[Tournament rulings] 2-in-1

Hi all, My fellow priscus Blackwood from Sabbat In France just write us about an idea to manage the third round lose-deal problem and the tie break at the same time. In case of a tie for Final (equal GW, VP and TP), we can compare in this order : - VP made in third round, - VP made in second round, - VP made in first round. This gives a little boost to the 3rd round but imho in a good way for balancing the cheesy lose-deal problem. bye, Richter, !Brujah priscus http://sabbatinfrance.org

Richter wrote: > Hi all, > > My fellow priscus Blackwood from Sabbat In France just write us about > an idea to manage the third round lose-deal problem and the tie break > at the same time. > > > In case of a tie for Final (equal GW, VP and TP), we can compare in > this order : > - VP made in third round, > - VP made in second round, > - VP made in first round. > > > This gives a little boost to the 3rd round but imho in a good way for > balancing the cheesy lose-deal problem. Not bad. Note that comparing VP in the first round is superfluous -- if you're tied in overall VPs and tied in 3rd round VPs and tied in 2nd round VPs, it follows that you're tied in first round VPs. Slightly better, IMO, would be: GW in the third round GW in the second round VP in the third round VP in the second round

> > In case of a tie for Final (equal GW, VP and TP), we can compare in > > this order : > > - VP made in third round, > > - VP made in second round, > > - VP made in first round. > > > > > > This gives a little boost to the 3rd round but imho in a good way for > > balancing the cheesy lose-deal problem. > > Not bad. > > Note that comparing VP in the first round is superfluous -- if you're tied in > overall VPs and tied in 3rd round VPs and tied in 2nd round VPs, it follows that > you're tied in first round VPs. > > Slightly better, IMO, would be: > GW in the third round > GW in the second round > VP in the third round > VP in the second round Well, that's good against loose deals, granted. But what about the players who just sincerely played their decks every time but didn't score as well in the third round as the other two (usually, finalists have 2 GWs so they've gotta lose one, right ?). Why should those players be penalized by "special" rules ? -- Duncan O'rpheus, of the O'rpheus clan from the scottish highlands.

LSJ a écrit : > Richter wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > My fellow priscus Blackwood from Sabbat In France just write us about > > an idea to manage the third round lose-deal problem and the tie break > > at the same time. > > > > > > In case of a tie for Final (equal GW, VP and TP), we can compare in > > this order : > > - VP made in third round, > > - VP made in second round, > > - VP made in first round. > > > > > > This gives a little boost to the 3rd round but imho in a good way for > > balancing the cheesy lose-deal problem. > > Not bad. > > Note that comparing VP in the first round is superfluous -- if you're tied in > overall VPs and tied in 3rd round VPs and tied in 2nd round VPs, it follows that > you're tied in first round VPs. You're right, of course... (hey! end of the day here ! ;->) > Slightly better, IMO, would be: > GW in the third round > GW in the second round > VP in the third round > VP in the second round Yep. And we may still add Table Points too, for a last tie-breaker. Good thing : everything in this technique could be coded and added to the Archon. Our main concern was at first to decapitate the boring and out-of-game lose-deal of the third round. But adding too much importance to the third round will only bring new problems. Richter

Orpheus a écrit : > Well, that's good against loose deals, granted. But what about the players > who just sincerely played their decks every time but didn't score as well in > the third round as the other two (usually, finalists have 2 GWs so they've > gotta lose one, right ?). Why should those players be penalized by "special" > rules ? Of course this is not perfect, dear neighbor. But it is replacing a big problem by a small one and solving another one in the same row. Not so bad I think. Of course, I you have a better solution, we will all be very happy to hear it ! ^_^

[ quoted text not captured ] In that case, the effect is just as random as a coin toss, so no loss there.

"Richter" <denis....@metaboli.fr> wrote in message news:1163000036.4...@f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com... > This gives a little boost to the 3rd round but imho in a good way for > balancing the cheesy lose-deal problem. Remind me what the cheesy lose-deal problem was again? Fred

Frederick Scott a écrit : [ quoted text not captured ] Avoiding people from making lose deal in the 3rd round if they that they have the right number of game win(s) to enter the final, and that a few VPs would be enough either to assure them enter the final or to have a better place in it. which means that they are not *really* playing to win in that round. Huruem ...the guy who prefer 3 GWs rather than 2 anyway.

