[LSJ]Bribery, Collusion or Legal Play?

I need a clarification on the very important matter, since some posts in another thread made me doubt in things I've previously considered "obvious". Let's assume that the tournament organizer declared that the tournament will have X dollars (or N boosters) as prizes. 1). Is it legal to suggest a deal involving terms of splitting the prize money or boosters? In other words, can I suggest "please help me to win, and I will give you half of my prize"? Currently I'm convinced that it is Cheating: Collusion (or maybe Cheating: Bribery) and should be penalized by immediate DQ. 2). In what situations players can legally split the prize? I can believe that splitting prize is legal only if ALL players are agree with the split, but is it legal during the final game or only PRIOR to the final game (instead of playing it)? Thanks in advance, Ector

On 30 jul, 09:46, Ector <Ec...@mail.ru> wrote: > I need a clarification on the very important matter, since some posts > in another thread made me doubt in things I've previously considered > "obvious". Let's assume that the tournament organizer declared that > the tournament will have X dollars (or N boosters) as prizes. > > 1). Is it legal to suggest a deal involving terms of splitting the > prize money or boosters? In other words, can I suggest "please help me > to win, and I will give you half of my prize"? Currently I'm convinced > that it is Cheating: Collusion (or maybe Cheating: Bribery) and should > be penalized by immediate DQ. I told you what to search for in my answer in that other thread. Yes, they can. But only in the finals and subject to PTW. search for 'prize splitting author:LSJ' http://groups.google.be/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/browse_frm/thread/657e278e1692478c/5d0558751521082b?lnk=st&q=prize+splitting+author%3ALSJ&rnum=2#5d0558751521082b BTW, Peter is right about the definition of collusion. Prize-splitting collusion would be when 2 players have a deal *before the game* begins to split prizes and make one of them win. Or an on outspoken agreement with the same effect.

Ector wrote: > I need a clarification on the very important matter, since some posts > in another thread made me doubt in things I've previously considered > "obvious". Let's assume that the tournament organizer declared that > the tournament will have X dollars (or N boosters) as prizes. > > 1). Is it legal to suggest a deal involving terms of splitting the > prize money or boosters? In other words, can I suggest "please help me > to win, and I will give you half of my prize"? Currently I'm convinced > that it is Cheating: Collusion (or maybe Cheating: Bribery) and should > be penalized by immediate DQ. This is handled explicitly in the V:EKN Judges' Guide. Section 161 Bribery: "No player introduces incentives outside the current game such as cash, cards, or other items. (For example, splitting the prizes would be acceptable.)" > 2). In what situations players can legally split the prize? I can > believe that splitting prize is legal only if ALL players are agree > with the split, but is it legal during the final game or only PRIOR to > the final game (instead of playing it)? All players can mutually concede at any time, yes. [VEKN 3.5] Splitting prizes doesn't require mutual agreement of all players, no.

"Jeroen" <joen...@hotmail.com> ha scritto nel messaggio news:1185786644....@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com... > On 30 jul, 09:46, Ector <Ec...@mail.ru> wrote: >> I need a clarification on the very important matter, since some posts >> in another thread made me doubt in things I've previously considered >> "obvious". Let's assume that the tournament organizer declared that >> the tournament will have X dollars (or N boosters) as prizes. >> >> 1). Is it legal to suggest a deal involving terms of splitting the >> prize money or boosters? In other words, can I suggest "please help me >> to win, and I will give you half of my prize"? Currently I'm convinced >> that it is Cheating: Collusion (or maybe Cheating: Bribery) and should >> be penalized by immediate DQ. > > I told you what to search for in my answer in that other thread. Yes, > they can. But only in the finals and subject to PTW. search for 'prize > splitting author:LSJ' To my understand, in the final player are just subject to the PTT (play to win tournament), not to the play to win rule. It's legal for the first seed to play just for one PW, for example. best Emiliano

On Jul 30, 1:46 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > Ector wrote: > > I need a clarification on the very important matter, since some posts > > in another thread made me doubt in things I've previously considered > > "obvious". Let's assume that the tournament organizer declared that > > the tournament will have X dollars (or N boosters) as prizes. > > > 1). Is it legal to suggest a deal involving terms of splitting the > > prize money or boosters? In other words, can I suggest "please help me > > to win, and I will give you half of my prize"? Currently I'm convinced > > that it is Cheating: Collusion (or maybe Cheating: Bribery) and should > > be penalized by immediate DQ. > > This is handled explicitly in the V:EKN Judges' Guide. Section 161 Bribery: > > "No player introduces incentives outside the current game such as cash, cards, > or other items. (For example, splitting the prizes would be acceptable.)" If I understand you right, I cannot offer my own $100 as a bribe, but I can offer $100 from the prize money (if there are at least $100 prize money, of course). Do you see ANY difference between my own money and prize money? Or between my own boosters and prize boosters, for instance? >From my point of view, prize is OUTSIDE the current game, so it cannot be used as a bribe. Why do you think different? Do you think that legal bribery is good for the game? As soon as my players will know that bribery is allowed, VTES would be ruined in Minsk, because we have a lot of players that value victory over the prize, and we have a lot of players that value prize over the victory. Thus, allowing bribery with a prize is a disaster, IMHO, and this must be immediately fixed! > Splitting prizes doesn't require mutual agreement of all players, no. Then, please, describe how this interacts with PTW. Players must try to get GW or maximum VPs they can, but they CAN accept a bribe. So, does a players accepting a deal "I will give you XXX, and you won't block my PTO and Alastors" have a legal deal? I assume that bribes add nothing to the legality, right? But if you are interested in enforcing PTW, why are you allowing such tempting reasons for *violating* PTW as bribes? Yours, Ector

On 30 jul, 13:16, "Tetragrammaton" <nos...@none.com> wrote: > To my understand, in the final player are just subject to the PTT (play to > win tournament), > not to the play to win rule. It's legal for the first seed to play just for > one PW, for > example. That's right. But it's semantics, IMO, because it's still a form of PTW.

On 30 jul, 13:17, Ector <Ec...@mail.ru> wrote: > On Jul 30, 1:46 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > > > > > Ector wrote: > > > I need a clarification on the very important matter, since some posts > > > in another thread made me doubt in things I've previously considered > > > "obvious". Let's assume that the tournament organizer declared that > > > the tournament will have X dollars (or N boosters) as prizes. > > > > 1). Is it legal to suggest a deal involving terms of splitting the > > > prize money or boosters? In other words, can I suggest "please help me > > > to win, and I will give you half of my prize"? Currently I'm convinced > > > that it is Cheating: Collusion (or maybe Cheating: Bribery) and should > > > be penalized by immediate DQ. > > > This is handled explicitly in the V:EKN Judges' Guide. Section 161 Bribery: > > > "No player introduces incentives outside the current game such as cash, cards, > > or other items. (For example, splitting the prizes would be acceptable.)" > > If I understand you right, I cannot offer my own $100 as a bribe, but > I can offer $100 from the prize money (if there are at least $100 > prize money, of course). Do you see ANY difference between my own > money and prize money? Of course, the difference being that the prizes are part of the tournement and your money or boosters aren't. >Or between my own boosters and prize boosters, > for instance?>From my point of view, prize is OUTSIDE the current game, so it cannot > > be used as a bribe. Why do you think different? Did you bother to read the thread I linked too? Everything is explained there. >Do you think that > legal bribery is good for the game? As soon as my players will know > that bribery is allowed, VTES would be ruined in Minsk, because we > have a lot of players that value victory over the prize, and we have a > lot of players that value prize over the victory. Thus, allowing > bribery with a prize is a disaster, IMHO, and this must be immediately > fixed! Again with 'the Sky is falling'... Learned nothing the last times you did this? PTW is still enforced. So you still cannot make a losing deal in exchange for prizes. > > > Splitting prizes doesn't require mutual agreement of all players, no. > > Then, please, describe how this interacts with PTW. Players must try > to get GW or maximum VPs they can, but they CAN accept a bribe. So, > does a players accepting a deal "I will give you XXX, and you won't > block my PTO and Alastors" have a legal deal? I assume that bribes add > nothing to the legality, right? But if you are interested in enforcing > PTW, why are you allowing such tempting reasons for *violating* PTW as > bribes? You cannot violate PTW (as it counts for finals) in exchange for prizes.

"Jeroen" <joen...@hotmail.com> ha scritto nel messaggio news:1185795587.2...@r34g2000hsd.googlegroups.com... [ quoted text not captured ] Again, in the final you can just ignore it (and isn't semantic). In the final, being top seed, as the "first" you can play from the beginning for a 2/2 split, for instance (resulting with you not "winning" that round anyhow) that is *not* playing to win , at least for what's usually intended with the standard "PTW" definition for a given round. Emiliano

On Jul 30, 2:39 pm, Jeroen <joen_...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > Of course, the difference being that the prizes are part of the > tournement and your money or boosters aren't. Pheh. My money and my boosters are as good as the prize. So the rule sounds incredibly stupid. > >Or between my own boosters and prize boosters, > > for instance?>From my point of view, prize is OUTSIDE the current game, so it cannot > > > be used as a bribe. Why do you think different? > > Did you bother to read the thread I linked too? Everything is > explained there. Surely I did. Nothing is explained there. Again, WHY the prize is considered to be "in the current game"? Do you bleed with the prize boosters? Do you play cards that manipulate prizes? Somebody will get the prizes AFTER the finals, but not earlier. > >Do you think that > > legal bribery is good for the game? As soon as my players will know > > that bribery is allowed, VTES would be ruined in Minsk, because we > > have a lot of players that value victory over the prize, and we have a > > lot of players that value prize over the victory. Thus, allowing > > bribery with a prize is a disaster, IMHO, and this must be immediately > > fixed! > > Again with 'the Sky is falling'... Learned nothing the last times you > did this? PTW is still enforced. So you still cannot make a losing > deal in exchange for prizes. I am a judge, and I'm already have a lot of problems with enforcing PTW. This will be much more difficult if my players will get a *good incentive* to violate PTW. A sane person trying to maintain the order would NEVER allow people to pay for violating the order legally. When somebody hires a killer, he is considered *more* guilty than the killer, since he organized the crime. When a VTES player offers a bribe for violating PTW, he is NOT guilty at all - only the bribed player can be punished for violating the rules, if a judge manages to catch him. IMHO, such "laws" are completely impossible to maintain. > > You cannot violate PTW (as it counts for finals) in exchange for > prizes. Oh. This is almost the same statement as "you cannot take money from the wallet you've found under your feet" :) Well, some people will try to find the wallet owner, but most will just take the money. Similarly, some people will never violate PTW, regardless of the bribe, but most will at least try to get the bribe. There is absolutely no sense of allowing the bribery - the game gets nothing except problems from that. Yours, Ector

On 30 jul, 14:24, "Tetragrammaton" <nos...@none.com> wrote: > "Jeroen" <joen_...@hotmail.com> ha scritto nel messaggionews:1185795587.2...@r34g2000hsd.googlegroups.com... [ quoted text not captured ] you misunderstand me. I know you have to play to win the tournement. But that's still a PTW requirement. That's why I added the part between brackets.

Ector wrote: > On Jul 30, 1:46 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: >> This is handled explicitly in the V:EKN Judges' Guide. Section 161 Bribery: >> >> "No player introduces incentives outside the current game such as cash, cards, >> or other items. (For example, splitting the prizes would be acceptable.)" > If I understand you right, I cannot offer my own $100 as a bribe, but > I can offer $100 from the prize money (if there are at least $100 > prize money, of course). Do you see ANY difference between my own > money and prize money? Or between my own boosters and prize boosters, > for instance? Yes. See the quoted section of the rules, which distinguish between incentives the player introduces (her own money or boosters) and the incentives which are part of the tournament (prizes). >> Splitting prizes doesn't require mutual agreement of all players, no. > Then, please, describe how this interacts with PTW. Players must try > to get GW or maximum VPs they can, but they CAN accept a bribe. So, It is not a bribe. See the section of the rules quoted. > does a players accepting a deal "I will give you XXX, and you won't > block my PTO and Alastors" have a legal deal? I assume that bribes add > nothing to the legality, right? But if you are interested in enforcing > PTW, why are you allowing such tempting reasons for *violating* PTW as > bribes? The PTW aspect is handled differently in the final round. In the finals, each player is assumed to be playing to win. In the absence of another infraction, such as real bribery or threats, players are not violating the rules.

In article <1185798165.7...@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com>, Ector <Ec...@mail.ru> wrote: > Pheh. My money and my boosters are as good as the prize. So the rule > sounds incredibly stupid. The prize for the current game is part of the current game. If I'm playing a tournament poker game, I can't increase my bid with money from outside the game, either. > I am a judge, and I'm already have a lot of problems with enforcing > PTW. This will be much more difficult if my players will get a *good > incentive* to violate PTW. You can't violate PTW, even with good incentive. All the various arguments about offering folks part of the hypothetical large sum of prize money are about offering money to folks who no longer are forced to play to win and are now playing to lose, to play to lose for your benefit. > When a VTES player offers a > bribe for violating PTW, he is NOT guilty at all - only the bribed > player can be punished for violating the rules, if a judge manages to > catch him. IMHO, such "laws" are completely impossible to maintain. No one is discussing, at any point, offering a bribe to violate PTW. As that is clearly cheating. We are discussing offering a bribe to help someone else win when you aren't anymore. Peter D Bakija pd...@lightlink.com http://www.lightlink.com/pdb6/vtes.html

Peter D Bakija wrote: > In article <1185798165.7...@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com>, > Ector <Ec...@mail.ru> wrote: > >> Pheh. My money and my boosters are as good as the prize. So the rule >> sounds incredibly stupid. > > The prize for the current game is part of the current game. > > If I'm playing a tournament poker game, I can't increase my bid with > money from outside the game, either. > >> I am a judge, and I'm already have a lot of problems with enforcing >> PTW. This will be much more difficult if my players will get a *good >> incentive* to violate PTW. > > You can't violate PTW, even with good incentive. You can "ignore" the standard ptw in the final round, however. Emiliano

[ quoted text not captured ] I will try to explain better - with "ptw" is intended to win the currrent *round*, since during the all the rounds (but final one) of a tournament you're not allowed to base your play on "outside considerations", such as prizes, VP/GW already earned during the current event and so on. So it would make more sense to keep things like that (PTW= win the current round) *also* for the final round - because,IMHO, it's somewhat conflicting a situation (final round) in which players must play the round to win the "tournament" but, on the other side, are allowed to play *not* winning the final "round". best Emiliano

In article <jemri.8949$pd1....@tornado.fastwebnet.it>, "Tetragrammaton" <nos...@none.com> wrote: > You can "ignore" the standard ptw in the final round, however. I don't think this is the case. Or at least not if we are talking about the same thing. In the final round, if I understand the world correctly, you still need to Play to Win *that game*. If you go in as top seed, playing for a 5 way tie time out is still Playing to Win (as you win in a 5 way tie), even though it is counterintuitive. But in most instances, you still need to Play to Win the final round, which means trying your hardest to get a table win, and if that isn't possible, then trying your hardest to get maximum VPs, and if that isn't possible, well, then you can do whatever you want. Maybe I am misunderstanding you? [ quoted text not captured ]

Peter D Bakija wrote: > In article <jemri.8949$pd1....@tornado.fastwebnet.it>, > "Tetragrammaton" <nos...@none.com> wrote: > >> You can "ignore" the standard ptw in the final round, however. > > I don't think this is the case. Or at least not if we are talking about > the same thing. > > In the final round, if I understand the world correctly, you still need > to Play to Win *that game*. Only as it suits you. As stated elsewhere, the players in the finals are automatically assumed to be playing to win (in the absence of bribery or threats or other illegal activity). > If you go in as top seed, playing for a 5 > way tie time out is still Playing to Win (as you win in a 5 way tie), > even though it is counterintuitive. But in most instances, you still > need to Play to Win the final round, which means trying your hardest to > get a table win, and if that isn't possible, then trying your hardest to > get maximum VPs, and if that isn't possible, well, then you can do > whatever you want. In the final, play to win is "how do I play this to maximize my outcome" where "outcome" is whatever goal the player is playing for. Prizes (including splits), for example.

On Jul 30, 4:17 am, Ector <Ec...@mail.ru> wrote: > On Jul 30, 1:46 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > > Ector wrote: > > This is handled explicitly in the V:EKN Judges' Guide. Section 161 Bribery: > > "No player introduces incentives outside the current game such as cash, cards, > > or other items. (For example, splitting the prizes would be acceptable.)" > If I understand you right, I cannot offer my own $100 as a bribe, but > I can offer $100 from the prize money (if there are at least $100 > prize money, of course). Do you see ANY difference between my own > money and prize money? Or between my own boosters and prize boosters, > for instance? Sure - with prize money, if you lose, whoever you bribed doesn't get anything. > From my point of view, prize is OUTSIDE the current game, so it cannot > be used as a bribe. Why do you think different? Do you think that > legal bribery is good for the game? Bribery only using in-game prizes works as risk mitigation - a player in a dominant position has a small chance of losing, by luck or happenstance or other players conspiring against him. By sacrificing some of the prize, he can reduce that risk. The game more closely approximates the expected outcome. If you only allow bribing with in- game resources, then players will tend to only accept bribes from players that already have a good chance of winning anyway. A bribe between players when the game is more evenly matched raises serious PTW concerns. > As soon as my players will know that bribery is allowed, VTES would > be ruined in Minsk, because we have a lot of players that value victory > over the prize, and we have a lot of players that value prize over the > victory. Thus, allowing bribery with a prize is a disaster, IMHO, and > this must be immediately fixed! Could you please elaborate?

LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in news:8fnri.25098$RX.1...@newssvr11.news.prodigy.net: [ quoted text not captured ] Can you explain why this is necesary? I'm still unclear as to why you need something other than the same old Play to Win in the finals. I know you don't add rules where they aren't needed, but I cannot think of a circumstance under which anything more or less than "same old PTW" is needed in a finals. DZ

atomweaver wrote: > LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in >> In the final, play to win is "how do I play this to maximize my >> outcome" where "outcome" is whatever goal the player is playing for. >> Prizes (including splits), for example. >> > Can you explain why this is necesary? "Necessary"? Nothing is "necessary". It is how it has always been. At least, for the finals. The preliminary rounds "needed" the addition of "play the game at hand rather than the tournament". The finals need no such addition, since there is nothing after the final that would compete with the goal of the final (that being: finish as best you can). Can you explain why it would be necessary to add something to the final?

"Tetragrammaton" <nos...@none.com> schreef in bericht news:ejmri.8958$pd1....@tornado.fastwebnet.it... [ quoted text not captured ] Yes. I knew that. Like I said, you misunderstood me. Well, actually, after reading LSJ's post, I didn't understand correctly. I thought you still had to play to maximise your final standing in the tournement. Which turns out to be assumed and not enforced.

Tetragrammaton wrote: > LSJ wrote: >> atomweaver wrote: >>> LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in >>>> In the final, play to win is "how do I play this to maximize my >>>> outcome" where "outcome" is whatever goal the player is playing for. >>>> Prizes (including splits), for example. >>>> >>> Can you explain why this is necesary? >> "Necessary"? Nothing is "necessary". >> >> It is how it has always been. At least, for the finals. >> > How it has always been, however, shouldn't be an argument. > Lots of rules or cards were changed to a certain point, though > they always been as the were before the change.... Indeed, it is not an argument, nor is it being used as one. Just pointing out a flaw in the original question (which assumed that it had been added). >> The preliminary rounds "needed" the addition of "play the game at >> hand rather than the tournament". The finals need no such addition, >> since there is nothing after the final that would compete with the >> goal of the final (that being: finish as best you can). > > The "goal of the final" is different from the goal of the game, though - Exactly. Why force a player to play to a smaller prize when she could get a larger one? That is antithetical to a tournament final. > Why 2 or three rounds (the preliminary ones) cannot be played with prize > offers, Because those rounds have no prizes to offer. > and must be played to win (gw, or maximize if you can't go x the gw) > the actual round, while the final round is different ? One possible reason: the finals affect only the finalist. > harmonizing the rounds would result in better consistence, imho. >> Can you explain why it would be necessary to add something to the >> final? > > Consistence with the goal of the game, that is: > play to gain the most vp (and then win) = that is, in tournament, you have > to > play for the GW, if you can't, then maximize VP as much as you can. In a tournament final, the goal is to maximize your reward for playing in the tournament. Players can be assumed to be doing exactly that, since there are no future considerations that would compete with that goal.

LSJ wrote: > Tetragrammaton wrote: >> LSJ wrote: >>> atomweaver wrote: >>>> LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in >>>>> In the final, play to win is "how do I play this to maximize my >>>>> outcome" where "outcome" is whatever goal the player is playing >>>>> for. Prizes (including splits), for example. >>>>> >>>> Can you explain why this is necesary? >>> "Necessary"? Nothing is "necessary". >>> >>> It is how it has always been. At least, for the finals. >>> >> How it has always been, however, shouldn't be an argument. >> Lots of rules or cards were changed to a certain point, though >> they always been as the were before the change.... > > Indeed, it is not an argument, nor is it being used as one. > Just pointing out a flaw in the original question (which assumed that > it had been added). But actually it has been added someway, since it's pretty obviuos that for several people the assumption was different (that is: you play the final as much as other rounds / vtes games: trying to get the most vp). You can't pretend people to play or know things that are not of public domain - The tournament rules do not support your statement, in fact (nowhere is written that players should limit themselves in just "winning" the tournament in the final round, and not the round, because of their starting seed in the final). > >>> The preliminary rounds "needed" the addition of "play the game at >>> hand rather than the tournament". The finals need no such addition, >>> since there is nothing after the final that would compete with the >>> goal of the final (that being: finish as best you can). >> >> The "goal of the final" is different from the goal of the game, >> though - > > Exactly. Yes, and this should be somewhat fixed, indeed. > > Why force a player to play to a smaller prize when she could get a > larger one? That is antithetical to a tournament final. > >> Why 2 or three rounds (the preliminary ones) cannot be played with >> prize offers That doesn't make too much sense to me - prizes are there since the very start of the tournament. A player could offer them at first round ("if i'll win the tournament, i'll give you some boosters from my prize") as much he/she can offer them during the final ("if i'll win the tournament, i'll give you some boosters from my prize"). Whatever the round, there's no guaranteed chanche that the player will be effectively able to get prizes (even in the final round, that player can end up in not winning prizes at all, eg: placing second with tournament prizes given just to the first player). > > Because those rounds have no prizes to offer. > To my understand, the "tournament" has prize to offer - not even the final can guarantee you that you'll end up getting some prizes (example above). >> and must be played to win (gw, or maximize if you can't go x the gw) >> the actual round, while the final round is different ? > > One possible reason: the finals affect only the finalist. > So ? It should affect the very fundament of the game too ? >> Consistence with the goal of the game, that is: >> play to gain the most vp (and then win) = that is, in tournament, >> you have to >> play for the GW, if you can't, then maximize VP as much as you can. > > In a tournament final, the goal is to maximize your reward for > playing in the tournament. Afaik, there's nothing in the tournament rules that support this, however. >Players can be assumed to be doing exactly > that, since there are no future considerations that would compete > with that goal. Do we play vtes or do we play finals ? I still can't see the reason why the final round should change the fundamental game goal (that is: play to get the most vp). Emiliano

On Jul 30, 2:35 pm, "Tetragrammaton" <nos...@none.com> wrote: > LSJ wrote: > > Tetragrammaton wrote: > >> LSJ wrote: > > Why force a player to play to a smaller prize when she could get a > > larger one? That is antithetical to a tournament final. > > That doesn't make too much sense to me - prizes are there since the very > start of the tournament. > A player could offer them at first round ("if i'll win the tournament, i'll > give you some boosters > from my prize") as much he/she can offer them during the final ("if i'll win > the tournament, > i'll give you some boosters from my prize"). > Whatever the round, there's no guaranteed chanche that the player will be > effectively able to > get prizes (even in the final round, that player can end up in not winning > prizes at all, eg: placing second > with tournament prizes given just to the first player). But that creates the possibility of bad incentives. In the final, every possible motivation is on the table: to win the prize up for stake in this game. If players agree at table 1 that if A wins, B gets a cut of the action, then at the next 2 tables, B will have an incentive to make sure that A wins. But A isn't at his table, and no one else at the table knows B's motives, but B would be inclined to do things like, maybe, make sure a deck that A trumps gets a table sweep. It makes it more likely that he'll get a cut of the action. I'm sure you appreciate the problem with a player doing this, since it is completely disruptive of the game. If playing for a share of the prize prior to the final round is a permissible goal, then B's conduct would be legal since he would be "playing to win" when that term is expanded to mean "maximizing amount of prize ultimately acquired."

[ quoted text not captured ] Does this include maximizing your "Malkavian Wackiness"? "I bleed you across table, because 'I AM Dolphin Black, and I am Kwaazzy!!'" "But, but, it will give my prey 6 pool and a VP, and cost you the GW!" "No matter, I (my character, that is) am kooky, nutty, out to lunch, wacky, etc etc. It's all about maximizing my goals in this finals game, haha! And as a Malkavian, I must be loony!!!" (My most disliked type of player - the role-playing card gamer...) best - chris -- Super Fun Cards http://stores.ebay.com/superfuncards/ auct...@superfuncards.com

Tetragrammaton wrote: > LSJ wrote: > >>> and must be played to win (gw, or maximize if you can't go x the gw) >>> the actual round, while the final round is different ? >> One possible reason: the finals affect only the finalist. >> > So ? It should affect the very fundament of the game too ? > In English, a fundament is more commonly use to refer to one's anus. In the usage you are looking for, "foundation" is the more common term. However, I think that the rule about PTW in the finals is affecting the anus of the game as well. There's a lot of caca (does that mean the same thing in Italian as in Spanish?) that needs cleaning up here... best- chris Emiliano, I would have replied directly, but no e-mail addy, sooo... [ quoted text not captured ]

On Jul 30, 3:11 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > LSJ wrote: > In a tournament final, the goal is to maximize your reward for playing in the > tournament. Players can be assumed to be doing exactly that, since there are no > future considerations that would compete with that goal. I think the goal of a tournament overall should be to reward players who play well, promote the game, and encourage people to continue playing and supporting the game. If you can make a deal to gain more VP (PtW) and thus gain more prizes, that makes sense in the context of the game and continuing the play-to-win point of the game and previous rounds. If you make a deal to make no VP but stonewall your predator and let your prey sweep the table in exchange for better prizes, you are going to be rewarded 2nd or 3rd place equivalent prizes for 0 VP play. This is bribery and collusion in my opinion. If I were the victim of the former PtW deal, I'd have no issue with it. If I was the victim of a play-to-lose-but-take-me-out-with-them prize-based deal, I would be extremely aggravated (and would proceed to torpor). Offering prize support in a deal is bribery. It's completely semantical whether you are offering packs from your personal stash, cash or prize support, a bribe is a bribe. Physical goods for deal making just doesn't sit well with me because you're no longer rewarding play-to-win you're potentially rewarding play-to-throw-the- game for material goods. My personal feelings, I'd be curious how others feel... CJay

On Jul 30, 7:29 pm, "crob...@gmail.com" <crob...@gmail.com> wrote: > I think the goal of a tournament overall should be to reward players > who play well, promote the game, and encourage people to continue > playing and supporting the game. Interestingly enough, the people whose names appear on final tables again and again are the short list of people that fit that description. Despite the legality of bribes. > If you make a deal to make no VP but stonewall your predator > and let your prey sweep the table in exchange for better prizes, you > are going to be rewarded 2nd or 3rd place equivalent prizes for 0 VP > play. This is bribery and collusion in my opinion. That would really suck. For everyone at the table. If I were the "victim" of the deal I'd probably be so pissed I'd propose a nuclear option: split the prize support three ways with my prey and grandprey if they transfer out to me. It's more than they'd get by playing a rigged game... Does it happen that often, though? Should it? I don't know how many people are so desperate for, say, 12 booster packs, that they would generate such a huge amount of loathing to get them. Especially since those booster packs are only really good for... playing more of the game. And as some are quick to point out in the other thread, it often costs more to play the game than you can reasonably get back by winning, anyway. Now, if you could get $10,000...! That would be something.

On 31 jul, 05:29, "crob...@gmail.com" <crob...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Offering prize support in a deal is bribery. It's completely > semantical whether you are offering packs from your personal stash, > cash or prize support, a bribe is a bribe. Physical goods for deal > making just doesn't sit well with me because you're no longer > rewarding play-to-win you're potentially rewarding play-to-throw-the- > game for material goods. While I share many of your views, i do think that there's a difference between using your own stash as oposed to the prizes. Especially because the 'buy material' is equal for everyone. If you would allow people to use their own stash, the richer player would be able to offer more.

