Ventrue "don't block" and milling ?!?! so that people the world > over wind up choosing to use less intercept. If people play counter strategies to intercept on a regular basis, people will stop playing intercept so much and your metagame will get closer to what you like. That, in my humble > opinion, would be a good thing. In many people's opinions, it wouldn't. In mine, intercept or any such "anti" strategy (as is backrush) is fine if well-played ; if there is a problem on that side, it's that since Ferenci and Kristoff proved in Barcelona that it could win, many bad players play intercept and just block the games without any results. I had a tournie with many attentist decks, and it WAS very shitty ; but the waiting guys mostly didn't make any GWs, so for me these are two very different problems (and I repeat : Intercept isn't the only type of deck which wan be played in an attentist way). Deadly Yours, Orpheus

"Orpheus" <orphe...@DEADfree.fr> wrote in message news:4243c9d4$0$5138$636a...@news.free.fr... >>>It is an interesting analysis, and I must agree with it to some degree. >>>Yes, at a very good table the first to make a bad move is the dead one, >>>and bold move often equals bad move. On the other hand, as you mention >>>in your next post, the guys sitting there have made their GW before, so >>>they must have acted at some point or another before the time limit. So >>>I'd rather think that the incentive to go forward is much stronger in >>>the prelims than in the finals, even if the better game level is a >>>factor (if only because no one will open the way with bad play). >> >> I'm sorry, you'll have to restate this for me. You don't justify your >> statement here. (WHY does this make you think there's more incentive to >> go forward in the preliminary rounds?) > > Uh, let me think... Because if you don't actually WIN the prelims you > don't even get near the fucking finals ? Nope. Not obvious. Nor even correct, IMHO. I mean, I understand: "If I do nothing, I don't make the finals". Yes, that's incentive. I just can't figure out how, "Now that I'm in the finals, if I do nothing, I'll lose." is not ALSO incentive on pretty much the same level. From that comment, I take it you think players lack incentive to improve their standing or even defend it once they're in the finals. If they're guranteed fifth place, why do anything? All right, I'll give you that it's slightly correct in this sense: at least the finals is a zero-sum game. What one player wins (a higher position going out than coming in), another loses. By contrast, in the preliminaries, the fact that a game win may not be awarded throws some additional incentive in to be aggressive. But I don't think that's nearly enough to explain the attitude of conservatism you suggest. The fifth place player has NOTHING TO LOSE. Why should he ever hold anything back? >> My point is that in the preliminary rounds, it works well to "turtle-up", >> bide your time, and wait for a sucker to expose himself. The difference >> in play level is *huge* - or so it seems to me, in the larger tournaments >> I attend. (The smallish ones don't seem to have this problem.) > > It is only part of the whole. Don't let "your point" blind you to other > elements. I've seen enough finalists play in prelims before, and I can > assure you that not only do they, effectively, benefit from lesser > players' mistakes, but also they are more eager to do as many VPs as > they can, logically, while in the finals 0,5 could be quite enough. Huh? One-half a victory point in the finals is *ONLY* ever worth anything to one guy - and then only if everyone else is held to one-half a victory point. I sympathize with your comment about my point blinding me to other elements. There might be others, I agree. But here, you don't have a point. You're wrong: players have every incentive by the structure of the tournament to move forward. Yet they don't. >> This is exactly the problem you started out complaining >> about, as I interpret it. > > Please let me judge of what I started talking about. The "problem", to > me, is the "nothing happens" finals, and has nothing to do with the > general tendency of the game. Ah, but it does. That's the whole point of all my comments in this thread. I keep hearing people complain about the structure of the tournaments. But there is not a thing wrong with the tournament structure. It's as close to perfect as I can imagine it. The problem is NOT the tournament structure - it's that the finals is the only game which consists of five very competant players. Or if it isn't, who'd notice? The only game that causes people to take note of trends is the final game. To test my theory with preliminary round games, you'd have to do something like: notice whenever a preliminary round game occurs which includes five players who all have a high minimum past success rate at getting game wins and see how often such a table tends to stagnate. >> The only tweak I'd throw into your original >> desciption is that the finalists aren't acting any different in the >> finals than they act in the preliminary rounds - they're just not >> getting as good result from it. > > On this we do disagree. I repeat, if the finalists had been as > attentists in the prelims, they wouldn't have gotten any games. Fighting > lesser players of course makes it easier to win tables, but this is also > true if you play very forward : a good table will know how to fight a > stealth bleeder, or will gang up on a dangerous deck, while a lesser > table will wait too long for that and give him the game. Now you're making my argument. This is precisely my point. Why be a stealth bleeder or look dangerous if the entire table will gang up on you for your effort? And it will in the final. The problem here is just that: a good table CAN know how to gang up on a player who plays very forward. It's too hard for a single player to force play and be rewarded for being aggressive, unless the other players are incompetant. >>>I might agree on a personnal level, but then why would a trend be more >>>despicable than another ? Because it makes the game too static? >> >> Well, you started this whole huge thread for a reason, I assume. > > I didn't start this (not so) huge thread because of a general tendency > in the game, or any "I hate intercept" reason. I know that. But that is where it has to go if you really want to get at the real problem behind what you're complaining about. As for, "I hate intercept.", I think making intercept too useful has been one of the factors in creating the incentive for competant players to play stagnant games. But I'd agree, that's kind of more my pet theory. (And the fact that I hate intercept. :-) ) > Personnaly, I play very proactive, and it does bring me to a final or > two. Of course, if you act dangerous and look dangerous, you probably > will get ganged up by the whole table. Doing your bit without raising > alarm is also a big part of the skill in this game, as you must know. I don't know what you mean by "proactive" if you're not trying to get an oust. And if you are, you MUST "act dangerous and look dangerous". Otherwise, I wouldn't call it proactive. >> (It's also quite possible that I suck at what I'm trying to do and >> I wouldn't dispute that. Still, I'd feel better if I saw OTHER, >> BETTER players doing what I wanted to do successfully. I don't. >> I tend to see the better players playing more reactively in most >> cases.) > > I don't. Good players don't act reactively. They install, wait for their > moment, and then move forward so fast you can't do a thing. "Wait(ing) for their moment" <<============>> REACTIVE I don't know what YOUR definition of "reactive" is. Now go back and think about the finals: everyone is *SO* "waiting for their moment" that nobody's moment ever comes. THAT'S your problem! >> Bleh. No, thank you. I don't want to get sucked into a "strategy-by- >> strategy" debate over how to beat intercept. You missed the point: >> it's not "How does Fred beat intercept?" > > I don't care what Fred does. I just say that there are existing > strategies still valid against intercept, Yes, but they don't prevent reactive play from having dominance, which is my complaint. Fred

In message <Y0R0e.4955$TZ.3866@okepread06>, Frederick Scott <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> writes: >Huh? One-half a victory point in the finals is *ONLY* ever worth anything >to one guy - and then only if everyone else is held to one-half a victory >point. In situations where substantial prizes are offered for 1st through 5th place, one half a VP can shift you up above several other people. If someone else gets two VP, and you're just walling up and the remaining three of you get 0.5VP, you've come third at least - depending on how you and the other guy ranked going into the final. Hence the discussion about removing most of the prize incentives for other placings. I've never found that reasonably small amounts of boosters are that big a problem, however. If the first place person is getting 20 boosters and 2nd through 5th are getting some but less (say, 16, 12, 8, 4 - these are just random numbers), it doesn't seem to be a big problem. When prizes are unique or hard to get or unusual, it can be a bigger problem. That might be solvable by using, say, "First place gets to pick first", rather than specific prizes for specific positions (e.g. "First place gets this artwork, second place gets this signed copy of Darkness Unveiled, etc.") >Now you're making my argument. This is precisely my point. Why be a >stealth bleeder or look dangerous if the entire table will gang up on >you for your effort? And it will in the final. Stealth bleeders don't have to look inherently dangerous. People being very aggressive can. It depends a lot on what other options you've given yourself. If you don't have much (say) combat defence, being aggressive may be better - less time for the combat deck to eat you. On the flip-side, if you have a fair arsenal of defence, you can still stealth-bleed but you don't need to do it so viciously. e.g. the difference between an aggressive Malk obf/dom stealth bleed deck, and a Lasombra obt/dom stealth bleed deck with a fair chunk of Arms of the Abyss, Torn Signpost, Disarm and the like as a sideline. It's also worth remembering that in any sizeable tournament, quite a few of the people at the table will have looked dangerous. IME, it's only when a deck has REALLY stuck its head above the parapet (e.g. Turbo- Arika) that the table starts thinking "Urr..." When that happened at a tournament I was judging, it was only two decks on the final table which decided to deal with Turbo Arika anyway. Perhaps the other two would've done had those two not done so, but it wasn't a 4 against 1 OHMYGODWE'REALLGOINGTODIE moment. (Though that is what many spectators were thinking.) And the main reason for that action was that if Turbo-Arika got to take an action, it could plausibly give them no further opportunity to intervene. Certainly, I've seen a lot of scary, scary decks make final tables without everyone throwing themselves at it to balance the table. The upshot of this? I'm not sure. Some of this may be social factors. Some cultures may put a lot more emphasis on coming first. Others might think that second is just fine, as it's still better than third, fourth or fifth. >The problem here is just that: a good table CAN know how to gang up on >a player who plays very forward. It's too hard for a single player to >force play and be rewarded for being aggressive, unless the other players >are incompetant. It depends on the forward, IMO. Is it a forward that will keep giving it more and more momentum, or is it a forward that you can do something about when it gets to you? Maybe you have a lot of bounce, or intercept combat, or backwards rush, and have no need to go near the deck even though it's an aggressive stealth bleeder. That a deck is aggressive isn't, IME, enough to cause people to gang up on it. When it's aggressive and that aggression would cause other decks significant problems, yes. [ quoted text not captured ]

Frederick Scott wrote: > "Damnans" <damna...@ono.comNOSPAM> wrote in message > news:Bvf0e.25137$dr.1...@news.ono.com... > >>However, I agree that static and, therefore, boring finals are a problem. >>But that's the result of bad play on some players' part (too speculating >>players who sometimes give up to win too soon, thus breaking the play- >>to-win rule). > > > Considering where Orpheus observes this problem - in the finals - that > seems like a very questionable theory. The five best players in the > tournament didn't get to the final by giving up on games too soon. Right. > I think the game win rule, as currently implement, works very well and it > does a good job of rewarding players who do the 'right' thing. I think > the tournament final works as well as possible, too. Agreed. > Thus I don't think the static-n-boring finals problem has to do with > bad play. It makes a lot more sense to me to conclude that it has to > do with too much _good_ play in a single game! Wasting time in a final is bad play. I agree that finalists may need more time to think their moves (which can be solved by adding 30 minutes to the usual 2 hour time limit). But they must not forget that time is another factor of the game, and that, as such, it must be managed wisely. How many finalists have ever thought that they could have won the tournament if the final round had lasted for several more minutes? What happens is that some finalists act too conservatively (and I am not just referring to the top seeded ones, who obviously tend to be conservative), and therefore afraid of making the first aggressive move, because they do not want to draw too much attention. A 2 hour or 2 hour and a half time limit for final rounds is more than enough for them not to time out (if players do not waste time being too conservative, which rarely leads to victory and is, therefore, bad play). -- Damnans http://www.almadrava.net/damnans http://www.vtes.net http://es.groups.yahoo.com/group/vteshispania/

"Damnans" <damna...@ono.comNOSPAM> wrote in message news:kmT0e.27804$US.1...@news.ono.com... >> Thus I don't think the static-n-boring finals problem has to do with bad play. It makes a lot more sense to me to conclude that >> it has to > > do with too much _good_ play in a single game! > > Wasting time in a final is bad play. I'm not sure how you define "wasting time", but if many, MANY good players do it, it's highly unlikely to be "bad play". Again, maybe it's just me, but I tend to go by the theory that smart players don't suddenly turn dumb because they're put in a particular situation. > How many finalists have ever thought that they could have won the > tournament if the final round had lasted for several more minutes? But they were probably wrong. Had the clocks been so construed from the start, the series of events that led them to feel that way would have just taken place...several minutes laters. In almost all of these cases, I'm pretty sure things time themselves from the end of the game all the players know is coming up - NOT from the beginning of the game. > What happens is that some finalists act too conservatively (and I am > not just referring to the top seeded ones, who obviously tend to be > conservative), and therefore afraid of making the first aggressive > move, because they do not want to draw too much attention. I know - but that's my whole point. If you watch them play, you'll notice that it was how the got to the finals in the first place. Why does it suddenly become bad play IN the finals? Fred

Frederick Scott wrote: > "Damnans" <damna...@ono.comNOSPAM> wrote in message > news:kmT0e.27804$US.1...@news.ono.com... > >> Thus I don't think the static-n-boring finals problem has to do with bad play. It makes a lot more sense to me to conclude that > >> it has to > > > do with too much _good_ play in a single game! > > > > Wasting time in a final is bad play. > > I'm not sure how you define "wasting time", but if many, MANY good > players do it, it's highly unlikely to be "bad play". > > Again, maybe it's just me, but I tend to go by the theory that > smart players don't suddenly turn dumb because they're put in a > particular situation. > > > How many finalists have ever thought that they could have won the > > tournament if the final round had lasted for several more minutes? > > But they were probably wrong. Had the clocks been so construed from > the start, the series of events that led them to feel that way would > have just taken place...several minutes laters. In almost all of > these cases, I'm pretty sure things time themselves from the end of > the game all the players know is coming up - NOT from the beginning > of the game. Very true. For example, at the end of the GenCon NA Championships, Stephane Lavrut made his big push but ran out of time before ousting his prey. An observer could have seen that as a case where he'd have been able to win if there was more time on the clock. However, he intentionally made his lunge at the point where there'd be no time remaining if he was successful. It is akin to an NBA game where the clock winds down and the team with the ball holds for the final shot in an attempt to leave no time on the clock afterwards. The length of the game is irrelevant--only the time remaining matters. If anything, a 3-hour final just may create more "dead time" before the late-game action begins. > > What happens is that some finalists act too conservatively (and I am > > not just referring to the top seeded ones, who obviously tend to be > > conservative), and therefore afraid of making the first aggressive > > move, because they do not want to draw too much attention. > > I know - but that's my whole point. If you watch them play, you'll > notice that it was how the got to the finals in the first place. > Why does it suddenly become bad play IN the finals? Hey, some of my favorite games have been ones in which very little happened from a spectator's viewpoint. Those are the finals where there's a lot of intensity and subtle manueverings which is all a big setup for someone to make their push for the win. The finalists come away talking about how great the game was while the spectators see it as a big yawnfest. To some degree I think the GW rule has spawned a playstyle that seeks to win the table but doesn't do well at acquiring lots of VPs. The old VP-sweeping decks that were the mainstay of finalist's decks were more fun for spectators probably. There's certainly a growing group of players that have adopted this style and build that decks start slowly and build build build until they reach critical mass and then just sweep over a prey or two and then hang on till time expires. Palla Grande and Week of Nightmares-based decks are two of the more obvious ways to go about this. -Robert

salem wrote: > not, however, if Ben is playing pot/dom bruise and bleed, and this > random person just lied. Sure--there is always the possibility that folks could lie. But it really isn't that likely. > not really a solution, rather than how it works now. but the problem > with this is, the people getting GWs, and thus being the ones to > choose seating in a final, tend not to be the ones who have time > 'after they are ousted' to go look at other games. Eh. There is time between rounds to talk with people and see what folks are playing. And again, right before you pick your seat, you can always say "Hey--what is this guy playing?" if you don't know. In all likelyhood, you'll be able to get enough information in a scentence or less. [ quoted text not captured ]

pd...@lightlink.com wrote: > Gregory wrote: > >which is a skill that can pretty much only be exercised at a final. > > Sure. But it makes the final into something special and different. The > current final system of getting to choose your seat based on score > going in might not be the best possible system. But it is a system, and > it is an interesting one, and one of the side effects of it is that it > gives a concrete advantage to being the top seed going in (much like in > a squash ladder type seeding system used in sports and one on one games > generally results in the strongest seed matching against the weakest > seed in the first round). Again, it might not be the best possible > option, but it gives an interesting angle to the game--you can gain > advantage through appropriate seating choice, assuming that you know > what the other decks are. > > The flaw is, however, that there is no way to know that any given > player will know what all the decks are, and while it is likely that > you might know what most of the decks do, there is always a possibility > that you won't, and due to a lack of even distribution of information, > people will be at a disadvantage to eachother, possibly. This can be > dealt with in two ways: When you are choosing seating in the finals of a very large event, there's always at least one bit of public information available--even if you know nothing about your opponents' decks. What you know is their seeding in the finals. If you are the top seed, you can intentionally sit as the predator or prey or the lowest seeded player or wherever else you'd like. Maybe you prefer to make the lowest seeded finalist your predator. Maybe you'd prefer to make the 2nd seeded finalist your prey and try to get rid of them quickly. This of course presumes some correlation between seeding and player and/or deck strengths. Additionally, even when you don't know what deck is being played, you may know something about the player and their tendencies. If you Peter are at the finals with me, I might assume you are playing combat and I'd avoid setting as your predator or prey. If I'm playing combat I might team with you to beat-down the table and so I might put you as my grand predator. In the GenCon 2000 NA Championships, I was 2nd seed and Ben Peal 1st seed. I chose Steve Fazio as my prey because he'd done well with a Princely vote deck in the last chance qualifier and I took a stab that he might play it again--perfect fodder for my weenie pot rush deck. Ben Peal took a stab that I might be playing weenie pot rush since I'd done well with it at the last chance qualifier. He chose his seat accordingly. As well, I had downloaded and brought with me a copy of Ben Peal's decklist that he qualified with and I had a feeling that he would play that deck again. If I'd have been top seed, I would have chosen Ben as my first prey. So, in this case, there were at least 3 correct assumptions made based on observation and player history that had nothing to do with knowledge of decks or even knowledge gained within that event. -Robert

"Robert Goudie" <rob...@vtesinla.org> wrote in message news:1111770723.7...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com... >> > What happens is that some finalists act too conservatively (and I am >> > not just referring to the top seeded ones, who obviously tend to be >> > conservative), and therefore afraid of making the first aggressive >> > move, because they do not want to draw too much attention. >> >> I know - but that's my whole point. If you watch them play, you'll >> notice that it was how the got to the finals in the first place. >> Why does it suddenly become bad play IN the finals? > > Hey, some of my favorite games have been ones in which very little > happened from a spectator's viewpoint. Those are the finals where > there's a lot of intensity and subtle manueverings which is all a big > setup for someone to make their push for the win. The finalists come > away talking about how great the game was while the spectators see it > as a big yawnfest. I guess I don't mind so much if the specatators don't feel they got their money's worth. (Though I suspect in truth most players who will sit and watch a final are NOT yawing through something like that. They may not understand everything that's going on in the minds of the players, but they're probably just as fascinated.) The trouble I have with the sort of play I see in this kind of final is that it seems to give little incentive to do anything except jockey and maneuver for that moment 10 minutes before the game ends when guys are finally going to try to do something because time's running out and the pecking order hasn't moved. It's doesn't have to be that way. People can jockey and maneuver with all the same intensity and subtly toward a result that's approaching because of the play of the cards, not the tick of the clock. Or at least, I speculate it could be if the game could be rebalanced a bit more towards pro-active rather than reactive elements. It's hard for me to tell, though. I know there's always going to be a self-balancing aspect to a multiplayer games like this. I'm not sure whether the tendency to try to "outwait fate" by the better players can be defeated by adjusting game elements or not. > To some degree I think the GW rule has spawned a playstyle that seeks > to win the table but doesn't do well at acquiring lots of VPs. The old > VP-sweeping decks that were the mainstay of finalist's decks were more > fun for spectators probably. There's certainly a growing group of > players that have adopted this style and build that decks start slowly > and build build build until they reach critical mass and then just > sweep over a prey or two and then hang on till time expires. Palla > Grande and Week of Nightmares-based decks are two of the more obvious > ways to go about this. It's interesting you would see it that way. Agreed, a deck that's built for a VP sweep may well be more proactive in the finals, as well. Unfortunately, the GW rule works too well for othre purposes to adjust it for this. Fred

