Deal Making Solution

Make withdrawing from the game worth zero VP, and being the last player alive worth zero VP as well. That way, the ONLY way you can score VP is to oust your prey. I attribute this solution to Jeff Haar of Columbus's local playgroup. ~SV

Hello SV, I must admit I am a little lost. You are offering a solution, although to me its like 42. What is the question? David

"Metropolis" <do...@umich.edu> wrote in message news:<8tAVa.1234$H91....@news.itd.umich.edu>... [ quoted text not captured ] The question is how to prevent table splitting deals.

"Angus, the Unruled" <athosg...@gmx.at> escribió en el mensaje news:690c2085.03073...@posting.google.com... [ quoted text not captured ] Hey, that's easy: FORBIDDING THEM

> > Hello SV, > > > > I must admit I am a little lost. You are offering a solution, although to > > me its like 42. What is the question? > > > > > > David > > The question is how to prevent table splitting deals. Hi guys, some options 1) you don't? 2)make lots of em, then break em hard so that everyone gets the hang of doing it this way. You'll see the overall number of deals go down fast enough, since lots of people seem to not take into account this risk when making one. 3)make the best deals yourself, that way people will understand they'd better stop making them when not gaining from it (= in my opinin still 95% of the deals being made) 4)play decks that can change any table's balance 5) build decks that win no matter what deals people make. and so many more.It all depends on who the people are that annoyed you much, or what about dealmaking disgusted you .. Jo

> > Hi guys, > some options > 1) you don't? > 2)make lots of em, then break em hard so that everyone gets the hang > of doing it this way. You'll see the overall number of deals go down > fast enough, since lots of people seem to not take into account this > risk when making one. > 3)make the best deals yourself, that way people will understand they'd > better stop making them when not gaining from it (= in my opinin still > 95% of the deals being made) > 4)play decks that can change any table's balance > 5) build decks that win no matter what deals people make. > > and so many more.It all depends on who the people are that annoyed you > much, or what about dealmaking disgusted you .. > > Jo I came up with something like this idea when I was trying to figure out a way to prevent people from directly benefiting from non-prey ousts. This is the component of deal making that is lazy and irritating. The goal was to take away the reward mechanism from the game for these deals and have the deals naturally decrease while not telling players what to do. I am not sure that you can make a reasonable rule to just prevent certain types of deal making. Player co-operation is one the interesting components of the game, anyway. For the record, I was a little reluctant to give zero vps for end game. I don't want to have people get bored and transfer out. I think players should be forced to 'earn' all vps they get. I leave you to determine what I mean by 'earn'.

wolflord wrote: > 1) you don't? Not a good solution. > 2)make lots of em, then break em hard so that everyone gets the hang > of doing it this way. You'll see the overall number of deals go down > fast enough, since lots of people seem to not take into account this > risk when making one. Does nothing to elimnate deal making in competerive play, which is where the problem really lies. > 3)make the best deals yourself, that way people will understand they'd > better stop making them when not gaining from it (= in my opinin still > 95% of the deals being made) Also has no bearing on competetive play, where the problem lies. > 4)play decks that can change any table's balance Any deck can do that. Not a solution. > 5) build decks that win no matter what deals people make. You can't make such a deck. Peter D Bakija PD...@bigplanet.com http://www.myplanet.net/pdb6 "The gun is good! The penis is bad!" -Zardoz