On Jul 30, 3:54 pm, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > In article <1185798165.761426.323...@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com>, > > Ector <Ec...@mail.ru> wrote: > > If I'm playing a tournament poker game, I can't increase my bid with > money from outside the game, either. So, the only difference is: the bribe is limited by the size of the prize itself. That's why there are so many people AGAINST the large prizes. Everybody seems to be happy with the small prizes, until they realize that some players are poor enough to be bribed even by the small bribes. Obviously, fixing the strange rules will allow to play with any prizes. > No one is discussing, at any point, offering a bribe to violate PTW. As > that is clearly cheating. We are discussing offering a bribe to help > someone else win when you aren't anymore. Why do you think that "offering a bribe to violate PTW is clearly cheating"? Nobody will offer a bribe and say: "Now, violate PTW!" :) If my predator offers me a booster (1 of the 3 prize boosters) to let him pass Alastor, it would be extremely difficult to determine whether accepting such deal is a PTW violation of not. Rules don't prohibit the stupid play. So, the "stupid" player lets Alastor pass, gets smashed by the Assault Rifle and loses - but he's happy since he's got a decent share of the prize. Don't you see that allowing such things to happen is awful? Besides, what rule did the briber violate? He CANNOT determine was his deal PTW for the other player or not. So you cannot issue him even a warning! If you still don't see that the rule about "splitting prizes" is awful - you deserve the chaos you'll get as a result. Yours, Ector

On Jul 31, 10:47 am, crispyfloss <crispyfl...@gmail.com> wrote: > Interestingly enough, the people whose names appear on final tables > again and again are the short list of people that fit that > description. Despite the legality of bribes. Nobody is pretending that ALL players offer or accept bribes. The best players, obviously, value good game much more than a relatively small prize. > > Does it happen that often, though? Should it? I don't know how many > people are so desperate for, say, 12 booster packs, that they would > generate such a huge amount of loathing to get them. Especially since > those booster packs are only really good for... playing more of the > game. And as some are quick to point out in the other thread, it > often costs more to play the game than you can reasonably get back by > winning, anyway. You're talking about the major tournaments. VTES isn't limited by them. Some of my players regularly miss the tournaments due to the participation fee (something like $1). This fee is used to pay for the prize boosters (usually 3). Isn't it clear that bribery will flourish here as soon as my players would know about the possibility? > Now, if you could get $10,000...! That would be something. Please understand that there are players that appreciate 1-2 boosters almost as well as your players would appreciate $10,000. There ARE poor players and poor countries. Yours, Ector

On Jul 30, 7:09 pm, crispyfloss <crispyfl...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Sure - with prize money, if you lose, whoever you bribed doesn't get > anything. How can you be sure of that? Who can prohibit the briber from giving his own money after the tournament ends? The judge's rights end with the tournament. > > From my point of view, prize is OUTSIDE the current game, so it cannot > > be used as a bribe. Why do you think different? Do you think that > > legal bribery is good for the game? > > Bribery only using in-game prizes works as risk mitigation - a player > in a dominant position has a small chance of losing, by luck or > happenstance or other players conspiring against him. By sacrificing > some of the prize, he can reduce that risk. So you admit that bribed players are *less* likely to unite against him. But that means that they are less likely to do their best to achieve the largest number of VPs possible or GW. ANY accepted bribe is trading of prizes for violating PTW, either slightly or seriously. > > As soon as my players will know that bribery is allowed, VTES would > > be ruined in Minsk, because we have a lot of players that value victory > > over the prize, and we have a lot of players that value prize over the > > victory. Thus, allowing bribery with a prize is a disaster, IMHO, and > > this must be immediately fixed! > > Could you please elaborate? Easily. We have very different players here, and, unfortunately, there are many players who consider VTES only a "recreation". There are 4-5 "good" players and 10-15 "players for fun" and newbies. Many players of the "fun" group are very poor. God knows where they get their cards, but I assume that at least 30% of our players would happily violate PTW and even give up for a decent share of the prize. Obviously, the "good" players want to win much more than to get 1-2 boosters. This creates very serious danger of converting VTES into the "game of fat wallet". Yours, Ector

In article <1185882743....@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com>, Ector <Ec...@mail.ru> wrote: > So, the only difference is: the bribe is limited by the size of the > prize itself. That's why there are so many people AGAINST the large > prizes. > Everybody seems to be happy with the small prizes, until they realize > that some players are poor enough to be bribed even by the small > bribes. Not enough players are poor enough to be brined by even small bribes to worry about. > Obviously, fixing the strange rules will allow to play with any > prizes. No, no it won't. 'Cause the "strange" rules don't allow anything that wouldn't be allowed under non "strange" rules--you are allowed to accept a deal in any game in various situations. Find someone in that situation, offer them part of the prize for help, and you have a totally legal deal. > Why do you think that "offering a bribe to violate PTW is clearly > cheating"? Nobody will offer a bribe and say: "Now, violate PTW!" :) > If my predator offers me a booster (1 of the 3 prize boosters) to let > him pass Alastor, it would be extremely difficult to determine whether > accepting such deal is a PTW violation of not. Sure. But no one is going to do that. Or at least few enough people that it isn't worth worrying about. There is a certain level at which you can't really buy someone off. > Rules don't prohibit > the stupid play. So, the "stupid" player lets Alastor pass, gets > smashed by the Assault Rifle and loses - but he's happy since he's got > a decent share of the prize. Don't you see that allowing such things > to happen is awful? Someone that stupid is, in most cases, unlikely to be in the finals. And *most* folks aren't going to be bought off for a couple boosters, as most folks consider the game itself more important than a handful of boosters. But as the "handful of boosters" gets bigger and bigger, the "most folks" gets smaller and smaller. > If you still don't see that the rule about "splitting prizes" > is awful - you deserve the chaos you'll get as a result. You can't prevent it. But mostly, it doesn't come up. If ever, currently. I have never in my life been in a tournament game that had any sort of result affected by people splitting prizes. 'Cause I have never been in a game with prizes that were big enough for anyone to care. You make the prize big enough, however... [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <1185883746.4...@b79g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, Ector <Ec...@mail.ru> wrote: > Some of my players regularly miss the tournaments due to the > participation fee (something like $1). This fee is used to pay for the > prize boosters (usually 3). Isn't it clear that bribery will flourish > here as soon as my players would know about the possibility? No. Man. You have a *really* low opinion of your player base. Still. How do you play with these people? > Please understand that there are players that appreciate 1-2 boosters > almost as well as your players would appreciate $10,000. There ARE > poor players and poor countries. Sure. Why do you assume that they will be bought for 1-2 boosters? [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <1185885888....@o61g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, Ector <Ec...@mail.ru> wrote: > So you admit that bribed players are *less* likely to unite against > him. But that means that they are less likely to do their best to > achieve the largest number of VPs possible or GW. ANY accepted bribe > is trading of prizes for violating PTW, either slightly or seriously. Uh, no, it isn't. If I'm already not doing so hot--my likelyhood of winning the game, let alone getting 1VP, is questionable. But I can certainly Rush Arika cross table till she is in torpor. Arika's prey offers me a couple thousand dollars out of the 1st prize if he wins in exchange for me killing Arika. I accept, as that gives me a (presumably based on table situation) reasonably good chance of still not doing so hot in the game but still walking away with a couple thousand dollars. That is playing to win, as it increases the level of my outcome (i.e. a couple thousand dollars and losing the game instead of no dollars and losing the game). > Easily. We have very different players here, and, unfortunately, there > are many players who consider VTES only a "recreation". VTES is only a recreation. It isn't a job. It isn't a sport. It is a recreational game. > This creates very serious danger of converting VTES into the > "game of fat wallet". And do you finally see why folks want VTES to *not* have large cash prizes? [ quoted text not captured ]

On Jul 31, 9:13 am, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > In article <1185882743.031831.50...@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com>, > > If you still don't see that the rule about "splitting prizes" > > is awful - you deserve the chaos you'll get as a result. > > You can't prevent it. But mostly, it doesn't come up. If ever, > currently. I have never in my life been in a tournament game that had > any sort of result affected by people splitting prizes. 'Cause I have > never been in a game with prizes that were big enough for anyone to care. > > You make the prize big enough, however... Sunday evening, my predator offered his predator the prize (Selective Silence artwork) to help oust me. It didn't alter the results any, though. witness1

On Jul 31, 7:15 am, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > In article <1185883746.445734.238...@b79g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, > > Ector <Ec...@mail.ru> wrote: > > Some of my players regularly miss the tournaments due to the > > participation fee (something like $1). This fee is used to pay for the > > prize boosters (usually 3). Isn't it clear that bribery will flourish > > here as soon as my players would know about the possibility? > > No. Man. You have a *really* low opinion of your player base. Still. How > do you play with these people? > > > Please understand that there are players that appreciate 1-2 boosters > > almost as well as your players would appreciate $10,000. There ARE > > poor players and poor countries. > > Sure. Why do you assume that they will be bought for 1-2 boosters? I don't know about Byelorussia, but when I was in Moscow in 1991in the old Soviet Union the "official" exchange rate was 28:1 rubles to dollars (the actual black market exchange rate was much, much higher like 100:1). The average person was making about 500 rubles per month. Now when I went and bought a pack of Marlboro cigarettes in a hard-currency store for 5 dollars. I had just spent the equivalent of one month's pay on the 20 cigarettes that were in the pack. So you might be able to see that a few packs of cards are worth a tidy sum in 1991 Moscow. I don't know how much has changed, but I am sure that some of this is similar to the current situaltion over there. Comments Welcome, Norman S. Brown, Jr XZealot Archon of the Swamp

On Jul 31, 7:15 am, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > In article <1185885888.727046.93...@o61g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, > > Ector <Ec...@mail.ru> wrote: > > So you admit that bribed players are *less* likely to unite against > > him. But that means that they are less likely to do their best to > > achieve the largest number of VPs possible or GW. ANY accepted bribe > > is trading of prizes for violating PTW, either slightly or seriously. > > Uh, no, it isn't. If I'm already not doing so hot--my likelyhood of > winning the game, let alone getting 1VP, is questionable. But I can > certainly Rush Arika cross table till she is in torpor. Arika's prey > offers me a couple thousand dollars out of the 1st prize if he wins in > exchange for me killing Arika. I accept, as that gives me a (presumably > based on table situation) reasonably good chance of still not doing so > hot in the game but still walking away with a couple thousand dollars. > That is playing to win, as it increases the level of my outcome (i.e. a > couple thousand dollars and losing the game instead of no dollars and > losing the game). Which violates the rules of sportsmanship, whether it is a penny or yacht. Using tangibles to alter player's behavior is cheating plain and simple. > > Easily. We have very different players here, and, unfortunately, there > > are many players who consider VTES only a "recreation". > > VTES is only a recreation. It isn't a job. It isn't a sport. It is a > recreational game. ....with unsportsman-like conduct. > > This creates very serious danger of converting VTES into the > > "game of fat wallet". > > And do you finally see why folks want VTES to *not* have large cash > prizes? Peter, I don't think you get what Ector is saying, because you lack the perspective to understand. If VTES costs TEN TIMES as much as it does now, then you would understand Ector's perspective, because Ector has to spend TEN TIMES as much of his income to buy the equivalent amount that a citizen of the United States would. Ector is already playing for big money. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <1185889994.6...@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com>, XZealot <xze...@cox.net> wrote: > Which violates the rules of sportsmanship, whether it is a penny or > yacht. Using tangibles to alter player's behavior is cheating plain > and simple. That may or may not be the case, but unfortunately sportsmanship is not hard and fast--again, using poker as an example, when you get to the last two players, they often just settle on a split (60/40 or something, depending on the situation). Is this unsportsmanlike? > ....with unsportsman-like conduct. What is or is not unsportsmanlike is certainly something that is debateable, but I think the game is often already replete with unsportsmanlike behavior, if unsportsmanlike behavior is defined as "doing something in the game based on out of game consideration". Like spite. Which is already one of the great motivators in this game. > Peter, I don't think you get what Ector is saying, because you lack > the perspective to understand. No, no, I do understand what he is saying. > If VTES costs TEN TIMES as much as it > does now, then you would understand Ector's perspective, because Ector > has to spend TEN TIMES as much of his income to buy the equivalent > amount that a citizen of the United States would. Ector is already > playing for big money. And yet he is still apparently playing in an environment where games aren't being thrown for a couple boosters (as all of his comments indicate that he is concerned about what will happen when people realize that they can do this...) I think that, like in many discussions involving Ector, he is extrapolating disasterous end results based on unrealistic belief. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <1185889613.7...@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, XZealot <xze...@cox.net> wrote: > So you might be able to see that a few packs of cards are worth a tidy > sum in 1991 Moscow. I don't know how much has changed, but I am sure > that some of this is similar to the current situaltion over there. Sure. But they could have been doing this already (exchanging a couple boosters for helping someone else win). And yet apparently they haven't been doing so. Or even trying to do so (as otherwise, this probably would have come up earlier). If the price of a couple boosters is such an incentive, you'd think someone would have already discovered that they can buy people off with them in game. [ quoted text not captured ]

LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in news:Xnpri.25122$RX....@newssvr11.news.prodigy.net: [ quoted text not captured ] To make the PTW rules congruous throughout the whole event. If you're going to add a rule to one round but not another, you get additional complication, because you are operating under two sets of PTW rules. Adding PTW to all rounds results in only one set of PTW rules. The simpler rules set is the one which applies to all rounds equally. DZ

On Jul 31, 5:09 am, Ector <Ec...@mail.ru> wrote: > On Jul 31, 10:47 am, crispyfloss <crispyfl...@gmail.com> wrote: > You're talking about the major tournaments. VTES isn't limited by > them. > Some of my players regularly miss the tournaments due to the > participation fee (something like $1). This fee is used to pay for the > prize boosters (usually 3). Isn't it clear that bribery will flourish > here as soon as my players would know about the possibility? Sadly, it isn't clear. > > > Now, if you could get $10,000...! That would be something. > > Please understand that there are players that appreciate 1-2 boosters > almost as well as your players would appreciate $10,000. There ARE > poor players and poor countries. I appreciate that fact. It's impressive that you have players willing to sink money into such a game when it's relatively so expensive. If these prizes are so valuable, though, isn't bribery a good thing? You have 5 players that won in the previous rounds, and are now playing the final table for a hugely valuable prize. But, one unlucky draw or one misstep could cause them to lose, and not get even a single scrap of the prize that they've already played so hard to earn. That doesn't seem particularly fair. Isn't it better to let them share the prizes with the other players, in exchange for protection if they get a little unlucky?

librarian wrote: > Tetragrammaton wrote: >> LSJ wrote: > >> >>>> and must be played to win (gw, or maximize if you can't go x the >>>> gw) the actual round, while the final round is different ? >>> One possible reason: the finals affect only the finalist. >>> >> So ? It should affect the very fundament of the game too ? >> > > In English, a fundament is more commonly use to refer to one's anus. In > the usage you are looking for, "foundation" is the more common > term. > However, I think that the rule about PTW in the finals is affecting > the anus of the game as well. There's a lot of caca (does that mean > the same thing in Italian as in Spanish?) that needs cleaning up > here... > Well, sorry for the bad term usage - however you're right, there's something to be cleared about this matter. best Emiliano

[ quoted text not captured ] I totally agree with your opinion - and it's still a mistery how and the reason why the tournament final has been "ruled" to allow, actually, the players to ingnore the goal of the game as described in the rulebook. Emiliano

[ quoted text not captured ] This could be also because rules seems to have weak points, and so actual kingmaking (at final round) could be done at the table ? Emiliano

On Jul 31, 4:15 pm, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > In article <1185885888.727046.93...@o61g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, > > Ector <Ec...@mail.ru> wrote: > > So you admit that bribed players are *less* likely to unite against > > him. But that means that they are less likely to do their best to > > achieve the largest number of VPs possible or GW. ANY accepted bribe > > is trading of prizes for violating PTW, either slightly or seriously. > > Uh, no, it isn't. If I'm already not doing so hot--my likelyhood of > winning the game, let alone getting 1VP, is questionable. But I can > certainly Rush Arika cross table till she is in torpor. Arika's prey > offers me a couple thousand dollars out of the 1st prize if he wins in > exchange for me killing Arika. I accept, as that gives me a (presumably > based on table situation) reasonably good chance of still not doing so > hot in the game but still walking away with a couple thousand dollars. > That is playing to win, as it increases the level of my outcome (i.e. a > couple thousand dollars and losing the game instead of no dollars and > losing the game). That is NOT PTW. Please re-read the PTW definition. "Your outcome" is not GW or VPs. That may not VIOLATE PTW, as in your example, but if the bribe makes you do something different from the actions you've planned without the bribe, I'd say that such behaviour is still an unsportsmanlike conduct. If you do the same you would do without the bribe, was the bribe really needed? Thus, I don't think that allowing players to bribe is needed even a single bit. > > Easily. We have very different players here, and, unfortunately, there > > are many players who consider VTES only a "recreation". > > VTES is only a recreation. It isn't a job. It isn't a sport. It is a > recreational game. This is heresy!!! VTES is a competitive intellectual game like Magic. At least, at the tournament level. > > This creates very serious danger of converting VTES into the > > "game of fat wallet". > > And do you finally see why folks want VTES to *not* have large cash > prizes? Surely. Just because of this ridiculous rule that is completely insane. //----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hey, LSJ and other VTES designers!!! If you insist that your game is NOT serious, people won't take it seriously. Thus, they would refuse to purchase your products in large quantities - one can get "recreation" and "fun" even with a single deck! I don't know who is author of the "recreational" idea, but the idea is incredibly stupid. Every CCG producer does his best to pretend that his game is VERY serious - see the $25.000 prize support for EVE CCG. VTES is rather complicated game, so nobody can hope to attract a lot of casual players - and failing to provide a serious game will throw away serious players. No wonder VTES doesn't provide large profits with such "clever" marketing!!! I cannot see any sense in the "prize-splitting" rule. We played 2 years without it and would play much longer. Who needs it, and what prevents you from removing it? Isn't it obvious that possible advantages of having such rule are far outweighted by the likely disadvantages (PTW violations, cheating, etc.)? Yours, Ector

[ quoted text not captured ] i just love the idea that somewhere out there vtes is going through its own version of Chess issues with tournament rules. we already had a ruling to prevent finalist round withdraw deals. i'm just waiting for our very own Bobby Fisher to rise up and rail against the establishment about 'play to win.' and i'm quite amused about the potential corruption that can go on in russian vtes tourney. i think it's terribly amusing, in a cynical allegorical respect. what better place to ultimately test the limits of 'legal corruption' in the game than russia? well, perhaps the usa, but we're often fat and happy and will be apathetic to any crisis until it's too late. which is also hilariously allegorical! well, might as well play with the rules as they are and give us a report back about how badly all the 'legal backroom dealing' affected the tourney. someone's gotta provide some hard data to this discussion, it might as well be a populace that can easily show such failures at lower levels of cost. ps: is that a rapidly growing vtes playgroup? i'm wondering if we should set up a donation circle? i know that roughly $40 and you can get a playgroup set of commons from the Lasombra, around several 1000 cards. and i'd love to unload some of my commons, as i'm sure others would as well. it's almost getting to the point that getting critical mass anywhere for this game is important. with roughly 300+ usa, and 400+ish in europe, and pockets elsewhere, we're almost looking at a market of just over 1000 (quite dedicated) players. that's... undead levels.

On Jul 31, 6:39 pm, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > In article <1185889994.699721.315...@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com>, > > XZealot <xzea...@cox.net> wrote: > > Which violates the rules of sportsmanship, whether it is a penny or > > yacht. Using tangibles to alter player's behavior is cheating plain > > and simple. > > That may or may not be the case, but unfortunately sportsmanship is not > hard and fast--again, using poker as an example, when you get to the > last two players, they often just settle on a split (60/40 or something, > depending on the situation). Is this unsportsmanlike? VTES is NOT Poker. Poker is all-about money, and it's played with money. VTES itself has nothing about money (or even boosters), and it's played without them. So, any prizes are clearly OUTSIDE the game. > And yet he is still apparently playing in an environment where games > aren't being thrown for a couple boosters (as all of his comments > indicate that he is concerned about what will happen when people realize > that they can do this...) All our players currently believe that bribery is cheating and is not legal. > I think that, like in many discussions involving Ector, he is > extrapolating disasterous end results based on unrealistic belief. Surely I do, since I'm a judge. You know, a person who maintains order and fair play. For any responsible judge even a single case of cheating is a disaster, and this rule makes cheating and violating PTW much easier. Yours, Ector

On 1 aug, 12:33, Ector <Ec...@mail.ru> wrote: > On Jul 31, 6:39 pm, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote:> In article <1185889994.699721.315...@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com>, > > > XZealot <xzea...@cox.net> wrote: > > > Which violates the rules of sportsmanship, whether it is a penny or > > > yacht. Using tangibles to alter player's behavior is cheating plain > > > and simple. > > > That may or may not be the case, but unfortunately sportsmanship is not > > hard and fast--again, using poker as an example, when you get to the > > last two players, they often just settle on a split (60/40 or something, > > depending on the situation). Is this unsportsmanlike? > > VTES is NOT Poker. Poker is all-about money, and it's played with > money. VTES itself has nothing about money (or even boosters), and > it's played without them. So, any prizes are clearly OUTSIDE the game. Don't mix up what you want with what's true. At the moment prices are, in fact, considered to be part of the final. If you don't like the poker example. See also: cycling races. The people in front regularly make deals for money. And no-one calls them on it... > > > And yet he is still apparently playing in an environment where games > > aren't being thrown for a couple boosters (as all of his comments > > indicate that he is concerned about what will happen when people realize > > that they can do this...) > > All our players currently believe that bribery is cheating and is not > legal. As the rules stand, it isn't bribery and neither is it cheating. And it *is* legal. I'm not saying it's an optimal rule, but atm it is the rule. And has always been the rule. > > > I think that, like in many discussions involving Ector, he is > > extrapolating disasterous end results based on unrealistic belief. > > Surely I do, since I'm a judge. You know, a person who maintains order > and fair play. By the DCI rules. Not by changing them because you don't like them. >For any responsible judge even a single case of > cheating is a disaster, and this rule makes cheating and violating PTW > much easier. Let's try this again, because the above sentence makes no sense whatsoever. 1. PTW in the final is assumed. No matter what someone does, he is assumed to play to win. Except when he's obviously colluding. So collusion is the ONLY way of violating PTW in a final. And that's hard to track anyway, because that means they made some kind of arrangement before the final starts. 2. Prize splitting is allowed, so it's not cheating. nor, by n° 1 above, is it violating PTW. See why that sentence makes no sense? I don't like these rules any more than you do, but you cannot act like they aren't the rules we have.

On 1 aug, 11:20, Ector <Ec...@mail.ru> wrote: > On Jul 31, 4:15 pm, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > > > > > In article <1185885888.727046.93...@o61g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, > > > Ector <Ec...@mail.ru> wrote: > > > So you admit that bribed players are *less* likely to unite against > > > him. But that means that they are less likely to do their best to > > > achieve the largest number of VPs possible or GW. ANY accepted bribe > > > is trading of prizes for violating PTW, either slightly or seriously. > > > Uh, no, it isn't. If I'm already not doing so hot--my likelyhood of > > winning the game, let alone getting 1VP, is questionable. But I can > > certainly Rush Arika cross table till she is in torpor. Arika's prey > > offers me a couple thousand dollars out of the 1st prize if he wins in > > exchange for me killing Arika. I accept, as that gives me a (presumably > > based on table situation) reasonably good chance of still not doing so > > hot in the game but still walking away with a couple thousand dollars. > > That is playing to win, as it increases the level of my outcome (i.e. a > > couple thousand dollars and losing the game instead of no dollars and > > losing the game). > > That is NOT PTW. Are you reading this thread or just shouting whatever you feel is right? read again about PTW being assumed in the finals...In other words: THERE IS NO PLAY TO WIN RULE IN THE FINALS!!!!! (barring collusion) >Please re-read the PTW definition. "Your outcome" is > not GW or VPs. That may not VIOLATE PTW, as in your example, Even if it wasn't a final, he could. He has almost no chance at 1 VP, so he can get 0 vp, in any way he chooses. If that way happens to help someone, so be it. >but if > the bribe makes you do something different from the actions you've > planned without the bribe, I'd say that such behaviour is still an > unsportsmanlike conduct. not necessarily. If he can choose how to get his 0 VP, what's the difference between talking someone into (not) doing something with words alone? >If you do the same you would do without the > bribe, was the bribe really needed? > Thus, I don't think that allowing players to bribe is needed even a > single bit. It's never needed. and it's a prize split, not a bribe. > > > > Easily. We have very different players here, and, unfortunately, there > > > are many players who consider VTES only a "recreation". > > > VTES is only a recreation. It isn't a job. It isn't a sport. It is a > > recreational game. > > This is heresy!!! VTES is a competitive intellectual game like Magic. > At least, at the tournament level. What? competititve intellectual cannot be recreational? NO GAME IN THE WORLD ISN'T RECREATION. Otherwise, it isn't a game. <snip> > Hey, LSJ and other VTES designers!!! If you insist that your game is > NOT serious, people won't take it seriously. WTF? Not this again. Where are you getting this? Because someone called your game recreational? *sigh* Thus, they would refuse > to purchase your products in large quantities - one can get > "recreation" and "fun" even with a single deck! I don't know who is > author of the "recreational" idea, but the idea is incredibly stupid. So playing V:TES should be hard work? Otherwise it's only fun and recreation.... Right.... Good luck at making people play a game in their free time that they don't like, because it's 'serious' and 'intellectual' > Every CCG producer does his best to pretend that his game is VERY > serious - see the $25.000 prize support for EVE CCG. Yes... all those people playing EVE against their will because of the hard work involved..... WTF? >VTES is rather > complicated game, so nobody can hope to attract a lot of casual > players - and failing to provide a serious game will throw away > serious players. No wonder VTES doesn't provide large profits with > such "clever" marketing!!! What? the clever marketing of being a game, and therefore, by its very definition needs to be fun and recreational? > I cannot see any sense in the "prize-splitting" rule. We played 2 > years without it and would play much longer. ignorance is no excuse. The rule existed longer than that. Jeroen

In message <1185960026.0...@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, Ector <Ec...@mail.ru> writes: >On Jul 31, 4:15 pm, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: >That is NOT PTW. Please re-read the PTW definition. "Your outcome" is >not GW or VPs. Please re-read LSJ's posts. The definition of PTW in preliminary rounds is not the same as the definition used in the final. >That may not VIOLATE PTW, as in your example, but if >the bribe makes you do something different from the actions you've >planned without the bribe, I'd say that such behaviour is still an >unsportsmanlike conduct. Agreeing a deal that involves a prize-split is legal in the finals, even if it wouldn't be in earlier rounds, because the PTW definition is different. >> VTES is only a recreation. It isn't a job. It isn't a sport. It is a >> recreational game. >This is heresy!!! VTES is a competitive intellectual game like Magic. >At least, at the tournament level. No, because it's a multiplayer game. By virtue of it being multiplayer, straightforward comparisons with Magic are doomed to failure. Magic does not have any need, for example, for skills such as diplomacy, subterfuge and camouflage (in the sense of keeping other players from thinking you're a threat - misleading a player as to your intended move is found in both), dealing with cross-table idiocy and table hate, and so on. In Magic, playing the best deck in the strongest way will make you win, randomness aside. In V:TES, the strongest way will vary so widely on any given table that it's simply not the case. V:TES is not a sport. It's a game. >Hey, LSJ and other VTES designers!!! If you insist that your game is >NOT serious, people won't take it seriously. Thus, they would refuse >to purchase your products in large quantities - one can get >"recreation" and "fun" even with a single deck! Sure. That's a good thing. > I don't know who is >author of the "recreational" idea, but the idea is incredibly stupid. >Every CCG producer does his best to pretend that his game is VERY >serious - see the $25.000 prize support for EVE CCG. No, there are a number of CCG producers that have produced non-serious games that aren't intended to be taken entirely seriously as a CCG. Magic: Unglued is one obvious, prominent, fun example. The Changeling CCG was very often presented as a fun story to tell and a game to play, despite its CCG mechanics. Rage had, for a very long time, problems being a "serious" CCG in that it had some rules problems (and card interactions) that you could drive a bus through. The Monty Python CCG had some intentionally ridiculous parlour game elements to it. The Star Trek: TOS card game had some strange notions about giving bonuses to people who got their cards signed by the appropriate actors - not really a hallmark of thought-through balance. Early versions of Magic were not, in fact, intended to be taken seriously. Richard Garfield estimated that a large collection would be in the order of 400 cards (that's hundred, not thousand), and that complete sets would pretty much never happen. (This also led to some design defects in Magic, which have been somewhat remedied in time, by it and other CCGs.) -- James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D YOU ARE IN ERROR. EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 NO-ONE IS SCREAMING. 13D7E668C3695D623D5D THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.

On Jul 30, 7:39 am, Jeroen <joen_...@hotmail.com> wrote: > Again with 'the Sky is falling'... Learned nothing the last times you > did this? PTW is still enforced. So you still cannot make a losing > deal in exchange for prizes. Nonetheless, I think there are more people than Ector who consider this to be a problem area and would like to see some changes made. I'm one of them. My concerns tend to be practical though, and practically prize-splitting isn't much of a problem at this time. I'm more concerned about the special win conditions of the finals, since I think it contributes to bad games (although the recent change in the dealing rules was a step in the right direction). -- David Cherryholmes

In article <1185964436.5...@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, Ector <Ec...@mail.ru> wrote: > VTES is NOT Poker. Poker is all-about money, and it's played with > money. VTES itself has nothing about money (or even boosters), and > it's played without them. So, any prizes are clearly OUTSIDE the game. I'm not saying VTES is poker. Yet they are still both multi-player games. And if VTES is played for big money, they'll have that in common as well. And Poker often *isn't* played with money, and any prizes are clearly OUTSIDE the game--tournament poker does not use money. It uses chips to determine the winner, and the winner gets a prize that isn't directly related to the chips they have. Much like playing VTES for a big chunk of money. > All our players currently believe that bribery is cheating and is not > legal. Cheating *is* cheating. But making legal deals is not. > Surely I do, since I'm a judge. You know, a person who maintains order > and fair play. For any responsible judge even a single case of > cheating is a disaster, and this rule makes cheating and violating PTW > much easier. Yes, yes, you are a paragon of order against the waves of chaos. You are a Vorlon and Donblas all rolled up into one. And the rest of us are unprincipled, corrupt and feral wild men. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <1185960026.0...@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, Ector <Ec...@mail.ru> wrote: > That is NOT PTW. Please re-read the PTW definition. "Your outcome" is > not GW or VPs. According to the rules, apparently, you are incorrect. > That may not VIOLATE PTW, as in your example, but if > the bribe makes you do something different from the actions you've > planned without the bribe, I'd say that such behaviour is still an > unsportsmanlike conduct. If you do the same you would do without the > bribe, was the bribe really needed? No, but people make deals all the time that change people's behavior ("rescue my guy from torpor, and I'll help you pass your next vote"). Doing so in exchange for part of the prize is the same thing. > This is heresy!!! VTES is a competitive intellectual game like Magic. > At least, at the tournament level. Yeah, that is helping your "I'm sane" argument... > Surely. Just because of this ridiculous rule that is completely > insane. I don't think that the rules do not prohibit prize splitting have much impact at all. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Aug 1, 9:00 am, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > Yes, yes, you are a paragon of order against the waves of chaos. You are > a Vorlon and *Donblas* all rolled up into one. OMG, +10 points for a Donblas reference. ;) -- David Cherryholmes

On 1 aug, 14:51, bluedevil <david.cherryhol...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 30, 7:39 am, Jeroen <joen_...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > Again with 'the Sky is falling'... Learned nothing the last times you > > did this? PTW is still enforced. So you still cannot make a losing > > deal in exchange for prizes. > > Nonetheless, I think there are more people than Ector who consider > this to be a problem area and would like to see some changes made. > I'm one of them. I never said I wasn't concerned. Ector just goes right over the top with his reaction and makes any kind of discussion impossible. >My concerns tend to be practical though, and > practically prize-splitting isn't much of a problem at this time. I'm > more concerned about the special win conditions of the finals, since I > think it contributes to bad games (although the recent change in the > dealing rules was a step in the right direction). Price splitting isn't a real concern at the moment, because there are no prices big enough to be worth throwing a final game over. Special win conditions for the finals... Depends on your point of view. Fr.ex. the player who came in as first seed, can play for a total time- out and that makes him win the finals and the tournement. Why would he be forced to play for a GW? More to the point: How can you force him to play for a GW, except for having no time-limit for finals? But that's an ever bigger change from the prelims. Maybe, you could add a special PTW rule for finals: play for the best outcome possible, but that's just another rule that can't be enforced. It might make for a -subjective- bad game, but that just an element that makes the final a different kind of game from the rest.