Frederick Scott wrote: > "Robert Goudie" <rob...@vtesinla.org> wrote in message > > To some degree I think the GW rule has spawned a playstyle that seeks > > to win the table but doesn't do well at acquiring lots of VPs. The old > > VP-sweeping decks that were the mainstay of finalist's decks were more > > fun for spectators probably. There's certainly a growing group of > > players that have adopted this style and build that decks start slowly > > and build build build until they reach critical mass and then just > > sweep over a prey or two and then hang on till time expires. Palla > > Grande and Week of Nightmares-based decks are two of the more obvious > > ways to go about this. > > It's interesting you would see it that way. Agreed, a deck that's built > for a VP sweep may well be more proactive in the finals, as well. > Unfortunately, the GW rule works too well for othre purposes to adjust > it for this. Agreed. I'm certainly not proposing that we change the GW rule just because some players are jockeying for GWs at the expense of massive VP accumulation. For me personally, I still prefer the hyper-aggressive decks and they continue to serve me well but I've also got my fair share of low-VP but GW gathering decks as well. -Robert

"James Coupe" <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote in message news:I4b4O7Cy...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk... > In message <Y0R0e.4955$TZ.3866@okepread06>, Frederick Scott > <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> writes: >>Huh? One-half a victory point in the finals is *ONLY* ever worth anything >>to one guy - and then only if everyone else is held to one-half a victory >>point. > > In situations where substantial prizes are offered for 1st through 5th > place, one half a VP can shift you up above several other people. Sure. That's the nature of the finals in general. But my comment was about the suggestion that just finishing with 1/2 a VP was worth anything to anyone. It's not - unless you were the preliminary round leader and no one else got an oust. I suppose if there's one oust in the game, the guy who didn't get the 1/2 VP may slip (in the worst case) from first to fifth but I still think as a general statement, what Orpheus said was silly. There's plenty of incentive to aspire to more than 1/2 VP in the finals. The incentive isn't the issue. ... > Hence the discussion about removing most of the prize incentives for > other placings. > > I've never found that reasonably small amounts of boosters are that big > a problem, however. I really don't think so either. But, for what it's worth, I suppose it's not a bad idea to flatten out the awards in the larger tournaments so 2nd place doesn't get much more than 5th. For what it's worth, I agree that only 1st place should stick out noticably above the others. >>Now you're making my argument. This is precisely my point. Why be a >>stealth bleeder or look dangerous if the entire table will gang up on >>you for your effort? And it will in the final. > > Stealth bleeders don't have to look inherently dangerous. People being > very aggressive can. It depends a lot on what other options you've > given yourself. If you don't have much (say) combat defence, being > aggressive may be better - less time for the combat deck to eat you. On > the flip-side, if you have a fair arsenal of defence, you can still > stealth-bleed but you don't need to do it so viciously. e.g. the > difference between an aggressive Malk obf/dom stealth bleed deck, and a > Lasombra obt/dom stealth bleed deck with a fair chunk of Arms of the > Abyss, Torn Signpost, Disarm and the like as a sideline. The trouble is, the better players you run into in the finals tend to have defense as well. I agree with what you say about not needing to look dangerous, but trying to sneak up on a prey like that will often fail due to well-managed pool. Thus, a lot of finals turn into these kinds of marathons. > It's also worth remembering that in any sizeable tournament, quite a few > of the people at the table will have looked dangerous. IME, it's only > when a deck has REALLY stuck its head above the parapet (e.g. Turbo- > Arika) that the table starts thinking "Urr..." Well, yea. But a lot of times in the finals, or in the preliminary rounds, for that matter, just making irresitable headway towards an oust makes you "look dangerous". And - as noted above - it's hard to actually get an oust against a prey who knows what he's doing without revealing some might in order make irresistable headway. > The upshot of this? I'm not sure. Some of this may be social factors. > > Some cultures may put a lot more emphasis on coming first. Others might > think that second is just fine, as it's still better than third, fourth > or fifth. Agreed. That may have something to do with it. It's not an easy thing to pick apart. Fred

>>>I'm sorry, you'll have to restate this for me. You don't justify your >>>statement here. (WHY does this make you think there's more incentive to >>>go forward in the preliminary rounds?) >> >>Uh, let me think... Because if you don't actually WIN the prelims you >>don't even get near the fucking finals ? > > > Nope. Not obvious. Nor even correct, IMHO. I mean, I understand: "If > I do nothing, I don't make the finals". Yes, that's incentive. I just > can't figure out how, "Now that I'm in the finals, if I do nothing, I'll > lose." is not ALSO incentive on pretty much the same level. Because players think they have already "won" something, illusionary or not, and that they will prefer not to risk going down rather than chancing going up (all but the fifth obviously). > From that comment, I take it you think players lack incentive to > improve their standing or even defend it once they're in the finals. > If they're guranteed fifth place, why do anything? The fifth may go up or nothing, he's the most likely to tempt anything. > All right, I'll give you that it's slightly correct in this sense: at > least the finals is a zero-sum game. What one player wins (a higher > position going out than coming in), another loses. By contrast, in the > preliminaries, the fact that a game win may not be awarded throws some > additional incentive in to be aggressive. But I don't think that's > nearly enough to explain the attitude of conservatism you suggest. The > fifth place player has NOTHING TO LOSE. Why should he ever hold anything > back? He shouldn't. But if he moves too fast, the others will gang up on him, as you know. >>>My point is that in the preliminary rounds, it works well to "turtle-up", >>>bide your time, and wait for a sucker to expose himself. The difference >>>in play level is *huge* - or so it seems to me, in the larger tournaments >>>I attend. (The smallish ones don't seem to have this problem.) >> >>It is only part of the whole. Don't let "your point" blind you to other >>elements. I've seen enough finalists play in prelims before, and I can >>assure you that not only do they, effectively, benefit from lesser >>players' mistakes, but also they are more eager to do as many VPs as >>they can, logically, while in the finals 0,5 could be quite enough. > > Huh? One-half a victory point in the finals is *ONLY* ever worth anything > to one guy - and then only if everyone else is held to one-half a victory > point. Cf James' comments on that. > I sympathize with your comment about my point blinding me to other elements. > There might be others, I agree. But here, you don't have a point. You're > wrong: players have every incentive by the structure of the tournament to > move forward. Yet they don't. Are you talking about the finals ? If so, I think I have stated various elements to that effect. One that I didn't mention yet : knowing all the players at the table were good (or lucky, or both) enough to make it to the finals, all the other players will be much more weary than at a table with a "weak link". So they will wait and look each other in the eye, before the duel, as any samuraď or Sergio Leone character would do. B) >>>This is exactly the problem you started out complaining >>>about, as I interpret it. >> >>Please let me judge of what I started talking about. The "problem", to >>me, is the "nothing happens" finals, and has nothing to do with the >>general tendency of the game. > > > Ah, but it does. That's the whole point of all my comments in this > thread. I keep hearing people complain about the structure of the > tournaments. But there is not a thing wrong with the tournament > structure. It's as close to perfect as I can imagine it. The problem > is NOT the tournament structure - it's that the finals is the only > game which consists of five very competant players. > > Or if it isn't, who'd notice? The only game that causes people to > take note of trends is the final game. To test my theory with > preliminary round games, you'd have to do something like: notice > whenever a preliminary round game occurs which includes five players > who all have a high minimum past success rate at getting game wins > and see how often such a table tends to stagnate. Well, then it is your pet theory. I don't agree with it, from personnal experience and poitn of view, but none of us has any way of proving anything, so let's just keep it to that : a theory, certainly valid, but remaining unproven. >>>The only tweak I'd throw into your original >>>desciption is that the finalists aren't acting any different in the >>>finals than they act in the preliminary rounds - they're just not >>>getting as good result from it. >> >>On this we do disagree. I repeat, if the finalists had been as >>attentists in the prelims, they wouldn't have gotten any games. Fighting >>lesser players of course makes it easier to win tables, but this is also >>true if you play very forward : a good table will know how to fight a >>stealth bleeder, or will gang up on a dangerous deck, while a lesser >>table will wait too long for that and give him the game. > > > Now you're making my argument. This is precisely my point. Why be a > stealth bleeder or look dangerous if the entire table will gang up on > you for your effort? And it will in the final. - looking dangerous and being dangerous are two different things entirely - if you act dangerously at the right moment it will be too late for anyone to do anything but also act to the best of their ability - as in a gunfight or a poker game, keeping your calm until the moment really has come is a great part of winning a game at such a level ; so the first one to "crack" offers himself for the sacrifice, yes. But you can begin a momentum of sorts. Then all the rest is timing, and there is a point where everyone will realize that they have better things to do than act to "balance the table". The way each player views this timing is a great part of the essence of such a game. > The problem here is just that: a good table CAN know how to gang up on > a player who plays very forward. It's too hard for a single player to > force play and be rewarded for being aggressive, unless the other players > are incompetant. Yes. But as James said all the decks have proven their worth by being in the finals. They are all dangerous. It's just they musn't act dangerously right away. Let's put it like this. You have a loaded gun. Close to you are two guys closing in to get your hide for some reason. One is coming in slowly but surely. The other one is coming running and screaming and looking hysterical. You know you have the time to shoot just one of them. Who will it be ? Probably the hysterical guy. Well, the other one is a black belt karateka, a calm and very dangerous fighter. It just doesn't show. This has apparently nothing to do with jyhad, but you may find the analogy interesting if you give it a thought. >>>>I might agree on a personnal level, but then why would a trend be more >>>>despicable than another ? Because it makes the game too static? >>> >>>Well, you started this whole huge thread for a reason, I assume. >> >>I didn't start this (not so) huge thread because of a general tendency >>in the game, or any "I hate intercept" reason. > > > I know that. But that is where it has to go if you really want to get > at the real problem behind what you're complaining about. Your opinion only. Allow me to disagree. > As for, "I hate intercept.", I think making intercept too useful has been > one of the factors in creating the incentive for competant players to play > stagnant games. But I'd agree, that's kind of more my pet theory. > (And the fact that I hate intercept. :-) ) LOL. >>Personnaly, I play very proactive, and it does bring me to a final or >>two. Of course, if you act dangerous and look dangerous, you probably >>will get ganged up by the whole table. Doing your bit without raising >>alarm is also a big part of the skill in this game, as you must know. > > > I don't know what you mean by "proactive" if you're not trying to get > an oust. And if you are, you MUST "act dangerous and look dangerous". > Otherwise, I wouldn't call it proactive. No. I must look efficient and make others look more dangerous than me. Dangerous-looking decks make me win. Dangerous decks, including mine, just do their job. This is why some stealth bleeders, or weenie, or whatever, make it to finals and some don't. >>>(It's also quite possible that I suck at what I'm trying to do and >>>I wouldn't dispute that. Still, I'd feel better if I saw OTHER, >>>BETTER players doing what I wanted to do successfully. I don't. >>>I tend to see the better players playing more reactively in most >>>cases.) >> >>I don't. Good players don't act reactively. They install, wait for their >>moment, and then move forward so fast you can't do a thing. > > > "Wait(ing) for their moment" <<============>> REACTIVE > > I don't know what YOUR definition of "reactive" is. Decks that pack a lots of reactions, and spend more time blocking other people than acting (or pooling). So they block whole tables, and some good players win that way ; others just lead the table to painful stalemates. > Now go back and think about the finals: everyone is *SO* "waiting for > their moment" that nobody's moment ever comes. THAT'S your problem! > >>>Bleh. No, thank you. I don't want to get sucked into a "strategy-by- >>>strategy" debate over how to beat intercept. You missed the point: >>>it's not "How does Fred beat intercept?" >> >>I don't care what Fred does. I just say that there are existing >>strategies still valid against intercept, > > Yes, but they don't prevent reactive play from having dominance, > which is my complaint. As I said : kick the ass of reactive play, and it will stop having dominance. To some people, or in some places, the "dominant" decks might be swarm, bleed, rush, whatever. YMMV. Cheers from the Tomb, Orpheus

"Orpheus" <orphe...@DEADfree.fr> wrote in message news:42446c96$0$11591$626a...@news.free.fr... >>>>I tend to see the better players playing more reactively in most >>>>cases.) >>> >>>I don't. Good players don't act reactively. They install, wait for their >>>moment, and then move forward so fast you can't do a thing. >> >> "Wait(ing) for their moment" <<============>> REACTIVE >> >> I don't know what YOUR definition of "reactive" is. > > Decks that pack a lots of reactions, and spend more time blocking other > people than acting (or pooling). So they block whole tables, and some > good players win that way ; others just lead the table to painful > stalemates. Well, here's a whole big part of the problem. You and I do not agree on "pro-active" vs. reactive. A Pro-active player is one who is pushing the action by himself. BY DEFINITION, he is *NOT* "waiting for his moment". Waiting is REACTIVE, not pro-active. Since you did not seem to understand this distinction, I think you're misinterpreting a lot of what I've said in the past. If you like people just building up their stuff and then kind of waiting around for someone to appear exposed, then you shouldn't have a problem with the current game. But this is what you're seeing in in your finals. Or as I said in the previous post: >> Now go back and think about the finals: everyone is *SO* "waiting for >> their moment" that nobody's moment ever comes. THAT'S your problem! Fred

Robert Goudie wrote: > So, in this case, there were at least 3 > correct assumptions made based on observation and player history that > had nothing to do with knowledge of decks or even knowledge gained > within that event. Sure--all very valid points. I guess where I am coming from is that, again, while I don't think there is any reasonable way to formalize letting folks what deck you are playing, I think it would make sense to formalize the idea that people are going to want to know what decks people are playing. And as they are going to try and find out anyway by watching games in progress and by comparing games during breaks, it would make sense to remove any sort of stigma from trying to find out what other people are playing. I mean, yeah, like, there isn't any rule stopping you from trying, but apparently, some folks still think that looking at games in progress and comparing games with your freinds during breaks somehow fall under the rubric of "scouting" and "collusion" somehow. [ quoted text not captured ]

LSJ wrote: > "David Cherryholmes" <david.che...@duke.edu> wrote in message news:3adhbdF...@individual.net... > > LSJ wrote: > > > > > You do have to play to win. In the finals, "winning" is determined > > > by number of VPs, with ties on VPs broken by rank going into the final > > > (unlike in the preliminary rounds, where ties remain unbroken and are > > > simply ties). > > > > It is consistent once you have decided to apply an arbitrary, different > > standard for the final game compared to the previous games. That is the > > inconsistency to which I was referring. > > But in fact, my disagreement is even more profound. There is no logical > > necessity for a tie breaking system. It is my opinion that game play > > would be enhanced if ties were left simply for what they were, games in > > which no one achieved a victory. > > You don't feel that ties should be broken. That's fine. > > But that would be an issue with the V:EKN tournament rules themselves, > not with the vagaries of "play to win". Casting it as the latter, > especially with the hyperbolic vitriol, clouds the issue, as we've > just discovered. > > There are benefits to having tie-breakers, though. You have a > winner, which is beneficial to things like continental championships > were unique (and indivisible) prizes like rings and artwork are > awarded. The final still has a very different dynamic to it because the top seed will win by virtue of not losing. Just get rid of time limits for finals and you will see everyone play to win. The seedings can be useful as tie-breakers only when Meths score the same number of VPs. Yes, that's how it is now, but an extended or non-existent time limit can counterbalance against the different table dynamic (play slow, don't lose, still win). Jeff

jeff...@pacbell.net wrote: > Just get rid of time limits Untenable. -- LSJ (vtesr...@TRAPwhite-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep (remove spam trap to reply) Links to V:TES news, rules, cards, utilities, and tournament calendar: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/

"LSJ" <vtesr...@TRAPwhite-wolf.com> wrote in message news:Xg01e.3868$z.1...@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net... > jeff...@pacbell.net wrote: >> Just get rid of time limits > > Untenable. NOBODY GOES TO THE BATHROOM UNTIL FOUR PLAYERS ARE OUSTED! ;-)

Frederick Scott a écrit : > "Orpheus" <orphe...@DEADfree.fr> wrote in message > news:42446c96$0$11591$626a...@news.free.fr... > >>>>>I tend to see the better players playing more reactively in most >>>>>cases.) >>>> >>>>I don't. Good players don't act reactively. They install, wait for their >>>>moment, and then move forward so fast you can't do a thing. >>> >>>"Wait(ing) for their moment" <<============>> REACTIVE >>> >>>I don't know what YOUR definition of "reactive" is. >> >>Decks that pack a lots of reactions, and spend more time blocking other >>people than acting (or pooling). So they block whole tables, and some >>good players win that way ; others just lead the table to painful >>stalemates. > > > Well, here's a whole big part of the problem. You and I do not agree > on "pro-active" vs. reactive. A Pro-active player is one who is pushing > the action by himself. BY DEFINITION, he is *NOT* "waiting for his > moment". Waiting is REACTIVE, not pro-active. And so do you not understant me. LOL I never said waiting was proactive !!! I make the distinction between : - reactive (blocking, playing intercept etc, what you're complaining about) - waiting (cas be made with mostly any deck, what I'm complaining about) - acting, being pro-active : what I usually do. Is my POV clearer to you now > Since you did not seem to understand this distinction, I think you're > misinterpreting a lot of what I've said in the past. > > If you like people just building up their stuff and then kind of > waiting around for someone to appear exposed, then you shouldn't have > a problem with the current game. But this is what you're seeing in > in your finals. Read above. > Or as I said in the previous post: > >>>Now go back and think about the finals: everyone is *SO* "waiting for >>>their moment" that nobody's moment ever comes. THAT'S your problem! Agreed. A timing problem. Either because people are too afraid of the others to move at the right moment, or because people are willing to keep their place rather than go down. Orpheus

LSJ a écrit : > jeff...@pacbell.net wrote: > >> Just get rid of time limits > > > Untenable. We used to do it, of sorts (or fix such a big Time Limit that it amounted to none at all). Mostly in 2-rounds tournies of course. Yes, it means not going home in early evening, but other than that the games were a lot better. Orpheus