On Nov 8, 11:37 am, "Huruem" <Huruem_cate...@hotmail.com> wrote: > Frederick Scott a écrit : > > Remind me what the cheesy lose-deal problem was again? > > Avoiding people from making lose deal in the 3rd round if they that > they have the right number of game win(s) to enter the final, and that > a few VPs would be enough either to assure them enter the final or to > have a better place in it. which means that they are not *really* > playing to win in that round. > Proof that the cheesy lose-deal problem is not a problem. It is a violation of PTW. Issue them a warning that they must play to win. -- - Gregory Stuart Pettigrew

Frederick Scott a écrit : [ quoted text not captured ] Player already having like 1GW+4VP before entering 3rd round and having experience of tournaments of 25ish players knows that 2VP will ensure him a place in final round at 99%. So he will quickly lose-deal in third round to grab his 2VPs, often ruining the game by not playing to win (and this is HARD to detect and sanction as a good player may put himself in shit to get "the right" to lose deal). It is more obvious know with 2-days continental tournaments when there is 40 seats in day two for 60 players in day one. In this case, 2VPs are huge in 3rd round even if you do not have any GW. Richter

gpett...@gmail.com a écrit : [ quoted text not captured ] It is very easy to get a position where you can prove that you can not win anymore and then get your lose deal. See LSJ posts about this problem please. Richter

[ quoted text not captured ] The GW rule was added even though it could have been solved by burdening the judge with more PTW policing. Same goal here.

[ quoted text not captured ] I like it! Nice to see a solution to this after so many years of nobody being able to come up with anything reasonable. -Robert

"Richter" <denis....@metaboli.fr> wrote in message news:1163004143....@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com... [ quoted text not captured ] OK, I thought it was something like that. But this strikes as being totally negligible - if not entirely useless - in combating the effect. If a player has, for whatever reason, abandoned his motivation towards going for a game win in the third round, I don't see upweighting the third round GWs and VPs as making a difference. In fact, in the situation above, it may even increase his incentive to make the lose deal, since the VPs gained in the third round are more likely to get him over the top and into the final. On the other hand, if he's already reasoned that it's better to sacrifice his ability to grab a GW in the last round (which is good for a higher preliminary round ranking) in favor of the more certain route to making the finals at all, increasing the value of the game win isn't going to affect that reasoning as far as I can see. Fred

Robert Goudie a écrit : > > I like it! Nice to see a solution to this after so many years of > nobody being able to come up with anything reasonable. I will transfer the message. (last time Blackwood summoned his brain, he gave us "turbo-Arika"... He should become better with the ages.) Richter

Frederick Scott a écrit : > OK, I thought it was something like that. But this strikes as being > totally negligible - if not entirely useless - in combating the > effect. If a player has, for whatever reason, abandoned his motivation > towards going for a game win in the third round, I don't see upweighting > the third round GWs and VPs as making a difference. Because the GW made in the third round will have more value than those made in round 1 and 2 in case of a tie. > In fact, in the > situation above, it may even increase his incentive to make the lose > deal, since the VPs gained in the third round are more likely to get > him over the top and into the final. GWs of the 3rd and 2nd round will be checked before VPs. > On the other hand, if he's > already reasoned that it's better to sacrifice his ability to grab a GW > in the last round (which is good for a higher preliminary round ranking) > in favor of the more certain route to making the finals at all, increasing > the value of the game win isn't going to affect that reasoning as far > as I can see. It is not perfect as I wrote before. But it solves some tie problems and goes into the right direction. Anyway the third round can not be given an unbalancing value. What do you propose ? Richter

"Richter" <denis....@metaboli.fr> wrote in message news:1163006909.9...@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com... > Frederick Scott a écrit : > > But this strikes as being > > totally negligible - if not entirely useless - in combating the > > effect. If a player has, for whatever reason, abandoned his motivation > > towards going for a game win in the third round, I don't see upweighting > > the third round GWs and VPs as making a difference. > > Because the GW made in the third round will have more value than those > made in round 1 and 2 in case of a tie. I understand that. Even so I say it doesn't make any difference. > > In fact, in the > > situation above, it may even increase his incentive to make the lose > > deal, since the VPs gained in the third round are more likely to get > > him over the top and into the final. > > GWs of the 3rd and 2nd round will be checked before VPs. So what? That doesn't mean anything to the guy in this position. I understood that we were only talking about a tie break after tournament points are considered, or in place of tournament points. So for someone who feels he just needs more victory points to buttress a single game win (or however many game wins he feels is enough), he doesn't care about a tie break further down the line. Just getting victory points is what's important. And if they're "superior" victory points, so much the better. But he doesn't care about a "superior" game win if it jeopardizes a higher value tie break - raw number of victory points. And you must assume he sees it that way to have conjectured that problem in the first place. > > On the other hand, if he's > > already reasoned that it's better to sacrifice his ability to grab a GW > > in the last round (which is good for a higher preliminary round ranking) > > in favor of the more certain route to making the finals at all, increasing > > the value of the game win isn't going to affect that reasoning as far > > as I can see. > > It is not perfect as I wrote before. > But it solves some tie problems and goes into the right direction. > Anyway the third round can not be given an unbalancing value. More so than being "not perfect", it accomplishes nothing of value vis-a-vis the game-lose deal problem as you claimed. I suppose it doesn't hurt anything in that it's something you can stick in front of a coin flip/ randomization tie break. I'm just saying that it doesn't solve any long- standing problems having to do with players playing their final games with an "outside" motivation to make the finals instead of playing to win. > What do you propose ? I propose nothing. I never claimed to have a solution to that sort of problem. Fred