On Aug 1, 2:29 pm, Jeroen <joen_...@hotmail.com> wrote: > On 1 aug, 11:20, Ector <Ec...@mail.ru> wrote: > > Are you reading this thread or just shouting whatever you feel is > right? read again about PTW being assumed in the finals...In other > words: > > THERE IS NO PLAY TO WIN RULE IN THE FINALS!!!!! (barring collusion) Are YOU reading it? There IS PTW in the finals, although players are "assumed" to play to win. A deal for 1 VP in the finals still won't be legal if the player has reasonable chances to get GW. > >Please re-read the PTW definition. "Your outcome" is > > not GW or VPs. That may not VIOLATE PTW, as in your example, > > Even if it wasn't a final, he could. He has almost no chance at 1 VP, > so he can get 0 vp, in any way he chooses. If that way happens to help > someone, so be it. Yes, I know that player in the hopeless position can do everything he wants. But if that player can deal with somebody, then his position isn't usually so hopeless! Anyway, if players would "bid" shares of the prize to make a dying Rush deck to assault each other, for example, that would be simply awful. > >but if > > the bribe makes you do something different from the actions you've > > planned without the bribe, I'd say that such behaviour is still an > > unsportsmanlike conduct. > > not necessarily. If he can choose how to get his 0 VP, what's the > difference between talking someone into (not) doing something with > words alone? Because players are assumed to PTW in the finals. Without the bribe, each players is assumed to do his best for the best standing. With a bribe, he can pay no attention to his standing and VPs, and still "win more" (from his perspective). > >If you do the same you would do without the > > bribe, was the bribe really needed? > > Thus, I don't think that allowing players to bribe is needed even a > > single bit. > > It's never needed. and it's a prize split, not a bribe. It's a bribe with a portion of the prize. Call it any way you like, it's still a bribe. > > > > > > Easily. We have very different players here, and, unfortunately, there > > > > are many players who consider VTES only a "recreation". > > > > VTES is only a recreation. It isn't a job. It isn't a sport. It is a > > > recreational game. Any game that has tournaments and judges is a sport. Chess is a sport - as well as a "recreational game". VTES is the same. > > This is heresy!!! VTES is a competitive intellectual game like Magic. > > At least, at the tournament level. > > What? competititve intellectual cannot be recreational? NO GAME IN THE > WORLD ISN'T RECREATION. Otherwise, it isn't a game. Who said that it CANNOT be recreational? I didn't. I just meant that the "prize splitting rule" is completely inappropriate in any more-or- less serious game. > <snip> > > > Hey, LSJ and other VTES designers!!! If you insist that your game is > > NOT serious, people won't take it seriously. > > WTF? Not this again. Where are you getting this? Because someone > called your game recreational? *sigh* Because I want to keep the last bits of serious intellectual game I like. And I'm not alone. > Thus, they would refuse > > > to purchase your products in large quantities - one can get > > "recreation" and "fun" even with a single deck! I don't know who is > > author of the "recreational" idea, but the idea is incredibly stupid. > > So playing V:TES should be hard work? Otherwise it's only fun and > recreation.... Right.... Good luck at making people play a game in > their free time that they don't like, because it's 'serious' and > 'intellectual' "Hard work"? Where do you get such ideas? Is chess a hard work? Is Magic a hard work? Both are games of intellect and competition - very serious competition, but both can be played just for recreation. > > Every CCG producer does his best to pretend that his game is VERY > > serious - see the $25.000 prize support for EVE CCG. > Yes... all those people playing EVE against their will because of the > hard work involved..... WTF? Hard work? Really, WTF? EVE fans are going to enjoy the SERIOUS COMPETITION it offers. Most good games can be just a recreation, but become very challenging at the higher levels. We're talking about these higher levels now: having top players bribing each other with a prize is completely ridiculous. Multi-player nature of the game doesn't force such rules. > >VTES is rather > > complicated game, so nobody can hope to attract a lot of casual > > players - and failing to provide a serious game will throw away > > serious players. No wonder VTES doesn't provide large profits with > > such "clever" marketing!!! > > What? the clever marketing of being a game, and therefore, by its very > definition needs to be fun and recreational? Please read my sentence once more. The game is too complicated for the casual players seeking for nothing more but recreation. And, unfortunately, it isn't serious enough for the players that enjoy serious competition. > > I cannot see any sense in the "prize-splitting" rule. We played 2 > > years without it and would play much longer. > > ignorance is no excuse. The rule existed longer than that. So what? Does that mean that the rule is good? Or needed? Or even often used? Yours, Ector

In article <1185973811.5...@l70g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, bluedevil <david.che...@gmail.com> wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] Blood and souls, baby! :-) [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <1185972692.8...@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, bluedevil <david.che...@gmail.com> wrote: > Nonetheless, I think there are more people than Ector who consider > this to be a problem area and would like to see some changes made. Oh, sure--I agree that legal prize splitting for deals in the finals of a tournament of VTES is kind of wonky and something that could use a tweak. But as noted, unless the prizes get really big, it is unlikely to be much of an issue, which gets us to a sort of circular position: We don't need to fix the prize split rules unless prizes get really big. But if we fix the prize split rules, then prizes could theoretically get really big. And if they get really big, all sorts of other problems pop up (qualification rules/player attitude/needing a much stricter judjing system/etc). So in the end, do we really *want* to fix the prize split rules? Currently, they are virtually not an issue at all. [ quoted text not captured ]

On 1 aug, 16:01, Ector <Ec...@mail.ru> wrote: > On Aug 1, 2:29 pm, Jeroen <joen_...@hotmail.com> wrote:> On 1 aug, 11:20, Ector <Ec...@mail.ru> wrote: > > > Are you reading this thread or just shouting whatever you feel is > > right? read again about PTW being assumed in the finals...In other > > words: > > > THERE IS NO PLAY TO WIN RULE IN THE FINALS!!!!! (barring collusion) > > Are YOU reading it? There IS PTW in the finals, although players are > "assumed" to play to win. A deal for 1 VP in the finals still won't be > legal if the player has reasonable chances to get GW. >From LSJ: In the final, play to win is "how do I play this to maximize my outcome" where "outcome" is whatever goal the player is playing for. Prizes (including splits), for example. So you can LEGALLY trade the getting of 1VP for, say, a part of the prizes WITHOUT breaking PTW. Read it until it sinks in. > > > >Please re-read the PTW definition. "Your outcome" is > > > not GW or VPs. That may not VIOLATE PTW, as in your example, > > > Even if it wasn't a final, he could. He has almost no chance at 1 VP, > > so he can get 0 vp, in any way he chooses. If that way happens to help > > someone, so be it. > > Yes, I know that player in the hopeless position can do everything he > wants. But if that player can deal with somebody, then his position > isn't usually so hopeless! Anyway, if players would "bid" shares of > the prize to make a dying Rush deck to assault each other, for > example, that would be simply awful. With the rules for PTW in the final in mind: what's the difference in dying and becomming 5th without any prices and dying, becomining 5th with a part of the prize? So, again, no problem with the PTW rules. > > > >but if > > > the bribe makes you do something different from the actions you've > > > planned without the bribe, I'd say that such behaviour is still an > > > unsportsmanlike conduct. > > > not necessarily. If he can choose how to get his 0 VP, what's the > > difference between talking someone into (not) doing something with > > words alone? > > Because players are assumed to PTW in the finals. Without the bribe, > each players is assumed to do his best for the best standing. nope. not standing, 'outcome' which is not the same. >With a > bribe, he can pay no attention to his standing and VPs, and still "win > more" (from his perspective). win more, yes. Like prizes.... > > > >If you do the same you would do without the > > > bribe, was the bribe really needed? > > > Thus, I don't think that allowing players to bribe is needed even a > > > single bit. > > > It's never needed. and it's a prize split, not a bribe. > > It's a bribe with a portion of the prize. Call it any way you like, > it's still a bribe. nope. Because price splitting (atm) is legal, bribing isn't. > > > > > > > > Easily. We have very different players here, and, unfortunately, there > > > > > are many players who consider VTES only a "recreation". > > > > > VTES is only a recreation. It isn't a job. It isn't a sport. It is a > > > > recreational game. > > Any game that has tournaments and judges is a sport. Chess is a sport > - as well as a "recreational game". VTES is the same. you cried heresy because someone called V:TES recreational. Chess also isn't a sport. > > > > This is heresy!!! VTES is a competitive intellectual game like Magic. > > > At least, at the tournament level. > > > What? competititve intellectual cannot be recreational? NO GAME IN THE > > WORLD ISN'T RECREATION. Otherwise, it isn't a game. > > Who said that it CANNOT be recreational? I didn't. You flew of the handle when it was mentioned. >I just meant that > the "prize splitting rule" is completely inappropriate in any more-or- > less serious game. So what's that rant about recreational vs serious doing in your previous post? > > > <snip> > > > > Hey, LSJ and other VTES designers!!! If you insist that your game is > > > NOT serious, people won't take it seriously. > > > WTF? Not this again. Where are you getting this? Because someone > > called your game recreational? *sigh* > > Because I want to keep the last bits of serious intellectual game I > like. And I'm not alone. ???? > > > Thus, they would refuse > > > > to purchase your products in large quantities - one can get > > > "recreation" and "fun" even with a single deck! I don't know who is > > > author of the "recreational" idea, but the idea is incredibly stupid. > > > So playing V:TES should be hard work? Otherwise it's only fun and > > recreation.... Right.... Good luck at making people play a game in > > their free time that they don't like, because it's 'serious' and > > 'intellectual' > > "Hard work"? Where do you get such ideas? Is chess a hard work? Is > Magic a hard work? Both are games of intellect and competition - very > serious competition, but both can be played just for recreation. You mean, just like V:TES? Only with bigger prices. And neither are multi-players, which makes a HUGE difference. > > > > Every CCG producer does his best to pretend that his game is VERY > > > serious - see the $25.000 prize support for EVE CCG. > > Yes... all those people playing EVE against their will because of the > > hard work involved..... WTF? > > Hard work? Really, WTF? EVE fans are going to enjoy the SERIOUS > COMPETITION it offers. You're doing it again. Why can't recreation and serious competition co- exist? >Most good games can be just a recreation, but > become very challenging at the higher levels. We're talking about > these higher levels now: having top players bribing each other with a > prize is completely ridiculous. Multi-player nature of the game > doesn't force such rules. your point? > > > >VTES is rather > > > complicated game, so nobody can hope to attract a lot of casual > > > players - and failing to provide a serious game will throw away > > > serious players. No wonder VTES doesn't provide large profits with > > > such "clever" marketing!!! > > > What? the clever marketing of being a game, and therefore, by its very > > definition needs to be fun and recreational? > > Please read my sentence once more. The game is too complicated for the > casual players seeking for nothing more but recreation. And, > unfortunately, it isn't serious enough for the players that enjoy > serious competition. For the 10000000000th times, it can be both! and simultaneously! > > > > I cannot see any sense in the "prize-splitting" rule. We played 2 > > > years without it and would play much longer. > > > ignorance is no excuse. The rule existed longer than that. > > So what? Does that mean that the rule is good? Or needed? Or even > often used? no-one said the rule was optimal. But you're having a spasm about something that's been in the game for years. Never saw a price split in the 13 years i've been playing this game. no use having yet another fit about it. (bad for your health, Ector) In the end, it's only a game. Even when played seriously.

On Aug 1, 9:28 am, Jeroen <joen_...@hotmail.com> wrote: > I never said I wasn't concerned. Ector just goes right over the top > with his reaction and makes any kind of discussion impossible. Well, if you really wanted to you could just engage the hyperbole filters, but that kinda takes away half the point of Usenet. > Price splitting isn't a real concern at the moment, because there are > no prices big enough to be worth throwing a final game over. I think Ector's story highlights that "worth" is a relative concept. It would be better to resolve this issue without appealing to the size of the prize. I'd rather see arguments developed based on what's right or wrong, or in the spirit of the game, or consistency, or something like that. > Special win conditions for the finals... Depends on your point of > view. > > Fr.ex. the player who came in as first seed, can play for a total time- > out and that makes him win the finals and the tournement. Why would he > be forced to play for a GW? More to the point: How can you force him > to play for a GW, except for having no time-limit for finals? But > that's an ever bigger change from the prelims. He would be "forced" to play for a GW (as opposed to a tournament win) if a GW was required for a TW. Currently, as you said, there's nothing to make him do so. I think that is a flaw, as I think it contributes to stagnant finals that tend to time out more than I would like. > Maybe, you could add a special PTW rule for finals: play for the best > outcome possible, but that's just another rule that can't be enforced. What's wrong with just playing for a GW: 2 VP at least and more than anyone else? Seems like if everyone knew they had to carve out two at a minimum there'd be a clear incentive to keep the game moving forward. > It might make for a -subjective- bad game, but that just an element > that makes the final a different kind of game from the rest. Then why don't we just change the win conditions for all games to "more than anybody else?" Oh right, because it would suck. Why some people seem to insist it doesn't suck in the most important game of a long day's playing is beyond me. -- David Cherryholmes

On Aug 1, 10:01 am, Ector <Ec...@mail.ru> wrote: > Are YOU reading it? There IS PTW in the finals, although players are > "assumed" to play to win. A deal for 1 VP in the finals still won't be > legal if the player has reasonable chances to get GW. Yes, it would, because players can be assumed to be playing to win in the final. If he makes the deal for 1 VP, then that is, for him, playing to win (unless other, illegal, activity has occured, like threats or bribery -- and note, again, that offering to split the prize is not bribery).

Jeroen wrote: > On 1 aug, 14:51, bluedevil <david.cherryhol...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Jul 30, 7:39 am, Jeroen <joen_...@hotmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Again with 'the Sky is falling'... Learned nothing the last times >>> you did this? PTW is still enforced. So you still cannot make a >>> losing deal in exchange for prizes. >> >> Nonetheless, I think there are more people than Ector who consider >> this to be a problem area and would like to see some changes made. >> I'm one of them. > > I never said I wasn't concerned. Ector just goes right over the top > with his reaction and makes any kind of discussion impossible. > >> My concerns tend to be practical though, and >> practically prize-splitting isn't much of a problem at this time. >> I'm more concerned about the special win conditions of the finals, >> since I think it contributes to bad games (although the recent >> change in the dealing rules was a step in the right direction). > > Price splitting isn't a real concern at the moment, because there are > no prices big enough to be worth throwing a final game over. > > Special win conditions for the finals... Depends on your point of > view. > Imho, isn't a point of view, it's just a matter of fact that the final round "win" conditions are different from those of other rounds; and are *not* those intended in the object of the game (that is, "gain the most vps"). > Maybe, you could add a special PTW rule for finals: play for the best > outcome possible, but that's just another rule that can't be enforced. > I think that keeping the game goal/object as stated in the rulebook ("gain the most vps") and as enforced in the other rounds with the ptw would suffice - no need to adress some "special" rule for the final round, in this sense. > It might make for a -subjective- bad game, but that just an element > that makes the final a different kind of game from the rest. Anything that takes the players away from what's intended with the game's object should be considered "bad" enough, imho. best Emiliano

"bluedevil" <david.che...@gmail.com> schreef in bericht news:1185981978.5...@l70g2000hse.googlegroups.com... > On Aug 1, 9:28 am, Jeroen <joen_...@hotmail.com> wrote: > >> I never said I wasn't concerned. Ector just goes right over the top >> with his reaction and makes any kind of discussion impossible. > > Well, if you really wanted to you could just engage the hyperbole > filters, but that kinda takes away half the point of Usenet. How can Ector ever learn that the sky isn't falling (again) if no-one calls him on it? > >> Price splitting isn't a real concern at the moment, because there are >> no prices big enough to be worth throwing a final game over. > > I think Ector's story highlights that "worth" is a relative concept. > It would be better to resolve this issue without appealing to the size > of the prize. I'd rather see arguments developed based on what's > right or wrong, or in the spirit of the game, or consistency, or > something like that. But we're discussing 2 things here: - PTW in the finals: i can see that the finals are a unique kind of game, needing specific rules. - prize splitting: i don't see the use of this, but it is so. Ector's reasoning that it isn't aside. > >> Special win conditions for the finals... Depends on your point of >> view. >> >> Fr.ex. the player who came in as first seed, can play for a total time- >> out and that makes him win the finals and the tournement. Why would he >> be forced to play for a GW? More to the point: How can you force him >> to play for a GW, except for having no time-limit for finals? But >> that's an ever bigger change from the prelims. > > He would be "forced" to play for a GW (as opposed to a tournament win) > if a GW was required for a TW. Currently, as you said, there's > nothing to make him do so. I think that is a flaw, as I think it > contributes to stagnant finals that tend to time out more than I would > like. but you cannot say you need a GW, without getting rid of the time limit.... > >> Maybe, you could add a special PTW rule for finals: play for the best >> outcome possible, but that's just another rule that can't be enforced. > > What's wrong with just playing for a GW: 2 VP at least and more than > anyone else? Time limit or 2-2-1. game ends without GW. And if you keep the tie breaker, the 1st seed player is not forced to get a GW, but prevent the rest from getting one. Seems like if everyone knew they had to carve out two at > a minimum there'd be a clear incentive to keep the game moving > forward. > >> It might make for a -subjective- bad game, but that just an element >> that makes the final a different kind of game from the rest. > > Then why don't we just change the win conditions for all games to > "more than anybody else?" Oh right, because it would suck. Why some > people seem to insist it doesn't suck in the most important game of a > long day's playing is beyond me. Because it's a timed(*) one-off game (**) and I think that final standings in the prelims should matter in the finals. It's the culmination of the other 3 games you played, so you should get something of a return out of fr.ex 3 GWs in the prelims. (*) timed, so can end w/o GW or even VPs (**) meaning that the result aren't used somewhere else. It IS a different game as the prelims.

Peter D Bakija wrote: > In article <1185960026.0...@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, > Ector <Ec...@mail.ru> wrote: > >> That is NOT PTW. Please re-read the PTW definition. "Your outcome" is >> not GW or VPs. > > According to the rules, apparently, you are incorrect. > Not according to the (tournament) "rules" - but just with LSJ stated here on occasions. Tournament rules, actually, do not tell final round from previous ones in the respect of game's goal/object - apart mentioning that prizes can be offered, there's nothing in the tournament rules suggesting that players should not have to play for GW/most vp in the final - that it's an LSJ statmentent, afaik. best Emiliano

On Aug 1, 1:04 pm, "Jeroen Rombouts" <jeroen.rombou...@telenet.be> wrote: > But we're discussing 2 things here: > - PTW in the finals: i can see that the finals are a unique kind of game, > needing specific rules. I can see that it is slightly different, but still a game of V:TES. It's super-outstanding-one-of-a-kindness is not a very persuasive argument (to me) for injecting elements that actually make that game worse. > - prize splitting: i don't see the use of this, but it is so. Ector's > reasoning that it isn't aside. I agree that it is so, but I remember that *I* just realized it was so a few years ago, and I was not happy about it then and I'm still not. > but you cannot say you need a GW, without getting rid of the time limit.... I'm happy with declaring no winner, a tie, or whatever. If the top five people who, de facto, were able to achieve significant amounts of game wins in the three preliminary rounds somehow can consistently not manage to swing it in the final.... well, it looks obvious to me whose fault that is. > Time limit or 2-2-1. game ends without GW. That's a tie and they split the prize support. No problem. But there will be none of this "I got 0.5 and was top seed.... winner!" lameness. -- David Cherryholmes

On Aug 1, 1:04 pm, "Jeroen Rombouts" <jeroen.rombou...@telenet.be> wrote: > > He would be "forced" to play for a GW (as opposed to a tournament win) > > if a GW was required for a TW. Currently, as you said, there's > > nothing to make him do so. I think that is a flaw, as I think it > > contributes to stagnant finals that tend to time out more than I would > > like. > > but you cannot say you need a GW, without getting rid of the time limit.... Why not? John Eno

On Aug 1, 1:57 pm, bluedevil <david.cherryhol...@gmail.com> wrote: > That's a tie and they split the prize support. No problem. But there > will be none of this "I got 0.5 and was top seed.... winner!" > lameness. Sorry for replying to my own post, but I see that I wrote something inconsistent and would like to correct it. If you can tie at 2 VP's then you could tie at 0.5 VP's. I'm not sure what the right system would be yet (maybe we could hash that out with further discussion), I'm just sure that I don't like the one we've got. -- David Cherryholmes

On Jul 30, 5:14 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: [...] > > In the final, play to win is "how do I play this to maximize my outcome" where > "outcome" is whatever goal the player is playing for. Prizes (including splits), > for example. No. "Outcome" is the player's final standing at the tournament. Prizes have nothing to do with "outcome" (or should not, if you consider they do). Players in a final must play to win the tournament. If they can't win the tournament they must aim for the 2nd place, and so on. -- Damnans http://www.almadrava.net/damnans http://www.vtes.net http://es.groups.yahoo.com/group/vteshispania/ http://iuturna.sorcery.net (IRC channel: #vtes)

On Aug 1, 1:57 pm, bluedevil <david.cherryhol...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Aug 1, 1:04 pm, "Jeroen Rombouts" <jeroen.rombou...@telenet.be> > > but you cannot say you need a GW, without getting rid of the time limit.... > > I'm happy with declaring no winner, a tie, or whatever. If the top > five people who, de facto, were able to achieve significant amounts of > game wins in the three preliminary rounds somehow can consistently not > manage to swing it in the final.... well, it looks obvious to me whose > fault that is. > > > Time limit or 2-2-1. game ends without GW. > > That's a tie What about 1.5 - 0.5 - 0.5 - 0.5? There's no "Game Win" here, and clearly no tie. > and they split the prize support. No problem. How do you go about "splitting" a piece of artwork? No problem? > But there > will be none of this "I got 0.5 and was top seed.... winner!" > lameness. Witness1

On Wed, 1 Aug 2007, bluedevil wrote: > That's a tie and they split the prize support. No problem. But there > will be none of this "I got 0.5 and was top seed.... winner!" > lameness. I think you're putting the blame in the wrong place there. If someone wins with .5 VPs, it's because nobody else tried to win. Rather than change the rules, we need to retrain ourselves. If you're 5th seed (or even 4th, 3rd or arguably 2nd) and it looks like the table might time out, you should just close your eyes and go balls-to-the-wall forward. Try to get a VP. Try to win the game. Too often a low-seed player is just glad he's not getting ousted when a lunge is probably the correct play. Even if there's only a 5% chance for success. Even if there's a 0.00001% chance for success. That's better than getting half a VP and being 5th seed anyway. Plus, if you're prey to anyone but the top-seeded guy, then suddenly he's looking at not winning the game, because you're probably gonna get killed in your valiant (but futile) attempt to win. That's how to shake it up. Matt Morgan

On Aug 1, 2:30 pm, "Matthew T. Morgan" <farq...@io.com> wrote: > I think you're putting the blame in the wrong place there. If someone > wins with .5 VPs, it's because nobody else tried to win. Rather than > change the rules, we need to retrain ourselves. If you're 5th seed (or > even 4th, 3rd or arguably 2nd) and it looks like the table might time out, > you should just close your eyes and go balls-to-the-wall forward. Try to > get a VP. Try to win the game. Too often a low-seed player is just glad > he's not getting ousted when a lunge is probably the correct play. Even > if there's only a 5% chance for success. Even if there's a 0.00001% > chance for success. That's better than getting half a VP and being 5th > seed anyway. Plus, if you're prey to anyone but the top-seeded guy, then > suddenly he's looking at not winning the game, because you're probably > gonna get killed in your valiant (but futile) attempt to win. > > That's how to shake it up. I appreciate the perspective, but I don't think it's sufficient. For one thing, even if you are right, whatever incentives are already present are demonstratively not enough[1]. Second, since you can win the final with 1 VP regardless of your seeding as long as nobody else gets one, there's still lots of incentive from several angles to sit there, do nothing, and wait for somebody to screw up. Getting two that way, in the time allotted, is more difficult. -- David Cherryholmes

On Aug 1, 2:27 pm, witness1 <jwnewqu...@bellsouth.net> wrote: > What about 1.5 - 0.5 - 0.5 - 0.5? There's no "Game Win" here, and > clearly no tie. See, my point is that I would be perfectly OK with saying nobody won, no prizes, save 'em for next year... whatever. > How do you go about "splitting" a piece of artwork? No problem? I'm not sure, but I don't think it's an intractable problem. I think final games being overly dull and cautious is a real, immediate problem, though (although obviously not all finals are like that). -- David Cherryholmes

On Aug 1, 10:57 am, bluedevil <david.cherryhol...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Aug 1, 1:04 pm, "Jeroen Rombouts" <jeroen.rombou...@telenet.be> > wrote: > > but you cannot say you need a GW, without getting rid of the time limit.... > > I'm happy with declaring no winner, a tie, or whatever. If the top > five people who, de facto, were able to achieve significant amounts of > game wins in the three preliminary rounds somehow can consistently not > manage to swing it in the final.... well, it looks obvious to me whose > fault that is. Blind luck? I would expect the better the players and the better the decks, the more likely the game approaches stalemate. Barring random misfortune, like a rock-to-my-scissors situation. > > Time limit or 2-2-1. game ends without GW. > > That's a tie and they split the prize support. No problem. But there > will be none of this "I got 0.5 and was top seed.... winner!" > lameness. Sounds great to me to light a fire under the players. I've seen some spectacular finals, but unfortunately quite a few drawn-out creative deliberation competitions. I'd like something that motivates people to play the game. Is that what this proposal does? Under play to game win, you still motivate people by the prospect of prize support, but you only let them get it if they get a game win (assuming winner-takes). Otherwise it's split. So if someone does game win, they get it all, but if they don't, they get a share. This seems to shift the incentive from having one player pushing for a time-out while the others try to disrupt that situation, to having an incentive for four people to time-out while one player tries to disrupt that. In the former situation it's the top-seed that has the incentive to do nothing, in the latter it's the four worst-positioned decks that try to do that. You just don't know who they are until the game has gotten some momentum. This almost sounds like building-in a prize split deal: when one player starts pulling ahead, you'd better keep his prey alive or you risk losing prize support that's otherwise yours. It's a pretty tough argument to make that keeping someone alive, even if it's your predator, is unambiguously not playing to win, under any standard. If you want to see balls-to-the-walls games where people take daring risks, sometimes pulling it off and sometimes failing, why not give equal prize support for making the finals, with nothing for final placement in the tournament? You know, like in the good ol' days, before it was about the money, before everything went all corporate...

On Aug 1, 8:16 pm, Damnans <damnansv...@ono.com> wrote: > On Jul 30, 5:14 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > [...] > > > > > In the final, play to win is "how do I play this to maximize my outcome" where > > "outcome" is whatever goal the player is playing for. Prizes (including splits), > > for example. > > No. "Outcome" is the player's final standing at the tournament. Prizes > have nothing to do with "outcome" (or should not, if you consider they > do). > > Players in a final must play to win the tournament. If they can't win > the tournament they must aim for the 2nd place, and so on. Scott: I should also remind you of this post of yours: http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/e18a1e53971876ac?hl=en& "David Cherryholmes" <david.cherryhol...@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 (vtesrepS...@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 [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] I don't actually think it's that much of a problem, even though I've been in some long finals. I mean, a person only got to be top-seed by earning more GW/VP than everybody else. Maybe the fact that he can't do it in the finals has more to do with the level of competition there than it does with perverse incentives. witness1

Damnans wrote: > On Aug 1, 8:16 pm, Damnans <damnansv...@ono.com> wrote: >> On Jul 30, 5:14 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: >> [...] >> >> >> >>> In the final, play to win is "how do I play this to maximize my >>> outcome" where "outcome" is whatever goal the player is playing >>> for. Prizes (including splits), for example. >> >> No. "Outcome" is the player's final standing at the tournament. >> Prizes have nothing to do with "outcome" (or should not, if you >> consider they do). >> >> Players in a final must play to win the tournament. If they can't win >> the tournament they must aim for the 2nd place, and so on. > > Scott: I should also remind you of this post of yours: > > http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/e18a1e53971876ac?hl=en& > I think that Scott just rebated that position with different words - nothing new actually. Anyway, that statement is still flawed, imho. Final round should been played as any other rounds and as any other vtes game, that is: trying to accomplish the object of the game as it's presented in the rulebook. That would change nothing in the respect of "trying to win the tournament", since having to play to"GWin" the (final) round would just result in trying to win the tournament. Emiliano

"librarian" <auct...@superfuncards.com> schreef in bericht news:HIuri.42319$6K3....@newsfe10.phx... > LSJ wrote: >> Peter D Bakija wrote: >>> In article <jemri.8949$pd1....@tornado.fastwebnet.it>, >>> "Tetragrammaton" <nos...@none.com> wrote: >>> >>>> You can "ignore" the standard ptw in the final round, however. >>> >>> I don't think this is the case. Or at least not if we are talking about >>> the same thing. >>> >>> In the final round, if I understand the world correctly, you still need >>> to Play to Win *that game*. >> >> Only as it suits you. As stated elsewhere, the players in the finals are >> automatically assumed to be playing to win (in the absence of bribery or >> threats or other illegal activity). >> >>> If you go in as top seed, playing for a 5 way tie time out is still >>> Playing to Win (as you win in a 5 way tie), even though it is >>> counterintuitive. But in most instances, you still need to Play to Win >>> the final round, which means trying your hardest to get a table win, and >>> if that isn't possible, then trying your hardest to get maximum VPs, and >>> if that isn't possible, well, then you can do whatever you want. >> >> In the final, play to win is "how do I play this to maximize my outcome" >> where "outcome" is whatever goal the player is playing for. Prizes >> (including splits), for example. >> > > Does this include maximizing your "Malkavian Wackiness"? "I bleed you > across table, because 'I AM Dolphin Black, and I am Kwaazzy!!'" > > "But, but, it will give my prey 6 pool and a VP, and cost you the GW!" > > "No matter, I (my character, that is) am kooky, nutty, out to lunch, > wacky, etc etc. It's all about maximizing my goals in this finals game, > haha! And as a Malkavian, I must be loony!!!" > > (My most disliked type of player - the role-playing card gamer...) > How did he get into the finals?