Peter D Bakija <PD...@bigplanet.com> wrote in message news:<BB4DA97B.1118B%PD...@bigplanet.com>... > wolflord wrote: > > > 1) you don't? > > Not a good solution. I agree it is not a good solution to the stated problem. This was meant to point out that I don't believe this is a reasonably stated problem."Table Deals" in general are IMHO simply not the problem, and if someone has problems with a specific type of deal/specific people that make annoyting deals, maybe we could address those problems when decently specified. > > > 2)make lots of em, then break em hard so that everyone gets the hang > > of doing it this way. You'll see the overall number of deals go down > > fast enough, since lots of people seem to not take into account this > > risk when making one. > > Does nothing to elimnate deal making in competerive play, which is where the > problem really lies. Disagree. I'd like to say "yes it does", then again, I'll state it this way: "as far as I can see, it does, in places where I play, when a continuously growing group of people do so,and I must admit even then it's sometimes a slow proces" > > > 3)make the best deals yourself, that way people will understand they'd > > better stop making them when not gaining from it (= in my opinin still > > 95% of the deals being made) > > Also has no bearing on competetive play, where the problem lies. Yes it most certainly does. If you're a decent tournament player, you should have the skill/be able to see the opportunities to: propose the better deal. > > > 4)play decks that can change any table's balance > > Any deck can do that. Not a solution. Disagree again. Not every deck (by far!) can do that. Hardly 50% of the decks, and I admit an even smaller percentage of the players, you see in tournament play acually have the capability to intervene crosstable in a way that they can constructively (meaning, without committing suicide) disturb deal making, and really switch the balance of power around. > > 5) build decks that win no matter what deals people make. > > You can't make such a deck. Irony mean nothing to you? > > Again, I believe that having problems with table deals is strongly dependent on 1) personal reasons (previous experiences ) and belief (ideas about how the game should be played) 2) the metagame you play in 3) the people that make the deal which seem to annoy you so. I have to admit I've never had any problems with the concept of dealmaking as such. The only thing about table dealing which (often) disturbs me is the fact that people often don't seem to realise a deal they are making is actually "in game" really really bad for them, even when someone tells them, explains why step by step. Then usualy they disbelieve the good advice and die afterwards. ( the "I told you so" syndrome arises quite often on these occasions) That's what annoys me about deals. Apart from that, I don't believe it's a structural problem in this game, hence not a problem which needs a structural solution/change. Jo

On 31 Jul 2003 02:04:47 -0700, wolflord wrote: >Again, I believe that having problems with table deals is strongly >dependent on >1) personal reasons (previous experiences ) and belief (ideas ... >2) the metagame you play in >3) the people that make the deal... >Apart from that, I don't believe it's a structural problem in this >game, hence not a problem which needs a structural solution/change. That's a lot that you're sweeping under the carpet. But a particular structural problem concerns rush decks. If two of these sit next to each other then the predator will typically do a table split deal rather than trying to oust a prey who can fight back. Because the rush decks are able to go across table so easily, their unholy alliance then has a structural advantage over decks that are focussed upon ousting their prey. The resulting dynamic is the antithesis of what Garfield was trying to achieve. It's broken. Andrew

In message <88f9561d.03073...@posting.google.com>, wolflord <jo.her...@sca.com> writes: >> > 4)play decks that can change any table's balance >> >> Any deck can do that. Not a solution. > >Disagree again. Not every deck (by far!) can do that. Hardly 50% of >the decks, and I admit an even smaller percentage of the players, you >see in tournament play acually have the capability to intervene >crosstable in a way that they can constructively (meaning, without >committing suicide) disturb deal making, and really switch the balance >of power around. A combat deck has, in almost all cases, the ability to rush any vampire on the table. (If you were using Wynn or only Karsh, with no rush card back up, that'd be different.) Being able to take down powerful vampires can very easily change the balance of power on a table. A vote deck very often packs Banishment and Kine Resources Contested, historically. These can both be aimed around the table. Being able to take out a vampire with Banishment can very easily change the balance of power on a table - perhaps your predator was expecting to be able to use it as a bouncer, and now it's five blood down in his uncontrolled region. More recently, Baltimore Purge has the capacity to *SERIOUSLY* rewrite the balance of power on a table. Similarly, Dramatic Upheaval and Kindred Restructure don't just change the balance on the table - they change the whole table. Parity Shift can move five pool from one person to another, generating a ten pool swing. Many decks include some form of bleed bounce. Remember, bleed bounce is directable to anyone, in most of the obvious circumstances. (My Enemy's Enemy is more predictable, but a poorer choice in many instances.) You can throw that bleed for five at your prey, your grand-prey... *That* can be a pretty big change. Suddenly he's taking a bleed for five from nowhere. Granted, most bleed decks don't get to throw their weight around willy nilly - but !Malks and neoMalks get a good set of options there. All of those can significantly alter the passage of a game and the balance of a table. And all of them can be found in common archetypes. I'm sure you can think of less common examples too - a well placed Reality, Sensory Deprivation or Pentex Subversion? -- James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D Lucky that my breasts are small and humble, EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 So you don't confuse them with mountains. 13D7E668C3695D623D5D