"Orpheus" <orphe...@DEADfree.fr> wrote in message news:4244cd2d$0$2771$626a...@news.free.fr... >> Well, here's a whole big part of the problem. You and I do not agree >> on "pro-active" vs. reactive. A Pro-active player is one who is pushing >> the action by himself. BY DEFINITION, he is *NOT* "waiting for his >> moment". Waiting is REACTIVE, not pro-active. > > And so do you not understant me. LOL > > I never said waiting was proactive !!! You did indeed: "Good players don't act reactively. They install, wait for their moment,..." You inferred that what "good players (did)" was not reactive, hence must be proactive. But waiting was one of the things they did. > I make the distinction between : > > - reactive (blocking, playing intercept etc, what you're complaining about) > - waiting (cas be made with mostly any deck, what I'm complaining about) > - acting, being pro-active : what I usually do. Well, I don't. A triadic division like that is just silly. "Waiting" - in the absense of reacting - would be just playing dead, I guess. (Waiting and then - doing nothing.) It's no strategy for winning in any case. In any event, I'm not here to engage in semantic discussions about whether waiting is a sign of reactive play or not. To me, it plainly is and I am basing my comments squarely on that fact. Since I was merely responding to an issue you raised with some of my earlier comments, it's not your definition I care about. It's my own. If your only issue with those comments is based on a misunderstanding of what I meant, then I don't need to care. Fred

>>>Well, here's a whole big part of the problem. You and I do not agree >>>on "pro-active" vs. reactive. A Pro-active player is one who is pushing >>>the action by himself. BY DEFINITION, he is *NOT* "waiting for his >>>moment". Waiting is REACTIVE, not pro-active. >> >>And so do you not understant me. LOL >> >>I never said waiting was proactive !!! > > > You did indeed: > "Good players don't act reactively. They install, wait for their > moment,..." > > You inferred that what "good players (did)" was not reactive, hence > must be proactive. Not at all. Fred, let's be serious. Can't you just read the typed characters and not imagine any in between the lines ??? > But waiting was one of the things they did. This I did say, yes. It doesn't mean that waiting is proactive !!! >>I make the distinction between : >> >>- reactive (blocking, playing intercept etc, what you're complaining about) >>- waiting (cas be made with mostly any deck, what I'm complaining about) >>- acting, being pro-active : what I usually do. > > Well, I don't. A triadic division like that is just silly. "Silly" is exactly the word I was looking for to describe your attitude in this thread. Can't you just admit that not everyone in the world shares your opinions or definitions ? I disagree with you and yet admit your PoV, but please do not consider that just because you think something you are the righteous and everyone else is insane. That would be quite, well... insane ?! > "Waiting" - > in the absense of reacting - would be just playing dead, I guess. (Waiting > and then - doing nothing.) It's no strategy for winning in any case. Waiting may mean pooling, playing a minimum of reactions (as opposed to intercepting everything on the table) or just leaving your minions untapped to block. Did you ever play this game we're talking about ? > In any event, I'm not here to engage in semantic discussions about > whether waiting is a sign of reactive play or not. Well, that's what you've been doing for quite some time now. If you finally want to drop the semantics, it's fine with me, I've lost enough time here ; I'f rather build and play some decks. To me, it plainly is > and I am basing my comments squarely on that fact. Since I was merely > responding to an issue you raised with some of my earlier comments, it's > not your definition I care about. It's my own. If your only issue with > those comments is based on a misunderstanding of what I meant, then I > don't need to care. Great. That's how understanding will pass on better among the human race. Seriously, I just think you should drop some of your self-justified ideas, and maybe try to get into some finals or more serious games with serious players. I can tell you that playing with my betters certainly changed my vision of the game, although I still play very active games even when it means my doom. Deadly Yours, Orpheus

On 23 Mar 2005 09:29:24 -0800, pd...@lightlink.com wrote: >B) Allow free access to information. Let people watch games in progress >(assuming they aren't annoying anyone) to see what decks folks are >playing. Assume folks are going to share information with their >friends. When someone gets to the finals and says "Huh. That is the one >player whose deck I haven't seen--anyone wanna tell me what it does in >one scentence or less?", people can tell him without being accused of >collusion or something. On the up side, it puts everyone on a pretty >much even keel and doesn't take any extra effort. On the down side, it, >um, uhh, yeah, I got nothing. > >-Peter Downsides of allowing people to watch games or the like: punishes anyone trying to do anything tricky or having any sort of unpredictable cards in decks; rewards players who finish earlier; rewards players who have more friends at the tournament. Also, it's possible to gauge someone's play style better by watching the player play for a long period of time. But, as you say, preventing scouting is usually impractical.

On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 19:10:42 -0500, Peter D Bakija <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote: >Orpheus wrote: > >> B' : every player in the finals reveals his crypt (it leaves part for >> some surprises, but if you see some Eurobrujahs, lots of Beast, all >> !Malkies or big Lasombras with Pre you might have an idea what you're up >> against...) ; variant : the players reveal their crypt after they have >> chosen their table position. > >Meh. Doesn't necessarily provide any worthwhile information. And really, >most players have already seen most decks in action, which provides much >more information. Giving an advantage to someone trying to do something surprising seems like a good idea since, oh, I don't know, surprises in CCGs are kind of fun. Scouting eliminates the advantage of surprising deck construction. >I don't know what to do about insipid finals. But making all the prizes go >to 1st place certainly would help (like, say, give 1st place the bulk of the >prizes, and give 2-5th place identical token prizes, like a couple boosters >or something). I suspect that this would go a long way towards encouraging >people trying to actually win--if there was no measurable difference between >2nd and 5th place, then there would be no incentive to try and get 2nd >place. My preference is to give the bulk of the prizes to everyone - have something for game wins and for the overall winner but spread the wealth. Reasons: the players who do the worst tend to have the most use for prizes like boosters; feels less like gambling when you have to put money in for the prize support; winning is its own reward*. * Some people play for their rating, some people play to get in the TWDA (the latter making a lot more sense to me than the former, but whatever), some people play for being able to say they won a tournament even if it goes unnoticed in the TWDA. At least for the events I've played in, the physical prizes have paled in comparison to the intangible benefits of winning. Therefore, I see little that's gained from large relative rewards to a tournament victor. Even for bigger events with bigger prizes, being able to say "... - 2004 National Champion" seems a tad better than artwork, several boxes of cards, and a lot of other stuff.

cur...@aol.commetal wrote: > Downsides of allowing people to watch games or the like: punishes > anyone trying to do anything tricky or having any sort of > unpredictable cards in decks; Sure. But there is no way to prevent playing people a second time (so they'll already be wise to your deck) in subsequent rounds or the finals and no way to prevent folks from discussing your deck over lunch ("Man! Did you see Ian's deck! It was this fantastic trick deck that..."), and no practical way to prevent people from looking at tables when they are ousted. I mean, like, yeah, other people knowing what your deck does reduces the surprise of trickiness, but the only time you can *guarantee* your deck being a surprise is the first round, and after that, it is likely that people will know what your deck does. Especially if it is a cool surprise :-) > rewards players who finish earlier; And don't we want people to have more incentive to play more pro-actively? :-) > rewards players who have more friends at the tournament. True. But again, this is already the case--if I go to an event with 3 pals and we eat lunch together between the first and second round, we are all going to compare games and decks we saw. There is no reasonable way to prevent this already. > Also, it's > possible to gauge someone's play style better by watching the player > play for a long period of time. Oh, sure. But that isn't that likely to happen--it is reasonable to expect that any number of people will get to spy on a game in progress for about 5 minutes. You really only get a long period of time to watch by being in a game. > But, as you say, preventing scouting is usually impractical. Unless you have sequestering chambers, people are going to look at games in progress. And compare notes with friends over lunch. This already happens. It strikes me as just a better plan all together to simply embrace it, rather than try and prevent it. [ quoted text not captured ]

cur...@aol.commetal wrote: > Giving an advantage to someone trying to do something surprising seems > like a good idea since, oh, I don't know, surprises in CCGs are kind > of fun. Scouting eliminates the advantage of surprising deck > construction. Sure. But as I mentioned in the other post, there is no way to prevent folks from knowing what your deck does after the first round, even if you put a lot of effort into preventing scouting, which is wildly impractical. In the first round, 4 other people will see your deck in action. Likely, they will share what your deck does during the break, especially if it is cool and surprising, as folks like to share this sort of thing, mostly 'cause it is cool. And maybe a few people will see the deck in action by spying on the game. By the time second round starts, half the people in the tournament (assuimng an average size tournament) are reasonably likely to have an idea what it does. After the second round, the same thing happens. [ quoted text not captured ]

On 25 Mar 2005 14:18:05 -0800, <jeff...@pacbell.net> wrote: >> There are benefits to having tie-breakers, though. You have a >> winner, which is beneficial to things like continental championships >> were unique (and indivisible) prizes like rings and artwork are >> awarded. > > The final still has a very different dynamic to it because the top seed > will win by virtue of not losing. > > Just get rid of time limits for finals and you will see everyone play > to win. The seedings can be useful as tie-breakers only when Meths > score the same number of VPs. Yes, that's how it is now, but an > extended or non-existent time limit can counterbalance against the > different table dynamic (play slow, don't lose, still win). I agree. Some folks don't, though... Having no time limit means the finals can go on for eternity. That is rather impractical when renting a hall for the game event, or needing to catch a return flight (or the buddies who share the same car, etc.). There are perhaps even players who would try to use the fatigue of their adversaries, and basically turtle up and not do anything until someone just gives up. IMHO sportsmanship (in the undefined-by-tournament-rules sense) has long died out from the VTES community. I know players who are very sportsmanlike, but there are folks who just seem to care about winning and doing whatever it takes to win, as long as they can get away with it. Boring and disillusioning... -- Bye, Daneel

On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 12:21:18 -0700, Frederick Scott <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: > I really don't think so either. But, for what it's worth, I suppose it's > not a bad idea to flatten out the awards in the larger tournaments so > 2nd place doesn't get much more than 5th. For what it's worth, I agree > that only 1st place should stick out noticably above the others. While it could indeed encourage more proactive play in the finals, it would take away much of the incentive to attend larger events. Making top 5 is easier out of 20 people than 60 or 100. Winning the tournament is about 5× as hard. So while I agree that more proactive finals might be desirable, rewarding only the winner seems somewhat unfair on another level. Maybe giving serious thought to a hybrid reward system that was mentioned earlier would make sense (that is, rewarding GWs and 1st place or something). -- Bye, Daneel

On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 22:04:15 -0700, Frederick Scott <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: >> I make the distinction between : >> >> - reactive (blocking, playing intercept etc, what you're complaining >> about) >> - waiting (cas be made with mostly any deck, what I'm complaining about) >> - acting, being pro-active : what I usually do. > > Well, I don't. A triadic division like that is just silly. "Waiting" - > in the absense of reacting - would be just playing dead, I guess. > (Waiting > and then - doing nothing.) It's no strategy for winning in any case. While your statement is somewhat rectified, it does seem mostly true to me. However, Orpheus might be right on a different level (as far as the big picture is concerned). Let's define the terms. Say, as: "Proactive": doing your stuff mostly irrespective of the game environment. "Reactive": doing your stuff mostly depending on the game environment. In this sense proactive play is stronger from a strategic POV, whereas reactive play is stronger from a tactical POV. What tips the scales, IMHO, towards reactive play is that in a massively multiplayer game strategic deficiencies (or strengths) can be overcome through good tactical play. Focusing on the tactical aspect of the game works wonders in the preliminary rounds, where you can often win despite the odds by using the less experienced players. -- Bye, Daneel

"Daneel" <dan...@eposta.hu> wrote in message news:opsodbch...@news.chello.hu... > On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 22:04:15 -0700, Frederick Scott Let's define the terms. Say, as: "Proactive": doing your stuff mostly > irrespective of the game environment. "Reactive": doing your stuff > mostly depending on the game environment. In this sense proactive play > is stronger from a strategic POV, whereas reactive play is stronger > from a tactical POV. I think with this last sentence, you wind up also giving your definitions of what "strategy" and "tactics" in this game mean to you. But OK, it makes a certain kind of sense to say this. > What tips the scales, IMHO, towards reactive play is that in a > massively multiplayer game strategic deficiencies (or strengths) > can be overcome through good tactical play. I wouldn't agree with such a general statement, myself. I think, rather, in *THIS* multiplayer game, strategic deficiencies can be overcome through good tactical play. I don't think that's a necessary state of affairs in a multiplayer game, though. I think you also put your finger on the potential problem with allowing players to become proactive without remedy in some given metagame matchup: a game might "plays itself" out without reference to what the players actually do (assuming all are basically trying to win). Players usually profess not to like a game that doesn't give them the chance to play. And therein lies the crux of the matter: you want to give players the opportunity to make decisions and affect the game durng the actual game. But if you do, four competant players normally can and should be able to prevent one competant player from winning - and so they generally choose to. Thus, games with five competant players tend to stalemate an inordinate amount of the time. Fred

On Mon, 28 Mar 2005 18:46:19 -0700, Frederick Scott <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: > "Daneel" <dan...@eposta.hu> wrote in message > news:opsodbch...@news.chello.hu... >> On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 22:04:15 -0700, Frederick Scott Let's define the >> terms. Say, as: "Proactive": doing your stuff mostly >> irrespective of the game environment. "Reactive": doing your stuff >> mostly depending on the game environment. In this sense proactive play >> is stronger from a strategic POV, whereas reactive play is stronger >> from a tactical POV. > > I think with this last sentence, you wind up also giving your definitions > of what "strategy" and "tactics" in this game mean to you. But OK, it > makes a certain kind of sense to say this. Yeah, well, it's just the words. I do have loose definitions for strategy and tactics for VTES, but the point is, there is a difference between selecting the tools you wish to have available, and using those tools. I like "strategy" and "tactics", but the former primarily refers to deck design, and the latter basically refers to playing the game. >> What tips the scales, IMHO, towards reactive play is that in a >> massively multiplayer game strategic deficiencies (or strengths) >> can be overcome through good tactical play. > > I wouldn't agree with such a general statement, myself. I think, rather, > in *THIS* multiplayer game, strategic deficiencies can be overcome > through good tactical play. Right, let's not get into overgeneralizations, because they NEVER serve any puspose whatsoever and are ALWAYS pointless. ;) > I don't think that's a necessary state of affairs in a multiplayer > game, though. You're probably right in this, though. > I think you also put your finger on the potential problem with allowing > players to become proactive without remedy in some given metagame > matchup: a game might "plays itself" out without reference to what the > players actually do (assuming all are basically trying to win). Players > usually profess not to like a game that doesn't give them the chance to > play. Are you referring to a possibility that non-interactive strategies might take away from the fun of the game by turning the game into basically a Rock/Paper/Scissors game where player presence is almost unnecessary? > And therein lies the crux of the matter: you want to give players the > opportunity to make decisions and affect the game durng the actual > game. But if you do, four competant players normally can and should be > able to prevent one competant player from winning - and so they generally > choose to. Thus, games with five competant players tend to stalemate an > inordinate amount of the time. I would say that the game (especially in the preliminary rounds) rewards reactive play more than proactive play (I think that this is true since the GW rule got introduced). So in the finals you probably end up with players who play decks that allow them more tactical freedom. Meaning, basically, that in such a case your above paragraph kicks in, and the more reactive strategies result in a stalemate of sorts. -- Bye, Daneel

"Daneel" <dan...@eposta.hu> wrote: > On Mon, 28 Mar 2005 18:46:19 -0700, Frederick Scott wrote: >> I think you also put your finger on the potential problem with allowing >> players to become proactive without remedy in some given metagame >> matchup: a game might "plays itself" out without reference to what the >> players actually do (assuming all are basically trying to win). Players >> usually profess not to like a game that doesn't give them the chance to >> play. > > Are you referring to a possibility that non-interactive strategies might > take away from the fun of the game by turning the game into basically a > Rock/Paper/Scissors game where player presence is almost unnecessary? Something like that. In trying to think what would tend to discourage statemates in a tournament final, I'm just musing that it would have to come from the inability of other players to effectively react to what one player was doing proactively. The point being, if you go to the other extreme, then players aren't able to react to the overall game situation as they play so you've got, like, five games of solitaire going on at once. Someone will win and others will lose and the result (yes, indeed) would seem like Rock/Paper/Sissors. Still, it seems like some happy medium between the two could be arranged. A place where players would risk being marginalized if they didn't make _some_ effort at actually ousting their prey. > I would say that the game (especially in the preliminary rounds) rewards > reactive play more than proactive play (I think that this is true since > the GW rule got introduced). So in the finals you probably end up with > players who play decks that allow them more tactical freedom. Meaning, > basically, that in such a case your above paragraph kicks in, and the > more reactive strategies result in a stalemate of sorts. Right; agreed. Fred

On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 19:00:58 -0700, Frederick Scott <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: >> Are you referring to a possibility that non-interactive strategies might >> take away from the fun of the game by turning the game into basically a >> Rock/Paper/Scissors game where player presence is almost unnecessary? > > Something like that. In trying to think what would tend to discourage > statemates in a tournament final, I'm just musing that it would have to > come from the inability of other players to effectively react to what one > player was doing proactively. The point being, if you go to the other > extreme, then players aren't able to react to the overall game situation > as > they play so you've got, like, five games of solitaire going on at once. > Someone will win and others will lose and the result (yes, indeed) would > seem like Rock/Paper/Sissors. > > Still, it seems like some happy medium between the two could be arranged. > A place where players would risk being marginalized if they didn't > make _some_ effort at actually ousting their prey. Some random points that come into mind: 1. The ready availability of numerous counter cards, even general counter cards, pushes bold or highly conditional plays over the line of unfeasibility. Without general interference cards like Direct Intervention, Delaying Tactics and Eagle's Sight we'd possibly see more proactive decks. 2. Game Wins were invented to give players a better chance by making ultra- aggressive, one-sure-VP decks impractical. I'm not sure that after a healthy dose of cards like Aranthebes, Retribution and Nightmares upon Nightmares we still need the GW rule. Because it basically forces people to think tables instead of preys, which shifts the game towards a more reactive play. 3. Perhaps VPs could be scaled. I am thinking along the lines of, say, making the first oust worth an additional VP or something. -- Bye, Daneel

On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 11:33:38 GMT, Daneel <dan...@eposta.hu> scrawled: >3. Perhaps VPs could be scaled. I am thinking along the lines of, say, >making > the first oust worth an additional VP or something. this is very interesting. i quite like the idea, at least as something to think about, and maybe trial. if the first 'oust' was worth an additional vp, then you'd need rules for wherre multiple meths were ousted simultaneously (split the additional vp among all the preds, i guess, or perhaps only allocate it for a 'clean' first oust, where only one meth is ousted) and no-oust time outs (again spread the vp....or maybe not allocate it at all? we already have disparity in possible vps in 4 or 5 player tables..). hmmm.... possibly make combat decks again a nudge up the power curve (the oft-mentioned ploy of kill your first prey, try not to let anyone else get more than one vp, and then work backwards round the table becomes even more valuable...although i guess that depends on the speed at which you can get your first oust compared to other players...). although, this could just make games MORE stagnant as people try even harder to cross-table 'balance' things and prevent anyone else getting an oust... salem http://www.users.tpg.com.au/adsltqna/VtES/index.htm (replace "hotmail" with "yahoo" to email)