"bluedevil" <david.che...@gmail.com> schreef in bericht news:1185991076....@o61g2000hsh.googlegroups.com... > On Aug 1, 1:04 pm, "Jeroen Rombouts" <jeroen.rombou...@telenet.be> > wrote: > >> But we're discussing 2 things here: >> - PTW in the finals: i can see that the finals are a unique kind of game, >> needing specific rules. > > I can see that it is slightly different, but still a game of V:TES. > It's super-outstanding-one-of-a-kindness is not a very persuasive > argument (to me) for injecting elements that actually make that game > worse. PTW in the prelims is the special case, actually. It's nowhere in the rule book, iirc. But, IMO, having to play to GW makes for an even worse game. See below. > >> - prize splitting: i don't see the use of this, but it is so. Ector's >> reasoning that it isn't aside. > > I agree that it is so, but I remember that *I* just realized it was so > a few years ago, and I was not happy about it then and I'm still not. > > >> but you cannot say you need a GW, without getting rid of the time >> limit.... > > I'm happy with declaring no winner, a tie, or whatever. If the top > five people who, de facto, were able to achieve significant amounts of > game wins in the three preliminary rounds somehow can consistently not > manage to swing it in the final.... well, it looks obvious to me whose > fault that is. problem is, if you need a GW, that a GW is easily converted in a tie by other players. So instead of 1 person playing for a time-out (until someone gets a VP), you get 2 or 3 people dealing AGAINST a GW at that table. That's even worse than a time out in my book. Now I come to think about it: if you have to play for a GW, you will probable HAVE to bribe 1 or 2 players to not engage in 'GW-blocking' AAAARGH imagine the kind of horrible dealings going on in such a final. (yes, even without table splitting) > >> Time limit or 2-2-1. game ends without GW. > > That's a tie and they split the prize support. No problem. But there > will be none of this "I got 0.5 and was top seed.... winner!" > lameness. > another problem: so no-one is FR.ex. American Champion this year? and if someone wins, is he the Champion and are all the others 2nd?

"Kushiel" <invisibl...@gmail.com> schreef in bericht news:1185991102....@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com... [ quoted text not captured ] because of time-outs and ties, you can end a final without a GW. And thus without a winner?

"Tetragrammaton" <nos...@none.com> schreef in bericht news:FM2si.12787$pd1...@tornado.fastwebnet.it... > Anything that takes the players away from what's intended with the > game's object should be considered "bad" enough, imho. > Intended? PTW isn't in the rulebook. Time limits are not in the rulebook. So the finals should be played without time-limit and for the most VPs, because that's 'intended'?

"bluedevil" <david.che...@gmail.com> schreef in bericht news:1185991504....@b79g2000hse.googlegroups.com... [ quoted text not captured ] I don't like it either, but like with capitalism, it's the least bad one we've come up with so far. :-)

[ quoted text not captured ] Because in the prelims, he had to play to advance to the finals, or specifically, to play to win that specific game itself. And since he had a Malkavian deck, probably wasn't too hard. best - chris -- Super Fun Cards http://stores.ebay.com/superfuncards/ auct...@superfuncards.com

[ quoted text not captured ] Since you are referring to a "finals", sounds like you mean a tournament. IIR, probably not correctly, both PTW and Time Limits are in the VEKN rulebook, which governs "official" tournament play. [ quoted text not captured ]

Jeroen Rombouts wrote: > "bluedevil" <david.che...@gmail.com> schreef in bericht > news:1185991076....@o61g2000hsh.googlegroups.com... >> On Aug 1, 1:04 pm, "Jeroen Rombouts" <jeroen.rombou...@telenet.be> >> wrote: >> >>> But we're discussing 2 things here: >>> - PTW in the finals: i can see that the finals are a unique kind of >>> game, needing specific rules. >> >> I can see that it is slightly different, but still a game of V:TES. >> It's super-outstanding-one-of-a-kindness is not a very persuasive >> argument (to me) for injecting elements that actually make that game >> worse. > > PTW in the prelims is the special case, actually. It's nowhere in the > rule book, iirc. Not really - as the object of the game it's to "score the most VPS". On the other side, in the final, as you're the first seed, you could play just for not scoring anything, and being still the winner in the end. That is in contrast with the object of the game as it's written, while for the prelimins the pt(g)w makes perfect sense considering the object of the game as it's presented in the rulebook. Emiliano

[ quoted text not captured ] I was clearly referring to the goal of the game as it's presented in the rulebook. (besides, PTW is implied in any game/competition, i think) And tournament rules should not allow to ignore that goal Emiliano

"Tetragrammaton" <nos...@none.com> schreef in bericht news:7y6si.13066$pd1....@tornado.fastwebnet.it... [ quoted text not captured ] So the problem is the time limit?

"Tetragrammaton" <nos...@none.com> schreef in bericht news:mB6si.13071$pd1....@tornado.fastwebnet.it... > Jeroen Rombouts wrote: >> "Tetragrammaton" <nos...@none.com> schreef in bericht >> news:FM2si.12787$pd1...@tornado.fastwebnet.it... >> >>> Anything that takes the players away from what's intended with the >>> game's object should be considered "bad" enough, imho. >>> >> Intended? PTW isn't in the rulebook. Time limits are not in the >> rulebook. So the finals should be played without time-limit and for >> the most VPs, because that's 'intended'? > > I was clearly referring to the goal of the game as it's presented in the > rulebook. Yes. And the rule book bases its assumption on: no time limit. So there is no need to define a GW. > (besides, PTW is implied in any game/competition, i think) Yes, but not in the exact terms we have for tournement games. > And tournament rules should not allow to ignore that goal > And you would fix that how? Without creating a whole lot of new problems?

"librarian" <auct...@superfuncards.com> schreef in bericht news:cs6si.2996$Mu5...@newsfe15.phx... > Jeroen Rombouts wrote: >> "Tetragrammaton" <nos...@none.com> schreef in bericht >> news:FM2si.12787$pd1...@tornado.fastwebnet.it... >> >>> Anything that takes the players away from what's intended with the >>> game's object should be considered "bad" enough, imho. >>> >> Intended? PTW isn't in the rulebook. Time limits are not in the rulebook. >> So the finals should be played without time-limit and for the most VPs, >> because that's 'intended'? > > Since you are referring to a "finals", sounds like you mean a tournament. > > IIR, probably not correctly, both PTW and Time Limits are in the VEKN > rulebook, which governs "official" tournament play. > PTW is a later additon to the tournement rules. LSJ has interpreted that, for all intends and purposes, doesn't count in the finals. I can see why, because enforcing PTW there creates more problems than it solves.

Peter D Bakija wrote: > In article <1185972692.8...@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, > bluedevil <david.che...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Nonetheless, I think there are more people than Ector who consider >> this to be a problem area and would like to see some changes made. > > Oh, sure--I agree that legal prize splitting for deals in the finals of > a tournament of VTES is kind of wonky and something that could use a > tweak. But as noted, unless the prizes get really big, it is unlikely to > be much of an issue, which gets us to a sort of circular position: > > We don't need to fix the prize split rules unless prizes get really big. > But if we fix the prize split rules, then prizes could theoretically get > really big. And if they get really big, all sorts of other problems pop > up (qualification rules/player attitude/needing a much stricter judjing > system/etc). So in the end, do we really *want* to fix the prize split > rules? Currently, they are virtually not an issue at all. i thought the point about prize splitting was: say A offers B the first prize (say it's a single booster pack) to have B help A win. If B could already win, then presumably they'd just say 'no', and win themselves, and bingo, they have the booster pack. If B couldn't win anyway, then they're not really doing anything wrong. They're not violating what we'd consider PTW, because they already can't. or something. -- salem (replace 'hotmail' with 'yahoo' to email)

On Aug 1, 4:10 pm, "Jeroen Rombouts" <jeroen.rombou...@telenet.be> wrote: > "Tetragrammaton" <nos...@none.com> schreef in berichtnews:7y6si.13066$pd1....@tornado.fastwebnet.it... > > > Jeroen Rombouts wrote: > >> "bluedevil" <david.cherryhol...@gmail.com> schreef in bericht > >>news:1185991076....@o61g2000hsh.googlegroups.com... > >>> On Aug 1, 1:04 pm, "Jeroen Rombouts" <jeroen.rombou...@telenet.be> > >>> wrote: > > >>>> But we're discussing 2 things here: > >>>> - PTW in the finals: i can see that the finals are a unique kind of > >>>> game, needing specific rules. > > >>> I can see that it is slightly different, but still a game of V:TES. > >>> It's super-outstanding-one-of-a-kindness is not a very persuasive > >>> argument (to me) for injecting elements that actually make that game > >>> worse. > > >> PTW in the prelims is the special case, actually. It's nowhere in the > >> rule book, iirc. > > > Not really - as the object of the game it's to "score the most VPS". > > On the other side, in the final, as you're the first seed, you could play > > just for not scoring anything, and being still the winner in the end. > > That is in contrast with the object of the game as it's written, while > > for the prelimins the pt(g)w makes perfect sense considering the > > object of the game as it's presented in the rulebook. > > So the problem is the time limit? Yep

On Aug 2, 6:40 am, bluedevil <david.cherryhol...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Aug 1, 2:30 pm, "Matthew T. Morgan" <farq...@io.com> wrote: > > > I think you're putting the blame in the wrong place there. If someone > > wins with .5 VPs, it's because nobody else tried to win. Rather than > > change the rules, we need to retrain ourselves. > > That's how to shake it up. > I appreciate the perspective, but I don't think it's sufficient. For > one thing, even if you are right, whatever incentives are already > present are demonstratively not enough[1]. Second, since you can win > the final with 1 VP regardless of your seeding as long as nobody else > gets one, there's still lots of incentive from several angles to sit > there, do nothing, and wait for somebody to screw up. Getting two > that way, in the time allotted, is more difficult. I have to agree with Matt here I think. Everyone knows the situation at the start of the final so surely if too many finals are timing out then the players have to look at how they're playing the game. Yes once a player has a VP in a final then it could be in their interests to chill out for a bit. On the flip side, there is now a lot of incentive for three other players to also get a VP and if those three players continue to chill out then, in my view, the fault lies with those players and not with the rules. Giving players that go into the final as top seed a small advantage seems reasonable to me, it's not much of one and it's not like the other four players don't know what they have to do. Simon

bluedevil <david.che...@gmail.com> wrote: > Sorry for replying to my own post, but I see that I wrote something > inconsistent and would like to correct it. If you can tie at 2 VP's > then you could tie at 0.5 VP's. I'm not sure what the right system > would be yet (maybe we could hash that out with further discussion), > I'm just sure that I don't like the one we've got. How about some kind of "sudden death" option, where if there are no VPs earned after the final's time limit hits, then a non-removeable Smiling Jack comes into play. That would certainly get things moving. ;) Kevin M., Prince of Las Vegas "Know your enemy, and know yourself; in one-thousand battles you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, *The Art of War* "Contentment... Complacency... Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier

In article <46b0fecb$1...@dnews.tpgi.com.au>, Salem <salem_ch...@hotmail.com> wrote: > i thought the point about prize splitting was: > > say A offers B the first prize (say it's a single booster pack) to have > B help A win. > > If B could already win, then presumably they'd just say 'no', and win > themselves, and bingo, they have the booster pack. > > If B couldn't win anyway, then they're not really doing anything wrong. > They're not violating what we'd consider PTW, because they already can't. I was responding to the notion that the rules about prize splitting should be changed--some folks seem to want to make prize splitting illegal at all, i.e. that when playing in the finals, players need to pretend there are no prizes at all (and by doing so, remove the issue of prize sharing for help all together, as they can't offer to share the prize in the game). What you mention above is certainly an issue, but not necessarily the issue I was talking about. Peter D Bakija pd...@lightlink.com http://www.lightlink.com/pdb6/vtes.html

Kevin M. wrote: > bluedevil <david.che...@gmail.com> wrote: >> Sorry for replying to my own post, but I see that I wrote something >> inconsistent and would like to correct it. If you can tie at 2 VP's >> then you could tie at 0.5 VP's. I'm not sure what the right system >> would be yet (maybe we could hash that out with further discussion), >> I'm just sure that I don't like the one we've got. > > How about some kind of "sudden death" option, where if there are no VPs > earned after the final's time limit hits, then a non-removeable Smiling > Jack comes into play. > > That would certainly get things moving. ;) > I like that. [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] Care to explain why ? It does not create problems in the previous rounds, so why it should on the final one ? Emiliano

Jeroen Rombouts wrote: > "Tetragrammaton" <nos...@none.com> schreef in bericht > news:mB6si.13071$pd1....@tornado.fastwebnet.it... >> Jeroen Rombouts wrote: >>> "Tetragrammaton" <nos...@none.com> schreef in bericht >>> news:FM2si.12787$pd1...@tornado.fastwebnet.it... >>> >>>> Anything that takes the players away from what's intended with the >>>> game's object should be considered "bad" enough, imho. >>>> >>> Intended? PTW isn't in the rulebook. Time limits are not in the >>> rulebook. So the finals should be played without time-limit and for >>> the most VPs, because that's 'intended'? >> >> I was clearly referring to the goal of the game as it's presented in >> the rulebook. > > Yes. And the rule book bases its assumption on: no time limit. So > there is no need to define a GW. I don't think this is supported by facts at all - i can't read anywhere in the rulebook that the game should be played without time limit - that's implied in every game such as a CCG (time limit for a given round, playing to win the game, buying the cards to build your deck, and so on). > >> (besides, PTW is implied in any game/competition, i think) > > Yes, but not in the exact terms we have for tournement games. > The principle is there, of course. What's implemented in the tournament rules should reflect what's stated in the game rulebook - with pt(g)w clearly the object of the game is well implemented - with "win the tournament" for the final round it is not (though i can see the reason behind such rule). >> And tournament rules should not allow to ignore that goal >> > And you would fix that how? Without creating a whole lot of new > problems? I don't see how having the players to play for the game win (as in the previous ones) would be a problem in the final round. Emiliano

On 2 aug, 08:33, "Tetragrammaton" <nos...@none.com> wrote: > Jeroen Rombouts wrote: > > "librarian" <aucti...@superfuncards.com> schreef in bericht [ quoted text not captured ] PTW and the introduction of the GW solve (deal making) problems in the previous rounds that we used to have. Implementing it in the finals wouldn't make much sense, because it would have adverse effects. Look at crispyfloss' post for a better explanation.

On 2 aug, 08:54, "Tetragrammaton" <nos...@none.com> wrote: > Jeroen Rombouts wrote: > > "Tetragrammaton" <nos...@none.com> schreef in bericht > >news:mB6si.13071$pd1....@tornado.fastwebnet.it... > >> Jeroen Rombouts wrote: > >>> "Tetragrammaton" <nos...@none.com> schreef in bericht > >>>news:FM2si.12787$pd1...@tornado.fastwebnet.it... > > >>>> Anything that takes the players away from what's intended with the > >>>> game's object should be considered "bad" enough, imho. > > >>> Intended? PTW isn't in the rulebook. Time limits are not in the > >>> rulebook. So the finals should be played without time-limit and for > >>> the most VPs, because that's 'intended'? > > >> I was clearly referring to the goal of the game as it's presented in > >> the rulebook. > > > Yes. And the rule book bases its assumption on: no time limit. So > > there is no need to define a GW. > > I don't think this is supported by facts at all - I'm just saying: time limits and game wins are not in the rulebook. That's a fact. >i can't read anywhere in > the rulebook > that the game should be played without time limit - that's implied in every > game such > as a CCG (time limit for a given round, playing to win the game, buying the > cards to build > your deck, and so on). How can the rulebook take things into account that aren't mentioned anywhere? > > > > >> (besides, PTW is implied in any game/competition, i think) > > > Yes, but not in the exact terms we have for tournement games. > > The principle is there, of course. What's implemented in the tournament > rules should reflect what's stated in the game rulebook - with pt(g)w > clearly > the object of the game is well implemented yes. But that doesn't suddenly make it 'the intended object of the game', it makes it the 'intended object of a prelimenary round' >- with "win the tournament" for > the > final round it is not (though i can see the reason behind such rule). Why implement the GW in the final? What would it solve? Why isn't it worse? You are not giving any reasons except for: 'because it should be' > > >> And tournament rules should not allow to ignore that goal > > > And you would fix that how? Without creating a whole lot of new > > problems? > > I don't see how having the players to play for the game win (as in the > previous ones) > would be a problem in the final round. So you would like 3 people playing against a GW, instead of 1 player winning when the game times out?

On 2 aug, 06:03, librarian <aucti...@superfuncards.com> wrote: > Kevin M. wrote: > > bluedevil <david.cherryhol...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Sorry for replying to my own post, but I see that I wrote something > >> inconsistent and would like to correct it. If you can tie at 2 VP's > >> then you could tie at 0.5 VP's. I'm not sure what the right system > >> would be yet (maybe we could hash that out with further discussion), > >> I'm just sure that I don't like the one we've got. > > > How about some kind of "sudden death" option, where if there are no VPs > > earned after the final's time limit hits, then a non-removeable Smiling > > Jack comes into play. > > > That would certainly get things moving. ;) > > I like that. > ditto :-)

On Aug 1, 4:35 pm, "Jeroen Rombouts" <jeroen.rombou...@telenet.be> wrote: > because of time-outs and ties, you can end a final without a GW. And thus > without a winner? That could happen, sure. That would seem really unlikely to me, though. If everyone at the final table starts the final round knowing that they have to get a GW or effectively not place at all, I'd imagine that people are going to try a little harder to get a GW than they do under the current system. As it currently stands, final tables have one person who'd be quite happy with everyone getting 0.5 VPs; if a GW was required to win the tournament, there'd be no one there who wanted to see that happen. John Eno

On 2 aug, 10:34, Kushiel <invisibleking...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Aug 1, 4:35 pm, "Jeroen Rombouts" <jeroen.rombou...@telenet.be> > wrote: > > > because of time-outs and ties, you can end a final without a GW. And thus > > without a winner? > > That could happen, sure. That would seem really unlikely to me, > though. > > If everyone at the final table starts the final round knowing that > they have to get a GW or effectively not place at all, I'd imagine > that people are going to try a little harder to get a GW than they do > under the current system. 4 people at the table already know that they need to get at least a VP because otherwise the top seed will win. Why isn't that enough? Especially the 5th player, who, essentially, needs to play for a game win to win the game. It's one of the benefits you get for playing good prelims. > As it currently stands, final tables have > one person who'd be quite happy with everyone getting 0.5 VPs; if a GW > was required to win the tournament, there'd be no one there who wanted > to see that happen. that also means 4 people who need VPs to win. In the 'must have a GW' scenario, after the first or second oust, 2 or 3 people are going to have to choose between 1/ unite against the table threat and prevent a GW from happening. So everyone ends tied as first 2/ let the table threat get the GW, maybe try to get a piggy back ride to become second. Why does that make for a better game? It would suck. Suddenly you have more than 1 player interested in timing out the game or a tie for first place. In the above scenario, you will have 2-or3.

On Aug 2, 8:14 am, Jeroen <joen_...@hotmail.com> wrote: > On 2 aug, 06:03, librarian <aucti...@superfuncards.com> wrote: > > > > > Kevin M. wrote: > > > bluedevil <david.cherryhol...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >> Sorry for replying to my own post, but I see that I wrote something > > >> inconsistent and would like to correct it. If you can tie at 2 VP's > > >> then you could tie at 0.5 VP's. I'm not sure what the right system > > >> would be yet (maybe we could hash that out with further discussion), > > >> I'm just sure that I don't like the one we've got. > > > > How about some kind of "sudden death" option, where if there are no VPs > > > earned after the final's time limit hits, then a non-removeable Smiling > > > Jack comes into play. > > > > That would certainly get things moving. ;) > > > I like that. > > ditto :-)- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - So the Ven law firm deck, bloating like a beached whale, just wins?

[ quoted text not captured ] > So the Ven law firm deck, bloating like a beached whale, just wins?- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Okay, I like the idea of a sudden death effect, but just going, "Ooooh, Smiling Jack" seems a bit not thought through to me. Bloaty type decks will always win in this circumstance. Here's my sugestion: 1) Permanent, blood bank paid smiling jack :) (I like it, just not in a vacuum) 2) Immediate, irrevocable Anathema on each and every vampire in play. This allows the combat decks to head to head with the bloat and bleeds as they now gain a significant advantage to their main strategy. 3) Fall of the Titles. No votes for any vamps any more This should definitely speed things up dramatically at this point...

[ quoted text not captured ] Bad idea with removing titles. How are votedecks going to make any oust after that ?

> How about some kind of "sudden death" option, where if there are no VPs > earned after the final's time limit hits, then a non-removeable Smiling > Jack comes into play. If there are no VPs, then what's the point of continuing to play? You'll end the game later in the exact same position had the game ended at time. Sorrow --- Why did the chicken cross the road? "To die. Alone. In the rain." - Ernest Hemingway

>> This should definitely speed things up dramatically at this point... > Bad idea with removing titles. How are votedecks going to make any > oust after that ? Why does it matter if there are no VPs scored after time? Sorrow --- "...but you know, evil is an exact science..."

Sorry for being away for some time, folks! On Aug 1, 6:56 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > On Aug 1, 10:01 am, Ector <Ec...@mail.ru> wrote: > > > Are YOU reading it? There IS PTW in the finals, although players are > > "assumed" to play to win. A deal for 1 VP in the finals still won't be > > legal if the player has reasonable chances to get GW. > > Yes, it would, because players can be assumed to be playing to win in > the final. > If he makes the deal for 1 VP, then that is, for him, playing to win > (unless other, illegal, activity has occured, like threats or bribery > -- and note, again, that offering to split the prize is not bribery). Are you REALLY trying to say that players don't have to play for GW in the finals just because they don't want to? Can I oust my grandprey just because I'm roleplaying a Malk, and this is my real goal in the tournament? Can I smash crosstable vampires just because "We Brujah hate Ventrue"? Can I oust my friend's prey just to make him a gift to his birthday? Unfortunately, nothing more wild currently comes to mind. But if all these is legal in the finals (along with the prize-splitting bribery), this is just a parody of a tournament. Yours, Ector

Jeroen wrote: > 4 people at the table already know that they need to get at least a VP > because otherwise the top seed will win. Why isn't that enough? I really don't know. I probably should have just stayed out of this conversation - I rarely see timeouts happen. > that also means 4 people who need VPs to win. In the 'must have a GW' > scenario, after the first or second oust, 2 or 3 people are going to > have to choose between > 1/ unite against the table threat and prevent a GW from happening. So > everyone ends tied as first > 2/ let the table threat get the GW, maybe try to get a piggy back ride > to become second. Why isn't "Get a GW myself despite other peoples' VPs" an option here? It's an available option in actual play. > Why does that make for a better game? It would suck. Suddenly you have > more than 1 player interested in timing out the game or a tie for > first place. In the above scenario, you will have 2-or3. In the kind of situation you're describing, I'm not seeing why it's not more beneficial to just, like, win regardless of how many VPs other people have. Which makes your argument that you'd end up with more people playing for a timeout based on a pretty flimsy foundation. (All this discussion is just giving more credence to my theory that it's table-talk and crosstable shenanigans that leads to timeouts, by the way...) John Eno

On Aug 2, 7:02 am, Ector <Ec...@mail.ru> wrote: > Sorry for being away for some time, folks! > > On Aug 1, 6:56 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote:> On Aug 1, 10:01 am, Ector <Ec...@mail.ru> wrote: > > Yes, it would, because players can be assumed to be playing to win in > > the final. > > If he makes the deal for 1 VP, then that is, for him, playing to win > > (unless other, illegal, activity has occured, like threats or bribery > > -- and note, again, that offering to split the prize is not bribery). > > Are you REALLY trying to say that players don't have to play for GW in > the finals just because they don't want to? > Can I oust my grandprey just because I'm roleplaying a Malk, and this > is my real goal in the tournament? > Can I smash crosstable vampires just because "We Brujah hate Ventrue"? > Can I oust my friend's prey just to make him a gift to his birthday? What he's saying is that a player that ousts his grandprey, or smashes crosstable, or ousts his friend's prey, can't be sanctioned on the basis that he's not playing to win. Because we assume he is. All other rules apply as normal.

Jeroen wrote: > On 2 aug, 08:54, "Tetragrammaton" <nos...@none.com> wrote: >> Jeroen Rombouts wrote: >>> "Tetragrammaton" <nos...@none.com> schreef in bericht >>> news:mB6si.13071$pd1....@tornado.fastwebnet.it... >>>> Jeroen Rombouts wrote: >>>>> "Tetragrammaton" <nos...@none.com> schreef in bericht >>>>> news:FM2si.12787$pd1...@tornado.fastwebnet.it... >> >>>>>> Anything that takes the players away from what's intended with >>>>>> the game's object should be considered "bad" enough, imho. >> >>>>> Intended? PTW isn't in the rulebook. Time limits are not in the >>>>> rulebook. So the finals should be played without time-limit and >>>>> for the most VPs, because that's 'intended'? >> >>>> I was clearly referring to the goal of the game as it's presented >>>> in the rulebook. >> >>> Yes. And the rule book bases its assumption on: no time limit. So >>> there is no need to define a GW. >> >> I don't think this is supported by facts at all - > > I'm just saying: time limits and game wins are not in the rulebook. > That's a fact. > Yes - nor deckbuilding or "you have to pay a fee to play the game at tournament" is in the rulebook. Just examples to say that there's no point in looking for obvious thing such as "every game has a time limit" in the rulebook - that's is implied in the play of the game itself. >> i can't read anywhere in >> the rulebook >> that the game should be played without time limit - that's implied >> in every game such >> as a CCG (time limit for a given round, playing to win the game, >> buying the cards to build >> your deck, and so on). > > How can the rulebook take things into account that aren't mentioned > anywhere? > No need (again) - they're implied, so no need to taje into account. >> >> >> >>>> (besides, PTW is implied in any game/competition, i think) >> >>> Yes, but not in the exact terms we have for tournement games. >> >> The principle is there, of course. What's implemented in the >> tournament rules should reflect what's stated in the game rulebook - >> with pt(g)w clearly >> the object of the game is well implemented > > yes. But that doesn't suddenly make it 'the intended object of the > game', it makes it the 'intended object of a prelimenary round' > How you can say that ? GW = playing for the most vps (than anyone else). That seems clear and intuitive enough. >> - with "win the tournament" for >> the >> final round it is not (though i can see the reason behind such rule). > > Why implement the GW in the final? What would it solve? Why isn't it > worse? You are not giving any reasons except for: 'because it should > be' It should be because it's the game goal. Read the rulebook. >> >>>> And tournament rules should not allow to ignore that goal >> >>> And you would fix that how? Without creating a whole lot of new >>> problems? >> >> I don't see how having the players to play for the game win (as in >> the previous ones) >> would be a problem in the final round. > > So you would like 3 people playing against a GW, instead of 1 player > winning when the game times out? I'm not sure to understand your example - i think that making finalist to play as usual (gaining the most vps) would be just fine - if at the end of time limit there's no gw scored, just fine, winner would be the one with most vps, as stated in the rulebook. Still see no problem with that (and, actually, lots of players are used to play finals that way, because it's obvious that such rule ins't clear to several playgroup). Emiliano

Blooded Sand <sand...@gmail.com> wrote: > Kevin M. wrote: >> How about some kind of "sudden death" option, where if >> there are no VPs earned after the final's time limit hits, then >> a non-removeable Smiling Jack comes into play. >> >> That would certainly get things moving. ;) > > So the Ven law firm deck, bloating like a beached whale, just wins? You would lose against many decks out there right now, and you wouldn't be in the finals to begin with. And even if you were, this system would only come into play if NO ONE had a VP yet, which your deck example can't stop across table. So I guess you have nothing to worry about. ;) Kevin M., Prince of Las Vegas "Know your enemy, and know yourself; in one-thousand battles you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, *The Art of War* "Contentment... Complacency... Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier

Blooded Sand <sand...@gmail.com> wrote: > Okay, I like the idea of a sudden death effect, but just going, > "Ooooh, Smiling Jack" seems a bit not thought through to me. Bloaty > type decks will always win in this circumstance. > > Here's my sugestion: > 1) Permanent, blood bank paid smiling jack :) (I like it, just not in > a vacuum) > 2) Immediate, irrevocable Anathema on each and every vampire in play. > This allows the combat decks to head to head with the bloat and bleeds > as they now gain a significant advantage to their main strategy. > 3) Fall of the Titles. No votes for any vamps any more > > This should definitely speed things up dramatically at this point... It would do exactly the opposite, since you have just introduced at least three, and possibly DOZENS of card changes to keep track of. [ quoted text not captured ]

Sorrow <jcb...@yahoo.com> wrote: >> How about some kind of "sudden death" option, where if there are no >> VPs earned after the final's time limit hits, then a non-removeable >> Smiling Jack comes into play. > > If there are no VPs, then what's the point of continuing to play? > You'll end the game later in the exact same position had the game > ended at time. Ummmmmmm... Smiling Jack.... Players dying... VPs being earned... Sorry that wasn't clear in my earlier post. [ quoted text not captured ]

Peter D Bakija <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote: > I think that, like in many discussions involving Ector, he is > extrapolating disasterous end results based on unrealistic belief. Then why continue extremely lengthy discussions with him? [ quoted text not captured ]

Peter D Bakija <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote: > Yes, yes, you are a paragon of order against the waves of chaos. > You are a Vorlon and Donblas all rolled up into one. And the rest > of us are unprincipled, corrupt and feral wild men. See, Peter, you don't understand. Ector DOES ACT like a Vorlon! He believes the rest of us are disobedient... ;) [ quoted text not captured ]

On Aug 2, 5:07 am, Blooded Sand <sandm...@gmail.com> wrote: > Here's my sugestion: > 1) Permanent, blood bank paid smiling jack :) (I like it, just not in > a vacuum) > 2) Immediate, irrevocable Anathema on each and every vampire in play. > This allows the combat decks to head to head with the bloat and bleeds > as they now gain a significant advantage to their main strategy. > 3) Fall of the Titles. No votes for any vamps any more > > This should definitely speed things up dramatically at this point...- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - I can't say that I like some predicatble effect that may encourage someone to stall/wait/slow play until it gets implemented. It may just end up encouraging further stupid stuff. My other issue would be implementing this condition at 2H or whatever the final's time limit was supposed to be. How long are you going to let the game go on? Even a smiling jack would require some turns to hurt. I would like to see something that accelerates the pace of the game prior to that "time limit". Maybe if no VPs have been scored after an hour something occurs. If still no VPs after 1.5 hours something more happens. But is it too crazy for the actual effect to be randomly determined so that no one would really benefit from planning to take a game to time? John P Winnipeg

[ quoted text not captured ] Ooh, I really like that. Have 6 "Accelerators", like Smiling Jack; Anathemater; capacity shrinker, etc. Then roll a die each round and randomly have each one added to the game. Effects can mulitply (ex, you roll 1 twice in a row, a second Smiling comes into play). This might be worth testing first, though. best - chris -- Super Fun Cards http://stores.ebay.com/superfuncards/ auct...@superfuncards.com

On Aug 1, 7:01 pm, "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote: > How about some kind of "sudden death" option, where if there are no VPs > earned after the final's time limit hits, then a non-removeable Smiling > Jack comes into play. > > That would certainly get things moving. ;) Interesting idea; but is it more effective than just going by preliminary rankings when time runs out? It just seems to reallocate the incentives to act/not act based on a different criteria (pool/ blood on minions instead of preliminary rankings), plus it takes more time. Possibly quite a bit. Two hours is a long time. Like I said before, if you want to get things moving, make prize support independent of placement in the finals.