> That's a lot that you're sweeping under the carpet. But a particular > structural problem concerns rush decks. If two of these sit next to > each other then the predator will typically do a table split deal > rather than trying to oust a prey who can fight back. Because the > rush decks are able to go across table so easily, their unholy > alliance then has a structural advantage over decks that are focussed > upon ousting their prey. The resulting dynamic is the antithesis of > what Garfield was trying to achieve. It's broken. > > Andrew Let's not assume that we know what Garfield was trying to achieve. To me the problem with player politicing is when the politics becomes more important than the play/decks/etc. I see no problem with games being influenced by politicing but, ultimately, I believe that every table should be decided through play (with cards). In response to the previous comment about not making the deal, breaking the deal, changing table dynamic - It seems that you have not considered the situation much. Perhaps this is because you do not see it as problematic.

[ quoted text not captured ] I think you are missing the point. I would like the point to be: 1) Are these changes in the scoring system effective for diminishing a class of deal making that allows player to be directly rewarded for non-prey ousts? 2) Is there a better system? Let us take as an axiom (for this discussion) that we want to reduce 'team play' deal making in a clean, consise manner.

In message <6933e80c.03073...@posting.google.com>, Jeff Haar <kit3...@yahoo.com> writes: >I think you are missing the point. The point made was: >Hardly 50% of >the decks, and I admit an even smaller percentage of the players, you >see in tournament play acually have the capability to intervene >crosstable in a way that they can constructively (meaning, without >committing suicide) disturb deal making, and really switch the balance >of power around. Being able to banish vampires, torporise vampires, burn vampires, throw bleeds cross-table and so on can certainly disturb deal making. You can't call that vote with Arika if she's chewing dirt. I think you didn't read the context of the comments being made about disrupting cross-table deal making. >1) Are these changes in the scoring system effective for diminishing a >class of deal making that allows player to be directly rewarded for >non-prey ousts? No changes were being referenced; the point was how you can easily interact in cross-table dynamics with current, viable, potentially strong decks. >2) Is there a better system? Than what? A system that wasn't being discussed? >Let us take as an axiom (for this discussion) that we want to reduce >'team play' deal making in a clean, consise manner. Prove that your axiom has any basis. The Wizards of the Coast book has text suggesting that deal making and breaking were there from the start. [ quoted text not captured ]

>I think you are missing the point. I would like the point to be: > >1) Are these changes in the scoring system effective for diminishing a >class of deal making that allows player to be directly rewarded for >non-prey ousts? > >2) Is there a better system? > >Let us take as an axiom (for this discussion) that we want to reduce >'team play' deal making in a clean, consise manner. Because it's always possible that someone misses something mentioned once upon a time - Focus prize rewards on table wins and away from making finals. Course, big tournaments doesn't really matter as table wins are more important. Same with the more rounds you play.

James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote in message news:<c9FCzaLY9UK$Ew...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk>... > In message <6933e80c.03073...@posting.google.com>, Jeff Haar > <kit3...@yahoo.com> writes: > >I think you are missing the point. > > The point made was: > > >Hardly 50% of > >the decks, and I admit an even smaller percentage of the players, you > >see in tournament play acually have the capability to intervene > >crosstable in a way that they can constructively (meaning, without > >committing suicide) disturb deal making, and really switch the balance > >of power around. > > Being able to banish vampires, torporise vampires, burn vampires, throw > bleeds cross-table and so on can certainly disturb deal making. You > can't call that vote with Arika if she's chewing dirt. > > > I think you didn't read the context of the comments being made about > disrupting cross-table deal making. > I read them. He wasn't really sticking to the topic either. > > >1) Are these changes in the scoring system effective for diminishing a > >class of deal making that allows player to be directly rewarded for > >non-prey ousts? > > No changes were being referenced; the point was how you can easily > interact in cross-table dynamics with current, viable, potentially > strong decks. > Did you fail to read the post that started this thread? It is way at the top. > > >2) Is there a better system? > > Than what? A system that wasn't being discussed? > Did you fail to read the post that started this thread? It is way at the top. > > >Let us take as an axiom (for this discussion) that we want to reduce > >'team play' deal making in a clean, consise manner. > > Prove that your axiom has any basis. In the terms that I have stated it, my axiom is entirely valid. It is intended to axplore an avenue and see where that leads us. We are all aware of where the current scoring system takes us. By the way, axioms are not supported by proof. They are fundamental assertions and their validity is determined by their results. > > The Wizards of the Coast book has text suggesting that deal making and > breaking were there from the start. If it is written down then it must be correct. I am not sure what book you are talking about, nor do I care.