In message <opsof7kk...@news.chello.hu>, Daneel <dan...@eposta.hu> writes: >1. The ready availability of numerous counter cards, even general counter > cards, pushes bold or highly conditional plays over the line of > unfeasibility. Without general interference cards like Direct >Intervention, > Delaying Tactics and Eagle's Sight we'd possibly see more proactive decks. Depends a lot on the player. Not everyone thinks "Oh my god, I might get cancelled" and shifts into a reactive play. Indeed, this is one of the reasons that some players go focused on specific strategies in the extreme - to screw up the (now useless) defence that their prey has (e.g. Delaying Tactics vs a combat deck) and to make sure they always have the right cards in hand. So, even if you D.I. my rush, I have another one. If you D.I. my Grapple, I have another one. And so on. >2. Game Wins were invented to give players a better chance by making ultra- >aggressive, one-sure-VP decks impractical. Not really. When the GW was invented, there were two problematic situations: - two combat decks agreeing to table-split rather than mutual annihilation (particularly if sat next to each other). Here, two VPs (for the loser) was very close to three VPs (for the winner), and better than both getting zero. These days, 2 is better than 0, but 3 and a GW is significantly better. - intercept decks, but much less so than the combat deck situation. Sit down, wait, wait, wait, wait, oust final prey and get 1 VP for last man standing. Gets 2 VP. But never gets any more. But the player perceives 2 VP as being a good base to work on, rather than looking at the deck more significantly. These days, they know they have to get three which often makes them more aggressive (and thus in general better for a relatively speedy game). One-sure-VP decks were always impractical, pretty much, since across three rounds, you'd get 3 VP and lots of other players would be amassing 6-8 VPs (two to three each round). Of course, some people would still view it as "Cool, a VP!" but that's not quite the same thing - the rules were pretty clear that such wouldn't be rewarded in a tournament. >I'm not sure that after a healthy > dose of cards like Aranthebes, Retribution and Nightmares upon Nightmares > we still need the GW rule. Because it basically forces people to think > tables instead of preys, which shifts the game towards a more reactive >play. In that they need to get at least two, and preferably three, VP, yes. But they needed at least two per table before really. Now, of course, pre-GW, a 5VP sweep and a 1VP grab were as good as two 3VPs (which would be GWs, in the current system). In the new system, not so. What this does encourage is consistency. I would say that the decks people choose to play now seem to be slightly less willing to take the risk of "What if I get completely creamed on one table?" And so they provide themselves with more options. Whereas previously, since on the two tables they did sweep they'd make up for the one table they got creamed, they'd be happier to take that risk. Is that a bad thing? Well, it does prevent (in part) Jyhad turning into rock/paper/scissors. I bring my rock weenie vote deck, you bring your paper weenie rush deck and accidentally flatten me. Of course, these decks can still happen and do still happen, but possibly less so? Here, however, I'm not sure if this is a good thing, a bad thing, or just a thing. I think there's a lot to be said for encouraging decks which can do well repeatedly, rather than decks which are spectacular victors or spectacular flops. >3. Perhaps VPs could be scaled. I am thinking along the lines of, say, >making > the first oust worth an additional VP or something. This has a number of potential downsides. First of all, this encourages speed. This is not, in and of itself, a bad thing. However, the sort of speedy oust that is most easily and most reliably found is the weenie deck - and the game has steadily shifted away from gifting the weenie decks that power, for a variety of reasons. I'm not sure we want to give that power back to the weenie decks. Secondly, the "guaranteed 1VP decks" you mention above can fall into this category. Get 1VP *which is now 2VP* then wall up. 2VP is the sort of number at which players start thinking "Wow, I have a good base for a deck here!" even when it's pants - see the intercept/wall decks of old which *only* get 2VP for ousting the final other player. Thirdly, I'm not sure that a deck which takes a little time to start (e.g. to pass a few votes, play a few actions etc.) but which is then extremely aggressive should have this sort of downside to it. Typical examples might include an aggressive, forward moving intercept/combat deck - which takes a little while to get out a decent vampire, an intercept location/equipment or two, maybe Smiling Jack, maybe Talons of the Dead on Omaya or somesuch sort of setup - which just needs a little effort before it can move forward, but then can. Or similarly, a deck which needs to pass a few votes (title granters, Rumors, etc.) before it moves forward. These decks aren't part of the problem, and I'm not sure that action which discourages them in favour of moving towards "speed oust OR defend against speed oust" (which an early grab VP rule does) is sensible, as a result. -- James Coupe "Why do so many talented people turn out to be sexual PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D deviants? Why can't they just be normal like me and EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 look at internet pictures of men's cocks all day?" 13D7E668C3695D623D5D -- www.livejournal.com/users/scarletdemon/

On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 09:19:27 +0100, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> scrawled: >another one. If you D.I. my Grapple, I have another one. And so on. ...to play next round... [ quoted text not captured ]

On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 09:19:27 +0100, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: > In message <opsof7kk...@news.chello.hu>, Daneel <dan...@eposta.hu> > writes: >> 1. The ready availability of numerous counter cards, even general >> counter >> cards, pushes bold or highly conditional plays over the line of >> unfeasibility. Without general interference cards like Direct >> Intervention, >> Delaying Tactics and Eagle's Sight we'd possibly see more proactive >> decks. > > Depends a lot on the player. Not everyone thinks "Oh my god, I might > get cancelled" and shifts into a reactive play. Yeah, but players may think "Oh my god, I have 6 DIs and 6 DTs in my deck, I might cancel what I want" and shift into reactive play. > Indeed, this is one of > the reasons that some players go focused on specific strategies in the > extreme - to screw up the (now useless) defence that their prey has > (e.g. Delaying Tactics vs a combat deck) and to make sure they always > have the right cards in hand. So, even if you D.I. my rush, I have > another one. If you D.I. my Grapple, I have another one. And so on. Well, having another Grapple might not be too significant if we are talking about Immortal Grapples. DIing the one means you are free to S:CE. Sometimes that's all you need. Granted, if you can readily enter combat, you won't mind it that much. >> 2. Game Wins were invented to give players a better chance by making >> ultra- >> aggressive, one-sure-VP decks impractical. > > Not really. > > When the GW was invented, there were two problematic situations: > > - two combat decks agreeing to table-split rather than mutual > annihilation (particularly if sat next to each other). Here, > two VPs (for the loser) was very close to three VPs (for the > winner), and better than both getting zero. These days, 2 is > better than 0, but 3 and a GW is significantly better. This is completely unaddressed by the GW rule. The two combat decks still have it in their best interests to split the table. Yes, 3 VP and a GW is more than 2 VP and no GW, but both are more than 0 VP and 0 GW. > - intercept decks, but much less so than the combat deck situation. Sit > down, wait, wait, wait, wait, oust final prey and get 1 VP for > last man standing. Gets 2 VP. But never gets any more. But > the player perceives 2 VP as being a good base to work on, > rather than looking at the deck more significantly. These days, > they know they have to get three which often makes them more > aggressive (and thus in general better for a relatively speedy > game). ??? Dunno where are you from, but I never really saw the prevalence of intercept decks before the GW rule. The fact that getting 3 VPs reliably is enough to get the GW is creating a niche for those decks that can get 3 VPs reliably but have no significant chance to score more. > One-sure-VP decks were always impractical, pretty much, since across > three rounds, you'd get 3 VP and lots of other players would be amassing > 6-8 VPs (two to three each round). Of course, some people would still > view it as "Cool, a VP!" but that's not quite the same thing - the rules > were pretty clear that such wouldn't be rewarded in a tournament. One-sure-VP decks are those that are so aggressive that they are almost certainly guaranteed at least 1 VP each round, but have drastically diminishing hopes to achieve significantly more. One-sure-VP decks probably get about 2 VPs on the average each table. That is 6 VPs and 0 GWs on the average. Such decks often sacrafice mid-game staying power and end-game tactical resources for the sake of maximising early ousting power. Meaning, an average deck will be powerless against them when seated as their prey. By discouraging these highly aggressive decks, more interaction is supported as players are encouraged to make a shot at 3 VPs in any game. >> I'm not sure that after a healthy >> dose of cards like Aranthebes, Retribution and Nightmares upon >> Nightmares >> we still need the GW rule. Because it basically forces people to think >> tables instead of preys, which shifts the game towards a more reactive >> play. > > In that they need to get at least two, and preferably three, VP, yes. > But they needed at least two per table before really. Now, of course, Which is easier to do with a super aggressive deck. > pre-GW, a 5VP sweep and a 1VP grab were as good as two 3VPs (which would > be GWs, in the current system). In the new system, not so. Yeah, that's obvious. > What this does encourage is consistency. In a card game where cards are randomly drawn, and seating is determined randomly. I'm not sure. > I would say that the decks people choose to play now seem to be slightly > less willing to take the risk of "What if I get completely creamed on > one table?" And so they provide themselves with more options. Whereas > previously, since on the two tables they did sweep they'd make up for > the one table they got creamed, they'd be happier to take that risk. If you sweep two tables you are likely standing at 2/10, which is pretty much enough for even the largest tournament finals. > Is that a bad thing? Well, it does prevent (in part) Jyhad turning into > rock/paper/scissors. I bring my rock weenie vote deck, you bring your > paper weenie rush deck and accidentally flatten me. Of course, these > decks can still happen and do still happen, but possibly less so? Well, there is a significant Rock/Paper/Scissors aspect to the game no matter what you do. But yes, I agree that the game win rule discourages super-aggressive, one-sure-VP decks. > Here, however, I'm not sure if this is a good thing, a bad thing, or > just a thing. I think there's a lot to be said for encouraging decks > which can do well repeatedly, rather than decks which are spectacular > victors or spectacular flops. Yeah, but this is still just a card game. You can jam, you can get the paper to your rock as your predator (or prey, or both), or you can be busted by any other unfortunate event. Play skill is important, but so is chance. Consistency, in that aspect, could be nothing more than just repetitious good fortune. >> 3. Perhaps VPs could be scaled. I am thinking along the lines of, say, >> making >> the first oust worth an additional VP or something. > > This has a number of potential downsides. Yeah, I know. I don't think this is the way to go; only that I think there may be a desire in some people to find a way to go. For pondering, this is as good as any other idea. > First of all, this encourages speed. This is not, in and of itself, a > bad thing. However, the sort of speedy oust that is most easily and > most reliably found is the weenie deck - and the game has steadily > shifted away from gifting the weenie decks that power, for a variety of > reasons. I'm not sure we want to give that power back to the weenie > decks. Yeah, that's probably true. > Secondly, the "guaranteed 1VP decks" you mention above can fall into > this category. Get 1VP *which is now 2VP* then wall up. 2VP is the > sort of number at which players start thinking "Wow, I have a good base > for a deck here!" even when it's pants - see the intercept/wall decks of > old which *only* get 2VP for ousting the final other player. Okay, I'm not sure where you are getting at here. Unless this is just a restatement of your first point. Because if a deck can (under the current system) score the first VP and than be the last man standing, he or she already has the GW. > Thirdly, I'm not sure that a deck which takes a little time to start > (e.g. to pass a few votes, play a few actions etc.) but which is then > extremely aggressive should have this sort of downside to it. Typical > examples might include an aggressive, forward moving intercept/combat > deck - which takes a little while to get out a decent vampire, an > intercept location/equipment or two, maybe Smiling Jack, maybe Talons of > the Dead on Omaya or somesuch sort of setup - which just needs a little > effort before it can move forward, but then can. Or similarly, a deck > which needs to pass a few votes (title granters, Rumors, etc.) before it > moves forward. I don't really see the point. Almost every deck intends to apply forward pressure. This sounds like just another restatement of your point #1. Giving more power to weenies takes away from every other deck type, even those that should be strengthened, not weakened. > These decks aren't part of the problem, and I'm not sure that action > which discourages them in favour of moving towards "speed oust OR defend > against speed oust" (which an early grab VP rule does) is sensible, as a > result. But the other problem is that we are having a time limit. I see tables timing out as a big problem. I see the prevalence of reactive play as a poor alternative to the perceived mindlessness of weenie computer hacking (or somesuch). The balance should, IMHO, be found and encouraged, with neither super-aggressive, nor highly reactive plays being rewarded too much. I'm somewhat beginning to doubt the necesity of the Game Win rule. -- Bye, Daneel

Frederick Scott wrote: > "Damnans" <damna...@ono.comNOSPAM> wrote in message > news:kmT0e.27804$US.1...@news.ono.com... > >>>Thus I don't think the static-n-boring finals problem has to do with bad play. It makes a lot more sense to me to conclude that >>>it has to >>>do with too much _good_ play in a single game! >> >>Wasting time in a final is bad play. > > I'm not sure how you define "wasting time", but if many, MANY good > players do it, it's highly unlikely to be "bad play". For me, "wasting time" means taking more time than usual to do your turn (not counting the fact that, in a final, players tend to take longer to think about their moves), either by talking too much about irrelevant things, or by reiterating their points ad nauseam in endless discussions (once they are clear to everyone else), or by taking a century to think of a futile or insignificant move, or by checking your hand over and over again to see of you can find a given card it is not actually there, etc. > Again, maybe it's just me, but I tend to go by the theory that > smart players don't suddenly turn dumb because they're put in a > particular situation. Define "smart players", please ;-) >>How many finalists have ever thought that they could have won the >>tournament if the final round had lasted for several more minutes? > > But they were probably wrong. Had the clocks been so construed from > the start, the series of events that led them to feel that way would > have just taken place...several minutes laters. In almost all of > these cases, I'm pretty sure things time themselves from the end of > the game all the players know is coming up - NOT from the beginning > of the game. You are right about that, but that was not what I was talking about. I was referring to finals where time is wasted. >>What happens is that some finalists act too conservatively (and I am >>not just referring to the top seeded ones, who obviously tend to be >>conservative), and therefore afraid of making the first aggressive >>move, because they do not want to draw too much attention. > > I know - but that's my whole point. If you watch them play, you'll > notice that it was how the got to the finals in the first place. > Why does it suddenly become bad play IN the finals? Players do not take that long to think about their moves in the preliminary rounds as they do in the final (which is understandable), but wasting time is bad play anyway, as long as it is not considered by a judge as stalling. And, in my experience, some "smart players" waste time during final rounds. -- Damnans http://www.almadrava.net/damnans http://www.vtes.net http://es.groups.yahoo.com/group/vteshispania/

"Damnans" <damna...@ono.comNOSPAM> wrote in message news:RXT2e.28496$US....@news.ono.com... > Define "smart players", please ;-) Well, playing in a finals is a pretty good clue. >>>How many finalists have ever thought that they could have won the >>>tournament if the final round had lasted for several more minutes? >> >> But they were probably wrong. Had the clocks been so construed from >> the start, the series of events that led them to feel that way would >> have just taken place...several minutes laters. In almost all of >> these cases, I'm pretty sure things time themselves from the end of >> the game all the players know is coming up - NOT from the beginning >> of the game. > > You are right about that, but that was not what I was talking about. > > I was referring to finals where time is wasted. I guess I don't perceive that "wasting time" is usually the issue with finals timing out. I guess at this point, I'd write our differences down to that. Fred

Daneel wrote: > On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 09:19:27 +0100, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> > wrote: > > > When the GW was invented, there were two problematic situations: > > > > - two combat decks agreeing to table-split rather than mutual > > annihilation (particularly if sat next to each other). Here, > > two VPs (for the loser) was very close to three VPs (for the > > winner), and better than both getting zero. These days, 2 is > > better than 0, but 3 and a GW is significantly better. > > This is completely unaddressed by the GW rule. The two combat decks still > have it in their best interests to split the table. Yes, 3 VP and a GW > is more than 2 VP and no GW, but both are more than 0 VP and 0 GW. It wasn't specifically combat decks that necessitated the change. It was that it was almost always in everyone's best interest to split the table. Tables were being split 3/2 or 2/3 too quickly after the rounds began. As James noted, the "losing side" of that split still get's 2 VPs. Many players would reach the finals on the strength of sitting down and accepting 3 deals at 2 VPs each. Essentially we were rewarding 2 VP losses almost as much as we were rewarding wins and the choice of finalists based on VPs gave incentive for players to choose to lose. > I'm somewhat beginning to doubt the necesity of the Game Win rule. Daneel, were you involved in tournaments pre-GW? Just curious. I don't imagine very many tournament players from that era would agree with you. -Robert

[ quoted text not captured ] I think there is significant "wasting time" in many finals. It's also not so cut-and-dried to assert there are 4 people against the top seed. The second seed has nearly as much incentive to protect their position against the third, fourth and fifth seeded players too. Likewise 3 over 4 & 5, and 4 over 5 with diminishing returns. Finalists are also much more subtle about how they waste time. They are generally better players to get there, and they know how the time game is played. Games are 120 minutes. Suppose the average turn takes 2 minutes, 10 minutes around the table. That gives you roughly 12 complete turns of the table. Now suppose the two top seeds draw out their turns, averaging 3 minutes per turn compared to the others. This is reasonable considering careful deliberations, extra table talk, meaningless deal-making, referendum discussions, etc. You're now up to 12 minutes per rotation and down to 10 turns of the table. Granted, this isn't perfect considering ousts, etc, but one or two players can have a significant impact on the game in slow, yet "legitimate" ways and not appear to be stalling. Jeff