In article <Hdqsi.27047$zz2....@newsfe12.phx>, "Kevin M." <you...@imaspammer.org> wrote: > Peter D Bakija <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote: > > Yes, yes, you are a paragon of order against the waves of chaos. > > You are a Vorlon and Donblas all rolled up into one. And the rest > > of us are unprincipled, corrupt and feral wild men. > > See, Peter, you don't understand. Ector DOES ACT like a Vorlon! He > believes the rest of us are disobedient... ;) A+ for the awsome Kosh line! Man! This thread is awsome so far :-) Peter D Bakija pd...@lightlink.com http://www.lightlink.com/pdb6/vtes.html

In article <vaqsi.27045$zz2....@newsfe12.phx>, "Kevin M." <you...@imaspammer.org> wrote: > Then why continue extremely lengthy discussions with him? Are you familiar with my body of work? :-) Yeah, I know, it is a sickness. But at least I am on vacation right now... [ quoted text not captured ]

On Jul 31, 5:44 am, Ector <Ec...@mail.ru> wrote: > On Jul 30, 7:09 pm, crispyfloss <crispyfl...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Sure - with prize money, if you lose, whoever you bribed doesn't get > > anything. > > How can you be sure of that? Who can prohibit the briber from giving > his own money after the tournament ends? The judge's rights end with > the tournament. You asked for the difference, not how to police it. > > > From my point of view, prize is OUTSIDE the current game, so it cannot > > > be used as a bribe. Why do you think different? Do you think that > > > legal bribery is good for the game? > > > Bribery only using in-game prizes works as risk mitigation - a player > > in a dominant position has a small chance of losing, by luck or > > happenstance or other players conspiring against him. By sacrificing > > some of the prize, he can reduce that risk. > > So you admit that bribed players are *less* likely to unite against > him. But that means that they are less likely to do their best to > achieve the largest number of VPs possible or GW. ANY accepted bribe > is trading of prizes for violating PTW, either slightly or seriously. It depends on the definition of "winning." I gave a plausible reason why it should be allowed, which is what you asked for. > > > As soon as my players will know that bribery is allowed, VTES would > > > be ruined in Minsk, because we have a lot of players that value victory > > > over the prize, and we have a lot of players that value prize over the > > > victory. Thus, allowing bribery with a prize is a disaster, IMHO, and > > > this must be immediately fixed! > > > Could you please elaborate? > > Easily. We have very different players here, and, unfortunately, there > are many players who consider VTES only a "recreation". There are 4-5 > "good" players and 10-15 "players for fun" and newbies. Many players > of the "fun" group are very poor. God knows where they get their > cards, but I assume that at least 30% of our players would happily > violate PTW and even give up for a decent share of the prize. > Obviously, the "good" players want to win much more than to get 1-2 > boosters. This creates very serious danger of converting VTES into the > "game of fat wallet". So the "good" players want to win by paying off everyone else not to compete, instead of by beating them? That doesn't sound very "good" to me. A "good" player would, I think, be more likely to just give the other players 1-2 boosters anyway and still play the game out. Which improves the quality of the gaming community, which makes everyone better off.

"Kushiel" <invisibl...@gmail.com> schreef in bericht news:1186077325.0...@d30g2000prg.googlegroups.com... > Jeroen wrote: >> 4 people at the table already know that they need to get at least a VP >> because otherwise the top seed will win. Why isn't that enough? > > I really don't know. I probably should have just stayed out of this > conversation - I rarely see timeouts happen. > >> that also means 4 people who need VPs to win. In the 'must have a GW' >> scenario, after the first or second oust, 2 or 3 people are going to >> have to choose between >> 1/ unite against the table threat and prevent a GW from happening. So >> everyone ends tied as first >> 2/ let the table threat get the GW, maybe try to get a piggy back ride >> to become second. > > Why isn't "Get a GW myself despite other peoples' VPs" an option here? > It's an available option in actual play. > >> Why does that make for a better game? It would suck. Suddenly you have >> more than 1 player interested in timing out the game or a tie for >> first place. In the above scenario, you will have 2-or3. > > In the kind of situation you're describing, I'm not seeing why it's > not more beneficial to just, like, win regardless of how many VPs > other people have. Which makes your argument that you'd end up with > more people playing for a timeout based on a pretty flimsy foundation. You do realise we were talking about a 'GW takes all, everybody else loses 'set up, right? Better to be tied with everybody that being second, if you can help it. No?

"Tetragrammaton" <nos...@none.com> schreef in bericht news:kppsi.14606$pd1....@tornado.fastwebnet.it... [ quoted text not captured ] why? if I play a game that lasts 6 hours, with 7 people. Why is there suddenly a time limit? > >>> i can't read anywhere in >>> the rulebook >>> that the game should be played without time limit - that's implied >>> in every game such >>> as a CCG (time limit for a given round, playing to win the game, >>> buying the cards to build >>> your deck, and so on). >> >> How can the rulebook take things into account that aren't mentioned >> anywhere? >> > No need (again) - they're implied, so no need to taje into account. They are NOT implied. If you play a non tournement game there isn't a time limit unless you house rule it. You play 1 player remains. > >>> >>> >>> >>>>> (besides, PTW is implied in any game/competition, i think) >>> >>>> Yes, but not in the exact terms we have for tournement games. >>> >>> The principle is there, of course. What's implemented in the >>> tournament rules should reflect what's stated in the game rulebook - >>> with pt(g)w clearly >>> the object of the game is well implemented >> >> yes. But that doesn't suddenly make it 'the intended object of the >> game', it makes it the 'intended object of a prelimenary round' >> > How you can say that ? GW = playing for the most vps (than anyone else). > That seems clear and intuitive enough. no. GW isn't the same as playing for the most VPs. If it was, we didn't need a PTW rule. > >>> - with "win the tournament" for >>> the >>> final round it is not (though i can see the reason behind such rule). >> >> Why implement the GW in the final? What would it solve? Why isn't it >> worse? You are not giving any reasons except for: 'because it should >> be' > It should be because it's the game goal. > Read the rulebook. give me a reference in the rulebook. Show me where it is.... > >>> >>>>> And tournament rules should not allow to ignore that goal >>> >>>> And you would fix that how? Without creating a whole lot of new >>>> problems? >>> >>> I don't see how having the players to play for the game win (as in >>> the previous ones) >>> would be a problem in the final round. >> >> So you would like 3 people playing against a GW, instead of 1 player >> winning when the game times out? > I'm not sure to understand your example - i think that making finalist to > play > as usual (gaining the most vps) would be just fine - if at the end of time > limit > there's no gw scored, just fine, winner would be the one with most vps, > as stated in the rulebook. We were talking about David's solution of implementing 'a must win with GW' rule in the final.

On Aug 3, 8:24 am, crispyfloss <crispyfl...@gmail.com> wrote: > > You asked for the difference, not how to police it. But actually I'm interested in "how to police it". And I don't think this is really possible. > It depends on the definition of "winning." I gave a plausible reason > why it should be allowed, which is what you asked for. And I've provided some reasons why it should NOT be allowed. Players are different, and their motivation and behaviour are different, too. > > So the "good" players want to win by paying off everyone else not to > compete, instead of by beating them? That doesn't sound very "good" > to me. A "good" player would, I think, be more likely to just give > the other players 1-2 boosters anyway and still play the game out. > Which improves the quality of the gaming community, which makes > everyone better off. My definition of "good player" is: a player who uses all legal ways to get the highest possible place in the tournament. As long as bribery is legal, good players are going to use it. Why not? Yours, Ector. P.S. It would be great if somebody provided a clear answer to my questions (in my previous message). This is crucial for me. Thanks in advance. Ector

In message <%essi.53735$kK1....@newsfe14.phx>, librarian <auct...@superfuncards.com> writes: >Ooh, I really like that. Have 6 "Accelerators", like Smiling Jack; >Anathemater; capacity shrinker, etc. Then roll a die each round and >randomly have each one added to the game. Effects can mulitply (ex, >you roll 1 twice in a row, a second Smiling comes into play). > >This might be worth testing first, though. This would have the downside that the final would, essentially, be quite a different game to the qualifying rounds. Decks that were strong in the qualifying rounds (without these penalties) would not necessarily be strong with these penalties. It is generally nice for finals to be held, so far as is possible, using the same rules as other rounds. You also run into interesting problems with some of the effects. Capacity shrinker? Fine, except... Aranthebes just started slowing the game down a lot. Can I still play my Fee Stakes to help me win? Can I play a Legendary Vampire late in the game? Redcap Wilder, Shame and Predator's Mastery just started hitting more vampires. A late Recalled to the Founder might be particularly troublesome for one Methuselah who had a bunch of mid-caps. I'm not sure that screwing up my ability to play my deck is a good way to speed up the game and determine someone who "deserved" to win. (It may speed up the game by clogging my hand and making me easier to oust, but that's not quite the same thing.) -- James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D YOU ARE IN ERROR. EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 NO-ONE IS SCREAMING. 13D7E668C3695D623D5D THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.

In message <1186092343.7...@q3g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, crispyfloss <crisp...@gmail.com> writes: >Like I said before, if you want to get things moving, make prize >support independent of placement in the finals. What do you do if someone wants to donate a single, indivisible prize? For example, at different tournaments I've seen: - original artwork for V:TES cards - artists' sketches and re-interpretations of work - one of the massive sheets of cards before they're cut up (from Final Nights, I think) Hell, even something as simple as donating a copy of a White Wolf book or t-shirt proves troublesome. [ quoted text not captured ]

Sorrow wrote: >>> This should definitely speed things up dramatically at this point... >> Bad idea with removing titles. How are votedecks going to make any >> oust after that ? > > Why does it matter if there are no VPs scored after time? if there's no titles, then the 1 vote for the vote-card will pass the vote most of the time....just make it harded to voter cap, which i thought was the point... -- salem (replace 'hotmail' with 'yahoo' to email)

On Aug 3, 4:03 am, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: > In message <%essi.53735$kK1.14...@newsfe14.phx>, librarian > > <aucti...@superfuncards.com> writes: > >Ooh, I really like that. Have 6 "Accelerators", like Smiling Jack; > >Anathemater; capacity shrinker, etc. Then roll a die each round and > >randomly have each one added to the game. Effects can mulitply (ex, > >you roll 1 twice in a row, a second Smiling comes into play). > > >This might be worth testing first, though. > > This would have the downside that the final would, essentially, be quite > a different game to the qualifying rounds. Decks that were strong in > the qualifying rounds (without these penalties) would not necessarily be > strong with these penalties. It is generally nice for finals to be > held, so far as is possible, using the same rules as other rounds. > > You also run into interesting problems with some of the effects. > Capacity shrinker? Fine, except... Aranthebes just started slowing the > game down a lot. Can I still play my Fee Stakes to help me win? Can I > play a Legendary Vampire late in the game? Redcap Wilder, Shame and > Predator's Mastery just started hitting more vampires. A late Recalled > to the Founder might be particularly troublesome for one Methuselah who > had a bunch of mid-caps. > > I'm not sure that screwing up my ability to play my deck is a good way > to speed up the game and determine someone who "deserved" to win. (It > may speed up the game by clogging my hand and making me easier to oust, > but that's not quite the same thing.) Indeed. The current rules provide (IMO) at least as good an incentive to move forward and oust your prey as any of these alternatives, which seem like they'd just randomly collapse the table after the time limit is reached. You can't win without VPs in the final unless you're top seed. You can't be top seed without earning the most GWs and VPs in the preliminary rounds. The only person who can win without VPs is the one who's demonstrated the best ability to earn them that day. So why is it a problem that, assuming nobody at the final table can oust their prey for whatever reason, the person who was best at ousting their prey in previous rounds gets the victory by default? Witness1

[ quoted text not captured ] Hey, that was well said. But for some reason, many finals tend to be less aggressive affairs, with lots of maneuvering and talking. At least that is what I am hearing from the mass mind here. I still think it would be a fun variant to play. Although I guess that is sort of what the Events were supposed to be - mass effects that were pretty strong. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Aug 3, 10:59 am, librarian <aucti...@superfuncards.com> wrote: > witness1 wrote: > > Indeed. The current rules provide (IMO) at least as good an incentive > > to move forward and oust your prey as any of these alternatives, which > > seem like they'd just randomly collapse the table after the time limit > > is reached. > > > You can't win without VPs in the final unless you're top seed. You > > can't be top seed without earning the most GWs and VPs in the > > preliminary rounds. The only person who can win without VPs is the one > > who's demonstrated the best ability to earn them that day. > > > So why is it a problem that, assuming nobody at the final table can > > oust their prey for whatever reason, the person who was best at > > ousting their prey in previous rounds gets the victory by default? > > > Witness1 > > Hey, that was well said. > > But for some reason, many finals tend to be less aggressive affairs, > with lots of maneuvering and talking. At least that is what I am > hearing from the mass mind here. There are some. And it's probably because the table is different. Instead of random seating at tables with random players, you're playing against the best performers of the day, with the higher ranked people choosing their seats. So a lot of people may naturally become more cautious. witness1

[ quoted text not captured ] Because taking the argument to hyperboles just doesn't make sense - 6 hours or 7 players it's unlikely to happen even at house games - Even in friendly games, usually a game lasts no more than 3 hours. We're talking about common games i think, not figuring out hyperbolic unlikely cases. > >> >>>> i can't read anywhere in >>>> the rulebook >>>> that the game should be played without time limit - that's implied >>>> in every game such >>>> as a CCG (time limit for a given round, playing to win the game, >>>> buying the cards to build >>>> your deck, and so on). >>> >>> How can the rulebook take things into account that aren't mentioned >>> anywhere? >>> >> No need (again) - they're implied, so no need to taje into account. > > They are NOT implied. If you play a non tournement game there isn't a > time limit unless you house rule it. You play 1 player remains. >> Common sense will make people to "house rule", sure. Time limit it's implied in every common game, above all in CCG games. That's the normality i think - why do you need to take the argument on this "time limit" matter is unclear to me, however. Emiliano

On Aug 3, 1:56 am, Ector <Ec...@mail.ru> wrote: > On Aug 3, 8:24 am, crispyfloss <crispyfl...@gmail.com> wrote: > > You asked for the difference, not how to police it. > > But actually I'm interested in "how to police it". And I don't think > this is really possible. Ah! That's a different question. Which I understand to be: "If it's legal to give people things in-game to make them play differently, how do we stop them from illegally giving people things out-of-game to make them play differently?" Which is totally unrelated to the issue at hand, since that is illegal whether you let people split prizes or not. You seem to have the impression that if your players find out that something that they aren't doing is legal, they'll not only do that thing more, but they'll also do other, illegal, things more. Which isn't really a justification for not telling them that the first thing is legal. > > It depends on the definition of "winning." I gave a plausible reason > > why it should be allowed, which is what you asked for. > > And I've provided some reasons why it should NOT be allowed. Players > are different, and their motivation and behaviour are different, too. Yes! We've articulated our opinions and will just have to agree to disagree. I doubt either of us will convince anyone else any time soon. > > So the "good" players want to win by paying off everyone else not to > > compete, instead of by beating them? That doesn't sound very "good" > > to me. A "good" player would, I think, be more likely to just give > > the other players 1-2 boosters anyway and still play the game out. > > Which improves the quality of the gaming community, which makes > > everyone better off. > > My definition of "good player" is: a player who uses all legal ways to > get the highest possible place in the tournament. > As long as bribery is legal, good players are going to use it. Why > not? And in doing so they'll "bribe" the less-good players, who probably weren't going to win anyway, so they'll get more cards, and eventually improve to the point that they can win games on their own, or by "bribing" other not-good players, and everyone gets more out of the game. That seems better than the poorer players not ever getting any prizes, and eventually deciding it's stupid to shell out $2-3 to play in tournaments just to buy cards for the "good" players, and leaving the game, isn't it?

On Aug 3, 4:14 am, "Jeroen Rombouts" <jeroen.rombou...@telenet.be> wrote: > You do realise we were talking about a 'GW takes all, everybody else loses > 'set up, right? Right. > Better to be tied with everybody that being second, if you > can help it. No? No. Better to win by getting a GW by ousting your preys, rather than spending your time and resources making deals to ensure that there is no winner. John Eno

On Aug 3, 2:05 am, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: > In message <1186092343.741903.271...@q3g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, > > crispyfloss <crispyfl...@gmail.com> writes: > >Like I said before, if you want to get things moving, make prize > >support independent of placement in the finals. > > What do you do if someone wants to donate a single, indivisible prize? Here's my ideal world. There's always some divisible prize that is split evenly, so reward players just for getting there (proper incentives!). If someone donates an indivisible, special prize, the donator would set the conditions for winning the prize. A lot of fun could be had with this. Say: "This prize goes to the player that gets a Game Win, otherwise I take it back to donate again at the next tournament." "This prize goes to the player with the most VPs. In the event of a tie, the top-ranked player that DIDN'T make the finals gets it." "This prize goes to the player that does the most pool damage in the final, regardless of VPs or GWs." &c, &c... I generally think the first is best, but wouldn't want to have all of the prize support turn on getting a GW. People should still be rewarded just for getting there.

On Aug 3, 10:55 am, crispyfloss <crispyfl...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Aug 3, 2:05 am, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: > > > In message <1186092343.741903.271...@q3g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, > > > crispyfloss <crispyfl...@gmail.com> writes: (snip amazing idea) Subject to the judge's discretion that the victory condition encourages the goals of the game and tournament.

"Kushiel" <invisibl...@gmail.com> schreef in bericht news:1186163516.9...@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com... [ quoted text not captured ] Right. Until it becomes obvious you can't get the GW anymore and it's in your best interest that no-one gets one...

"Tetragrammaton" <nos...@none.com> schreef in bericht news:vwJsi.15819$pd1....@tornado.fastwebnet.it... [ quoted text not captured ] not even an extreme. we had a game with 12 people once. > >> >>> >>>>> i can't read anywhere in >>>>> the rulebook >>>>> that the game should be played without time limit - that's implied >>>>> in every game such >>>>> as a CCG (time limit for a given round, playing to win the game, >>>>> buying the cards to build >>>>> your deck, and so on). >>>> >>>> How can the rulebook take things into account that aren't mentioned >>>> anywhere? >>>> >>> No need (again) - they're implied, so no need to taje into account. >> >> They are NOT implied. If you play a non tournement game there isn't a >> time limit unless you house rule it. You play 1 player remains. >>> > Common sense will make people to "house rule", sure. > Time limit it's implied in every common game, above all in CCG > games. That's the normality i think - why do you need to take > the argument on this "time limit" matter is unclear to me, however. rule book reference? no time limit in the rule book. Show me where if i missed it. The rule book assumes the game ends with only 1 person still in the game.

On Aug 4, 6:15 am, "Jeroen Rombouts" <jeroen.rombou...@telenet.be> wrote: > Right. Until it becomes obvious you can't get the GW anymore and it's in > your best interest that no-one gets one... Except that if you've got enough power in the game to still be able to affect whether or not someone else wins or loses, you've still got enough power in the game to possibly win. So, again, why would you throw away your own game rather than just attempting to win? John Eno

"Kushiel" <invisibl...@gmail.com> schreef in bericht news:1186339674.3...@o61g2000hsh.googlegroups.com... > On Aug 4, 6:15 am, "Jeroen Rombouts" <jeroen.rombou...@telenet.be> > wrote: >> Right. Until it becomes obvious you can't get the GW anymore and it's in >> your best interest that no-one gets one... > > Except that if you've got enough power in the game to still be able to > affect whether or not someone else wins or loses, you've still got > enough power in the game to possibly win. why would that be? "hey, I can roll over and thereby prevent a GW". > > So, again, why would you throw away your own game rather than just > attempting to win? We're talking about the situation in which you can't win anymore.

On Aug 3, 8:44 pm, crispyfloss <crispyfl...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Aug 3, 1:56 am, Ector <Ec...@mail.ru> wrote: > > > On Aug 3, 8:24 am, crispyfloss <crispyfl...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > You asked for the difference, not how to police it. > > > But actually I'm interested in "how to police it". And I don't think > > this is really possible. > > Ah! That's a different question. Which I understand to be: "If it's > legal to give people things in-game to make them play differently, how > do we stop them from illegally giving people things out-of-game to > make them play differently?" Which is totally unrelated to the issue > at hand, since that is illegal whether you let people split prizes or > not. > > You seem to have the impression that if your players find out that > something that they aren't doing is legal, they'll not only do that > thing more, but they'll also do other, illegal, things more. Which > isn't really a justification for not telling them that the first thing > is legal. Look, I actually HAVE some players that are trying to ignore PTW (you know, "it's just a game", "we're playing for fun" and similar shit), and enforcing PTW is a very difficult and crippling task. You know as well as me that even one player violating PTW can easily destabilize the table. So when I'm saying that allowing players to bribe each other will seriously hamper my puny attempts to maintain order, I'm not exaggerating much. > > > It depends on the definition of "winning." I gave a plausible reason > > > why it should be allowed, which is what you asked for. > > > And I've provided some reasons why it should NOT be allowed. Players > > are different, and their motivation and behaviour are different, too. > > Yes! We've articulated our opinions and will just have to agree to > disagree. I doubt either of us will convince anyone else any time > soon. I don't, either. Though I dislike any "home rules", I will be forced to maintain somewhat different Tournament Rules for our tournaments: prize splitting allowed only if ALL players are agree, and PTW in the finals is enforced as usual. The only difference between the final round and preliminary rounds is the fact that top seed player is considered to have GW if nobody has more VPs than him (for instance, 2-2-1). Unfortunately, this is the only option for me to keep the game alive here. No serious player will play the game without PTW, and without the serious players the game will quickly degrade to the "funny recreation": no tournaments at all, just friendly gaming. The number of purchased cards will drastically decrease, and the game will finally die in a few years. > > > My definition of "good player" is: a player who uses all legal ways to > > get the highest possible place in the tournament. > > As long as bribery is legal, good players are going to use it. Why > > not? > > And in doing so they'll "bribe" the less-good players, who probably > weren't going to win anyway, so they'll get more cards, and eventually > improve to the point that they can win games on their own, or by > "bribing" other not-good players, and everyone gets more out of the > game. That seems better than the poorer players not ever getting any > prizes, and eventually deciding it's stupid to shell out $2-3 to play > in tournaments just to buy cards for the "good" players, and leaving > the game, isn't it? No, it isn't. You underestimate our efforts to keep the game at the tournament level. Card availability isn't a huge issue here now. We have at least two VTES fanatics who spent more than $1000 on cards (including myself), and all these people ALWAYS lend their cards to the poorer players, if they don't play these cards themselves. Thus, a 16-years-old newbie can easily play a deck with 10 War Ghouls, if he would want to. Besides, our participation fee is closer to $1 :) Prizes usually are three boosters, that are divided in a rather complicated way: we open all boosters, stack the cards in a single pile, and let the winner take 2 cards. Then the 2nd place player takes 2 cards, and so on. This way, everybody gets something, but there is a clear incentive to struggle for the first place: winner usually takes two best rares! I assure you that nobody is going to leave the game because of regular losing the participation fee. Yours, Ector

On Aug 6, 1:00 am, Ector <Ec...@mail.ru> wrote: > On Aug 3, 8:44 pm, crispyfloss <crispyfl...@gmail.com> wrote: > > You seem to have the impression that if your players find out that > > something that they aren't doing is legal, they'll not only do that > > thing more, but they'll also do other, illegal, things more. Which > > isn't really a justification for not telling them that the first thing > > is legal. > > Look, I actually HAVE some players that are trying to ignore PTW (you > know, "it's just a game", "we're playing for fun" and similar shit), > and enforcing PTW is a very difficult and crippling task. You know as > well as me that even one player violating PTW can easily destabilize > the table. So when I'm saying that allowing players to bribe each > other will seriously hamper my puny attempts to maintain order, I'm > not exaggerating much. Then why does it matter whether you tell them they're allowed to bribe each other? If they want to they will anyway. > I don't, either. Though I dislike any "home rules", I will be forced > to maintain somewhat different Tournament Rules for our tournaments: > prize splitting allowed only if ALL players are agree, and PTW in the > finals is enforced as usual. The only difference between the final > round and preliminary rounds is the fact that top seed player is > considered to have GW if nobody has more VPs than him (for instance, > 2-2-1). I'd like to hear how it works out; please post here after you've had a chance to try it out. ...or is it just what you've been doing all along? > Unfortunately, this is the only option for me to keep the game alive > here. No serious player will play the game without PTW, and without > the serious players the game will quickly degrade to the "funny > recreation": no tournaments at all, just friendly gaming. The number > of purchased cards will drastically decrease, and the game will > finally die in a few years. The serious player can and will still play to win even if players are allowed to split prizes - because he can always refuse a prize split, and can always counter-offer if anyone tries to split prizes against him. He has more tools at his disposal and so is better off with prize split deals, if he doesn't care about winning all the prizes himself. > No, it isn't. You underestimate our efforts to keep the game at the > tournament level. I just don't understand why you try to keep it at that level if so many players don't seem to want to play at that level. > Besides, our participation fee is closer to $1 :) Prizes usually are > three boosters, that are divided in a rather complicated way: we open > all boosters, stack the cards in a single pile, and let the winner > take 2 cards. Then the 2nd place player takes 2 cards, and so on. This > way, everybody gets something, but there is a clear incentive to > struggle for the first place: winner usually takes two best rares! I > assure you that nobody is going to leave the game because of regular > losing the participation fee. So why would any player agree to a prize split anyway, given that you already split them?

On Aug 5, 3:06 pm, "Jeroen Rombouts" <jeroen.rombou...@telenet.be> wrote: > > Except that if you've got enough power in the game to still be able to > > affect whether or not someone else wins or loses, you've still got > > enough power in the game to possibly win. > > why would that be? Because if you're still in the game, you've got a chance to win. > "hey, I can roll over and thereby prevent a GW". I think this is our essential sticking point. I can NOT understand why you would ever want to do what you're suggesting here. > We're talking about the situation in which you can't win anymore. This is exactly the issue I have with your set of assumptions. A lot of people arrive at the conclusion that they can't win any more when it's not actually the case. Unless you're: 1) psychic, or 2) ousted, you can't know that you don't have a chance to win. Why throw away your chance to win? John Eno

"Kushiel" <invisibl...@gmail.com> schreef in bericht news:1186425015.7...@r34g2000hsd.googlegroups.com... [ quoted text not captured ] some people are realists, some are not. 'nuff said.