In message <6933e80c.0307...@posting.google.com>, Jeff Haar <kit3...@yahoo.com> writes: >Did you fail to read the post that started this thread? It is way at >the top. Learn how threaded mediums work. If your response is about the post at the top, it should go in response to the post at the top. The thread will drift as people's ideas interact. The discussion will evolve along the many sub-branches. This is why we follow up to relevant posts, including relevant citation for context, discussion and rebuttal, which were making points relevant to the points we want to make. Following up to a different set of articles complaining "You're not making the point that was made in these articles over here" is about as productive as complaining to the butcher that the shoe shop doesn't stock the brand you want. [ quoted text not captured ]

James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote in message news:<VVUApK4eAQK$Ew...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk>... [ quoted text not captured ] Hiya James, I would like to clarify something: I completely agree that most decks pack either some of the cards you mentioned (deflections,pol. actions,Pentex..), or indeed have the ability to rush etc. However, in my experience, most decks/players cannot utilise them 'just' to restore/disrupt table balance.What I mean is this: *Combat decks don't very often get the time/luxury to go rushing crosstable just in order to prevent a deal, since they're usually spending most of their time/actions/resources on either staying alive, or trying to build up to do something forward. *Political decks: well, if it's a good one, it generally doesn't care much, and if it does have a problem with a deal being struck, that generally includes having problems with either passing the votes, or keeping his vamps alive *sending deflections different ways: I agree this works. Try convincing 70% of players that tunnelbleed is a bad idea, and that indeed, it can be a powerful weapon.In tournaments, people don't often want to miss out on making their prey loose 6 pool though. I admit that I play most of my games in a very aggressive environment, where, as a rule, pressure is being kept pretty high all the time. Additionally: I believe it's mostly a player problem, more than the decks hat do/don't pack these "solutions" As to the fact that I haven't giving this much thought (whoever wrote that?): I have.For years.The difference between people who have a problem with certain aspects ofthe game and the ones that don't is that the ones with the problem will shout it from the rooftops,an the other groups will not. simply because I do not see it as a problem, and have a different view, doesn't mean I haven't given it any thought. Besides: everyone seems to forget the advantage of table deals with a Game Win system: The players that make a deal that gives a GW to another player are srcewed a hell of a lot more than before.They just don't recognise it as the discentive it really is. They'll learn when they miss out on some more finals..

James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote in message news:<HZ0Eq+xePeK$Ew...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk>... > In message <6933e80c.0307...@posting.google.com>, Jeff Haar > <kit3...@yahoo.com> writes: > >Did you fail to read the post that started this thread? It is way at > >the top. > > Learn how threaded mediums work. > > If your response is about the post at the top, it should go in response > to the post at the top. > > The thread will drift as people's ideas interact. The discussion will > evolve along the many sub-branches. This is why we follow up to > relevant posts, including relevant citation for context, discussion and > rebuttal, which were making points relevant to the points we want to > make. > I must apologize. I tend to read the entire thread, or at least skim it. I erroneously thought that threaded mediums worked best that way. > > > Following up to a different set of articles complaining "You're not > making the point that was made in these articles over here" is about as > productive as complaining to the butcher that the shoe shop doesn't > stock the brand you want. I know exactly what you mean.

wolflord expounded: > Besides: everyone seems to forget the advantage of table deals with a > Game Win system: The players that make a deal that gives a GW to > another player are srcewed a hell of a lot more than before.They just > don't recognise it as the discentive it really is. > They'll learn when they miss out on some more finals.. It seems to me that it's possible to get to the final of most tournaments with 1 GW. If you don't htink you are going to win this game anyway, those 2 VP could get you to the final -just only do the deal on two of your games; I doubt people take the losing side of a split on more than one game in a tournament very often.