In message <opsoh9k7...@news.chello.hu>, Daneel <dan...@eposta.hu> writes: >On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 09:19:27 +0100, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> >wrote: >> Depends a lot on the player. Not everyone thinks "Oh my god, I might >> get cancelled" and shifts into a reactive play. > >Yeah, but players may think "Oh my god, I have 6 DIs and 6 DTs in my > deck, I might cancel what I want" and shift into reactive play. That a player has 6 DIs and 6 DTs (or whatever similar cards - Sudden Reversals are an obvious other one) doesn't make the deck reactive, any more than including Wakes and Bleed Bounce makes the deck "reactive". Including flexible defence is good play, in many, many decks. (Insert standard "Obviously, some decks..." to taste.) That doesn't make the deck reactive - it's just acknowledging that many decks need some staying power against an aggressive predator, a wily prey or whatever. If throwing down D.I. stops my prey playing a Govern the Unaligned to gain pool, that's surely not "reactive" in any meaningful sense. It's simply stopping him undoing the work I've done. If throwing down Delaying Tactics stops my predator Banishing my copy of Tariq, that's good sense and a sensible precaution, surely? My deck is still doing its thing, it's just standing up to problems. Similarly, throwing a Sudden Reversal to stop a Minion Tap - good sense. And so on, and so on, and so on. There are lots of flexible defensive cards that many highly active decks can and do pack. >> When the GW was invented, there were two problematic situations: >> >> - two combat decks agreeing to table-split rather than mutual >> annihilation (particularly if sat next to each other). Here, >> two VPs (for the loser) was very close to three VPs (for the >> winner), and better than both getting zero. These days, 2 is >> better than 0, but 3 and a GW is significantly better. > >This is completely unaddressed by the GW rule. The two combat decks still > have it in their best interests to split the table. Yes, 3 VP and a GW > is more than 2 VP and no GW, but both are more than 0 VP and 0 GW. Not true. Certainly not true if the rapid decline of cries of despair about this happening is anything to go by. Yes, 2VP is better than 0VP. Yes, there is still some incentive to do this. What you are missing is that in a 3VP vs 2VP situation, the difference is marginal. 1VP. Yes, that could be the difference between a final place and no final place. However, it's not a *huge* difference. You could be getting up to 15 VP, so 1 isn't a big difference. This means that either deck is likely to take the deal, and roll over if it decides to go through with the deal. And either deck can stop and think "Oh, go on then, it's only 1 VP difference." When there are only three GW to be had (for you), the loss of one is huge. Many players of such decks are *much* less inclined to take this deal, because they need the GW, not the VP. >Dunno where are you from, but I never really saw the prevalence of >intercept > decks before the GW rule. The fact that getting 3 VPs reliably is >enough to > get the GW is creating a niche for those decks that can get 3 VPs reliably > but have no significant chance to score more. I wasn't talking about the "prevalence of intercept decks". I was talking about the deck style, and the problem it had, and how the GW rule was perceived as addressing this. However, it would be worth bearing in my that "Dunno where you are from" is rarely a useful comment when bearing in mind that different groups do different things at different times for different reasons. Lots of people never saw RtoI being abused, but that was addressed in 7/7, for instance. >> One-sure-VP decks were always impractical, pretty much, since across >> three rounds, you'd get 3 VP and lots of other players would be amassing >> 6-8 VPs (two to three each round). Of course, some people would still >> view it as "Cool, a VP!" but that's not quite the same thing - the rules >> were pretty clear that such wouldn't be rewarded in a tournament. > >One-sure-VP decks are those that are so aggressive that they are almost > certainly guaranteed at least 1 VP each round, but have drastically > diminishing hopes to achieve significantly more. One-sure-VP decks > probably get about 2 VPs on the average each table. That is 6 VPs and > 0 GWs on the average. If it's 2VP, that doesn't strike me as "drastically diminishing". >> In that they need to get at least two, and preferably three, VP, yes. >> But they needed at least two per table before really. Now, of course, > >Which is easier to do with a super aggressive deck. In part. In any reasonably sized tournament, "at least" 2VP isn't true, but not that helpful - you needed to go for three, four or sweeps, though (say) 2, 4, 5 could easily be a good result. In smaller tournaments, of course, those 2VP were 2VP out of 8 or 10 available that round, so it could work out better. If you could go beyond 2VP to get the 3s, 4s and 5s you really needed, then the same deck could do just as well now, since the 2s it got could (at least in theory) be a GW - though you wouldn't rely on it - and the 3s, 4s and 5s it got would clearly be a GW. >> What this does encourage is consistency. > >In a card game where cards are randomly drawn, and seating is determined > randomly. I'm not sure. That's why some people spend so much time dealing with probabilities, or pseudo-probability: - the White Wolf forums have a thread on possible maths for "Master Jam" right now - "Happy Families" is a whole theory of deck building based around having the probabilities of cards in a reasonable ratio, so that you don't have three Potence-endowed vampires and a clutch of unusable cards - a LOT of arguments have been had over exactly how to "guarantee" a vampire without screwing your deck. In the right decks, I've seen people head for three, four or five of the same vampire to get the right balance of crypt vampires. This isn't just about (say) multi-rush - though that's certainly a powerful deck type that benefits from this - but also, say, heavy master decks needing copies of Anson, back in the day. - a number of the arguments in favour of short-chain combat revolve around requiring far fewer cards in hand at once, or just out of hand. If you only need two cards at once (and have some choice there), that's a lot more reliable than 5 cards out of 8 or 9. - ditto, search for threads with Derek Ray doing the maths for High Ground and Collapse the Arches. Lots of people put a LOT of effort into fighting probability. Yes, your deck can still come out in alphabetical order. That doesn't mean people make it easy. >> I would say that the decks people choose to play now seem to be slightly >> less willing to take the risk of "What if I get completely creamed on >> one table?" And so they provide themselves with more options. Whereas >> previously, since on the two tables they did sweep they'd make up for >> the one table they got creamed, they'd be happier to take that risk. > >If you sweep two tables you are likely standing at 2/10, which is pretty > much enough for even the largest tournament finals. Hmmm? That can depend a lot. In a fairly large tournament, you can find quite a few people with 3 VPs, and if you didn't get any VPs when you exploded, you can find yourself edged out by someone with a deck that got (say) 2 GW with a score of 4, 4, 2 since they'll have better tournament points due to coming at least second on the 2 VP table (possibly joint first). And if you stop to wonder just how big the tournament is, if you are going for 10 players, you may well see that counter again, and suddenly find yourself in a very different situation. In situations like that, decks that either do very well or very badly start looking less attractive. >> Is that a bad thing? Well, it does prevent (in part) Jyhad turning into >> rock/paper/scissors. I bring my rock weenie vote deck, you bring your >> paper weenie rush deck and accidentally flatten me. Of course, these >> decks can still happen and do still happen, but possibly less so? > >Well, there is a significant Rock/Paper/Scissors aspect to the game no > matter what you do. But yes, I agree that the game win rule discourages > super-aggressive, one-sure-VP decks. The R/P/S can be mitigated an awful, awful lot, whilst still being an active deck. Giving yourself the right tools for survival can make a huge amount of difference. Making the right deals can make a huge amount of difference. Having a deck which *survives* these days, and is aggressive when it can be, can be quite useful these days. Witness the rise of combat that many people are experiencing. Winning then is not about being "reactive", just about survival - and then having your Fames, or Computer Hackings, or whatever in the gaps. >> Here, however, I'm not sure if this is a good thing, a bad thing, or >> just a thing. I think there's a lot to be said for encouraging decks >> which can do well repeatedly, rather than decks which are spectacular >> victors or spectacular flops. > >Yeah, but this is still just a card game. You can jam, you can get the > paper to your rock as your predator (or prey, or both), or you can be > busted by any other unfortunate event. Play skill is important, but so > is chance. Consistency, in that aspect, could be nothing more than just > repetitious good fortune. First of all, this is the same whether you have GW or no GW. It's a non-issue as far as that's concerned. And, yes, there's chance. But people build decks which mitigate that in all manner of ways. If I am 10% more likely to get a "good" crypt than you, that's good for me. Sure, probability says that you might get it all three rounds and I might not. But people play the odds as they see fit. Additionally, there are some decks which are particularly fragile and require good hand cycling and "good luck" a lot more than other decks - that is simple probability. However, when they work, they can work well. When they fail, they can fail extremely badly. Yer pays yer money, yer takes yer choice. >> Secondly, the "guaranteed 1VP decks" you mention above can fall into >> this category. Get 1VP *which is now 2VP* then wall up. 2VP is the >> sort of number at which players start thinking "Wow, I have a good base >> for a deck here!" even when it's pants - see the intercept/wall decks of >> old which *only* get 2VP for ousting the final other player. > >Okay, I'm not sure where you are getting at here. Unless this is just a > restatement of your first point. Because if a deck can (under the > current system) score the first VP and than be the last man standing, he > or she already has the GW. It was explained further up the post. The bit you went "????" at. Lots of decks and players see 2VP as a good result - even when it means they don't get any further VP. Providing incentives for speed decks which lack longevity (because that sort of thing jams their hand on the speed oust!) repeats that problem. >> Thirdly, I'm not sure that a deck which takes a little time to start >> (e.g. to pass a few votes, play a few actions etc.) but which is then >> extremely aggressive should have this sort of downside to it. Typical >> examples might include an aggressive, forward moving intercept/combat >> deck - which takes a little while to get out a decent vampire, an >> intercept location/equipment or two, maybe Smiling Jack, maybe Talons of >> the Dead on Omaya or somesuch sort of setup - which just needs a little >> effort before it can move forward, but then can. Or similarly, a deck >> which needs to pass a few votes (title granters, Rumors, etc.) before it >> moves forward. > >I don't really see the point. Almost every deck intends to apply forward > pressure. This sounds like just another restatement of your point #1. > Giving more power to weenies takes away from every other deck type, even > those that should be strengthened, not weakened. I'm talking about providing disincentives to many potentially useful deck-styles which are not the problem. Perhaps exploring the full implications for many deck-styles is "restatement of the point" - that the original proposition is flawed. For me, however, it's providing an informed basis for an opinion and a number of inter-related points which would need to be addressed. >> These decks aren't part of the problem, and I'm not sure that action >> which discourages them in favour of moving towards "speed oust OR defend >> against speed oust" (which an early grab VP rule does) is sensible, as a >> result. > >But the other problem is that we are having a time limit. You don't need to have one - certainly not in the finals. Of course, these can be limited by practical considerations, but if you don't want a time limit, don't have one. The finals can have a different time limit, and setting it at (for all practical purposes) untimed is quite possible. This is only a problem as much as "people playing for the second place prizes" is a problem - it's one that doesn't need any changes to the rules or the game. As can be seen from the newsgroup, many people have creative options around this - having the final in a different place and/or different time, for instance, with secret decklists. >I see tables > timing out as a big problem. I see the prevalence of reactive play as a > poor alternative to the perceived mindlessness of weenie computer hacking > (or somesuch). The balance should, IMHO, be found and encouraged, with > neither super-aggressive, nor highly reactive plays being rewarded too >much. Highly reactive plays are hardly rewarded too much as it is. Unless a deck can repeatedly apply forward pressure, it can't win - the GW rule tells it that. Half a VP won't let it win. However, if by highly reactive play you mean things like 6 DIs and 6 DT, that's hardly an issue. A deck being aware of its flaws and providing flexible defence to suit those flaws is something that absolutely should be in the game, or you end up with multi-player solitaire, just waiting until the first person does it right. [ quoted text not captured ]

"James Coupe" <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote in message news:mIzzCdteAFTCFw$z...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk... > Including flexible defence is good play, in many, many decks. (Insert > standard "Obviously, some decks..." to taste.) That doesn't make the > deck reactive - it's just acknowledging that many decks need some > staying power against an aggressive predator, a wily prey or whatever. Er, including a flexible defense makes the deck reactive. Unless you planned not to use it??? (Sorry, I just can't imagine how you're reasoning that a flexible defense is not reactive in nature.) It may indeed ALSO acknowledge those other things and be a good, intelligent thing to do given the state of the game and all. In fact, it's the juxtaposition of those two points that I suspect causes long, time-outy finals frequently. > Highly reactive plays are hardly rewarded too much as it is. Unless a > deck can repeatedly apply forward pressure, it can't win - the GW rule > tells it that. Half a VP won't let it win. No, but the problem at the moment is that finals players frequently seem unwilling to apply a lot of forward pressure for fear of leaving their predators an opening to oust them. 1/2 VP in the finals won't move you up the ladder any but you don't lose ground, either. In too many finals, all five of the players seem to be waiting for one of their opponents to push play and don't feel comfortable doing it themselves. Under these circumstances, I have to disagree with you: highly reactive play _is_ rewarded too highly - as opposed to proactive play. Fred

<jeff...@pacbell.net> wrote in message news:1112297273....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com... > Frederick Scott wrote: >> "Damnans" <damna...@ono.comNOSPAM> wrote in message >> news:RXT2e.28496$US....@news.ono.com... >> > Define "smart players", please ;-) >> >> Well, playing in a finals is a pretty good clue. >> >> >>>How many finalists have ever thought that they could have won the >> >>>tournament if the final round had lasted for several more minutes? >> >> >> >> But they were probably wrong. Had the clocks been so construed >> >> from the start, the series of events that led them to feel that way >> >> would have just taken place...several minutes laters. In almost all >> >> of these cases, I'm pretty sure things time themselves from the end >> >> of the game all the players know is coming up - NOT from the >> >> beginning of the game. >> > >> > You are right about that, but that was not what I was talking >> > about. >> > >> > I was referring to finals where time is wasted. >> >> I guess I don't perceive that "wasting time" is usually the issue >> with finals timing out. I guess at this point, I'd write our differences >> down to that. > > I think there is significant "wasting time" in many finals. ... > Finalists are also much more subtle about how they waste time. They are > generally better players to get there, and they know how the time game > is played. Games are 120 minutes. Suppose the average turn takes 2 > minutes, 10 minutes around the table. That gives you roughly 12 > complete turns of the table. Now suppose the two top seeds draw out > their turns, averaging 3 minutes per turn compared to the others. This > is reasonable considering careful deliberations, extra table talk, > meaningless deal-making, referendum discussions, etc. You're now up to > 12 minutes per rotation and down to 10 turns of the table. Granted, > this isn't perfect considering ousts, etc, but one or two players can > have a significant impact on the game in slow, yet "legitimate" ways > and not appear to be stalling. OK, I've seen that stuff, too. In this case, I think I'm being semantically whip-sawed between alterntative definitions of "wasting time". If there's a point to it - even if that point doesn't advance the cause of maximizing the chances of having the game end before time - then it's not bad play, IMHO. At least, not from the perspective of the individual player's best interests. I'm not sure if I just disagree with Damnans about this point or if he has some other type of play or situation he's thinking of when he talks about "wasting time". Fred

In message <Y_Z2e.13841$TZ.11731@okepread06>, Frederick Scott <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> writes: >"James Coupe" <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote in message >news:mIzzCdteAFTCFw$z...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk... >> Including flexible defence is good play, in many, many decks. (Insert >> standard "Obviously, some decks..." to taste.) That doesn't make the >> deck reactive - it's just acknowledging that many decks need some >> staying power against an aggressive predator, a wily prey or whatever. > >Er, including a flexible defense makes the deck reactive. Unless you >planned not to use it??? (Sorry, I just can't imagine how you're reasoning >that a flexible defense is not reactive in nature.) Then almost all decks are reactive and the conversation about proactive and reactive is highly pointless, if any pro-active deck that also includes 12 defensive cards is now a reactive deck. (Sorry, I just can't imagine how you're reasoning that a pro-active deck, with some flexible defence as well, is reactive in nature.) Are pro-active decks now only decks that include no defence? That's really quite... extreme. Sufficiently extreme to not be useful. A Malky stealth-bleed deck that includes some DT and DI is now not the pro-active deck that reality shows it to be? Errr... If the problem is "reactive decks" and the definition of "reactive decks" is "practically any deck in the game", you probably haven't thought about your definition hard enough. [ quoted text not captured ]

"James Coupe" <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote in message news:jPsCzi4i...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk... > In message <Y_Z2e.13841$TZ.11731@okepread06>, Frederick Scott >>Er, including a flexible defense makes the deck reactive. Unless you >>planned not to use it??? (Sorry, I just can't imagine how you're reasoning >>that a flexible defense is not reactive in nature.) > > Then almost all decks are reactive and the conversation about proactive > and reactive is highly pointless, Nonsense. It may be true that most all current viable tournament decks have some flexible defense, but there's still a such thing as degree. Some decks have more, some have less. Thus, conversation about same is far from "highly pointless". And flexible defense is clearly reactive in nature. > Are pro-active decks now only decks that include no defence? That's > really quite... extreme. They could have *less* defense. > If the problem is "reactive decks" and the definition of "reactive > decks" is "practically any deck in the game", you probably haven't > thought about your definition hard enough. No - the problem is that you're being too inflexible about how you want to look at the issue. If you reduce all decks to, "Has flexible defense/ doesn't have *ANY* flexible defense.", then sure: it becomes pointless to complain about the fact that most all good tournament decks have lots of flexible defense and are hence mostly reactive decks. The only thing you could do to fix the problem is to go to the other extreme, which would be bad also. Fortunately, reality doesn't reduce simply to those two extremes. There is hope. Fred

In message <rO_2e.13848$TZ.937@okepread06>, Frederick Scott <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> writes: >> Are pro-active decks now only decks that include no defence? That's >> really quite... extreme. > >They could have *less* defense. Fred, if 12 flexible defensive cards make a pro-active deck into a reactive deck, put down the crack pipe and step away from the computer. [ quoted text not captured ]

"James Coupe" <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote in message news:PQn5E47P...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk... > In message <rO_2e.13848$TZ.937@okepread06>, Frederick Scott > <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> writes: >>> Are pro-active decks now only decks that include no defence? That's >>> really quite... extreme. >> >>They could have *less* defense. > > Fred, if 12 flexible defensive cards make a pro-active deck into a > reactive deck, put down the crack pipe and step away from the computer. Of course 12 flexible defensive cards make a deck *MORE* reactive than it was without then. If you don't think so, put down the crack pipe you're smoking. Trying to make points by pigeon-holing definions of entire decks into "reactive" and (presumedly) "not reactive" will get you nowhere. Fred

In message <vz%2e.13853$TZ.10934@okepread06>, Frederick Scott <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> writes: >Of course 12 flexible defensive cards make a deck *MORE* reactive than it >was without then. If you don't think so, put down the crack pipe you're >smoking. Certainly. That is now, however, quite a different position from the one you were espousing about pro-active decks being the ones with less defence. Certainly, any measure of defence (that isn't taking out the resources to start with, a la weenie rush and not that many other archetypes) is "reactive" in nature. But that's a highly foolish basis on which to define "reactive". Remember, you claimed: >> Are pro-active decks now only decks that include no defence? That's >> really quite... extreme. > >They could have *less* defense. But a deck with, say, 3 DIs and 3 DTs is "*MORE* reactive" than the deck without. And that has less defence, and by your own words is a pro- active deck. But it has "*MORE* reactive" cards, and is therefore reactive, by the same logic you're exhibiting above. Why is 6 DIs and 6 DTs "reactive" but 5 DIs and 6 DTs (that would be "*less* defense") not reactive? You weren't talking about more reactive or less reactive - because that is obvious to even a five minute newbie - you were talking about the criteria for a deck to be "pro-active". That's what I asked, that's what your answer was. Now you are saying that 12 cards makes it simply "*MORE* reactive" - that's fine as it's not crack-induced foolishness. Your previous claim, however, is. Having the ability to defend yourself doesn't stop your pro-active deck being pro-active any more than having a scattering of bleed cards (of which even fewer are seen and played during a game) would stop a naive intercept wall being reactive. [ quoted text not captured ]

On 31 Mar 2005 11:18:39 -0800, Robert Goudie <rob...@vtesinla.org> wrote: > It wasn't specifically combat decks that necessitated the change. It > was that it was almost always in everyone's best interest to split the > table. Tables were being split 3/2 or 2/3 too quickly after the rounds > began. As James noted, the "losing side" of that split still get's 2 > VPs. Many players would reach the finals on the strength of sitting > down and accepting 3 deals at 2 VPs each. > > Essentially we were rewarding 2 VP losses almost as much as we were > rewarding wins and the choice of finalists based on VPs gave incentive > for players to choose to lose. I agree with this. Introducing the GW rule is a good alternative to posting a judge beside every table who can watch whether players play fair. But doing so alters the game in other ways as well. >> I'm somewhat beginning to doubt the necesity of the Game Win rule. > > Daneel, were you involved in tournaments pre-GW? Just curious. I don't > imagine very many tournament players from that era would agree with > you. Yeah, though we did not see too much sanctioning. Most early tournaments I attended were using 4CL, for example, like the DCI tournaments. Interesting to note, I actually started to notice splits after the GW rule got introduced (as the meth aspiring for 3 VP could now "throw away" 2 VPs, because those VPs were not needed to gain the GW). Under the GW rule most folks will agree to a winning split, meaning you can usually get 2 VP off a table if you lay down. Worth much less than the GW, true, but does wonders if you already have a GW and the break point is governed by VPs. -- Bye, Daneel