[ quoted text not captured ] And that happens on a regular basis "there" ? Unlikely - again, we're discussing about common games, not to one-time exceptions to it. <snip> >> Common sense will make people to "house rule", sure. >> Time limit it's implied in every common game, above all in CCG >> games. That's the normality i think - why do you need to take >> the argument on this "time limit" matter is unclear to me, however. > > rule book reference? no time limit in the rule book. Show me where if > i missed it. The rule book assumes the game ends with only 1 person > still in the game. That's pretty untrue - rulebook just states that "the winner is the player with the most victory points at *the end of the game*" - Nowhere it does specify that the winner is supposed to be the *only* (?) person left at the table, just that, when the game *ends* (= time limit), the players with most victory points will be the winner. And, anyway, you think you're going on circular argument here obviously from rulebook reference you get what's the *object* of the game - but the rulebook does not need to specify that every "game", actually, should have a time limit, since that's implied in EVERY play of a given "game", unless do you plan to play endlessly a single round of a CCG, which sounds pretty unreal. best Emiliano

On Aug 6, 6:07 pm, "Tetragrammaton" <nos...@none.com> wrote: > Jeroen Rombouts wrote: > > rule book reference? no time limit in the rule book. Show me where if > > i missed it. The rule book assumes the game ends with only 1 person > > still in the game. > > That's pretty untrue - rulebook just states that "the winner is the player > with the most victory points at *the end of the game*" - > Nowhere it does specify that the winner is supposed to be the *only* (?) > person > left at the table, just that, when the game *ends* (= time limit), the > players with most victory points will be > the winner. See section 9.1, Victory Points: When a Methuselah runs out of pool counters, she is ousted from the game. If you are ousted, all the cards you control are removed from the game. Any of your opponents' cards you control are returned to them at the end of the game. Any of your cards controlled by other Methuselahs remain in play as normal (see The Golden Rule of Card Ownership, sec. 1.3). __The game continues until only one Methuselah is left__. > And, anyway, you think you're going on circular argument here > obviously from rulebook reference you get what's the *object* of the game - > but the rulebook does not need to specify that every "game", actually, > should have > a time limit, since that's implied in EVERY play of a given "game", unless > do you plan > to play endlessly a single round of a CCG, which sounds pretty unreal. The withdrawal rule exists (among other things) to alleviate the problems of untimed games. witness1

witness1 wrote: > On Aug 6, 6:07 pm, "Tetragrammaton" <nos...@none.com> wrote: >> Jeroen Rombouts wrote: >>> rule book reference? no time limit in the rule book. Show me where >>> if i missed it. The rule book assumes the game ends with only 1 >>> person still in the game. >> >> That's pretty untrue - rulebook just states that "the winner is the >> player with the most victory points at *the end of the game*" - >> Nowhere it does specify that the winner is supposed to be the *only* >> (?) person >> left at the table, just that, when the game *ends* (= time limit), >> the players with most victory points will be >> the winner. > > See section 9.1, Victory Points: > When a Methuselah runs out of pool counters, she is ousted from the > game. If you are ousted, all the cards you control are removed from > the game. Any of your opponents' cards you control are returned to > them at the end of the game. Any of your cards controlled by other > Methuselahs remain in play as normal (see The Golden Rule of Card > Ownership, sec. 1.3). __The game continues until only one Methuselah > is left__. > Is was referring to the "winning condition" clause, that is, the subject being discussed (for the final round of a given tournament) - under the current tournament "ruling", the final round can be played against the object of the game as it's presented in the rulebook (my original point in this discussion). >> And, anyway, you think you're going on circular argument here >> obviously from rulebook reference you get what's the *object* of >> the game - but the rulebook does not need to specify that every >> "game", actually, should have >> a time limit, since that's implied in EVERY play of a given "game", >> unless do you plan >> to play endlessly a single round of a CCG, which sounds pretty >> unreal. > > The withdrawal rule exists (among other things) to alleviate the > problems of untimed games. > The withdraw is included in the rulebook, yes. Still can't see the reason for debating about implied things such as "a game times out after a while" ... you can't play forever, whatever set of rules is given "to alleviate" untimed games, it's implied that some method to establish a time limit for a given game will be taken, both for casual play or for tournaments. Emiliano

[ quoted text not captured ] No. you were going on about 'intended' this and 'implied' that. I was pointing out that the timelimit is a problem in the finals. > > >> And, anyway, you think you're going on circular argument here > >> obviously from rulebook reference you get what's the *object* of > >> the game - but the rulebook does not need to specify that every > >> "game", actually, should have > >> a time limit, since that's implied in EVERY play of a given "game", > >> unless do you plan > >> to play endlessly a single round of a CCG, which sounds pretty > >> unreal. > > > The withdrawal rule exists (among other things) to alleviate the > > problems of untimed games. > > The withdraw is included in the rulebook, yes. > Still can't see the reason for debating about implied things such > as "a game times out after a while" ... you can't play forever, whatever > set of rules is given "to alleviate" untimed games, it's implied that some > method to establish a time limit for a given game will be taken, both for > casual play or for tournaments. And yet, no rules in the rule book for draws and stuff. So the game is INTENDED to have no time limit. Get it?

On 7 aug, 02:22, "Tetragrammaton" <nos...@none.com> wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] No. you were going on about 'intended' this and 'implied' that. I was pointing out that the timelimit is a problem in the finals. > > >> And, anyway, you think you're going on circular argument here > >> obviously from rulebook reference you get what's the *object* of > >> the game - but the rulebook does not need to specify that every > >> "game", actually, should have > >> a time limit, since that's implied in EVERY play of a given "game", > >> unless do you plan > >> to play endlessly a single round of a CCG, which sounds pretty > >> unreal. > > > The withdrawal rule exists (among other things) to alleviate the > > problems of untimed games. > > The withdraw is included in the rulebook, yes. > Still can't see the reason for debating about implied things such > as "a game times out after a while" ... you can't play forever, whatever > set of rules is given "to alleviate" untimed games, it's implied that some > method to establish a time limit for a given game will be taken, both for > casual play or for tournaments. And yet, no rules in the rule book for draws and stuff. So the game is [ quoted text not captured ]

Jeroen wrote: > On 7 aug, 02:22, "Tetragrammaton" <nos...@none.com> wrote: >> witness1 wrote: >>> On Aug 6, 6:07 pm, "Tetragrammaton" <nos...@none.com> wrote: >>>> Jeroen Rombouts wrote: <snip> >> Is was referring to the "winning condition" clause, that is, the >> subject being discussed (for the final round of a given tournament) >> - under >> the current tournament "ruling", the final round can be played >> against >> the object of the game as it's presented in the rulebook (my >> original point in this discussion). > > No. you were going on about 'intended' this and 'implied' that. I was > pointing out that the timelimit is a problem in the finals. > Actually it is in every game we play - vtes, risk or whatever. >> >>>> And, anyway, you think you're going on circular argument here >>>> obviously from rulebook reference you get what's the *object* of >>>> the game - but the rulebook does not need to specify that every >>>> "game", actually, should have >>>> a time limit, since that's implied in EVERY play of a given >>>> "game", unless do you plan >>>> to play endlessly a single round of a CCG, which sounds pretty >>>> unreal. >> >>> The withdrawal rule exists (among other things) to alleviate the >>> problems of untimed games. >> >> The withdraw is included in the rulebook, yes. >> Still can't see the reason for debating about implied things such >> as "a game times out after a while" ... you can't play forever, >> whatever set of rules is given "to alleviate" untimed games, it's >> implied that some method to establish a time limit for a given game >> will be taken, both for casual play or for tournaments. > > And yet, no rules in the rule book for draws and stuff. So the game is > INTENDED to have no time limit. Get it? At all, unless you want to point out that, since the rulebook don't tell that explicity, a game should not have a defined amount of time to be played. Whatever the case, this is pointless in respect of my subject: a final should be played for the *object* of the game as it's PRESENTED in the rulebook - as top seed, being allowed to play, from the beginning, just to "tie" the game isn't what it's intended with the object of the game, period. Emiliano

On Aug 6, 2:39 pm, "Jeroen Rombouts" <jeroen.rombou...@telenet.be> wrote: > some people are realists, some are not. 'nuff said. *shrug* Okay. By your standards, I'm not enough of a "realist" to comprehend how suiciding results in more VPs. Go me. :) John Eno

[ quoted text not captured ] No. You'r not understanding that in a GW-only final there is no second place. And if you can't get first alone, you're second anyway unless there is no-one first. VPs don't matter, unless they give you the GW.

On Aug 6, 6:58 pm, crispyfloss <crispyfl...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Aug 6, 1:00 am, Ector <Ec...@mail.ru> wrote: > > > Then why does it matter whether you tell them they're allowed to bribe > each other? If they want to they will anyway. I said that I have SOME players that violate PTW, not that ALL my players do that. But even those who violate PTW consider bribery a cheating and don't even attempt to bribe. When my players realize that bribery is LEGAL, and PTW doesn't exist in the finals at all, I will immediately have a lot of players "for fun", and the serious tournament game we had before would be irrevocably destroyed. > > I don't, either. Though I dislike any "home rules", I will be forced > > to maintain somewhat different Tournament Rules for our tournaments: > > prize splitting allowed only if ALL players are agree, and PTW in the > > finals is enforced as usual. The only difference between the final > > round and preliminary rounds is the fact that top seed player is > > considered to have GW if nobody has more VPs than him (for instance, > > 2-2-1). > > I'd like to hear how it works out; please post here after you've had a > chance to try it out. ...or is it just what you've been doing all > along? Surely. We are working this way at least for a year, and it works fine. I was very mispleased to realize that the official rules allow the behaviour that we all despise. > The serious player can and will still play to win even if players are > allowed to split prizes - because he can always refuse a prize split, > and can always counter-offer if anyone tries to split prizes against > him. He has more tools at his disposal and so is better off with > prize split deals, if he doesn't care about winning all the prizes > himself. Look, do you think that serious players LIKE the bidding of bribes to take control over the casual players? Really? I've always thought that serious players appreciate winning by good deckbuilding, clever thinking or cunny manipulations - but not by bribery. > > No, it isn't. You underestimate our efforts to keep the game at the > > tournament level. > > I just don't understand why you try to keep it at that level if so > many players don't seem to want to play at that level. It's simple: because I want to play the game at that level. Besides, I don't believe in "casual CCG gaming" at all. Without serious competition, tournaments and prizes any CCG quickly dies, since people stop buying boosters. Why should they? One can get as much "joy" and "fun" with his old Jyhad deck. > So why would any player agree to a prize split anyway, given that you > already split them? To get more, of course! Yours, Ector

Jeroen wrote: > No. You'r not understanding that in a GW-only final there is no second > place. And if you can't get first alone, you're second anyway unless > there is no-one first. I understand that there is no second place. What I'm actually confused by is your notion that in a game in which there is no second place, rolling over is still somehow a good idea. Again: If there is no second place, why would you ever want to sacrifice VPs instead of trying to win? > VPs don't matter, unless they give you the GW. Yes, and? That's true of the whole game, not just this speculative GW- only final table. It's only under the current (crappy) finals table rules that VPs are more important than a GW. John Eno

"Kushiel" <invisibl...@gmail.com> schreef in bericht news:1186513325....@r34g2000hsd.googlegroups.com... > Jeroen wrote: >> No. You'r not understanding that in a GW-only final there is no second >> place. And if you can't get first alone, you're second anyway unless >> there is no-one first. > > I understand that there is no second place. What I'm actually confused > by is your notion that in a game in which there is no second place, > rolling over is still somehow a good idea. > what's so difficult about: a/ I see i cannot realistically get the GW b/ there is no second place a+b => c: I get a better result by playing against a GW on the final table. Show me the error here.....

"Tetragrammaton" <nos...@none.com> schreef in bericht news:mAVti.18882$pd1....@tornado.fastwebnet.it... [ quoted text not captured ] Sod it. I tried to explain. read it again. can't be arsed. > Whatever the case, this is pointless in respect of my subject: > a final should be played for the *object* of the game as it's > PRESENTED in the rulebook - as top seed, > being allowed to play, from the beginning, just to "tie" > the game isn't what it's intended with the object of the game, > period. > suggest something better then....

On Aug 7, 6:14 pm, "Jeroen Rombouts" <jeroen.rombou...@telenet.be> wrote: > what's so difficult about: > a/ I see i cannot realistically get the GW > b/ there is no second place > > a+b => c: I get a better result by playing against a GW on the final table. > > Show me the error here..... Because you DON'T actually get a better result by preventing someone else from winning. Since second through fifth place are functionally identical, it doesn't matter which one you get. So, again, why not try to get first yourself? You keep avoiding that question. John Eno

On 8 aug, 04:51, Kushiel <invisibleking...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Aug 7, 6:14 pm, "Jeroen Rombouts" <jeroen.rombou...@telenet.be> > wrote: > > > what's so difficult about: > > a/ I see i cannot realistically get the GW > > b/ there is no second place > > > a+b => c: I get a better result by playing against a GW on the final table. > > > Show me the error here..... > > Because you DON'T actually get a better result by preventing someone > else from winning. Since second through fifth place are functionally > identical, it doesn't matter which one you get. They're not in the GW only system. No winner makes everyone second. (Which is the same as first: no-one came ahead of you.) If someone gets the GW, you're also second, but someone came ahead of you. How is that identical? > > So, again, why not try to get first yourself? You keep avoiding that > question. I'm not avoiding it. It's a premise that you can't win (or at least, are unlikely to win).... You keep attacking the premise instead of the conclusion.

On 8 aug, 04:51, Kushiel <invisibleking...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Aug 7, 6:14 pm, "Jeroen Rombouts" <jeroen.rombou...@telenet.be> > wrote: > > > what's so difficult about: > > a/ I see i cannot realistically get the GW > > b/ there is no second place > > > a+b => c: I get a better result by playing against a GW on the final table. > > > Show me the error here..... > > Because you DON'T actually get a better result by preventing someone > else from winning. Since second through fifth place are functionally > identical, it doesn't matter which one you get. > Yes you do. You see: Its a GW-only game, meaning 2 possible outcomes: -1 winner, 4 losers (with no "final ranking" for 2nd, 3rd, 4th or 5th amongst them) -5 non-winners/non-losers, all tied (again, without any ranking amongst each other) So, if you're sure you can't be the winner*, your options are: -become one of the 4 losers -become one of the 5 non winners/non losers By preventing someone else's GW you really are upping your status: from loser to non loser/non winner. Seems like an improvement to me. Even though it's still an improvement from "sucky" to "still sucky but at least just as sucky as everyone else", but that wasn't Jeroen's point. Hopefully that cleares things up a bit. Teeka * note that I hear you on trying to win until getting ousted stops you. But 'remotely possible' and 'likely, given the table and players involved' are two seperate things. Even though I'm a 'no retreat' kind of player myself, I fully understand people who give up going for the gold and try to save what they can.

Kushiel wrote: > It's only under the current (crappy) finals table > rules that VPs are more important than a GW. In the finals table, VPs are not more important than the GW.

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:Kviui.2638$ox5....@nlpi068.nbdc.sbc.com... [ quoted text not captured ] Huh? In the tournament standings, the finals table VPs are more important than anything else. On the other hand, the finals table game win is not considered at all. It sounds like John's statement is the correct one to me. Could you clarify? Fred

On Aug 8, 11:34 am, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: > "LSJ" <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message [ quoted text not captured ] The final table game win is handed to the player with the most VPs (breaking ties as appropriate). Saying that VPs matter more than VPs + tie-breaking powers seems kinda silly to me. The only difference is that (because we desire a single winner) we have tiebreakers in the finals, and allow a player to win with less than 2 VPs. That doesn't make the any Game Win less important. witness1

On Aug 8, 11:34 am, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: > "LSJ" <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message [ quoted text not captured ] Finals Table GW guarantees First Place in the tournament. Nothing is more important (though, depending on standings going into the Final, some things may be equally important). -- - Gregory Stuart Pettigrew

[ quoted text not captured ] "Players in the final must play to win, not considering outside element such as seeds placement, prizes, points already earned, vekn ratings and so on, as much as they did in the previous rounds - if a finalist can't win the round, he must maxmize his/her vps... etc". Emiliano

"witness1" <jwnew...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message news:1186588806.7...@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com... [ quoted text not captured ] Um, OK. I guess I didn't realize that we were futzing with the definition of "game win" so that the "game win" in the finals was a different thing than a "game win" in a preliminary round. Usually it's more condusive to communication if we try to keep these definitions as consistant as possible. And I was always led to believe that it was the tournament championship that was "handed to the player with the most VPs (breaking ties as appropriate)". If you want to define the finals game win that way then OK, I agree. It's surely the most important thing in a tournament. But the whole argument strikes me as being kind of circular. Fred

Frederick Scott wrote: > "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message > news:Kviui.2638$ox5....@nlpi068.nbdc.sbc.com... >> Kushiel wrote: >>> It's only under the current (crappy) finals table >>> rules that VPs are more important than a GW. >> In the finals table, VPs are not more important than the GW. > > Huh? In the tournament standings, the finals table VPs are > more important than anything else. Not more than final table GWs. > On the other hand, the > finals table game win is not considered at all. It sounds > like John's statement is the correct one to me. Could you > clarify? Sure. Clarified: the person who gets the GW is the one who gets the most VPs. So, as usual, the person with the most GWs in the finals wins, with ties (no GW) being broken by VPs. Which is the same as saying "most VPs wins". So: Final VPs are not "more" important than Final GWs.

On Aug 8, 3:10 am, Jeroen <joen_...@hotmail.com> wrote: > They're not in the GW only system. No winner makes everyone second. > (Which is the same as first: no-one came ahead of you.) This is where your logic falls apart. If no one is first, that doesn't make everyone first (which is what you're arguing here: that second is the same is first if there is no actual first). If there is no first, there is no winner. That's the whole point of the GW-only format. Claiming that "there is no first" is tautologically equivalent to "everyone is first" doesn't make any sense. > If someone > gets the GW, you're also second, but someone came ahead of you. How is > that identical? They're identical because either way, you're not the winner. If there is only one winner, it doesn't matter what other place you're in. If you're not the winner, it doesn't matter who else won - it wasn't you. If there is no winner, no one won - it wasn't you, so your standing was the same as it would have been if someone did win (ie, your standing is "not the winner"). > > So, again, why not try to get first yourself? You keep avoiding that > > question. > > I'm not avoiding it. It's a premise that you can't win (or at least, > are unlikely to win).... You keep attacking the premise instead of the > conclusion. Yes. Because it's a bullshit premise. Again, unless you're psychic or already ousted, rolling over is a no-win play. And if you're psychic, you shouldn't be having any problems winning anyway. :) If "there can be only one winner" isn't enough of a motivation for the group(s) you play in to talk less and try more to get a GW, I genuinely feel sorry for you. Unless "play for an hour, talk for an hour" is actually your preferred style of play, I guess. John Eno

On Aug 8, 8:10 am, Teeka <teeka_dra...@hotmail.com> wrote: > Its a GW-only game, meaning 2 possible outcomes: > -1 winner, 4 losers (with no "final ranking" for 2nd, 3rd, 4th or 5th > amongst them) > -5 non-winners/non-losers, all tied (again, without any ranking > amongst each other) This is wrong. There are zero non-winners/non-losers. There are five people who lost. I snipped the rest of this section of your post since its logic followed from this flawed assumption of what "no winner" means. > * note that I hear you on trying to win until getting ousted stops > you. But 'remotely possible' and 'likely, given the table and players > involved' are two seperate things. Even though I'm a 'no retreat' kind > of player myself, I fully understand people who give up going for the > gold and try to save what they can. Oh, I understand that kind of play too. It's just silly in the finals of a tournament, though. And much more so in the finals of a GW-only finals. John Eno

[ quoted text not captured ] Fair enough. John Eno

"Kushiel" <invisibl...@gmail.com> schreef in bericht news:1186596397.5...@o61g2000hsh.googlegroups.com... > On Aug 8, 3:10 am, Jeroen <joen_...@hotmail.com> wrote: >> They're not in the GW only system. No winner makes everyone second. >> (Which is the same as first: no-one came ahead of you.) > > This is where your logic falls apart. no it doesn't. >if no one is first, that doesn't > make everyone first (which is what you're arguing here: that second is > the same is first if there is no actual first). Yes, but you can lose AND have someone win or have everyone lose. If you don't see that..... > > If there is no first, there is no winner. That's the whole point of > the GW-only format. Claiming that "there is no first" is > tautologically equivalent to "everyone is first" doesn't make any > sense It does, you're just not seeing it. >> If someone >> gets the GW, you're also second, but someone came ahead of you. How is >> that identical? > > They're identical because either way, you're not the winner. yes, but no-one came ahead of you. No-one beat you. > > If there is only one winner, it doesn't matter what other place you're > in. If you're not the winner, it doesn't matter who else won - it > wasn't you. yes, but no-one came ahead of you. No-one beat you. > If there is no winner, no one won - it wasn't you, so your standing > was the same as it would have been if someone did win (ie, your > standing is "not the winner"). yes, but no-one came ahead of you. No-one beat you. > >> > So, again, why not try to get first yourself? You keep avoiding that >> > question. >> >> I'm not avoiding it. It's a premise that you can't win (or at least, >> are unlikely to win).... You keep attacking the premise instead of the >> conclusion. > > Yes. Because it's a bullshit premise. Again, unless you're psychic or > already ousted, rolling over is a no-win play. And if you're psychic, > you shouldn't be having any problems winning anyway. :) I'm not psychic, yet I can predict what will happen in advance. Through the awesome powers of logic and probability. > > If "there can be only one winner" isn't enough of a motivation for the > group(s) you play in to talk less and try more to get a GW, I > genuinely feel sorry for you. Unless "play for an hour, talk for an > hour" is actually your preferred style of play, I guess. You're completely misreading what I'm saying. I'm saying that the GW system will make people talk for an hour instead of playing, and thereby worsening the situation. I'm fully in support of the current situation. (except for the prize splitting) BTW, while we're on the ad hominem attacks, I would like to play in a group where no-one can predict what's gonna happen in a turn or a turn after that.

"Kushiel" <invisibl...@gmail.com> schreef in bericht news:1186596559.2...@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com... > On Aug 8, 8:10 am, Teeka <teeka_dra...@hotmail.com> wrote: >> Its a GW-only game, meaning 2 possible outcomes: >> -1 winner, 4 losers (with no "final ranking" for 2nd, 3rd, 4th or 5th >> amongst them) >> -5 non-winners/non-losers, all tied (again, without any ranking >> amongst each other) > > This is wrong. There are zero non-winners/non-losers. There are five > people who lost. yes. They lost and no-one beat them > they lost and someone beat them. Why can't you understand that? > > I snipped the rest of this section of your post since its logic > followed from this flawed assumption of what "no winner" means. Flawed assumption? Whose is flawed?

"Tetragrammaton" <nos...@none.com> schreef in bericht news:BUmui.21058 > > "Players in the final must play to win, not considering > outside element such as seeds placement, prizes, points already > earned, vekn ratings and so on, as much as they did in the previous > rounds - > if a finalist can't win the round, he must maxmize his/her vps... etc". Won't work, isn't fair on the best players in the prelims and can't be policed. As discussed in other parts in this thread. try again. harder.

[ quoted text not captured ] It can be policed as much as it's policed, actually, in the previous rounds - finalist would just play the final round by ptw - what happens thereafter or what happened before the final should not matter. Unless we want to keep on with final rounds played ignoring the object of the game as it's presented in the rulebook. Emiliano

On Aug 8, 3:32 pm, "Jeroen Rombouts" <jeroen.rombou...@telenet.be> wrote: > They lost and no-one beat them > they lost and someone beat them. Only in terms of egos, right? If you're still not counted as a winner (or still "tied for second" or whatever), it's got no impact on *your* ranking, prize, or standing. (Unless there's something I'm missing about VEKN rankings, or an assumption about what will happen to an unclaimed - no winner, remember - prize that I missed.) Which isn't to say that's not valuable, but it's not exactly "greater than." My ego, personally, is better served by knowing I gave it all I could, than that I brought other folks down with me... (Note: NOT making a comparison with anyone else's ego here, since I don't know what feeds whose and since it's a matter of opinion anyhow. Just stating my view). - D.J.

On 9 aug, 00:16, Meej <dj...@comcast.net> wrote: > On Aug 8, 3:32 pm, "Jeroen Rombouts" <jeroen.rombou...@telenet.be> > wrote: > > > They lost and no-one beat them > they lost and someone beat them. > > Only in terms of egos, right? So? better is better. Even if spite is the only reason ('at least the cheesy Arika deck didn't win') is just as good an argument as ego. >If you're still not counted as a winner > (or still "tied for second" or whatever), it's got no impact on *your* > ranking, prize, or standing. (Unless there's something I'm missing > about VEKN rankings, or an assumption about what will happen to an > unclaimed - no winner, remember - prize that I missed.) Even here: no winner means no-one gets the winning point for the ranking. meaning that it's better for you. If you care about that stuff, of course. > > Which isn't to say that's not valuable, but it's not exactly "greater > than." > > My ego, personally, is better served by knowing I gave it all I could, > than that I brought other folks down with me... (Note: NOT making a > comparison with anyone else's ego here, since I don't know what feeds > whose and since it's a matter of opinion anyhow. Just stating my > view). We're talking about *after* you gave everything you got and it didn't seem to work anyway.

On 9 aug, 00:05, "Tetragrammaton" <nos...@none.com> wrote: > Unless we want to keep on with final rounds played ignoring the object of > the game as it's presented in the rulebook. This statement is what spurred this whole argument. Do I really HAVE to spell it out for you? NOT PRESENTED IN THE RULEBOOK, NOR IMPLIED: - the concept of a GW - the concept of PTW - the concept of a time limit. So your whole argument 'its the object of the game as it's presented in the rulebook' is based on nothing at all. I could even point out that ATM the final game is closer to the rulebook than when you would add PTW in there.

Jeroen wrote: > On 9 aug, 00:05, "Tetragrammaton" <nos...@none.com> wrote: > >> Unless we want to keep on with final rounds played ignoring the >> object of the game as it's presented in the rulebook. > > This statement is what spurred this whole argument. Do I really HAVE > to spell it out for you? > > NOT PRESENTED IN THE RULEBOOK, NOR IMPLIED: > - the concept of a GW > - the concept of PTW > - the concept of a time limit. > I won't answer again on time limit, since it's pretty stupid keep on the argument, and, again, has nothing to do with the subject discussed- The concept of ptw/gw in tournament follow close enough what's presented on the rulebook as object of the game, though, because following it you'll end up in respecting what's the object of the game as it's presented in the rulebook (gain the most vps). Thisi is a fact. > So your whole argument 'its the object of the game as it's presented > in the rulebook' is based on nothing at all. > Not really - for the game's goal, a vtes game must be played to score more VPs than any other at the table - the final round, under the current "ptwt" (play to win tournament), can be played against the game's object. This is a fact. > I could even point out that ATM the final game is closer to the > rulebook than when you would add PTW in there. Well, you're keeping on with statements not backed by arguments, so i think this won't help the discussion anyway. Emiliano

On Aug 8, 3:29 pm, "Jeroen Rombouts" <jeroen.rombou...@telenet.be> wrote: > > If there is only one winner, it doesn't matter what other place you're > > in. If you're not the winner, it doesn't matter who else won - it > > wasn't you. > > yes, but no-one came ahead of you. No-one beat you. Thought experiment: Thirty people enter into an contest in the form of an endurance race. These thirty people have to cross 1,000 miles of desert with no supplies or outside help. The first one to do so wins one million dollars. Unsurprisingly, none of them manage to do so. Do any of them get one million dollars? > I'm not psychic, yet I can predict what will happen in advance. Through the > awesome powers of logic and probability. Dude, seriously? If you can predict what will happen in advance, you should never lose at this game. Ever. > You're completely misreading what I'm saying. I'm saying that the GW system > will make people talk for an hour instead of playing, and thereby worsening > the situation. No, truly, I understand that this is what you've been saying all along, despite your insistence on my ignorance. The point I'm trying to make here is that I don't think people are *less* likely to try to get a GW if getting a GW is the only way to win the finals of a tournament. People aren't going to be spending an hour talking, because they need that time to get three VPs. As the rules currently stand, the player in first seed definitely wants to spend an hour talking. > I'm fully in support of the current situation. (except for > the prize splitting) Cool. I don't really have a problem with the current situation, either; I just can't see how forcing people to play harder is going to somehow result in fewer VPs earned because everyone is wasting their time debating who the table threat is (or whatever it is they're talking about). > BTW, while we're on the ad hominem attacks, Er, what? I didn't make any attacks. I really DID mean that I do think that forcing a GW would make most players play harder during finals, with the result being fewer timeouts. I also really meant that if the people in your playgroup(s) would react to a GW-only finals by wasting their whole game talking, I feel bad for you, because I'm not at all a fan of that playstyle. > I would like to play in a group > where no-one can predict what's gonna happen in a turn or a turn after that. You should come play a couple of games in Boston, then... :) John Eno

On Aug 8, 3:32 pm, "Jeroen Rombouts" <jeroen.rombou...@telenet.be> wrote: > They lost and no-one beat them > they lost and someone beat them. > > Why can't you understand that? I guess I'm not fighting the boundaries of my ego as much as you are. John Eno

[ quoted text not captured ] and? Does that make you feel better about yourself? that's passive aggresive ego stroking too.

On 9 aug, 10:20, Kushiel <invisibleking...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Aug 8, 3:29 pm, "Jeroen Rombouts" <jeroen.rombou...@telenet.be> > wrote: > > > > If there is only one winner, it doesn't matter what other place you're > > > in. If you're not the winner, it doesn't matter who else won - it > > > wasn't you. > > > yes, but no-one came ahead of you. No-one beat you. > > Thought experiment: > > Thirty people enter into an contest in the form of an endurance race. > These thirty people have to cross 1,000 miles of desert with no > supplies or outside help. The first one to do so wins one million > dollars. > > Unsurprisingly, none of them manage to do so. > > Do any of them get one million dollars? irrelevant. no-one 's working against anyone in you experiment. > > > I'm not psychic, yet I can predict what will happen in advance. Through the > > awesome powers of logic and probability. > > Dude, seriously? If you can predict what will happen in advance, you > should never lose at this game. Ever. Seeing something happen 1 or 2 turns in advance is difficult for you? Maybe I am gifted then. But almost everyone i play with is equally gifted. > > > You're completely misreading what I'm saying. I'm saying that the GW system > > will make people talk for an hour instead of playing, and thereby worsening > > the situation. > > No, truly, I understand that this is what you've been saying all > along, despite your insistence on my ignorance. > > The point I'm trying to make here is that I don't think people are > *less* likely to try to get a GW if getting a GW is the only way to > win the finals of a tournament. Yes. And I'm saying that this will mean a number of players will start sabotaging the table once it's obvious they can't win. Maybe you won't, but a lot of people will. Even if it its only for ego feeding. Spite, another big motivator for cross table stuff is also ego stroking. Don't tell me you never see stuff like that. There's enough kingmaking opportunity in this game already, don't add to it. >People aren't going to be spending an > hour talking, because they need that time to get three VPs. As the > rules currently stand, the player in first seed definitely wants to > spend an hour talking. 1 player wants to do that. He can only do that if someone is talking with him. no other players want the game to time out because then they lose. So unless he can find a way to have an hour long monologue that isn't stalling, he can't spend an hour talking. > > > I'm fully in support of the current situation. (except for > > the prize splitting) > > Cool. I don't really have a problem with the current situation, > either; I just can't see how forcing people to play harder is going to > somehow result in fewer VPs earned because everyone is wasting their > time debating who the table threat is (or whatever it is they're > talking about). I'm saying it won't work. > > > BTW, while we're on the ad hominem attacks, > > Er, what? I didn't make any attacks. I really DID mean that I do think > that forcing a GW would make most players play harder during finals, > with the result being fewer timeouts. I also really meant that if the > people in your playgroup(s) would react to a GW-only finals by wasting > their whole game talking, it's not the talking that's the problem: explicitly dealing for a non GW end is. And why couldn't they do that? If you can't win, you can die any way you want. Like for ex: screw the guy playing for the game win. >I feel bad for you, because I'm not at all a > fan of that playstyle. Who says I am a fan, or who says I mind? All part of the game. I'm saying that GW only finals won't help the situation and in a lot of cases will make it worse. > > > I would like to play in a group > > where no-one can predict what's gonna happen in a turn or a turn after that. > > You should come play a couple of games in Boston, then... :) Maybe I play with and against too many super focussed decks, but i usually can predict a lot of what's gonna come. One of the reasons probably that we don't play much anymore.