On 1 Aug 2003, wolflord wrote: > *Combat decks don't very often get the time/luxury to go rushing > crosstable just in order to prevent a deal, since they're usually > spending most of their time/actions/resources on either staying alive, > or trying to build up to do something forward. It's true, they don't very often have the luxury to do so. I think this has more to do with combat decks generally being inadequate to the task at hand. Peter Bakija struck upon a very important concept early on, which is that a Rush deck must be able to out-act most of the decks on the table. It took a while for that to sink through my personal aversion to weenie decks, but I think if you can't multi-rush, or you aren't playing a weenie deck to just get the actions outright, then your chances of winning are very, very slim. Every other strategy has a reasonable chance of winning with two or three minion actions a turn (more is obviously better), because each of those actions have the capability to do, on average, three pool to your prey. If one third of your actions succeed, then your prey is taking a steady 3 pool/turn, and I believe that is a sufficient benchmark for a successful strategy. By virtue of attacking pool indirectly, rush decks need many more actions than this. Combat decks built according to this standard could, in theory, be able to afford to take table-balancing rush actions. However, another major mis-application of otherwise sound strategy, when applied to a rush deck, is the tearing whole hog for the maximum VP's you can get. Rush doesn't work that way. IMO, one should take a very relaxed approach towards anyone that is getting their first VP. It's only a problem when another player is positioned to gain two that you may need to step out of the normal predator-prey triangle. And in that case, you are likely to be getting help from the rest of the table or at the least not arousing their ire, as the target of your rush is clearly in a strong position to take the game. Apologies if this is in the "well, duh" category, but I thought I'd muse out loud over my coffee this morning. David Cherryholmes Duke Radiology P.E.T. Facility (919) 684-7714 david.che...@duke.edu

> It seems to me that it's possible to get to the final of most > tournaments with 1 GW. If you don't htink you are going to win this game > anyway, those 2 VP could get you to the final -just only do the deal on > two of your games; I doubt people take the losing side of a split on > more than one game in a tournament very often. That's not legal at all. Non-current game considerations (such as tournament ranking or needed VPs to enter the final round) should not be relevant in the development of a game, incluiding deal-making. But obviously in tournament games that seems to be the way most dealers' go. Smiling Tom

> It seems to me that it's possible to get to the final of most > tournaments with 1 GW. > If you don't htink you are going to win this game > anyway, those 2 VP could get you to the final -just only do the deal on > two of your games; Most small tournaments yes, bigger ones definitely not. e.g in the german championship there were quite a few people with 2GW NOT going into the final. Anyway you are taking chances, because you do not know how many points you will need before. > I doubt people take the losing side of a split on > more than one game in a tournament very often. No, but they take it often in their second or third game where the 1-2 VP´s they get out of the deal usually do not help them big time, because they are not going into the final (If you have 0VP in the first game and 1-2 in the second you are (most likely) not going into the final, I think). But probably they are ruining somebody elses chances (who does not take part in the deal) to go into the final because they screw up his table win by the deal. It would be more sportsmanlike to fight till the end ... -- johannes walch v:ekn germany - http://www.vekn.de/

kit3...@yahoo.com (Jeff Haar) wrote in message news:<6933e80c.03073...@posting.google.com>... [ quoted text not captured ] Actually, I hate the fact that me getting bored with the game and wanting to leave makes me a traitor to the rest of the table... But that has nothing to do with giving zero vp for withdrawals nor zero for last man alive. ~SV

> > > > Prove that your axiom has any basis. > > In the terms that I have stated it, my axiom is entirely valid. It is > intended to axplore an avenue and see where that leads us. We are all > aware of where the current scoring system takes us. > > By the way, axioms are not supported by proof. They are fundamental > assertions and their validity is determined by their results. Yeah, but you should have added "you moron" in those above sentences or something... Proving axioms... *shakes head in shame* > > The Wizards of the Coast book has text suggesting that deal making and > > breaking were there from the start. > > If it is written down then it must be correct. I am not sure what book > you are talking about, nor do I care. Yeah... isn't the bible like that? ~SV