In message <opsokjkc...@news.chello.hu>, Daneel <dan...@eposta.hu> writes: >On 31 Mar 2005 11:18:39 -0800, Robert Goudie <rob...@vtesinla.org> wrote: <table splitting> >> Essentially we were rewarding 2 VP losses almost as much as we were >> rewarding wins and the choice of finalists based on VPs gave incentive >> for players to choose to lose. > >I agree with this. Introducing the GW rule is a good alternative to > posting a judge beside every table who can watch whether players > play fair. But doing so alters the game in other ways as well. Having a judge positioned by every table to ensure fair play wouldn't stop the particularly nasty gang-up/roll-over table-splits, though. Table-splitting is playing fair. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 20:31:42 +0100, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: > In message <opsoh9k7...@news.chello.hu>, Daneel <dan...@eposta.hu> > writes: >> On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 09:19:27 +0100, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> >> wrote: >>> Depends a lot on the player. Not everyone thinks "Oh my god, I might >>> get cancelled" and shifts into a reactive play. >> >> Yeah, but players may think "Oh my god, I have 6 DIs and 6 DTs in my >> deck, I might cancel what I want" and shift into reactive play. > > That a player has 6 DIs and 6 DTs (or whatever similar cards - Sudden > Reversals are an obvious other one) doesn't make the deck reactive, any > more than including Wakes and Bleed Bounce makes the deck "reactive". Wow, talk about escalating argument. After having read a couple posts on this from you and Fred, I see that you might be a bit off track here. The question is not whether including a total of 12 denial cards in a general deck necessarily makes that deck reactive. Those 12 slots are reactive slots, but you might have another 78 proactive slots beside them to make the deck more proactive than reactive. The question is rather different. It is whether the abundance of available denial tech contributes to reactive play being feasible. Also, another question might be whether the Game Win rule contributes to reactive play being desirable. These questions are IMHO both valid (and can only be answered in the affirmative). >> This is completely unaddressed by the GW rule. The two combat decks >> still >> have it in their best interests to split the table. Yes, 3 VP and a GW >> is more than 2 VP and no GW, but both are more than 0 VP and 0 GW. > > Not true. Certainly not true if the rapid decline of cries of despair > about this happening is anything to go by. Not really an argument, mind you. I'm certainly oblivious to such an existing or perceived decline. But even if such a decline would indeed exist, it would still not be any more indicative than the formerly undeclined cries of despair - probably even less so. Meaning very little. > Yes, 2VP is better than 0VP. Yes, there is still some incentive to do > this. > > What you are missing is that in a 3VP vs 2VP situation, the difference > is marginal. 1VP. Yes, that could be the difference between a final > place and no final place. However, it's not a *huge* difference. You > could be getting up to 15 VP, so 1 isn't a big difference. > > This means that either deck is likely to take the deal, and roll over if > it decides to go through with the deal. And either deck can stop and > think "Oh, go on then, it's only 1 VP difference." > > When there are only three GW to be had (for you), the loss of one is > huge. Many players of such decks are *much* less inclined to take this > deal, because they need the GW, not the VP. I kind of think we drifted away from the two combat decks issue. Rest is probably governed by fair play, though. >> One-sure-VP decks are those that are so aggressive that they are almost >> certainly guaranteed at least 1 VP each round, but have drastically >> diminishing hopes to achieve significantly more. One-sure-VP decks >> probably get about 2 VPs on the average each table. That is 6 VPs and >> 0 GWs on the average. > > If it's 2VP, that doesn't strike me as "drastically diminishing". Hypothetical example: Regular deck vs. hyper-aggressive deck: 0 VP: 25% vs. 0% 1 VP: 15% vs. 50% 2 VP: 15% vs. 20% 3 VP: 30% vs. 15% 4 VP: 10% vs. 10% 5 VP: 5% vs. 5% Now these are admittedly just arbitrary numbers. The idea is that Deck A is a slower, more toolboxy deck that builds up, and as such has a good chance to get the GW if it gets rolling. Deck B is very aggressive, and concentrates on the short term gain. While both decks do 2 VPs on the average (yeah, I know, they are very good decks), Deck A has 45% to score a GW, while Deck B only has 30%. If we assume that you need 2 GWs to make the finals, and for simplicity's sake assume you need 3 VPs for a GW, we can see that Deck A can deliver that 2 GW almost twice as likely as Deck B can (42.525 vs. 21.6). Whereas, the amount of VPs attained is equal on the average. >>> In that they need to get at least two, and preferably three, VP, yes. >>> But they needed at least two per table before really. Now, of course, >> >> Which is easier to do with a super aggressive deck. > > In part. In any reasonably sized tournament, "at least" 2VP isn't true, > but not that helpful - you needed to go for three, four or sweeps, > though (say) 2, 4, 5 could easily be a good result. I thought we were primarily arguing distribution here. A deck that gets 3+ VPs on the average is probably going to be better than another deck that gets 2 VPs on the average. > In smaller tournaments, of course, those 2VP were 2VP out of 8 or 10 > available that round, so it could work out better. > > If you could go beyond 2VP to get the 3s, 4s and 5s you really needed, > then the same deck could do just as well now, since the 2s it got could > (at least in theory) be a GW - though you wouldn't rely on it - and the > 3s, 4s and 5s it got would clearly be a GW. You always have a slim chance to take the table or sweep. Being super-aggreassive takes away from your prospects at doing so, while almost guaranteeing 1 or 2 VP. Of course, super-aggressive is an undefined concept (but I think a 1-cap computer hacking deck is a pretty good starting point to visualize it). [ quoted text not captured ] I really like numbers. Chances are great. I frequently engage in this sort of "mathsturbation" and calculate the odds for drawing a given card, combo or one of n similar cards. Great mental excercise. However, when you actually play, you actually need a certain card in your hand at a given time. Play will selectively deplete your resources, you will cycle some cards but will be at least temporarily stuck on others, etc. The point being: this is still a card game where you randomly draw your cards. Also, seating is still random (and you have no way to address that, especially in larger playgroups, where the metagame is inconsistent enough to make any metagame guesses more than arbitrary). >>> I would say that the decks people choose to play now seem to be >>> slightly >>> less willing to take the risk of "What if I get completely creamed on >>> one table?" And so they provide themselves with more options. Whereas >>> previously, since on the two tables they did sweep they'd make up for >>> the one table they got creamed, they'd be happier to take that risk. >> >> If you sweep two tables you are likely standing at 2/10, which is pretty >> much enough for even the largest tournament finals. > > Hmmm? That can depend a lot. In a fairly large tournament, you can > find quite a few people with 3 VPs, and if you didn't get any VPs when > you exploded, you can find yourself edged out by someone with a deck > that got (say) 2 GW with a score of 4, 4, 2 since they'll have better > tournament points due to coming at least second on the 2 VP table > (possibly joint first). > > And if you stop to wonder just how big the tournament is, if you are > going for 10 players, you may well see that counter again, and suddenly > find yourself in a very different situation. > > In situations like that, decks that either do very well or very badly > start looking less attractive. Okay, the point stands. I'd choose a deck that will reliably get me 2/10 and no more any day over a deck that might get me more (but most likely will just get me way less). Admit, that was a poor example. ;) >>> Is that a bad thing? Well, it does prevent (in part) Jyhad turning >>> into >>> rock/paper/scissors. I bring my rock weenie vote deck, you bring your >>> paper weenie rush deck and accidentally flatten me. Of course, these >>> decks can still happen and do still happen, but possibly less so? >> >> Well, there is a significant Rock/Paper/Scissors aspect to the game no >> matter what you do. But yes, I agree that the game win rule discourages >> super-aggressive, one-sure-VP decks. > > The R/P/S can be mitigated an awful, awful lot, whilst still being an > active deck. Giving yourself the right tools for survival can make a > huge amount of difference. Making the right deals can make a huge > amount of difference. > > Having a deck which *survives* these days, and is aggressive when it can > be, can be quite useful these days. Witness the rise of combat that > many people are experiencing. Winning then is not about being > "reactive", just about survival - and then having your Fames, or > Computer Hackings, or whatever in the gaps. Interesting point. Survival is, perhaps, separable from being reactive if you proactively bloat, for example. However, in practice I think survival is mostly a reactive thing. You survive against whatever pressure is applied to you, with multipurpose tools (including a fair share of denial effects) whose applications depend largely on what you face. Assuming you are doing a proactive survival deck - you use weenies, say Panders, to vote you lots of pool. You are more or less protected against most decks, your minions have sheer numbers on their side, and you can gain a lot from the Boons and Persecutions. Still, you will probably look strong and get dealt with. Surviving without looking strong is IMHO a very reactive thing. >>> Here, however, I'm not sure if this is a good thing, a bad thing, or >>> just a thing. I think there's a lot to be said for encouraging decks >>> which can do well repeatedly, rather than decks which are spectacular >>> victors or spectacular flops. >> >> Yeah, but this is still just a card game. You can jam, you can get the >> paper to your rock as your predator (or prey, or both), or you can be >> busted by any other unfortunate event. Play skill is important, but so >> is chance. Consistency, in that aspect, could be nothing more than just >> repetitious good fortune. > > First of all, this is the same whether you have GW or no GW. It's a > non-issue as far as that's concerned. Well, your point was that the GW rule supports consistency. To which I replied that consistency is highly non-existent in a card game because of certain reasons (randomness being the most significant). Nobody plays a deck that has little chance to win under normal circumstances (well, maybe some do, but I'm assuming players try to win and for the sake of argument, are not incompetent in doing so). Meaning, you have some decks that will perform somehow based on a lot of factors (a good deal of which are random). > And, yes, there's chance. But people build decks which mitigate that in > all manner of ways. If I am 10% more likely to get a "good" crypt than > you, that's good for me. Sure, probability says that you might get it > all three rounds and I might not. But people play the odds as they see > fit. > > Additionally, there are some decks which are particularly fragile and > require good hand cycling and "good luck" a lot more than other decks - > that is simple probability. However, when they work, they can work > well. When they fail, they can fail extremely badly. Yer pays yer > money, yer takes yer choice. Yes, I agree. > Perhaps exploring the full implications for many deck-styles is > "restatement of the point" - that the original proposition is flawed. > > For me, however, it's providing an informed basis for an opinion and a > number of inter-related points which would need to be addressed. Fair enough, point taken. >>> These decks aren't part of the problem, and I'm not sure that action >>> which discourages them in favour of moving towards "speed oust OR >>> defend >>> against speed oust" (which an early grab VP rule does) is sensible, as >>> a >>> result. >> >> But the other problem is that we are having a time limit. > > You don't need to have one - certainly not in the finals. [snip argument] No can do. Untimed finals are impossible. Or rather, they are only possible in theory. There are practical reasons that prevent an untimed final from being feasible. Especially if some people travelled to the event. >> I see tables >> timing out as a big problem. I see the prevalence of reactive play as a >> poor alternative to the perceived mindlessness of weenie computer >> hacking >> (or somesuch). The balance should, IMHO, be found and encouraged, with >> neither super-aggressive, nor highly reactive plays being rewarded too >> much. > > Highly reactive plays are hardly rewarded too much as it is. Unless a > deck can repeatedly apply forward pressure, it can't win - the GW rule > tells it that. Half a VP won't let it win. > > However, if by highly reactive play you mean things like 6 DIs and 6 DT, > that's hardly an issue. A deck being aware of its flaws and providing > flexible defence to suit those flaws is something that absolutely should > be in the game, or you end up with multi-player solitaire, just waiting > until the first person does it right. I think we are approaching the same thing from different sides. You are saying that having flexible denial-type defences in a deck do not condemn that deck to passivity. I completely agree. But I'm not arguing that. I'm arguing that decks need to shoot at the Game Wins, and that purpose is served better by navigating the table, and trying to play in a way that leads to victory by virtue of preventing anyone from winning until the opportune moment comes to strike and take it all. This play style is quite capable of contributing to a time out. -- Bye, Daneel

On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 15:14:40 -0700, Frederick Scott <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: > OK, I've seen that stuff, too. In this case, I think I'm being > semantically whip-sawed between alterntative definitions of "wasting > time". If there's a point to it - even if that point doesn't advance the > cause of maximizing the chances of having the game end before time - then > it's not bad play, IMHO. At least, not from the perspective of the > individual player's best interests. I'm not sure if I just disagree with > Damnans about this point or if he has some other type of play or > situation > he's thinking of when he talks about "wasting time". I'm pretty sure the question is not whether "wasting time" is good for the person doing it. The question is rather along the lines of whether doing so is "fair", "in the spirit of sportsmanship", "nice", etc. -- Bye, Daneel

On Fri, 1 Apr 2005 21:50:21 +0100, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: > In message <opsokjkc...@news.chello.hu>, Daneel <dan...@eposta.hu> > writes: >> On 31 Mar 2005 11:18:39 -0800, Robert Goudie <rob...@vtesinla.org> >> wrote: > <table splitting> >>> Essentially we were rewarding 2 VP losses almost as much as we were >>> rewarding wins and the choice of finalists based on VPs gave incentive >>> for players to choose to lose. >> >> I agree with this. Introducing the GW rule is a good alternative to >> posting a judge beside every table who can watch whether players >> play fair. But doing so alters the game in other ways as well. > > Having a judge positioned by every table to ensure fair play wouldn't > stop the particularly nasty gang-up/roll-over table-splits, though. > Table-splitting is playing fair. Not necessariy. Table-splitting can be fair. It can also be not fair. Before the GW rule a 3-2 split was a 3-2 split. Now it is kind of like an 5-2 split. Seems like more VPs are available for the splitting... But that doesn't make splits any less nasty when gone about in a subtly unfair way. It takes away some of the motivation. -- Bye, Daneel

Daneel wrote: > On 31 Mar 2005 11:18:39 -0800, Robert Goudie <rob...@vtesinla.org> wrote: > > > It wasn't specifically combat decks that necessitated the change. It > > was that it was almost always in everyone's best interest to split the > > table. Tables were being split 3/2 or 2/3 too quickly after the rounds > > began. As James noted, the "losing side" of that split still get's 2 > > VPs. Many players would reach the finals on the strength of sitting > > down and accepting 3 deals at 2 VPs each. > > > > Essentially we were rewarding 2 VP losses almost as much as we were > > rewarding wins and the choice of finalists based on VPs gave incentive > > for players to choose to lose. > > I agree with this. Introducing the GW rule is a good alternative to > posting a judge beside every table who can watch whether players > play fair. But doing so alters the game in other ways as well. Rather than have a tournament system that rewards VPs but requires GWs in the rules, we chose to reward what we required--GWs. Whenever you ask players to do something contrary to what you are rewarding, you are asking for trouble---whether or not there's a judge at the table. > >> I'm somewhat beginning to doubt the necesity of the Game Win rule. > > > > Daneel, were you involved in tournaments pre-GW? Just curious. I don't > > imagine very many tournament players from that era would agree with > > you. > > Yeah, though we did not see too much sanctioning. Most early tournaments > I attended were using 4CL, for example, like the DCI tournaments. You mean the Magic tournament rules, right? I ask because the DCI also sanctioned V:TES tournaments (but didn't have a 4CL). > Interesting to note, I actually started to notice splits after the GW > rule got introduced (as the meth aspiring for 3 VP could now "throw > away" 2 VPs, because those VPs were not needed to gain the GW). Under > the GW rule most folks will agree to a winning split, meaning you can > usually get 2 VP off a table if you lay down. Worth much less than the > GW, true, but does wonders if you already have a GW and the break point > is governed by VPs. The breakpoint is first governed by GWs. So you are still better off seeking another GW if possible. Only when the GW is not possible will someone consider a deal to grab 2 VPs. Under the old system, accepting 2 VPs was much more valuable. Splits happen far less frequently now. The tournament environment is much improved. -Robert

In message <opsokpyw...@news.chello.hu>, Daneel <dan...@eposta.hu> writes: >On Fri, 1 Apr 2005 21:50:21 +0100, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: >> Having a judge positioned by every table to ensure fair play wouldn't >> stop the particularly nasty gang-up/roll-over table-splits, though. >> Table-splitting is playing fair. > >Not necessariy. Table-splitting can be fair. It can also be not fair. Sure, illegal play isn't fair - but that's really irrelevant to the point. The only play that a judge could intervene on, however, is illegal play. The GW rule addressed some play that was perfectly fair but problematic for other reasons. Placing a judge next to tables would IN NO WAY have affected the same play, because the plays being addressed were entirely legal and sensible at that time. That each player has a mutually exclusive primary victory condition (getting a GW), where the compromise is really awkward for one of them, provides a very different social dynamic. Illegal play is always illegal, of course. But a judge can't stop players making legal plays, however distasteful or problematic they might be. A change to the rules provides a different set of plays that players will want to make. It is not the judge's role to enforce some set of moral standards on the game, other than following the rules. >Before the GW rule a 3-2 split was a 3-2 split. Now it is kind of like > an 5-2 split. Seems like more VPs are available for the splitting... > But that doesn't make splits any less nasty when gone about in a > subtly unfair way. It takes away some of the motivation. Under the old system, this would be problematic. Under the new system, it doesn't matter how many VPs you get if you don't have (enough) GWs. Though you can still want VPs even with the GW - in order to get the best seating in the final, for instance. Also, bear in mind how this combines with play to win. When GWs are a defining criteria, you need to play for those first and foremost. This can also make a number of deals (though not all) more difficult to strike, since you will often be giving up a GW you could have attained. Is it perfect? No, of course not. But the table-splitting pre-GW was extremely, extremely nasty. We're not seeing that under the GW rule. -- James Coupe "Why do so many talented people turn out to be sexual PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D deviants? Why can't they just be normal like me and EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 look at internet pictures of men's cocks all day?" 13D7E668C3695D623D5D -- www.livejournal.com/users/scarletdemon/