On 8 aug, 20:09, Kushiel <invisibleking...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Aug 8, 8:10 am, Teeka <teeka_dra...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > Its a GW-only game, meaning 2 possible outcomes: > > -1 winner, 4 losers (with no "final ranking" for 2nd, 3rd, 4th or 5th > > amongst them) > > -5 non-winners/non-losers, all tied (again, without any ranking > > amongst each other) > > This is wrong. There are zero non-winners/non-losers. There are five > people who lost. > Not wrong. Compare it to a two-player game like chess. There are 3 outcomes: win, lose or (pam--pam-paaam) DRAW. If you can't win a game of chess, you should go for a draw. In a draw, there is no winner AND no loser. Both players get the middle between win and lose, named draw. Same here. If someone gets the GW, then the other players, collectively, lose. But if no one wins, then no one loses either. The game is a draw amongst 5 people (which was what I meant by trying to over-simplify in saying "non winner/non loser"). Getting a draw is not the same as losing. Getting a draw is better than losing, even though it is still "not winning". Get it now? > I snipped the rest of this section of your post since its logic > followed from this flawed assumption of what "no winner" means. > Your assumption is flawed, since you think "non winner = loser" while in fact, there is a third option. Not trying to bitch here, just want to make you see what I mean. Of course you're right it doesn't make a lot of sense when only looking at GW's since you don't get the prize either way, but it's -still good for personal status (you didn't actually lose), -and very good if (as someone suggested) the prize goes to no one (since nobody won) but becomes available for next game. Lots of soccer teams in the FA cup (English national knock-out tourney) happily go for a draw when they can't win, so they can hope to do better in the replay two weeks later.

On 9 aug, 10:25, "Tetragrammaton" <nos...@none.com> wrote: > Jeroen wrote: > > On 9 aug, 00:05, "Tetragrammaton" <nos...@none.com> wrote: > > >> Unless we want to keep on with final rounds played ignoring the > >> object of the game as it's presented in the rulebook. > > > This statement is what spurred this whole argument. Do I really HAVE > > to spell it out for you? > > > NOT PRESENTED IN THE RULEBOOK, NOR IMPLIED: > > - the concept of a GW > > - the concept of PTW > > - the concept of a time limit. > > I won't answer again on time limit, since it's pretty stupid keep > on the argument, and, again, has nothing to do with the subject discussed- It the whole base of it. No time limit => no need for GWs and PTW. If you don't see that, I don't know how to explain it to you. > The concept of ptw/gw in tournament follow close enough what's > presented on the rulebook as object of the game, though, > because following it you'll end up in respecting what's the object > of the game as it's presented in the rulebook (gain the most vps). close, but not the same. Without a time limit, it's almost identical, because you need at least 2 to win. Again, time limit..... > Thisi is a fact. close, not identical. > > > So your whole argument 'its the object of the game as it's presented > > in the rulebook' is based on nothing at all. > > Not really - for the game's goal, a vtes game must be played to score > more VPs than any other at the table again you forget to add 'when only one person remains' Time limit, which you say is a stupid argument but has a HUGE effect on the game. > - the final round, under the current > "ptwt" (play to win tournament), can be played against the game's object. First of all,GW in the final still wins you the tournement. So what's the problem? Want to win the tournement: get the GW. Why do you need PTW for that? > This is a fact. It can be. But 'because the rulebook says so' isn't a good argument. That's my whole point, especially since the rule book doesn't says so. Get it now? > > > I could even point out that ATM the final game is closer to the > > rulebook than when you would add PTW in there. > > Well, you're keeping on with statements not backed by arguments, > so i think this won't help the discussion anyway. arguments? where are the references in this rulebook you speak of? PTW? Timelimit? GW? where?

Jeroen wrote: > On 9 aug, 00:05, "Tetragrammaton" <nos...@none.com> wrote: > >> Unless we want to keep on with final rounds played ignoring the object of >> the game as it's presented in the rulebook. > > This statement is what spurred this whole argument. Do I really HAVE > to spell it out for you? > > NOT PRESENTED IN THE RULEBOOK, NOR IMPLIED: > - the concept of a GW Object of the game. (Unless you mean the modified GW rule given in the VEKN Rules -- both games have GW, but the tournament rules do not award a GW for a 1.5 VP victory; of course, the basic game cannot ever have a 1.5 VP victory, so the two are essentially the same, with the tournament rules possibly being viewed as a refinement). > - the concept of PTW Implied in all games. Games explain the goals with the implied "players should play toward the goal" included. > - the concept of a time limit. True, the game proper has no time limit. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Aug 9, 3:54 am, Jeroen <joen_...@hotmail.com> wrote: > On 9 aug, 00:16, Meej <dj...@comcast.net> wrote: (Snipped the first two bits. Not to dismiss them - reasonable responses to the earlier points. :-) Difference of opinion, maybe, but I can see where you're coming from on them.) > > My ego, personally, is better served by knowing I gave it all I could, > > than that I brought other folks down with me... (Note: NOT making a > > comparison with anyone else's ego here, since I don't know what feeds > > whose and since it's a matter of opinion anyhow. Just stating my > > view). > > We're talking about *after* you gave everything you got and it didn't > seem to work anyway. Then you've been ousted already and can't do anything. Or do you not really mean "everything you've got"? If you're still in the game, you've still got a shot, however remote - I've seen enough of the top players around here come back from what looked like absolutely hopeless because they never stopped trying to turn it around. - D.J.

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> schreef in bericht news:sgCui.4984$Yz6....@newssvr22.news.prodigy.net... > Jeroen wrote: >> On 9 aug, 00:05, "Tetragrammaton" <nos...@none.com> wrote: >> >>> Unless we want to keep on with final rounds played ignoring the object >>> of >>> the game as it's presented in the rulebook. >> >> This statement is what spurred this whole argument. Do I really HAVE >> to spell it out for you? >> >> NOT PRESENTED IN THE RULEBOOK, NOR IMPLIED: >> - the concept of a GW > > Object of the game. (Unless you mean the modified GW rule given in the > VEKN Rules -- both games have GW, but the tournament rules do not award a > GW for a 1.5 VP victory; of course, the basic game cannot ever have a 1.5 > VP victory, so the two are essentially the same, with the tournament rules > possibly being viewed as a refinement). like i said: no need for the concept, because there is no time limit. Draws are also not handled by the rulebook. Another difference. BTW, GW being a refinement for tournements is basically my whole point of this sub thread. > >> - the concept of PTW > > Implied in all games. Games explain the goals with the implied "players > should play toward the goal" included. Not literally the same. Since GW are not mentioned, PTW means that you have to get as much VPs as possible. Again, a refinement. Again what i was trying to get through to Emiliano. > >> - the concept of a time limit. > > True, the game proper has no time limit. And therefore no need for the refinements that were put there for tournements. Again: my whole point in this sub thread.

Jeroen Rombouts wrote: > "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> schreef in bericht > news:sgCui.4984$Yz6....@newssvr22.news.prodigy.net... >> Jeroen wrote: >>> On 9 aug, 00:05, "Tetragrammaton" <nos...@none.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Unless we want to keep on with final rounds played ignoring the object >>>> of >>>> the game as it's presented in the rulebook. >>> This statement is what spurred this whole argument. Do I really HAVE >>> to spell it out for you? >>> >>> NOT PRESENTED IN THE RULEBOOK, NOR IMPLIED: >>> - the concept of a GW >> Object of the game. (Unless you mean the modified GW rule given in the >> VEKN Rules -- both games have GW, but the tournament rules do not award a >> GW for a 1.5 VP victory; of course, the basic game cannot ever have a 1.5 >> VP victory, so the two are essentially the same, with the tournament rules >> possibly being viewed as a refinement). > > like i said: no need for the concept, because there is no time limit. Draws > are also not handled by the rulebook. Another difference. BTW, GW being a > refinement for tournements is basically my whole point of this sub thread. Well, OK. Then we agree fundamentally, but the expression you chose is misleading. The rulebook presents the concept of a game win. That concept is presented in the "object of the game" section. >>> - the concept of PTW >> Implied in all games. Games explain the goals with the implied "players >> should play toward the goal" included. > > Not literally the same. Since GW are not mentioned, PTW means that you have > to get as much VPs as possible. Again, a refinement. Again what i was trying > to get through to Emiliano. No. The "object of the game" section says that the winner is the player with the most victory points at the end of the game. And it says that the player's goal is to be the one who accumulates the most (i.e., the players goal is to be the player who wins, i.e., the player is to play to win). >>> - the concept of a time limit. >> True, the game proper has no time limit. > > And therefore no need for the refinements that were put there for > tournements. Again: my whole point in this sub thread. OK, but you're using terms too loosely, then. Hence the length of the thread.

Jeroen wrote: > On 9 aug, 10:25, "Tetragrammaton" <nos...@none.com> wrote: >> Jeroen wrote: >>> On 9 aug, 00:05, "Tetragrammaton" <nos...@none.com> wrote: >> >>>> Unless we want to keep on with final rounds played ignoring the >>>> object of the game as it's presented in the rulebook. >> >>> This statement is what spurred this whole argument. Do I really HAVE >>> to spell it out for you? >> >>> NOT PRESENTED IN THE RULEBOOK, NOR IMPLIED: >>> - the concept of a GW >>> - the concept of PTW >>> - the concept of a time limit. >> >> I won't answer again on time limit, since it's pretty stupid keep >> on the argument, and, again, has nothing to do with the subject >> discussed- > > It the whole base of it. No time limit => no need for GWs and PTW. If > you don't see that, I don't know how to explain it to you. > No isn't - the base is the object of the game. Time limit is time limit, it's part of every game (soccer, ccgs, board games, chess, rpgs WHATEVER) people play - it is not a winning condition in vtes, you don't get more vps ousting a prey in less time, nor you get more GW ending up a round before time limit expires. Time limit is implied in every game - period. >> The concept of ptw/gw in tournament follow close enough what's >> presented on the rulebook as object of the game, though, >> because following it you'll end up in respecting what's the object >> of the game as it's presented in the rulebook (gain the most vps). > > close, but not the same. Without a time limit, it's almost identical, > because you need at least 2 to win. Again, time limit..... > >> Thisi is a fact. > > close, not identical. >> "Identical" wasn't the point - the point is "players playing under a set of rules that makes them to play to their best for the object of the game" - and actually, in the case of the final round, we're not even nearly at "identical" level, but very far from what's stated in the rulebook. >>> So your whole argument 'its the object of the game as it's presented >>> in the rulebook' is based on nothing at all. >> >> Not really - for the game's goal, a vtes game must be played to score >> more VPs than any other at the table > > again you forget to add 'when only one person remains' Time limit, > which you say is a stupid argument but has a HUGE effect on the game. > Then we should make something to change tournament rules to better reflect that "one player remains" - or, we should change rulebook accordingly to the reality of tournament games. >> - the final round, under the current >> "ptwt" (play to win tournament), can be played against the game's >> object. > > First of all,GW in the final still wins you the tournement. So what's > the problem? Want to win the tournement: get the GW. > > Why do you need PTW for that? > >> This is a fact. > It can be. But 'because the rulebook says so' isn't a good argument. UH ? then what should be an argument ? First you adressed to what's presented in the rulebook ("...one player remains") to support your statements, then now you say that isn't a good argument to base thought on to support rules for round' game ? > That's my whole point, especially since the rule book doesn't says so. > Get it now? > >> >>> I could even point out that ATM the final game is closer to the >>> rulebook than when you would add PTW in there. >> >> Well, you're keeping on with statements not backed by arguments, >> so i think this won't help the discussion anyway. > > arguments? where are the references in this rulebook you speak of? > PTW? Timelimit? GW? where? Object of the game: "Gain the most vps" - in the final that can be just ignored. Emiliano

Tetragrammaton wrote: > No isn't - the base is the object of the game. > Time limit is time limit, it's part of every game (soccer, ccgs, board > games, chess, > rpgs WHATEVER) people play - it is not a winning condition in vtes, you > don't > get more vps ousting a prey in less time, nor you get more GW ending up a > round > before time limit expires. > Time limit is implied in every game - period. Most games do not imply a time limit. Unless you count "as long as the players want/live" as the time limit, which would be pedantic and equivalent to "no time limit" in the standard usage. CCGs, board games, chess (which is a board game), rpgs, WHATEVER. Soccer matches define a time limit explicitly (not implicitly). Many tournaments of various games (CCGs, board games, chess, rpgs, WHATEVER) define a time limit explicitly. But not implicitly. To wit: postal chess doesn't "remove" the time limit implied by "chess". It merely doesn't add a time limit to chess (which, in truth, doesn't have an implicit time limit).

[ quoted text not captured ] I'm speaking adressing to common sense, and not to dive into semanthics. Explicit time limit is something that is necessarily established for a game, being a time limit implied in every game or human activity- this is not pedantry, it's just common sense. Unless you want to go on with the speculation and not with the matter of facts. Corner case such as "postal chess never ends" doesn't fit enough with the matter in subject - that is, a final round that can be played not following the object of the game, taking into account points and positions earned during the tournament, and (as 3D starter pointed) with prizes as part of the would be deals -overall, all of this it's quite different from what's ruled for the previous rounds. Emiliano

Tetragrammaton wrote: > LSJ wrote: >> Tetragrammaton wrote: >>> No isn't - the base is the object of the game. >>> Time limit is time limit, it's part of every game (soccer, ccgs, >>> board games, chess, >>> rpgs WHATEVER) people play - it is not a winning condition in vtes, >>> you don't >>> get more vps ousting a prey in less time, nor you get more GW ending >>> up a round >>> before time limit expires. >>> Time limit is implied in every game - period. >> Most games do not imply a time limit. >> >> Unless you count "as long as the players want/live" as the time >> limit, which would be pedantic and equivalent to "no time limit" in >> the standard usage. >> CCGs, board games, chess (which is a board game), rpgs, WHATEVER. >> >> Soccer matches define a time limit explicitly (not implicitly). >> Many tournaments of various games (CCGs, board games, chess, rpgs, >> WHATEVER) define a time limit explicitly. But not implicitly. >> >> To wit: postal chess doesn't "remove" the time limit implied by >> "chess". It merely doesn't add a time limit to chess (which, in >> truth, doesn't have an implicit time limit). > > I'm speaking adressing to common sense, and not to dive into semanthics. I'm not diving into semantics. I'm trying to address common sense. The assertion that every game implicitly makes a time limit is simply not true (unless you torture the semantics to get there, as I acknowledged above). > Explicit time limit is something that is necessarily established for a game, > being a time limit implied in every game or human activity- this is not > pedantry, > it's just common sense. Again, the only time limit is the endurance of the players. On this we seem to agree, judging by your "every human activity" statement. Relying on that for your assertion is laboring the semantics of "time limit". It is not appealing to common sense. > Unless you want to go on with the speculation and not with the matter of > facts. No. The fact is: "game" does not inherently imply "timed game". > Corner case such as "postal chess never ends" doesn't fit enough with the > matter in subject - that is, a final round that can be played not following > the object Corner case, perhaps. But the example is still valid in that it illustrates that non-postal chess is not inherently timed. > of the game, taking into account points and positions earned during the > tournament, and (as 3D starter pointed) with prizes as part of the would be > deals -overall, all of this it's quite different from what's ruled for the > previous rounds. I'm not sure what you mean by that, but it is immaterial to the assertion that "game" implies "timed game". First, you need to fix your foundation. Any argument built on the foundation that "game" means "timed game" is flawed. Once you fix that, then you can try to proceed to whatever conclusion you're wanting.

[ quoted text not captured ] That's your respectable opinion - to me, every play of a game implies a time limit, to be explicited with a given amount. Still, this has nothing to do with the matter being discussed. >> Corner case such as "postal chess never ends" doesn't fit enough >> with the matter in subject - that is, a final round that can be >> played not following the object > > Corner case, perhaps. > But the example is still valid in that it illustrates that non-postal > chess is not inherently timed. > >> of the game, taking into account points and positions earned during >> the tournament, and (as 3D starter pointed) with prizes as part of >> the would be deals -overall, all of this it's quite different from >> what's ruled for the previous rounds. > > I'm not sure what you mean by that, but it is immaterial to the > assertion that "game" implies "timed game". > > First, you need to fix your foundation. Any argument built on the > foundation that "game" means "timed game" is flawed. > "Play" of a game implied timed games - this by common sense. No need to fix anything on this assumption - i didn't even put it into the discussion myself. The final round, as other round, has a time limit, to be explicited from tournament to tournament (finals have not a fixed established time limit, afaik) - other than that, my point is completely different: final should be played for the object of the game - under the current rule, final can be not played for "gaining most vps". This is bad both in the respect of the object of the game as it's presented in the rulebook, and toward consistency between the rules adopted for the previous rounds (PtGW, no prizes for deals, vpoints can be taken into account for game's consideration) Emiliano

Tetragrammaton wrote: > LSJ wrote: >> Tetragrammaton wrote: >>> LSJ wrote: >>>> Tetragrammaton wrote: >>> Unless you want to go on with the speculation and not with the >>> matter of facts. >> No. The fact is: "game" does not inherently imply "timed game". >> > That's your respectable opinion - to me, every play of a game implies > a time limit, to be explicited with a given amount. That is non-sensical. Implied is the opposite of explicit. What time limit is implied by Chess? Tic-Tac-Toe? Hands on a Hardbody? Baseball? > Still, this has nothing to do with the matter being discussed. Since the matter being discussed is your assertion that "game" implies "timed game", I'd say it does. >> First, you need to fix your foundation. Any argument built on the >> foundation that "game" means "timed game" is flawed. >> > "Play" of a game implied timed games - this by common sense. No, it isn't. Play of a game doesn't imply timed games. > No need to fix anything on this assumption - i didn't even > put it into the discussion myself. Then you should let it go and stop making the false assertion that "game" implies "timed game" (since making false assertions that look like foundations undermines the conclusions you draw; and lengthens the threads in which you draw them). > The final round, as other round, has a time limit, to be explicited > from tournament to tournament (finals have not a fixed established > time limit, afaik) - other than that, my point is completely different: The finals in a VEKN tournament, like every other game in a VEKN tournament, has a time limit. The time limit is added by the VEKN rules; it isn't in the base game. The base game has no time limit.

LSJ wrote: > Tetragrammaton wrote: >> LSJ wrote: >>> Tetragrammaton wrote: >>>> LSJ wrote: >>>>> Tetragrammaton wrote: >>>> Unless you want to go on with the speculation and not with the >>>> matter of facts. >>> No. The fact is: "game" does not inherently imply "timed game". >>> >> That's your respectable opinion - to me, every play of a game implies >> a time limit, to be explicited with a given amount. > > That is non-sensical. Implied is the opposite of explicit. > Again, i'm not eager to dive into semanthics in a foreign language. The key point i was discussing is different. > What time limit is implied by Chess? Tic-Tac-Toe? Hands on a > Hardbody? Baseball? >> Still, this has nothing to do with the matter being discussed. > > Since the matter being discussed is your assertion that "game" > implies "timed game", I'd say it does. > >>> First, you need to fix your foundation. Any argument built on the >>> foundation that "game" means "timed game" is flawed. >>> >> "Play" of a game implied timed games - this by common sense. > > No, it isn't. > Play of a game doesn't imply timed games. > Again - it's your respectable opinion. >> No need to fix anything on this assumption - i didn't even >> put it into the discussion myself. > > Then you should let it go and stop making the false assertion that > "game" implies "timed game" (since making false assertions that look > like foundations undermines the conclusions you draw; and lengthens > the threads in which you draw them). Maybe it's language matter (who knows) - but to be clear: i dind't put time limit in the discussion myself. That's an offshot introduced by jeroen. > >> The final round, as other round, has a time limit, to be explicited >> from tournament to tournament (finals have not a fixed established >> time limit, afaik) - other than that, my point is completely >> different: > > The finals in a VEKN tournament, like every other game in a VEKN > tournament, has a time limit. The time limit is added by the VEKN > rules; it isn't in the base game. The base game has no time limit. Ok, again : this isn't the point i'm discussing, however. Strange how do you point on this ignoring all the rest Emiliano

On 9 aug, 15:26, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > Jeroen Rombouts wrote: > > "LSJ" <vtes...@white-wolf.com> schreef in bericht > >news:sgCui.4984$Yz6....@newssvr22.news.prodigy.net... > >> Jeroen wrote: > >>> On 9 aug, 00:05, "Tetragrammaton" <nos...@none.com> wrote: > > >>>> Unless we want to keep on with final rounds played ignoring the object > >>>> of > >>>> the game as it's presented in the rulebook. > >>> This statement is what spurred this whole argument. Do I really HAVE > >>> to spell it out for you? > > >>> NOT PRESENTED IN THE RULEBOOK, NOR IMPLIED: > >>> - the concept of a GW > >> Object of the game. (Unless you mean the modified GW rule given in the > >> VEKN Rules -- both games have GW, but the tournament rules do not award a > >> GW for a 1.5 VP victory; of course, the basic game cannot ever have a 1.5 > >> VP victory, so the two are essentially the same, with the tournament rules > >> possibly being viewed as a refinement). > > > like i said: no need for the concept, because there is no time limit. Draws > > are also not handled by the rulebook. Another difference. BTW, GW being a > > refinement for tournements is basically my whole point of this sub thread. > > Well, OK. Then we agree fundamentally, but the expression you chose is misleading. > > The rulebook presents the concept of a game win. That concept is presented in > the "object of the game" section. I was using 'GW' as a short form of the tournement rule, not as winning a game. In that case i wouldn't use the GW short hand. I can see where it is misleading. > > >>> - the concept of PTW > >> Implied in all games. Games explain the goals with the implied "players > >> should play toward the goal" included. > > > Not literally the same. Since GW are not mentioned, PTW means that you have > > to get as much VPs as possible. Again, a refinement. Again what i was trying > > to get through to Emiliano. > > No. The "object of the game" section says that the winner is the player with the > most victory points at the end of the game. And it says that the player's goal > is to be the one who accumulates the most (i.e., the players goal is to be the > player who wins, i.e., the player is to play to win). > > >>> - the concept of a time limit. > >> True, the game proper has no time limit. > > > And therefore no need for the refinements that were put there for > > tournements. Again: my whole point in this sub thread. > > OK, but you're using terms too loosely, then. Hence the length of the thread.- OK, not my mother tongue....

On 9 aug, 21:20, "Tetragrammaton" <nos...@none.com> wrote: > >> That's your respectable opinion - to me, every play of a game implies > >> a time limit, to be explicited with a given amount. > > > That is non-sensical. Implied is the opposite of explicit. > > Again, i'm not eager to dive into semanthics in a foreign language. > The key point i was discussing is different. But mine wasn't. If you can't accept that a basic non tournement game does not -by the rulebook - have a time limit, how can we continue a discussion. It's a plain fact. And the writer of the rulebook has confirmed it to be non implied. case in point: - the rulebook says explicitly that you play until 1 player is left. - there are no 0.5 VPs in the standard game - there are no rules for determining time limits based on fr. ex number of players. The only time limit in the basic game is 'play until everyone is ousted except for 1 person.' If you quit before that, the rulebook says nothing about determining a winner. > > > What time limit is implied by Chess? Tic-Tac-Toe? Hands on a > > Hardbody? Baseball? > >> Still, this has nothing to do with the matter being discussed. > > > Since the matter being discussed is your assertion that "game" > > implies "timed game", I'd say it does. > > >>> First, you need to fix your foundation. Any argument built on the > >>> foundation that "game" means "timed game" is flawed. > > >> "Play" of a game implied timed games - this by common sense. > > > No, it isn't. > > Play of a game doesn't imply timed games. > > Again - it's your respectable opinion. It's not an opinion, it's a fact. If a game doesn't have a time limit, it doesn't have a time limit. Unless you count untill all players die as a time limit. > > >> No need to fix anything on this assumption - i didn't even > >> put it into the discussion myself. > > > Then you should let it go and stop making the false assertion that > > "game" implies "timed game" (since making false assertions that look > > like foundations undermines the conclusions you draw; and lengthens > > the threads in which you draw them). > > Maybe it's language matter (who knows) - but to be clear: i dind't > put time limit in the discussion myself. That's an offshot introduced > by jeroen. It's not an offshot. It's the basis of my argument. see below again. > > >> The final round, as other round, has a time limit, to be explicited > >> from tournament to tournament (finals have not a fixed established > >> time limit, afaik) - other than that, my point is completely > >> different: > > > The finals in a VEKN tournament, like every other game in a VEKN > > tournament, has a time limit. The time limit is added by the VEKN > > rules; it isn't in the base game. The base game has no time limit. > > Ok, again : this isn't the point i'm discussing, however. But I am. and you're responding to me. I'm breaking it down for you, again. 1. YOU said the final needs to be played as INTENDED in the rulebook. 2. To which I replied: but a final game is different than a game as described in the rulebook. to wit: - the rulebook has no rules for draws (VEKN rules have) - the rulebook game doesn't have a time limit (VEKN rules have) - The rulebook doesn't tell you how to seat players (VEKN rules do) Most of these rules, are a direct consequence of having timed games with a combined total. > Strange how do you point on this ignoring all the rest Because you stubbornly refuse to accept that not having a time limit is the way the rulebook describes a normal non tourney game of V:TES.

On 9 aug, 14:36, Meej <dj...@comcast.net> wrote: > On Aug 9, 3:54 am, Jeroen <joen_...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > On 9 aug, 00:16, Meej <dj...@comcast.net> wrote: > > (Snipped the first two bits. Not to dismiss them - reasonable > responses to the earlier points. :-) Difference of opinion, maybe, > but I can see where you're coming from on them.) Maybe because no American sport I know of has tied end results, or something. > > > > My ego, personally, is better served by knowing I gave it all I could, > > > than that I brought other folks down with me... (Note: NOT making a > > > comparison with anyone else's ego here, since I don't know what feeds > > > whose and since it's a matter of opinion anyhow. Just stating my > > > view). > > > We're talking about *after* you gave everything you got and it didn't > > seem to work anyway. > > Then you've been ousted already and can't do anything. Or do you not > really mean "everything you've got"? no. You can be ousted without being ousted. The only thing you can do is use the whining phase. And I gathered you people don't want to do that. >If you're still in the game, > you've still got a shot, however remote - I've seen enough of the top > players around here come back from what looked like absolutely > hopeless because they never stopped trying to turn it around. Once in a while, maybe. normally you can see it comming in advance, and -knowing your own deck - see that you - cannot stop someone else from getting the GW or - are going to be ousted anyway.

On Aug 8, 10:36 pm, "Jeroen Rombouts" <jeroen.rombou...@telenet.be> wrote: > "Tetragrammaton" <nos...@none.com> schreef in bericht news:BUmui.21058 > > > "Players in the final must play to win, not considering > > outside element such as seeds placement, prizes, points already > > earned, vekn ratings and so on, as much as they did in the previous > > rounds - > > if a finalist can't win the round, he must maxmize his/her vps... etc". > > Won't work, isn't fair on the best players in the prelims and can't be > policed. As discussed in other parts in this thread. > You are wrong at least in three things here: a). It's working here EXACTLY in the form Emiliano presented, and everyone is happy (except for the people who violate PTW, of course). b). It IS fair on the best players in the prelims, since they still get the better position if VPs are equal (A 2-2-1 deal is a GW deal for the top player in the prelims if he's going to get 2VPs). Are you trying to argue that inability to bribe is "unfair"? c). This rule is MUCH easier to policy than any chaotic rulings like "you can bribe, but you cannot violate PTW". Trust me, I'm a regular judge here. Yours, Ector

On 10 aug, 10:38, Ector <Ec...@mail.ru> wrote: > On Aug 8, 10:36 pm, "Jeroen Rombouts" <jeroen.rombou...@telenet.be> > wrote:> "Tetragrammaton" <nos...@none.com> schreef in bericht news:BUmui.21058 > > > > "Players in the final must play to win, not considering > > > outside element such as seeds placement, prizes, points already > > > earned, vekn ratings and so on, as much as they did in the previous > > > rounds - > > > if a finalist can't win the round, he must maxmize his/her vps... etc". > > > Won't work, isn't fair on the best players in the prelims and can't be > > policed. As discussed in other parts in this thread. > > You are wrong at least in three things here: > a). It's working here EXACTLY in the form Emiliano presented, and > everyone is happy (except for the people who violate PTW, of course). so you houseruling tourneys? > b). It IS fair on the best players in the prelims, since they still > get the better position if VPs are equal (A 2-2-1 deal is a GW deal > for the top player in the prelims if he's going to get 2VPs). Are you > trying to argue that inability to bribe is "unfair"? read again: he says "not considering outside element such as seeds placement" i take that to mean: no tie breakers. And IF there are tiebreakers nothing changes from the current situation. Fist seed still wins by tying. And that what he wanted to change. > c). This rule is MUCH easier to policy than any chaotic rulings like > "you can bribe, but you cannot violate PTW". Trust me, I'm a regular > judge here. What's easier to police than: 'whatever you do is assumed to be playing to win'? And like we have told you 1000s of times: don't keep saying you are a regular judge. Most of us have been one time or another. And it doesn't mean anything. Especially since the above sentence doesn't make any sense when talking about a final game 'you can bribe, but you cannot violate PTW.' 1. You can't bribe, you can split prizes 2. everything you do is assumed to be PTW, so you can't violate PTW.

LSJ wrote: > What time limit is implied by Chess? Tic-Tac-Toe? Hands on a Hardbody? wait, what? I have never heard of that last one. But I think I would like it to be untimed, thanks. :) -- salem (replace 'hotmail' with 'yahoo' to email)

Salem wrote: > LSJ wrote: > >> What time limit is implied by Chess? Tic-Tac-Toe? Hands on a Hardbody? > > wait, what? > > I have never heard of that last one. But I think I would like it to be > untimed, thanks. :) Google it, using "I'm Feeling Lucky". Safe for work.