Fred's right, we need to reward Third Round GWs but not Third Round VPs; we need to go "around the bend": In order of Precedence: 1. Total GWs 2. Total VPs 3. 3rd round GWs 4. 2nd round GWs 5. 1st round VPs 6. 2nd round VPs 7. TPs? Coin Toss? This discourages losing deals in the third round without relegating the first round to second-class status. [ quoted text not captured ]

gpett...@gmail.com a écrit : [ quoted text not captured ] Imho, this is an exemple of unbalancing the 3rd round value. @Fred : I know this is not a major threat for 3rd round losedealers, but it will screw some of them from time to time and will make the losedeal technique a little less effective. And, as you said, it does not hurting anything, so why shouldn't we try ? We can also add some other little incentive features to the 3rd round like the finalists choosing their seating depending on their results in the 3rd round (on-fire player gets the best). Richter

On Nov 9, 6:21 am, "Richter" <denis.ger...@metaboli.fr> wrote: > gpettig...@gmail.com a écrit : > > > Fred's right, we need to reward Third Round GWs but not Third Round > > VPs; we need to go "around the bend": > > > In order of Precedence: > > 1. Total GWs > > 2. Total VPs > > 3. 3rd round GWs > > 4. 2nd round GWs > > 5. 1st round VPs > > 6. 2nd round VPs > > 7. TPs? Coin Toss? > > > This discourages losing deals in the third round without relegating the > > first round to second-class status. > Imho, this is an exemple of unbalancing the 3rd round value. > Of all the propositions so far, mine overvalues Round 3 the least. > @Fred : I know this is not a major threat for 3rd round losedealers, > but it will screw some of them from time to time and will make the > losedeal technique a little less effective. And, as you said, it does > not hurting anything, so why shouldn't we try ? > > We can also add some other little incentive features to the 3rd round > like the finalists choosing their seating depending on their results in > the 3rd round (on-fire player gets the best). > > Richter So you want to overvalue Round 3 a lot! [ quoted text not captured ]

gpett...@gmail.com a écrit : > > Of all the propositions so far, mine overvalues Round 3 the least. I do not think so because you take account of 3rd round results (for tie-break) *before* table points. > > @Fred : I know this is not a major threat for 3rd round losedealers, > > but it will screw some of them from time to time and will make the > > losedeal technique a little less effective. And, as you said, it does > > not hurting anything, so why shouldn't we try ? > > > > We can also add some other little incentive features to the 3rd round > > like the finalists choosing their seating depending on their results in > > the 3rd round (on-fire player gets the best). > > > > Richter > > So you want to overvalue Round 3 a lot! ô_Ô May I quote myself : "little incentive features". Fred said he did not find first solution (LSJ tweaked) enough and somehow I agree with him, so I propose a possible addendum without overpowering round 3 (means a GW in round 3 should only value a little little more than a GW in round 1). Richter

LSJ schrieb: [ quoted text not captured ] I think there is a solution which has the advantage that it would be more incentive to make winning-deals instead of loosing-deals: Players are ranked according to: 1. GWs 2. VPs made in a game where also the GW was achieved ("VPs within the GW") by the player 3. VPs made in a game where no GW was achieved by the player 4. TPs There would be lesser incentive to make loosing-deals, as VPs made with a GW have the higher priority. Also, this solution doesnt put emphasis on any single round, all rounds would count the same. How would this solution affect rankings and deals? Would this be feasible? Carl

Richter wrote: > Hi all, > > My fellow priscus Blackwood from Sabbat In France just write us about > an idea to manage the third round lose-deal problem and the tie break > at the same time. > > > In case of a tie for Final (equal GW, VP and TP), we can compare in > this order : > - VP made in third round, > - VP made in second round, > - VP made in first round. > Seems sort of arbitrary. I would think this would only be effective in determining who is the better player on that day by seeding every round. Seeding every round has proven to be too cumbersome and not advantageous to player 5 and quite advantageous to player 6. LSJ and Rob like it. I don't, but my vote counts only so little. best - chris

"Richter" <denis....@metaboli.fr> wrote in message news:1163071293.4...@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com... > @Fred : I know this is not a major threat for 3rd round losedealers, > but it will screw some of them from time to time and will make the > losedeal technique a little less effective. And, as you said, it does > not hurting anything, so why shouldn't we try ? Perhaps adding complexity to tournament rules for no good reason might be bad. However, in the case of tournament tie-breakers to stick in front of the randomness method, I'm not sure a little extra complexity matters one way or the other. So I'm really not opposed to using the idea I'm just opposed to considering it to be any kind of solution to lose deals. If judges started to think it was, it might become an "attractive nuisance". > We can also add some other little incentive features to the 3rd round > like the finalists choosing their seating depending on their results in > the 3rd round (on-fire player gets the best). I doubt that would help, either. Remember, you're talking about motivating a person who feels he has enough game wins to make the finals if he can just find the most certain way of gaining one or two more victory points. If he were worried about seating position in the finals, he'd be going for the game win anyway. It's actually a pretty thorny problem, IMO. Fred