"James Coupe" <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote in message news:bmmcZ4BJ0QTCFwq$@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk... > In message <vz%2e.13853$TZ.10934@okepread06>, Frederick Scott > <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> writes: >>Of course 12 flexible defensive cards make a deck *MORE* reactive than it >>was without then. If you don't think so, put down the crack pipe you're >>smoking. > > Certainly. > > That is now, however, quite a different position from the one you were > espousing about pro-active decks being the ones with less defence. Look, we just got started in this little sub-thread because you claimed "flexible defense isn't reactive". That's wrong. Of course, flexible defense is reactive - to whatever extent you make use of it. More flexible defense is more reactive than less flexible defense. > Certainly, any measure of defence (that isn't taking out the resources > to start with, a la weenie rush and not that many other archetypes) is > "reactive" in nature. But that's a highly foolish basis on which to > define "reactive". See, we keep getting into trouble here because you keep getting back into wanting to define "reactive" as if it weren't a partitive quality. You keep doing it, I keep correcting you, you don't challenge the corrections but now you return to the same practice. > Remember, you claimed: > >>> Are pro-active decks now only decks that include no defence? That's >>> really quite... extreme. >> >>They could have *less* defense. > > But a deck with, say, 3 DIs and 3 DTs is "*MORE* reactive" than the deck > without. And that has less defence, and by your own words is a pro- > active deck. But it has "*MORE* reactive" cards, and is therefore > reactive, by the same logic you're exhibiting above. Sure. And this is correct. It is more reactive - which you seem to admit. So I'm confused what your issue is. > Why is 6 DIs and 6 DTs "reactive" but 5 DIs and 6 DTs (that would be > "*less* defense") not reactive? Because I'm not bothing to define "reactive" and "not reactive". The point is around "more reactive" and "less reactive". > You weren't talking about more reactive > or less reactive - because that is obvious to even a five minute newbie > - you were talking about the criteria for a deck to be "pro-active". You're apparently taking some quote out of context. I made reference to "pro-active" elsewhere in the thread, but the intent was not to nail down a single definition of when a deck is "pro-active" and when it was "reactive". There's no need for discrete definitions like that in order to understand my point. > That's what I asked, that's what your answer was. I'm confused what you're claiming here or what 'answer' you're making reference to. I suspect it would be more useful to stick to just clarifying positions rather than making accusations about 'changing positions' or whatever you think I did. To clarify: I disagree with your statement back up aways in the thread that: "Including flexible defence is good play, in many, many decks.... That doesn't make the deck reactive..." It _does_ make the deck _more_ reactive than it would otherwise have been. And talk of discrete definitions of "reactive" and "not reactive" (or pro-active) is irrelevent and only serves to obfuscate the issue. > Having the ability to defend yourself doesn't stop your pro-active deck > being pro-active any more than having a scattering of bleed cards (of > which even fewer are seen and played during a game) would stop a naive > intercept wall being reactive. Having the ability to defend yourself will make a pro-active deck LESS "pro-active" than it was without such ability (assuming a sane substitution for the cards otherwise invested in defense). Again, your insistence on a discrete definition of "pro-active" only serves to obscure the issue I was raising elsewhere. It doesn't matter what you or I define as "pro- active" or "reactive" as an overall discrete label for a given deck. What matters is, good players choose to make ENOUGH use of reactive elements in their decks overall that the result frequently is a stalemated tournament final. Call them what you what you will, it doesn't matter - that is certainly engaging in semantics. Fred

[ quoted text not captured ] James, IIRC, we did have a period where we chose finalists based on VPs but had a tournament rule that required players to "play to win". Sounds like Daniel is advocating a return to the days where it would be illegal to "play to lose"--but we'd still reward you if you did. :) As you can imagine, it was the crappy environment mentioned above that created the motivation for the GW rule. -Robert

In message <opsokppn...@news.chello.hu>, Daneel <dan...@eposta.hu> writes: >I'm pretty sure the question is not whether "wasting time" is good for > the person doing it. The question is rather along the lines of whether > doing so is "fair", "in the spirit of sportsmanship", "nice", etc. If a player isn't displaying sportsmanlike conduct, is playing slowly or is stalling, this can already be addressed under the standard rules. [ quoted text not captured ]

"Daneel" <dan...@eposta.hu> wrote in message news:opsokppn...@news.chello.hu... > On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 15:14:40 -0700, Frederick Scott <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: > >> I'm not sure if I just disagree with Damnans about this point or >> if he has some other type of play or situation >> he's thinking of when he talks about "wasting time". > > I'm pretty sure the question is not whether "wasting time" is good for > the person doing it. The question is rather along the lines of whether > doing so is "fair", "in the spirit of sportsmanship", "nice", etc. It all depends. If we're talking about time a player is spending trying to table talk potential deals that might have some realistic chance of happening, this is certainly "fair" in the sense of tournament rules. "In the spirt of sportsmanship" and "nice" sound like concepts that are extremely hard to pin down in such a context. If you're geuinely trying to win the finals by legal means, this is close enough to being "in the spirit of sportsmanship" by me. On the other hand, deliberately engaging in activities without a genuine intent to accomplish anything except make time pass in order to time out the existing status even if you know you can't really be called on it wouldn't be sporting, no. That would qualify as "wasting time" in my book. But I don't perceive it's the issue in the types of stalemated finals I tend to see. I usually find most quality players are remarkably conscientious about that. Fred

In message <cZj3e.14986$TZ.10555@okepread06>, Frederick Scott <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> writes: >Look, we just got started in this little sub-thread because you claimed >"flexible defense isn't reactive". No, I didn't. Fred. PUT. THE. CRACK. PIPE. DOWN. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <1112395105....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, Robert Goudie <rob...@vtesinla.org> writes: >James, IIRC, we did have a period where we chose finalists based on VPs >but had a tournament rule that required players to "play to win". >Sounds like Daniel is advocating a return to the days where it would be >illegal to "play to lose"--but we'd still reward you if you did. :) > >As you can imagine, it was the crappy environment mentioned above that >created the motivation for the GW rule. I lived through it. And lo, it was horrible indeed. If nothing else, it can significantly complicate the "You must play based on the current game." I've had to make extremely difficult rulings based on this, where I needed to trade off what was reasonable in the current game against the fact that the players knew full well that if they could do what they were proposing, they'd make the finals. Truly hideous. The GW rule generally simplifies this. It is not, of course, perfect. [ quoted text not captured ]

"James Coupe" <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote in message news:ZOGcTsWL...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk... > In message <cZj3e.14986$TZ.10555@okepread06>, Frederick Scott > <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> writes: >>Look, we just got started in this little sub-thread because you claimed >>"flexible defense isn't reactive". > > No, I didn't. > > Fred. PUT. THE. CRACK. PIPE. DOWN. Directly quoted in previous post - thus, reference to "crack pipe" is bizarre.

In message <00l3e.15287$TZ.14243@okepread06>, Frederick Scott <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> writes: >>>Look, we just got started in this little sub-thread because you claimed >>>"flexible defense isn't reactive". >> >> No, I didn't. >> >> Fred. PUT. THE. CRACK. PIPE. DOWN. > >Directly quoted in previous post I wrote at the start of this little sub-thread: That a player has 6 DIs and 6 DTs (or whatever similar cards - Sudden Reversals are an obvious other one) doesn't make the deck reactive, any more than including Wakes and Bleed Bounce makes the deck "reactive". Note the inclusion of the word "deck", not cards or specific plays. The point being made has *always* been about the deck, your delusions notwithstanding. [ quoted text not captured ]

"James Coupe" <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote in message news:0+aXf3Y4...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk... > In message <00l3e.15287$TZ.14243@okepread06>, Frederick Scott > <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> writes: >>>>Look, we just got started in this little sub-thread because you claimed >>>>"flexible defense isn't reactive". >>> >>> No, I didn't. >>> >>> Fred. PUT. THE. CRACK. PIPE. DOWN. >> >>Directly quoted in previous post > > I wrote at the start of this little sub-thread: > > That a player has 6 DIs and 6 DTs (or whatever similar cards - > Sudden Reversals are an obvious other one) doesn't make the deck > reactive, any more than including Wakes and Bleed Bounce makes > the deck "reactive". > > Note the inclusion of the word "deck", not cards or specific plays. The > point being made has *always* been about the deck, your delusions > notwithstanding. And I've always been referring to decks as well. I'm confused why you think otherwise. There's an obvious issue that seems to explain out differences that I've raised time and again. I would suggest that your need for pissiness with references to "crack pipes" and "delusions" has to do with a desire to evade it instead of just addressing it head on. That's unfortunate as I feel like it's extended this exchange far beyond what should have been necessary. Fred

In message <jCl3e.15292$TZ.3846@okepread06>, Frederick Scott <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> writes: >And I've always been referring to decks as well. I'm confused why you think >otherwise. Because you come out with utter bullshit like: >>Look, we just got started in this little sub-thread because you claimed >>"flexible defense isn't reactive". which is frankly crack-induced nonsense of the highest order, and about specific plays not decks. How is that always referring to decks? Crap. Crap. Crap. >There's an obvious issue that seems to explain out differences that >I've >raised time and again. I would suggest that your need for pissiness >with >references to "crack pipes" and "delusions" has to do with a desire to >evade it instead of just addressing it head on. No, it has to do with the fact that you're talking nonsense, Fred. I have repeatedly addressed the issues. Then you come out with bullshit like the above, which is completely false and based on nothing but lies. [ quoted text not captured ]

On 1 Apr 2005 14:12:21 -0800, Robert Goudie <rob...@vtesinla.org> wrote: >> > Essentially we were rewarding 2 VP losses almost as much as we were >> > rewarding wins and the choice of finalists based on VPs gave > incentive >> > for players to choose to lose. >> >> I agree with this. Introducing the GW rule is a good alternative to >> posting a judge beside every table who can watch whether players >> play fair. But doing so alters the game in other ways as well. > > Rather than have a tournament system that rewards VPs but requires GWs > in the rules, we chose to reward what we required--GWs. Whenever you > ask players to do something contrary to what you are rewarding, you are > asking for trouble---whether or not there's a judge at the table. I see that the reasoning is sound. It's just that I never saw any problem with the old rules (even though I understand the problems others might have had with them), and I have some problems with the new rules (even though I understand they do solve some of the problems with the old rules). Frankly, I've never seen too much collusion in our local games. Pre-GW people were shooting at 5 VPs; now they are shooting for 3. >> Yeah, though we did not see too much sanctioning. Most early > tournaments >> I attended were using 4CL, for example, like the DCI tournaments. > > You mean the Magic tournament rules, right? I ask because the DCI also > sanctioned V:TES tournaments (but didn't have a 4CL). Well, I'm not quite sure. ;) While I know that DCI sanctioned VTES tournaments, I don't think our tournaments were sanctioned. They were rather unsanctioned tournaments, probably a hybrid of the DCI VTES tournaments and the DCI magic tournaments (at least as far as CLs are concerned). Unless DCI sanctioned VTES tournaments with 4CL... Hazy, hazy little thing. Nevertheless, I've never really noted table splits being an issue. When people play fair, they shoot for the 5 VPs. > The breakpoint is first governed by GWs. So you are still better off > seeking another GW if possible. Only when the GW is not possible will > someone consider a deal to grab 2 VPs. Under the old system, accepting > 2 VPs was much more valuable. > > Splits happen far less frequently now. The tournament environment is > much improved. Well, not from my local little mudpond perspective. ;) I think that the consistency in the rules is good. But the play-to-win rule is probably the most unenforcable to begin with. Since poor play cannot be judged against, only the most blatant examples of collusion can be detected/thwarted - which would still be most blatant examples of collusion if the rule simply said "you need to get as many VPs as possible". To sum it up: I think that this issue is related to the eternal struggle of the "fair play" issue. Sure, 2 VPs are fine without breaking a sweat, but 5 VPs are far better. If the tournament is big enough to require 9-10 VPs to make the finals, a losing split would not be any more profitable than under the GW rule. Also, my problems with the current system also relate to the same issue (fair play). People eager to split tables because 3 VPs are enough, etc... -- Bye, Daneel

On Fri, 1 Apr 2005 15:43:29 -0700, Frederick Scott <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: > On the other hand, deliberately engaging in activities without a genuine > intent to accomplish anything except make time pass in order to time > out the existing status even if you know you can't really be called on > it wouldn't be sporting, no. That would qualify as "wasting time" in > my book. Exactly. You are trying to win (say, by being first seed and playing so that the table times out), but you are still not playing fair. > But I don't perceive it's the issue in the types of stalemated > finals I tend to see. I usually find most quality players are remarkably > conscientious about that. Well, this is a different thing. I believe that finals tending to time out happens as a result of a number of reasons, like (in no particular order): - People in good seeding positions stalling in a subtle way to reduce the number of turns played, thus strengthening their positions. - People being keener on making deals and communicating game status to utilize their verbal skills in an attempt to secure their victory (if possible) or the best status they can achieve. - People playing decks that are designed to take whole tables and as a result support reactive play. -- Bye, Daneel

In message <opsolikz...@news.chello.hu>, Daneel <dan...@eposta.hu> writes: >I see that the reasoning is sound. It's just that I never saw any problem > with the old rules (even though I understand the problems others might > have had with them), and I have some problems with the new rules (even > though I understand they do solve some of the problems with the old >rules). > >Frankly, I've never seen too much collusion in our local games. Pre-GW > people were shooting at 5 VPs; now they are shooting for 3. Collusion is nothing to do with it. Confusing collusion with the game- win rules is simply asking for trouble. Collusion is players taking action outside the framework of the game to alter the results in some pre-determined fashion. This is emphatically NOT the same as table splitting. Though table splitting can be one way in which collusion is accomplished, that is far from certain. Pre-determined action to remove someone from a table ("He stole my girlfriend - let's get him!") could also potentially be collusion. As a judge, you might prefer to act under a different term, however - perhaps sportsmanlike conduct. However, confusing collusion with legitimate deal-making to take advantage of the in-game situation as it stands right now (resulting in an entirely legal but distasteful and problematic table split) is simply wrong. >>> Yeah, though we did not see too much sanctioning. Most early >> tournaments >>> I attended were using 4CL, for example, like the DCI tournaments. >> >> You mean the Magic tournament rules, right? I ask because the DCI also >> sanctioned V:TES tournaments (but didn't have a 4CL). > >Well, I'm not quite sure. ;) While I know that DCI sanctioned VTES > tournaments, I don't think our tournaments were sanctioned. They > were rather unsanctioned tournaments, probably a hybrid of the DCI > VTES tournaments and the DCI magic tournaments (at least as far as > CLs are concerned). Unless DCI sanctioned VTES tournaments with 4CL... The DCI and Wizards had various different rules at different points, and sometimes followed them and sometimes didn't, even when Wizards were running the tournament. Sometimes, some cards were restricted. I have vague memories of a 6CL, 2CL-restricted-list for the obvious strong/staple cards at the time. (I never played in these tournaments.) >Hazy, hazy little thing. Nevertheless, I've never really noted table > splits being an issue. When people play fair, they shoot for the 5 VPs. There's nothing necessarily unfair about people playing for a good, solid 4VP (say) instead of a highly risky 5VP. e.g. the 5VP result requires them to throw down a Life Boon, and bring them precariously close to being ousted in the process - a risk they don't want to take. Different people have different risk assessments, and thinking "Well, I can keep this five pool and get a lot of VP, just not all of them" is perfectly reasonable play. >To sum it up: I think that this issue is related to the eternal struggle of > the "fair play" issue. Sure, 2 VPs are fine without breaking a sweat, but > 5 VPs are far better. If the tournament is big enough to require 9-10 VPs > to make the finals, a losing split would not be any more profitable than > under the GW rule. Also, my problems with the current system also relate > to the same issue (fair play). People eager to split tables because 3 VPs > are enough, etc... With seating choice in the final being a significant boost (especially with the withdrawal of Dramatic Upheaval and Kindred Restructure), there is still a strong incentive for players to get more VPs. Even in a relatively small tournament, I'd much rather have 3GWs and 15VP than 3GWs than 9VP, to pick my seating. However, if the proposal is to reward sweeps more highly, that's actually easier with a rule which doesn't act solely on VPs. Consider: some people will take 1VP as a throwaway scrap on a table where they're screwed. So I get 4VP and you get 1VP for helping, say. I'm still very nearly at sweep level, and have only lost 20% of it. So: If you want to reward sweeps more highly and provide a stronger incentive for them (which seems a perfectly reasonable aim), have an extra tick box somewhere for "sweeps", or make a sweep GW worth more than a non-sweep GW. Example (ranking sweeps above GWs): You win three games with 3VPs in each, but no sweeps. I win one game with a sweep, and no other VPs. Since I have a sweep, I rank higher than you. Handing out the spare 1VP (in the 4VP/1VP situation above) will ruin my chance. Now, that to me seems distasteful. Example (ranking sweeps as a better GW): You win three games with 3VPs in each, but no sweeps. That garners you 3VPs. I win two games with sweeps (5VPs in each), but no other VPs. A sweep is worth 1.5GW. So with my two sweeps, I have 3GW. (It might be better to use the term "final points" or somesuch.) Since I have 3GW and 10VP, I would get into the final before you. Example (as above, but a tie): You win three games with 3VPs in each, but no sweeps. I win two games with sweeps (5VP in one, 4VP in another), but no other VPs. We both therefore have 3GW and 9VP. We would tie. How to break this tie? Reward consistency or sweeps, choose your poison. In the VP only scenario, I can give away 1VP in each of those rounds, and still get 8VP - pretty close. But in a system based on the above, I'd be a whole GW "point" down, which is much more costly. And *perhaps* in the other round, I'd now be able to bargain for a VP, since the sweep isn't as important to them. So I get 9VP, say? This then rewards winning, but could reward "better" winning better than currently. That is, we already rank a GW and sweep higher than a GW and 3VP, but plausibly it might not be rewarded enough. *********************************************************************** Whether that's good or not is emphatically NOT something I'm addressing now, or whether the examples I give are the best possible systems. *********************************************************************** Now, the specific formulation of these criteria is just something I've very hurriedly constructed. But it provides players with their own stronger incentive to get sweeps, and potentially eases a number of the concerns about rewarding players for not playing to win that Robert describes which are certainly well-founded. Of course, any fiddling with the system would no doubt bring in its own problems for judges. I'm not here (see emphatic disclaimer above) too interested in the specific implications of specific systems, rather the general implications of that sort of fiddling. [ quoted text not captured ]

salem a écrit : > On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 09:19:27 +0100, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> > scrawled: > > >>another one. If you D.I. my Grapple, I have another one. And so on. > > > ...to play next round... you mean in the next combat ? providing the rusher is not put out of the equation by PTO / Banishment / Sensory dep and co... :)

On Sat, 02 Apr 2005 19:19:33 +0200, reyda <true_...@hotmail.com> scrawled: [ quoted text not captured ] i meant next round. A: grapple B: DI A: crap. only one grapple per round. oh well, hands for 3 from TS B: dodge A: crap, press with Mighty Grapple B: crap A: no before, no maneuvers B: ok, close it is A: grapple B: crap A: Burning wrath for 5 agg. Die etrius die. B: um, hands for 1? salem http://www.users.tpg.com.au/adsltqna/VtES/index.htm (replace "hotmail" with "yahoo" to email)

salem a écrit : > On Sat, 02 Apr 2005 19:19:33 +0200, reyda <true_...@hotmail.com> > scrawled: > > >>salem a écrit : >> >>>On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 09:19:27 +0100, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> >>>scrawled: >>> >>> >>> >>>>another one. If you D.I. my Grapple, I have another one. And so on. >>> >>> >>>...to play next round... >> >> >>you mean in the next combat ? providing the rusher is not put out of the >>equation by PTO / Banishment / Sensory dep and co... :) > > > i meant next round. > A: grapple > B: DI > A: crap. only one grapple per round. oh well, hands for 3 from TS > B: dodge > A: crap, press with Mighty Grapple ok,if you play with mighty grapple, then i just have to bow...