[ quoted text not captured ] Oh hey i remember hearing about that somehow somewhere. My most imprinted use of the term 'hardbody' had been from Bret Easton Ellis's 'American Psycho'. It wasn't used in reference to an automobile. [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] Yes, i see - but again: it's not pertinent to the matter discussed. Timed games are a necessity for a tournament enviroment. So, obviously, they're not part of the discussion. It's just a false argument, actually. >>>> The final round, as other round, has a time limit, to be explicited >>>> from tournament to tournament (finals have not a fixed established >>>> time limit, afaik) - other than that, my point is completely >>>> different: >> >>> The finals in a VEKN tournament, like every other game in a VEKN >>> tournament, has a time limit. The time limit is added by the VEKN >>> rules; it isn't in the base game. The base game has no time limit. >> >> Ok, again : this isn't the point i'm discussing, however. > > But I am. and you're responding to me. I'm breaking it down for you, > again. > > 1. YOU said the final needs to be played as INTENDED in the rulebook. Yes > 2. To which I replied: but a final game is different than a game as > described in the rulebook.t: Indeed, and i'm saying that this is a problem, indeed. > - the rulebook has no rules for draws (VEKN rules have) > - the rulebook game doesn't have a time limit (VEKN rules have) > - The rulebook doesn't tell you how to seat players (VEKN rules do) > > Most of these rules, are a direct consequence of having timed games > with a combined total. I won't go on discussing if those are an implication of timed games, because timed games are clearly a necessity - unless we want to keep on with useless speculations. My point on the rulebook was abut the OBJECT of the game, that is, or should be, a bit more important than defining the notion of "timed games" (and wheter or not they're truly implied or explicited in a given game). Object of the game is the uber-rule. The rests are details that can be changed from time to time (NRA, 0.5 for withdraw, "allies playing cards as if..." etc). Changing the object, though, changes the very foundation of the game in itself , from what it was intended. This can be done, but not when the previous rounds actually follow a different rule, that makes players to go for the object of the game as it's described on the rulebook. You just tried to weaken the point made stating: "no good argument to refer to the object of the game, since the rulebook doesn't cover...[time limit, draw] "etc Isn't an argument. I'm referring, from the beginning, to the object of the game that IS clearly presented in the rulebook. As long as rulings makes the final round to be played not for most vps, since the very beginning, this is bad (again, both for the object, both for consistency towards the previous rounds as they're ruled differently). Still, to my understanding, there's nothing in the tournament rules that states that final should be played by a different rule other than PTW (previous rounds). >> Strange how do you point on this ignoring all the rest > > Because you stubbornly refuse to accept that not having a time limit > is the way the rulebook describes a normal non tourney game of V:TES. IMHO, this is has nothing to do with final as it "ruled". AFAIK, finals do not even have a pre-determined time limit: organizers announce that limit before start of the tournament or before start of the final, usually. They're not fixed at "2hrs" as the previous rounds. So, let's focus on the questions issued - time limit was not an issue here. PTW for finals, prize as deals in final are. thanks Emiliano

Jeroen wrote: > On 10 aug, 10:38, Ector <Ec...@mail.ru> wrote: >> On Aug 8, 10:36 pm, "Jeroen Rombouts" <jeroen.rombou...@telenet.be> >> wrote:> "Tetragrammaton" <nos...@none.com> schreef in bericht >> news:BUmui.21058 >> >>>> "Players in the final must play to win, not considering >>>> outside element such as seeds placement, prizes, points already >>>> earned, vekn ratings and so on, as much as they did in the previous >>>> rounds - >>>> if a finalist can't win the round, he must maxmize his/her vps... >>>> etc". >> >>> Won't work, isn't fair on the best players in the prelims and can't >>> be policed. As discussed in other parts in this thread. >> >> You are wrong at least in three things here: >> a). It's working here EXACTLY in the form Emiliano presented, and >> everyone is happy (except for the people who violate PTW, of course). > > so you houseruling tourneys? I think that lots of people "houseruled" that way, actually. Since the "rule" to Play to win tournament, not the final round" actually isn't in the vekn tournament rules (and this was discussed some time ago with mr. Coupe). So i think that's normal if people assumed that final round has to be played per PTW, as previous round. > read again: he says "not considering outside element such as seeds > placement" > Indeed - why not ? As much as you can't (or should not) consider placement/points earned when you play in the previous (not final) rounds. That is perfectly reasonable under a PTW (=get the most point). > i take that to mean: no tie breakers. And IF there are tiebreakers > nothing changes from the current situation. Fist seed still wins by > tying. And that what he wanted to change. Not really - in my case, first seed still would win in case of tie in the final. He, as other players, just would have to play for GW, not considering what's happened before or what will happen when the final round ends. This isn't too much different from the last preliminary round, when you're pretty sure you will be in the final anyway, but you have still to play the pre-final round for GW anyway (a common case with 10 players tournament, with 2 rounds + final, for example). > >> c). This rule is MUCH easier to policy than any chaotic rulings like >> "you can bribe, but you cannot violate PTW". Trust me, I'm a regular >> judge here. > > What's easier to police than: 'whatever you do is assumed to be > playing to win'? Playing to win the "tournament" is different than playing to win the (tournament's) final round, right now - we're discussing about this point. >And like we have told you 1000s of times: don't keep > saying you are a regular judge. Most of us have been one time or > another. And it doesn't mean anything. Especially since the above > sentence doesn't make any sense when talking about a final game 'you > can bribe, but you cannot violate PTW.' > > 1. You can't bribe, you can split prizes > 2. everything you do is assumed to be PTW, so you can't violate PTW. Yes, but again - play to win the "tournament" - you can play to *tie* the final round, and not to *win* it. That's the key point. IMHO, kingmaking for first-second place (nurtured also by the chanche of prize splitting) it's much easier this way. Even though we're speaking of an enviroment with not that much prizes, the question worths to be discussed. Emiliano

Ector wrote: > On Aug 8, 10:36 pm, "Jeroen Rombouts" <jeroen.rombou...@telenet.be> > wrote: >> "Tetragrammaton" <nos...@none.com> schreef in bericht >> news:BUmui.21058 >> >>> "Players in the final must play to win, not considering >>> outside element such as seeds placement, prizes, points already >>> earned, vekn ratings and so on, as much as they did in the previous >>> rounds - >>> if a finalist can't win the round, he must maxmize his/her vps... >>> etc". >> >> Won't work, isn't fair on the best players in the prelims and can't >> be policed. As discussed in other parts in this thread. >> > You are wrong at least in three things here: > a). It's working here EXACTLY in the form Emiliano presented, and > everyone is happy (except for the people who violate PTW, of course). > b). It IS fair on the best players in the prelims, since they still > get the better position if VPs are equal (A 2-2-1 deal is a GW deal > for the top player in the prelims if he's going to get 2VPs). Are you > trying to argue that inability to bribe is "unfair"? A 2-2-1 isn't a GW deal by definition, under the actual tournament rules (for current round) Unless a specific table situation allows it, it should be illegal to set up it, in a would be "Play for GW the final round" too. > c). This rule is MUCH easier to policy than any chaotic rulings like > "you can bribe, but you cannot violate PTW". Trust me, I'm a regular > judge here. I agree 100% on this best Emiliano

"Tetragrammaton" <nos...@none.com> schreef in bericht news:kd1vi.22846$pd1....@tornado.fastwebnet.it... > Jeroen wrote: >> On 9 aug, 21:20, "Tetragrammaton" <nos...@none.com> wrote: >> >> It's not an offshot. It's the basis of my argument. see below again. >>> > Yes, i see - but again: it's not pertinent to the matter discussed. > Timed games are a necessity for a tournament enviroment. > So, obviously, they're not part of the discussion. > It's just a false argument, actually. It isn't. Tournement prelims need a time limit. Unless the venue you are playing in closes early or people have to leave at a certain time, why do you need a timelimit for the finals? Or have a time limit of 3 hours? or more? > >>>>> The final round, as other round, has a time limit, to be explicited >>>>> from tournament to tournament (finals have not a fixed established >>>>> time limit, afaik) - other than that, my point is completely >>>>> different: >>> >>>> The finals in a VEKN tournament, like every other game in a VEKN >>>> tournament, has a time limit. The time limit is added by the VEKN >>>> rules; it isn't in the base game. The base game has no time limit. >>> >>> Ok, again : this isn't the point i'm discussing, however. >> >> But I am. and you're responding to me. I'm breaking it down for you, >> again. >> >> 1. YOU said the final needs to be played as INTENDED in the rulebook. > > Yes > >> 2. To which I replied: but a final game is different than a game as >> described in the rulebook.t: > > Indeed, and i'm saying that this is a problem, indeed. > >> - the rulebook has no rules for draws (VEKN rules have) >> - the rulebook game doesn't have a time limit (VEKN rules have) >> - The rulebook doesn't tell you how to seat players (VEKN rules do) >> >> Most of these rules, are a direct consequence of having timed games >> with a combined total. > > I won't go on discussing if those are an implication of timed games, > because timed games are clearly a necessity - > unless we want to keep on with useless speculations. Except for cases as mentioned above: why do finals *need* a time limit? or one as short as now? > My point on the rulebook was abut the OBJECT of the > game, that is, or should be, a bit more important than defining the notion > of "timed games" (and wheter or not they're truly implied or explicited in > a given game). > Object of the game is the uber-rule. > The rests are details that can be changed from time to time (NRA, > 0.5 for withdraw, "allies playing cards as if..." etc). > Changing the object, though, changes the very foundation of the > game in itself , from what it was intended. I don't see how the object is changed. If you get the GW in the final, you win the tournement. > This can be done, but not when the previous rounds actually > follow a different rule, that makes players to go for the object > of the game as it's described on the rulebook. win the tournement vs win the game? I don't see it, except for DRAWS and, look here, time-outs. > You just tried to weaken the point made stating: > "no good argument to refer to the object of the game, > since the rulebook doesn't cover...[time limit, draw] "etc > Isn't an argument. yes. indeed. Because the rulebook doesn't have the refinements you speak of. > I'm referring, from the beginning, to the object of the game > that IS clearly presented in the rulebook. The object of every game is winning that game. True. But winning the game is defined differently for a tournement final. The object as stated in the rulebook is different than the one stated for the finals. > As long as rulings makes the final round to be played > not for most vps, since the very beginning, this is bad > (again, both for the object, both for consistency towards > the previous rounds as they're ruled differently). > Still, to my understanding, there's nothing in the tournament rules that > states > that final should be played by a different rule other than PTW > (previous rounds). indeed. there are none. Except for LSJs clarifications that finalists can be assumed to play to win the tournement. (which is not the same as winning the game, but comes close enough not to matter except for the first seed.) > >>> Strange how do you point on this ignoring all the rest >> >> Because you stubbornly refuse to accept that not having a time limit >> is the way the rulebook describes a normal non tourney game of V:TES. > > IMHO, this is has nothing to do with final as it "ruled". > AFAIK, finals do not even have a pre-determined time limit: organizers > announce that limit before start of the tournament or before > start of the final, usually. They're not fixed at "2hrs" as the previous > rounds. So why wouldn't a longer time limit be better? > So, let's focus on the questions issued - time limit was not an issue > here. > PTW for finals, prize as deals in final are. I don't think prize splitting is really an issue. No-one seems to support it. Except for LSJ ;)

"Tetragrammaton" <nos...@none.com> schreef in bericht news:jw1vi.22859$pd1....@tornado.fastwebnet.it... [ quoted text not captured ] Unless you're a mind reader: how can you know if someone acts based on this? Except when they tell you? > As much as you can't (or should not) consider placement/points > earned when you play in the previous (not final) rounds. > That is perfectly reasonable under a PTW (=get the most point). > >> i take that to mean: no tie breakers. And IF there are tiebreakers >> nothing changes from the current situation. Fist seed still wins by >> tying. And that what he wanted to change. > > Not really - in my case, first seed still would win in case of tie in the > final. > He, as other players, just would have to play for GW, not considering > what's happened before or what will happen when the final round ends. So tell me, how do you police this? If first seed has 2 VP. He doesn't need to do anything, except from keeping someone else from getting 3. Except for explicit dealmaking, how can you order him to play for that 3rth VP? Do you yell 'I'am the law and take over his deck?' > > This isn't too much different from the last preliminary round, when you're > pretty sure you will be in the final anyway, but you have still to play > the pre-final round for GW anyway (a common case with 10 players > tournament, > with 2 rounds + final, for example). yes. And -barring collusion deals that get someone else in the finals -how do you police that? Mind reading? > >> >>> c). This rule is MUCH easier to policy than any chaotic rulings like >>> "you can bribe, but you cannot violate PTW". Trust me, I'm a regular >>> judge here. >> >> What's easier to police than: 'whatever you do is assumed to be >> playing to win'? > > Playing to win the "tournament" is different than playing to win the > (tournament's) > final round, right now - we're discussing about this point. Yes, but attacking it by saying you can't police something that doesn't need policing is stupid. > >>And like we have told you 1000s of times: don't keep >> saying you are a regular judge. Most of us have been one time or >> another. And it doesn't mean anything. Especially since the above >> sentence doesn't make any sense when talking about a final game 'you >> can bribe, but you cannot violate PTW.' >> >> 1. You can't bribe, you can split prizes >> 2. everything you do is assumed to be PTW, so you can't violate PTW. > > Yes, but again - play to win the "tournament" - you can play to *tie* the > final round, > and not to *win* it. That's the key point. Indeed. again: how can you police it? Except for obvious 2-2-1 losing deals? How can you force a first seed player to play for the GW if timing out will make him win anyway? > IMHO, kingmaking for first-second place (nurtured also by the chanche of > prize splitting) > it's much easier this way. does't matter. Someone who can't win anymore can still make losing deal.

Tetragrammaton wrote: > > A 2-2-1 isn't a GW deal by definition, under the actual tournament rules > (for current round) > Unless a specific table situation allows it, it should be illegal > to set up it, in a would be "Play for GW the final round" too. I think you misunderstand the PTW rules. The PTW rules simply specify one aspect of how the sportsmanship rules are interpreted in the preliminary rounds. That same aspect, when interpreted for the final round, is: play to win, where "win", in the final, means "maximize your finish" (in the final). Where "finish in the final" can, at the player's discretion, include the prizes provided for the tournament.

[ quoted text not captured ] By the same (wrong) argument of yours above: how can you tell if someone plays by PTW in the previous rounds, then ? >> As much as you can't (or should not) consider placement/points >> earned when you play in the previous (not final) rounds. >> That is perfectly reasonable under a PTW (=get the most point). >> >>> i take that to mean: no tie breakers. And IF there are tiebreakers >>> nothing changes from the current situation. Fist seed still wins by >>> tying. And that what he wanted to change. >> >> Not really - in my case, first seed still would win in case of tie >> in the final. >> He, as other players, just would have to play for GW, not considering >> what's happened before or what will happen when the final round ends. > > So tell me, how do you police this? If first seed has 2 VP. He > doesn't need to do anything, except from keeping someone else from > getting 3. No, at all - top seed (as every other finalist) would need to play to score game win in the final round, not considering what will happen after or what's happened before. >Except for explicit dealmaking, how can you order him to > play for that 3rth VP? Going for 2 VP trying to avoid someone else to score (at least) >=2vp is playing for (round) game win, so it would perfectly legal. > > Do you yell 'I'am the law and take over his deck?' >> Nothing different from what judges are supposed to do in the previous rounds, yes. >> This isn't too much different from the last preliminary round, when >> you're pretty sure you will be in the final anyway, but you have >> still to play the pre-final round for GW anyway (a common case with >> 10 players tournament, >> with 2 rounds + final, for example). > > yes. And -barring collusion deals that get someone else in the finals > -how do you police that? Mind reading? No, rule enforcement - judges are there for this, i think. Are they ? >>>> c). This rule is MUCH easier to policy than any chaotic rulings >>>> like "you can bribe, but you cannot violate PTW". Trust me, I'm a >>>> regular judge here. >>> >>> What's easier to police than: 'whatever you do is assumed to be >>> playing to win'? >> >> Playing to win the "tournament" is different than playing to win the >> (tournament's) >> final round, right now - we're discussing about this point. > > Yes, but attacking it by saying you can't police something that > doesn't need policing is stupid. Actually, play to win the final round would be perfectly policeable, as much as previous round were policed that way, in fact, with the current rulings. >> >>> And like we have told you 1000s of times: don't keep >>> saying you are a regular judge. Most of us have been one time or >>> another. And it doesn't mean anything. Especially since the above >>> sentence doesn't make any sense when talking about a final game 'you >>> can bribe, but you cannot violate PTW.' >>> >>> 1. You can't bribe, you can split prizes >>> 2. everything you do is assumed to be PTW, so you can't violate PTW. >> >> Yes, but again - play to win the "tournament" - you can play to >> *tie* the final round, >> and not to *win* it. That's the key point. > > Indeed. again: how can you police it? Except for obvious 2-2-1 losing > deals? Repeating again my proposal: players in the final round would play it as the previous rounds are played: to win the *round* (so, scoring at least 2vps without no-one else scoring 2 or more). The fact that top seed would win the "tournament" even in case of final round ending up with a "tie" is irrilevant. >How can you force a first seed player to play for the GW if > timing out will make him win anyway? I gave you the example for pre-final round with a 2 rounds+Final 10 players tournament already. A player is enforced by judges, in that case, to play anyway for round win, even though he/she knows to be already in the final considering the points earned. So, there would be not problem at all for the final, too. Whatever the case, stalling for time isn't allowed, so that's not (nor it would be) a problem anyway, too. > >> IMHO, kingmaking for first-second place (nurtured also by the >> chanche of prize splitting) >> it's much easier this way. > > does't matter. Someone who can't win anymore can still make losing > deal. Irrilevant as the case is: a player should be not allowed, by the rules, to play the final round to "tie" it, against the object of the game - and under actual ruling that's doable (for top seed, or, if he's ousted for second seed, and so on). best Emiliano

LSJ wrote: > Tetragrammaton wrote: >> >> A 2-2-1 isn't a GW deal by definition, under the actual tournament >> rules (for current round) >> Unless a specific table situation allows it, it should be illegal >> to set up it, in a would be "Play for GW the final round" too. > > I think you misunderstand the PTW rules. So, a 2-2-1 end results with a player getting the GW, for that round ? Clearly, not. So dealing (to abide) for a 2-2-1 isn't legal when you've reasonable chanche to "win" the round. Am i wrong ? > The PTW rules simply specify one aspect of how the sportsmanship > rules are interpreted in the preliminary rounds. "Sportmanship" involves player's behaviour afaik - sportmanship has nothing to do with "winning conditions"/object of the game, in this context. Object of the game is, actually, what i'm trying do discuss here, in the respect of how the final round it's "ruled" to be played. > That same aspect, when interpreted for the final round, is: play to > win, where "win", in the final, means "maximize your finish" (in the > final). Again, this is not clear in the tournament rules, as they're written. "Maximize the finish" ins't that much clear, either. As it stands, top seed could "maximize his finish" just trying, from the very beginning of the round, to end up with 0.5 to all, with everyone standing at the table when game times out. This is not the object of the game, though, because there's no playing for "most vps" in that (and several other possible) case. Because it's clear that a top seed has good chanche to keep its position by doing his best to end up with a "tie" - a tie isn't what the object of the game intends, again. >Where "finish in the final" can, at the player's discretion, > include the prizes provided for the tournament. Yes, a "legal" way to bribe other players, in this i totally agree with Erol. Emiliano

Jeroen Rombouts wrote: > "Tetragrammaton" <nos...@none.com> schreef in bericht > news:kd1vi.22846$pd1....@tornado.fastwebnet.it... >> Jeroen wrote: >>> On 9 aug, 21:20, "Tetragrammaton" <nos...@none.com> wrote: >>> <snip> >> I'm referring, from the beginning, to the object of the game >> that IS clearly presented in the rulebook. > > The object of every game is winning that game. True. But winning the > game is defined differently for a tournement final. >The object as stated in the rulebook is different than the one stated for >the > finals. And again : i think that's a problem, and that it shoud be somewhat fixed. I made my proposal. <cut> >> IMHO, this is has nothing to do with final as it "ruled". >> AFAIK, finals do not even have a pre-determined time limit: >> organizers announce that limit before start of the tournament or >> before start of the final, usually. They're not fixed at "2hrs" as the >> previous rounds. > > So why wouldn't a longer time limit be better? Actually, here for the final we set at least 2 hours and half, more often 3 hours. An amount of time that usually is enough for every 5-vtes tournament game to be played to allow to "just one player to remain at the table" <cut> best Emiliano

"Tetragrammaton" <nos...@none.com> schreef in bericht news:8Bivi.23357$pd1....@tornado.fastwebnet.it... [ quoted text not captured ] > By the same (wrong) argument of yours above: how can you tell if someone > plays by PTW in the previous rounds, then ? no-one wins by tying in the Prelims. The only way to break them that is policably is by deals. No deals necesary to play for a tie in the final. > >>> As much as you can't (or should not) consider placement/points >>> earned when you play in the previous (not final) rounds. >>> That is perfectly reasonable under a PTW (=get the most point). >>> >>>> i take that to mean: no tie breakers. And IF there are tiebreakers >>>> nothing changes from the current situation. Fist seed still wins by >>>> tying. And that what he wanted to change. >>> >>> Not really - in my case, first seed still would win in case of tie >>> in the final. >>> He, as other players, just would have to play for GW, not considering >>> what's happened before or what will happen when the final round ends. >> >> So tell me, how do you police this? If first seed has 2 VP. He >> doesn't need to do anything, except from keeping someone else from >> getting 3. > > No, at all - top seed (as every other finalist) would need to play to > score game > win in the final round, not considering what will happen after or what's > happened > before. OK. I'm in the finals as top seed. I have 2 VPs. No deals at the table. again: Make me play for the 3rth VP... HOW?

[ quoted text not captured ] What's the difference ? It seems you're misleading the argument. Enforcing ptw is enforcing it - against a player willing to "tie" (eg: i do 2 you do 2) or just willing to lose without any vp (eg: trying to oust himself) > >> >>>> As much as you can't (or should not) consider placement/points >>>> earned when you play in the previous (not final) rounds. >>>> That is perfectly reasonable under a PTW (=get the most point). >>>> >>>>> i take that to mean: no tie breakers. And IF there are tiebreakers >>>>> nothing changes from the current situation. Fist seed still wins >>>>> by tying. And that what he wanted to change. >>>> >>>> Not really - in my case, first seed still would win in case of tie >>>> in the final. >>>> He, as other players, just would have to play for GW, not >>>> considering what's happened before or what will happen when the >>>> final round ends. >>> >>> So tell me, how do you police this? If first seed has 2 VP. He >>> doesn't need to do anything, except from keeping someone else from >>> getting 3. >> >> No, at all - top seed (as every other finalist) would need to play to >> score game >> win in the final round, not considering what will happen after or >> what's happened >> before. > > OK. I'm in the finals as top seed. I have 2 VPs. No deals at the > table. again: Make me play for the 3rth VP... HOW? Again - if you're at 2 without reasonable risk that someone else will score two (or worse, 3), then it's OK to try keep things as they are. No need to go for 3rd vp, since (again) with 2 vps and no-else scoring that much or more, you'll end up in "winning" the round. This is just as the previous round are played: consistency both towards them and to the object of the game. Emiliano

On Wed, 01 Aug 2007 08:56:02 -0700, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > Yes, it would, because players can be assumed to be playing to win in > the final. > If he makes the deal for 1 VP, then that is, for him, playing to win > (unless other, illegal, activity has occured, like threats or bribery > -- and note, again, that offering to split the prize is not bribery). Seeing how the discussion more or less ended I don't want to restart it, but reading through this thread really spurred my interest. I assume the below situation is legal (so please just shout if not, explaining why not): 5-player finals table at the Elbonian CQ with 16 players (of whom none were qualified). 4 qualifier spots. Player A (first seed) is a ratings-whore. He wants to be the top Elbonian player. He wants all the VPs he can get. He has all the cards he needs (and doesn't care about winning boosters). Players B-D are average players - they want the qualification, the prizes, etc. Player E (fifth seed) is a fashion geek. He doesn't care about the qualifier spot. He came for the T-Shirt. He isn't a very confident player, though, and is quite afraid that others will talk him into something stupid that will end him up at 5th place, without his precious T-Shirt (which incidentally features a hot vamp babe that year). The prizes are 5-4-3-2-1 boosters (5 going to 1st place, 1 to 5th). There are 4 qualifier T-Shirts (each qualified player gets one). Before sitting down to play A offers E the following deal: He will sit as E's prey, and together they will oust the other 3 players (gaining 3 VPs for A). Then E will transfer out, gaining all five VPs for A. A will then hand over to E his qualifier T-Shirt, which he doesn't care about, in return for his precious ratings points. E would very much like this deal, as otherwise he is afraid that he will stay 5th and not get his T-Shirt. However, the other three players object to this and say they will gang up on them as this takes their chance to win. A and E then offer to give them their respective boosters in a way that B, C and D each get 5 boosters (equal to what they'd get had they won the tournament). Everybody agrees, as everybody gets what they want. A sits down as E's prey, then players B-E concede to him without playing a single card. Please note that this example is rather radical. I'm intentionally testing the limits of fair play here. The objective is not to spur flamewars again, but to see which elements can be judged against and which are legal. -- Regards, Daneel

Tetragrammaton wrote: > LSJ wrote: >> Tetragrammaton wrote: >>> A 2-2-1 isn't a GW deal by definition, under the actual tournament >>> rules (for current round) >>> Unless a specific table situation allows it, it should be illegal >>> to set up it, in a would be "Play for GW the final round" too. >> I think you misunderstand the PTW rules. > > So, a 2-2-1 end results with a player getting the GW, for that round ? > Clearly, not. So dealing (to abide) for a 2-2-1 isn't legal when you've > reasonable chanche to "win" the round. Am i wrong ? Yes, that is wrong. The 2-2-1 represents a win for the player who comes in first. Win = first place finish. See the tie-break rules for the final table. >> The PTW rules simply specify one aspect of how the sportsmanship >> rules are interpreted in the preliminary rounds. > > "Sportmanship" involves player's behaviour afaik - sportmanship has nothing > to do with "winning conditions"/object of the game, in this context. Incorrect. PTW is a subset of sportsmanship. > Object of the game is, actually, what i'm trying do discuss here, in the > respect of how the final round it's "ruled" to be played. The object of the final is to finish as well as possible. Either in placement or in prizes, as the player wishes. >> That same aspect, when interpreted for the final round, is: play to >> win, where "win", in the final, means "maximize your finish" (in the >> final). > > Again, this is not clear in the tournament rules, as they're written. It has been clearly explained in this thread. > "Maximize the finish" ins't that much clear, either. Actually, it is. Finish first (or as high as possible). Or finish with as much of the prize pool as possible, if the player prefers prizes to finishing position. > As it stands, top seed could "maximize his finish" just trying, from the > very beginning > of the round, to end up with 0.5 to all, with everyone standing at the table > when game > times out. Correct. And, so long as he doesn't stall to accomplish this goal, this is fine. > This is not the object of the game, though, because there's no playing for > "most vps" > in that (and several other possible) case. Finishing first is the object, sorry. > Because it's clear that a top seed has good chanche to keep > its position by doing his best to end up with a "tie" - a tie isn't > what the object of the game intends, again. Finishing first is what the object of the finals intends, again. >> Where "finish in the final" can, at the player's discretion, >> include the prizes provided for the tournament. > > Yes, a "legal" way to bribe other players, > in this i totally agree with Erol. Um. OK.

LSJ wrote: > Tetragrammaton wrote: >> LSJ wrote: >>> Tetragrammaton wrote: >>>> A 2-2-1 isn't a GW deal by definition, under the actual tournament >>>> rules (for current round) >>>> Unless a specific table situation allows it, it should be illegal >>>> to set up it, in a would be "Play for GW the final round" too. >>> I think you misunderstand the PTW rules. >> >> So, a 2-2-1 end results with a player getting the GW, for that round >> ? Clearly, not. So dealing (to abide) for a 2-2-1 isn't legal when >> you've reasonable chanche to "win" the round. Am i wrong ? > > Yes, that is wrong. The 2-2-1 represents a win for the player who > comes in first. Win = first place finish. > I was referring to the standard PTW for pre-final rounds- not to the final as its's "rule" now > See the tie-break rules for the final table. > >>> The PTW rules simply specify one aspect of how the sportsmanship >>> rules are interpreted in the preliminary rounds. >> >> "Sportmanship" involves player's behaviour afaik - sportmanship has >> nothing to do with "winning conditions"/object of the game, in this >> context. > > Incorrect. PTW is a subset of sportsmanship. Play to win defines a victory condition - wheter or not it's a subset of sportmanships it's irrilevant in this context. > >> Object of the game is, actually, what i'm trying do discuss here, in >> the respect of how the final round it's "ruled" to be played. > > The object of the final is to finish as well as possible. > Either in placement or in prizes, as the player wishes. > Object of the game it's to "gain the most Vps", unless do you want to change that, i'm still referring to what's presented in the rulebook as "object of the game". Still, i find pretty counter-intuitive that a set of rulings changes somewhat the object of the game. >>> That same aspect, when interpreted for the final round, is: play to >>> win, where "win", in the final, means "maximize your finish" (in the >>> final). >> >> Again, this is not clear in the tournament rules, as they're written. > > It has been clearly explained in this thread. > Yes - tough it has been explained here (and before) isn't in the official tournament rules yet. >> "Maximize the finish" ins't that much clear, either. > > Actually, it is. > > Finish first (or as high as possible). > Or finish with as much of the prize pool as possible, if the player > prefers prizes to finishing position. Ok - that has little if nothing to do with the object of the game (gain the most vps) as described in the rulebook, however. > >> As it stands, top seed could "maximize his finish" just trying, from >> the very beginning >> of the round, to end up with 0.5 to all, with everyone standing at >> the table when game >> times out. > > Correct. And, so long as he doesn't stall to accomplish this goal, > this is fine. Ok - that has little if nothing to do with the object of the game (gain the most vps) as described in the rulebook, however. > >> This is not the object of the game, though, because there's no >> playing for "most vps" >> in that (and several other possible) case. > > Finishing first is the object, sorry. > Having to "win" the actual round (per GW) would be much better, in respect of as previous rounds are ruled, for object of the game, and (since you referred to it) in respect of "sportmanship" play too. >> Because it's clear that a top seed has good chanche to keep >> its position by doing his best to end up with a "tie" - a tie isn't >> what the object of the game intends, again. > > Finishing first is what the object of the finals intends, again. > Not intended for what's written in tournament rules, yes. (though that has been cleared here and before, OK). >>> Where "finish in the final" can, at the player's discretion, >>> include the prizes provided for the tournament. >> >> Yes, a "legal" way to bribe other players, >> in this i totally agree with Erol. > > Um. OK. Glad you agree on this