James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote in message news:<HZ0Eq+xePeK$Ew...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk>... > In message <6933e80c.0307...@posting.google.com>, Jeff Haar > <kit3...@yahoo.com> writes: > >Did you fail to read the post that started this thread? It is way at > >the top. > > Learn how threaded mediums work. > > If your response is about the post at the top, it should go in response > to the post at the top. > > The thread will drift as people's ideas interact. The discussion will > evolve along the many sub-branches. This is why we follow up to > relevant posts, including relevant citation for context, discussion and > rebuttal, which were making points relevant to the points we want to > make. What was your original post all about, I'm confused... > Following up to a different set of articles complaining "You're not > making the point that was made in these articles over here" is about as > productive as complaining to the butcher that the shoe shop doesn't > stock the brand you want. And about as productive as proving axioms? Really. What do YOU think about my suggestion to limit VP to ousting prey (ie. none for withdrawal, none for last man alive).

In message <6933e80c.03080...@posting.google.com>, Jeff Haar <kit3...@yahoo.com> writes: >I must apologize. I tend to read the entire thread, or at least skim >it. I erroneously thought that threaded mediums worked best that way. They often work well like that. However, threads diverge in multiple different ways. Even if they don't, a point that someone makes several posts into the thread will not be the same point that was made in the first thread. Claiming that someone is missing the point - because they're not addressing the claims made in the first post when, uh, they were addressing claims in an entirely different post - misses the point of the structure of the medium. Many multiple conversations can occur at once. Complaining that the conversation people are having over here doesn't address the points made over there isn't terribly relevant. Hence, follow-up in the right place, and address the points made in that place. Here, the thread diverged from a "solution" regarding a perceived problem with deal making into how you can attempt to cross- table affect deals *now* and how/why some decks do or don't have the capacity to do that. That's not missing the point of the first post, that's thread drift. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <f987c6cd.03080...@posting.google.com>, vermillian <vermil...@yahoo.com> writes: >> The thread will drift as people's ideas interact. The discussion will >> evolve along the many sub-branches. This is why we follow up to >> relevant posts, including relevant citation for context, discussion and >> rebuttal, which were making points relevant to the points we want to >> make. > >What was your original post all about, I'm confused... A point was made about the capacity for (some) decks to be able to interact in cross-table diplomacy by throwing curve balls at the people. A point was made that only some decks appeared to have the capabilities to do that. A follow-up was made regarding how viable/non-viable relatively major table balance changes of the type being discussed - in order to disrupt table diplomacy - can be done with a variety of common deck components. [ quoted text not captured ]

vermillian expounded: > And about as productive as proving axioms? > > Really. What do YOU think about my suggestion to limit VP to ousting > prey (ie. none for withdrawal, none for last man alive). I don't like it. I think you should get something for surviving the best efforts of all the other players to get rid of you. Withdrawing is tough enough to be worth a point too.

Smiling Tom expounded: [ quoted text not captured ] Just pointing out that dealing doesn't cost you finals. Whether or not you are thinking about it at the time

Johannes Walch expounded: > > It seems to me that it's possible to get to the final of most > > tournaments with 1 GW. > > If you don't htink you are going to win this game > > anyway, those 2 VP could get you to the final -just only do the deal on > > two of your games; > > Most small tournaments yes, bigger ones definitely not. e.g in the german > championship there were quite a few people with 2GW NOT going into the > final. Anyway you are taking chances, because you do not know how many > points you will need before. Most tournaments are under 20 people if the reports on this NG are anything to go by. You can estimate what will be needed based on how many players there are. Obviously the more players there are, the more likely it is that there will be people with 2-3 GW and thus the more you will need to get to the final. I'd be inclined to run a semi-final when they get too big ;-)

Timlagor expounded: > Just pointing out that dealing doesn't cost you finals. Whether or not > you are thinking about it at the time ...dealing *needn't* cost ... (referrign to taking the short end of a 2/3 deal)