On Sat, 2 Apr 2005 11:24:38 +0100, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: > However, confusing collusion with legitimate deal-making to take > advantage of the in-game situation as it stands right now (resulting in > an entirely legal but distasteful and problematic table split) is simply > wrong. Whatever. Unsportsmanship be it then; that is a much broader concept. > There's nothing necessarily unfair about people playing for a good, > solid 4VP (say) instead of a highly risky 5VP. e.g. the 5VP result > requires them to throw down a Life Boon, and bring them precariously > close to being ousted in the process - a risk they don't want to take. > > Different people have different risk assessments, and thinking "Well, I > can keep this five pool and get a lot of VP, just not all of them" is > perfectly reasonable play. The example is a bit rectified. I wouldn't use that as a counterexample. There is a thin line between playing to get as many VPs as possible and possibly falling short by a VP or two despite honest efforts, and playing to get 3 VPs because that is safer and basically playing to set up the table so that you can find someone who will give you the table for 2 VPs. > With seating choice in the final being a significant boost (especially > with the withdrawal of Dramatic Upheaval and Kindred Restructure), there > is still a strong incentive for players to get more VPs. Even in a > relatively small tournament, I'd much rather have 3GWs and 15VP than > 3GWs than 9VP, to pick my seating. True. But the difference between 1st and 5th pre-finals is far-far less than the difference between 5th and 6th. > However, if the proposal is to reward sweeps more highly, that's > actually easier with a rule which doesn't act solely on VPs. Not necessarily to reward sweeps. I'm not sure that scoring 2 VPs shouldn't be worth the same in a 1-1-1-2 or a 3-2 situation. In fact, the former might indicate a quickly desintegrating table where you could have gotten 2 VPs with a Frederick the Weak multi-rush deck just by virtue of being there, and the latter might be an epic battle of wits and skill against a powerful prey, two incompetent "allies" who don't recognize the dynamics of the table, and say a (D) rush predator who is focused on pummeling your minions "Cause its kool" even though he has no Fames. This is all to say the GW rule isn't necessarily a bed of roses. The alternative would be, "acquire as many VPs as possible". I'm not sure it's feasible, though. > Consider: some people will take 1VP as a throwaway scrap on a table > where they're screwed. So I get 4VP and you get 1VP for helping, say. > I'm still very nearly at sweep level, and have only lost 20% of it. > > So: If you want to reward sweeps more highly and provide a stronger > incentive for them (which seems a perfectly reasonable aim), have an > extra tick box somewhere for "sweeps", or make a sweep GW worth more > than a non-sweep GW. > > Example (ranking sweeps above GWs): You win three games with 3VPs in > each, but no sweeps. I win one game with a sweep, and no other VPs. > Since I have a sweep, I rank higher than you. Handing out the spare 1VP > (in the 4VP/1VP situation above) will ruin my chance. > > Now, that to me seems distasteful. Indeed. > Example (ranking sweeps as a better GW): You win three games with 3VPs > in each, but no sweeps. That garners you 3VPs. I win two games with > sweeps (5VPs in each), but no other VPs. A sweep is worth 1.5GW. So > with my two sweeps, I have 3GW. (It might be better to use the term > "final points" or somesuch.) Since I have 3GW and 10VP, I would get > into the final before you. > > Example (as above, but a tie): You win three games with 3VPs in each, > but no sweeps. I win two games with sweeps (5VP in one, 4VP in > another), but no other VPs. We both therefore have 3GW and 9VP. We > would tie. How to break this tie? Reward consistency or sweeps, choose > your poison. Dunno, TPs could serve that very purpose. Anyway, I kind of like the fraction GW idea that gives you extra incentive to win "well". Maybe you could do something like this: winning a table by 2 VPs: 0.66... Final Points winning a table by 3 VPs: 1 Final Point winning a table by 4 VPs: 1.33... Final Points winning a table by 5 VPs: 1.66... Final Points This way, your Final Points directly reflect the degree of success you had at a table you've won. In the above mentioned 1-1-1-2 vs. 3-2 case you'll have a winner with 0.67 FPs in the first case and a winner with 1 FP in the second. It still wouldn't address the "problem" of 2 VPs being 2 VPs regardless of how the table turned out. But I guess such random factors are considered to balance out over the long run... > In the VP only scenario, I can give away 1VP in each of those rounds, > and still get 8VP - pretty close. But in a system based on the above, > I'd be a whole GW "point" down, which is much more costly. And > *perhaps* in the other round, I'd now be able to bargain for a VP, since > the sweep isn't as important to them. So I get 9VP, say? > > This then rewards winning, but could reward "better" winning better than > currently. That is, we already rank a GW and sweep higher than a GW and > 3VP, but plausibly it might not be rewarded enough. > > *********************************************************************** > Whether that's good or not is emphatically NOT something I'm addressing > now, or whether the examples I give are the best possible systems. > *********************************************************************** > > Now, the specific formulation of these criteria is just something I've > very hurriedly constructed. But it provides players with their own > stronger incentive to get sweeps, and potentially eases a number of the > concerns about rewarding players for not playing to win that Robert > describes which are certainly well-founded. > > Of course, any fiddling with the system would no doubt bring in its own > problems for judges. > > I'm not here (see emphatic disclaimer above) too interested in the > specific implications of specific systems, rather the general > implications of that sort of fiddling. Nice assessment. I see some merit in rewarding sweeps better than 2-3 splits, if for nothing else than to finally give an advantage to 4-player tables. Giving 1.5 GWs for a sweep means that a single sweep ranks higher than a single no-sweep GW, and two sweeps rank as high as three non-sweeps. I think there may be merit in this idea, somewhat discouraging splits... -- Bye, Daneel

On Mon, 04 Apr 2005 07:45:34 +0200, reyda <true_...@hotmail.com> scrawled: [ quoted text not captured ] no one expects a mighty grapple! i like presses. they're like a maneuver if your opponent only has maneuvers as combat defence (the subsequent round defaults to close, just as if you'd maneuvered back), and when they don't have maneuvers, it's another round of hammer time. [ quoted text not captured ]

"James Coupe" <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote in message news:lAFzgcaE...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk... > In message <jCl3e.15292$TZ.3846@okepread06>, Frederick Scott > <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> writes: >>And I've always been referring to decks as well. I'm confused why you think >>otherwise. > > Because you come out with utter bullshit like: > >>>Look, we just got started in this little sub-thread because you claimed >>>"flexible defense isn't reactive". > > which is frankly crack-induced nonsense of the highest order, and about > specific plays not decks. How is that always referring to decks? Crap. > Crap. Crap. I don't know what you're talking about. I am *not* referring to "plays". I never said a *thing* about "plays". I responded about to *YOUR* comment about *DECKS*. And I have quoted the part where you suggested flexible defense isn't reactive. You need me to quote it again? >>There's an obvious issue that seems to explain out differences that >>I've raised time and again. I would suggest that your need for pissiness >>with references to "crack pipes" and "delusions" has to do with a desire to >>evade it instead of just addressing it head on. > > No, it has to do with the fact that you're talking nonsense, Fred. I > have repeatedly addressed the issues. No. You repeatedly retreat into reasoning based on slapping discrete discriptive labels on decks which - in YOUR mind - don't "change" because of iterative changes to the content of the deck. This is utter bullshit and I keep pointing that out to you. To which you respond with baseless accusations of unfathomable origins and some new excuse for working the work "crack" into a post. (You seem to have an obsession with that.) And we go in circles... Fred

In message <opsopa6y...@news.chello.hu>, Daneel <dan...@eposta.hu> writes: >On Sat, 2 Apr 2005 11:24:38 +0100, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: > >> However, confusing collusion with legitimate deal-making to take >> advantage of the in-game situation as it stands right now (resulting in >> an entirely legal but distasteful and problematic table split) is simply >> wrong. > >Whatever. Unsportsmanship be it then; that is a much broader concept. No, that's also entirely wrong. Taking the best action available to you in the game is never unsportsmanlike conduct in any way, shape or form. Attempting to portray behaviour that is, for one reason or another, undesirable as being illegal is unhelpful in the extreme. There is nothing unsporting about taking the best option available to you. You yourself have been arguing that people should play for the strongest win they can get. That's what these sorts of table splits entail. Collusive table-splits are a separate matter entirely. One of the factors that a number of people seem to ignore or be unable to understand, for whatever reason, is that there is a strong and sizeable difference between: - behaviour which "we" don't like and which is harmful to the game in some form, but which is permitted by the rules and - behaviour which is illegal. Collusion and unsportsmanlike conduct fall into the latter category. The sorts of table-splitting which the Game Win rule addressed falls into the former category. <Life Boon> >> Different people have different risk assessments, and thinking "Well, I >> can keep this five pool and get a lot of VP, just not all of them" is >> perfectly reasonable play. > >The example is a bit rectified. I wouldn't use that as a counterexample. I don't believe "rectified" means what you think it does. As a result, I don't know what you mean. (# To set right; correct. # To correct by calculation or adjustment. See Synonyms at correct.) >There is a thin line between playing to get as many VPs as possible and > possibly falling short by a VP or two despite honest efforts, and > playing to get 3 VPs because that is safer and basically playing to set > up the table so that you can find someone who will give you the table > for 2 VPs. Sure. And because my risk assessments differ from yours, my "honest efforts" will differ from yours. That is, where I see 5 VPs, you may only see 3. Where I see a GW, you may see a valiant second place. Bottom line: I may not take the same risks you take, even if they can get me a better result overall if I deem the risks to be too risky. Thus, even if available, it is perfectly legitimate play for me to not go for all five VPs, even if I could (in theory) get them. >> With seating choice in the final being a significant boost (especially >> with the withdrawal of Dramatic Upheaval and Kindred Restructure), there >> is still a strong incentive for players to get more VPs. Even in a >> relatively small tournament, I'd much rather have 3GWs and 15VP than >> 3GWs than 9VP, to pick my seating. > >True. But the difference between 1st and 5th pre-finals is far-far less > than the difference between 5th and 6th. In that you get into the finals, yes. However, once in the finals (including the pre-seating), the element of choice in the seating is often crucial or, at the very least, extremely significant. >> However, if the proposal is to reward sweeps more highly, that's >> actually easier with a rule which doesn't act solely on VPs. > >Not necessarily to reward sweeps. I'm not sure that scoring 2 VPs > shouldn't be worth the same in a 1-1-1-2 or a 3-2 situation. In fact, > the former might indicate a quickly desintegrating table where you > could have gotten 2 VPs with a Frederick the Weak multi-rush deck just > by virtue of being there, and the latter might be an epic battle of > wits and skill against a powerful prey, two incompetent "allies" who > don't recognize the dynamics of the table, and say a (D) rush predator > who is focused on pummeling your minions "Cause its kool" even though > he has no Fames. They "could" represent lots of things. 2-1-1-1-0 could just as easily represent a table on which 5 world class players are sitting. >> Example (as above, but a tie): You win three games with 3VPs in each, >> but no sweeps. I win two games with sweeps (5VP in one, 4VP in >> another), but no other VPs. We both therefore have 3GW and 9VP. We >> would tie. How to break this tie? Reward consistency or sweeps, choose >> your poison. > >Dunno, TPs could serve that very purpose. Anyway, I kind of like the > fraction GW idea that gives you extra incentive to win "well". TPs, for reference, would solve that based on consistency. Since I have two real-GWs, I have come first on two tables, but (joint) last on another. Since you have three real-GWs, you have come first on three first places. TPs will then reward consistency. A minor difficulty here might be that in the lead positions, you're rewarding sweeps but at the edge condition (5th/6th) you're rewarding consistency. This is potentially awkward. >Maybe you could do something like this: > >winning a table by 2 VPs: 0.66... Final Points >winning a table by 3 VPs: 1 Final Point >winning a table by 4 VPs: 1.33... Final Points >winning a table by 5 VPs: 1.66... Final Points If calculating based off the "degree" of winning, you'd need to have some option for half VPs, too. Or even for outright calculation of the points based on the VP differential. This is because of: a) games timing out b) a judge having the authority to award partial (note: not half) VPs in order to rectify a game situation - this generally isn't wanted, as a real player would be better, but sometimes necessary. However, it should be noted that this is essentially counting only the VPs won by the table winner - which is another suggestion people have given in the past. (Then resolving ties based on ALL VPs.) i.e. if you simply count the VPs that the table winner gets, then a 2-1-1-1-0 winner gets 2 points, a 3-x winner gets 3 points, and so on - which is simply your table above, multiplied up. Treating is a "Only VPs got by a winner count, then break ties based on the rest" is a lot simpler. Google should have some discussion of this archived, as I'm 90% certain it's been discussed at some length before. >Nice assessment. I see some merit in rewarding sweeps better than 2-3 > splits, if for nothing else than to finally give an advantage to > 4-player tables. Giving 1.5 GWs for a sweep means that a single sweep > ranks higher than a single no-sweep GW, and two sweeps rank as high as > three non-sweeps. I think there may be merit in this idea, somewhat > discouraging splits... If the criterion is that winning "better" (i.e. getting closer to a sweep) is more desirable than winning in a manner which allows for tossing VPs casually around, a linear progression of scores won't cut it as a player tossing away a VP isn't punished any more than the VP they throw away. A curve, or series of levels (of which "reward a sweep with an extra VP" is a very simple example of a level), which rewards the better positions more is more likely to do what you need. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Tue, 5 Apr 2005 19:00:26 +0100, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: >> Whatever. Unsportsmanship be it then; that is a much broader concept. > > No, that's also entirely wrong. Taking the best action available to you > in the game is never unsportsmanlike conduct in any way, shape or form. Selecting that best action in good faith is sportsmanship. Selecting it otherwise is unsportsmanship. If the rules inspire you to go for 5 VPs, you should only resort to going for 4 VPs if you can no longer rationally achieve 5 VPs. Going for 3 VPs because you think that is enough, or because that seems safer in the long run is not doing it in the spirit of sportsmanship. If you have no rational chance to go for more than 2 VPs, and you split the table, you did not play in an unsportsmanlike manner. > <Life Boon> >>> Different people have different risk assessments, and thinking "Well, I >>> can keep this five pool and get a lot of VP, just not all of them" is >>> perfectly reasonable play. >> >> The example is a bit rectified. I wouldn't use that as a counterexample. > > I don't believe "rectified" means what you think it does. As a result, > I don't know what you mean. > > (# To set right; correct. > # To correct by calculation or adjustment. See Synonyms at correct.) Sorry you're right, I meant "polarize". >> There is a thin line between playing to get as many VPs as possible and >> possibly falling short by a VP or two despite honest efforts, and >> playing to get 3 VPs because that is safer and basically playing to set >> up the table so that you can find someone who will give you the table >> for 2 VPs. > > Sure. And because my risk assessments differ from yours, my "honest > efforts" will differ from yours. That is, where I see 5 VPs, you may > only see 3. Where I see a GW, you may see a valiant second place. > > Bottom line: I may not take the same risks you take, even if they can > get me a better result overall if I deem the risks to be too risky. > > Thus, even if available, it is perfectly legitimate play for me to not > go for all five VPs, even if I could (in theory) get them. Indeed. Poor play is allowed. You can well be scared of a predator playing a Frederick the Weak Multi-Rush deck when you are having out 9 War Ghouls, and go on to torporize every other minion at the table and then transfer out in the name of poor play (you assess that it would be too risky to go for a VP). You are entitled to that. This basically makes most of the unsportsmanship rules unnecessary, by the way, as you can just "play poorly". >>> With seating choice in the final being a significant boost (especially >>> with the withdrawal of Dramatic Upheaval and Kindred Restructure), >>> there >>> is still a strong incentive for players to get more VPs. Even in a >>> relatively small tournament, I'd much rather have 3GWs and 15VP than >>> 3GWs than 9VP, to pick my seating. >> >> True. But the difference between 1st and 5th pre-finals is far-far less >> than the difference between 5th and 6th. > > In that you get into the finals, yes. > > However, once in the finals (including the pre-seating), the element of > choice in the seating is often crucial or, at the very least, extremely > significant. If you make it into the finals, you can win it (= chance to be first). If you don't, you're stuck with your former position. >>> However, if the proposal is to reward sweeps more highly, that's >>> actually easier with a rule which doesn't act solely on VPs. >> >> Not necessarily to reward sweeps. I'm not sure that scoring 2 VPs >> shouldn't be worth the same in a 1-1-1-2 or a 3-2 situation. In fact, >> the former might indicate a quickly desintegrating table where you >> could have gotten 2 VPs with a Frederick the Weak multi-rush deck just >> by virtue of being there, and the latter might be an epic battle of >> wits and skill against a powerful prey, two incompetent "allies" who >> don't recognize the dynamics of the table, and say a (D) rush predator >> who is focused on pummeling your minions "Cause its kool" even though >> he has no Fames. > > They "could" represent lots of things. 2-1-1-1-0 could just as easily > represent a table on which 5 world class players are sitting. I'm glad you agree with me. >>> Example (as above, but a tie): You win three games with 3VPs in each, >>> but no sweeps. I win two games with sweeps (5VP in one, 4VP in >>> another), but no other VPs. We both therefore have 3GW and 9VP. We >>> would tie. How to break this tie? Reward consistency or sweeps, >>> choose >>> your poison. >> >> Dunno, TPs could serve that very purpose. Anyway, I kind of like the >> fraction GW idea that gives you extra incentive to win "well". > > TPs, for reference, would solve that based on consistency. Since I have > two real-GWs, I have come first on two tables, but (joint) last on > another. Since you have three real-GWs, you have come first on three > first places. TPs will then reward consistency. > > A minor difficulty here might be that in the lead positions, you're > rewarding sweeps but at the edge condition (5th/6th) you're rewarding > consistency. This is potentially awkward. Dunno, I still suspect most of the "edge condition" scores to be around 2 - 2.5 GWs. If we are talking about instances where two players have 3 GW and 9-12 VPs (one player made two sweeps, the other made three non-sweep GWs) then TPs would indeed favor the player with three normal GW-s, but that would not be 5th-6th place, but rather around 2nd-3rd. I would not expect sweeps to become significantly more common. > However, it should be noted that this is essentially counting only the > VPs won by the table winner - which is another suggestion people have > given in the past. (Then resolving ties based on ALL VPs.) Yes. However, what was considered in the past may well be reconsidered in the present, for the situation is at least somewhat different. >> Nice assessment. I see some merit in rewarding sweeps better than 2-3 >> splits, if for nothing else than to finally give an advantage to >> 4-player tables. Giving 1.5 GWs for a sweep means that a single sweep >> ranks higher than a single no-sweep GW, and two sweeps rank as high as >> three non-sweeps. I think there may be merit in this idea, somewhat >> discouraging splits... > > If the criterion is that winning "better" (i.e. getting closer to a > sweep) is more desirable than winning in a manner which allows for > tossing VPs casually around, a linear progression of scores won't cut it > as a player tossing away a VP isn't punished any more than the VP they > throw away. A curve, or series of levels (of which "reward a sweep with > an extra VP" is a very simple example of a level), which rewards the > better positions more is more likely to do what you need. -- Bye, Daneel