Timlagor <Timlagor...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<MPG.1994cab1e...@news.freeserve.com>... [ quoted text not captured ] I completely agree with johannes on this one: most tournaments I see are just over 40,50 players at least, which generally means (from experience, so if anybody has different ideas please pass them on) that you need > 2 GW- 7VP to get to the finals.Once you're over 50, at least 2GW's with 7.5 or 8 VP, sometimes even 3 GW. I can understand your reasoning about problems with deal making a lot better if indeed, you mostly see "small to medium" tournaments (no pun intended for organisers or players). On such events indeed, I would start going crazy if deals are being made all the time. However, if this is the case, I think people with serious problems with dealmaking should also take into account that it's different for a large tournament environment. Greetz Jo

vermil...@yahoo.com (vermillian) wrote in message news:<f987c6cd.03072...@posting.google.com>... > Make withdrawing from the game worth zero VP, and being the last > player alive worth zero VP as well. That way, the ONLY way you can > score VP is to oust your prey. > > ~SV What if we went incorporated an ELO scoring system into the current ratings? :) I'm not really a major proponent of ELO, but using a variation on this might provide both another incentives against deal-making and for deal-breaking. If each time a predator ousted their prey, the predator could also earn a Win and the corresponding ELO ratings points from their prey. This would create another disincentive for one player to "give away" their own VP in a convoluted deal. As it stands now, it doesn't "hurt" nearly as much to have your average VPs/game stat slightly decrease. In this scenario, if a game went to time, the remaining predator-prey pairs would be recorded as Ties. That would mean there would be one more ELO pairing to calculate as opposed to a game that went to completion (e.g. 4 ousts = 4 pairings, zero ousts = 5 pairings). I will also echo Curevei's post and advocate prizes being awarded partially at the game level. It doesn't have to be much--one booster pack would probably do--but keeping players focused on the game at hand is always a good thing.

Jeff Kuta wrote: > What if we went incorporated an ELO scoring system into the current > ratings? :) I'm not really a major proponent of ELO, but using a > variation on this might provide both another incentives against > deal-making and for deal-breaking. > > If each time a predator ousted their prey, the predator could also > earn a Win and the corresponding ELO ratings points from their prey. > This would create another disincentive for one player to "give away" > their own VP in a convoluted deal. As it stands now, it doesn't "hurt" > nearly as much to have your average VPs/game stat slightly decrease. > In this scenario, if a game went to time, the remaining predator-prey > pairs would be recorded as Ties. That would mean there would be one > more ELO pairing to calculate as opposed to a game that went to > completion (e.g. 4 ousts = 4 pairings, zero ousts = 5 pairings). For an extended definition of this option, see http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3C4D6DEF.C69EF363%40white-wolf.com -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. Links to V:TES news, rules, cards, utilities, and tournament calendar: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/

LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:<3F2E9AC0...@white-wolf.com>... > > If each time a predator ousted their prey, the predator could also > > earn a Win and the corresponding ELO ratings points from their prey. > > This would create another disincentive for one player to "give away" > > their own VP in a convoluted deal. As it stands now, it doesn't "hurt" > > nearly as much to have your average VPs/game stat slightly decrease. > > In this scenario, if a game went to time, the remaining predator-prey > > pairs would be recorded as Ties. That would mean there would be one > > more ELO pairing to calculate as opposed to a game that went to > > completion (e.g. 4 ousts = 4 pairings, zero ousts = 5 pairings). > > For an extended definition of this option, see > http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3C4D6DEF.C69EF363%40white-wolf.com Hiya guys, I'd just like to point out Stéphane Lavrut and his crew are currently still testing a new system they might want to propose. Check it out on http://www.multimania.com/parisvekn Greetz jo

> Hiya guys, > I'd just like to point out Stéphane Lavrut and his crew are currently > still testing a new system they might want to propose. Check it out on > http://www.multimania.com/parisvekn > > Greetz > jo We have started testing this system in spain, too. General player's opinions are that it is far more flexible, and also adds some point of fairiness, as it avoids heavy penalization for not ranking high in every tournament you play in. Not all tournaments played in spain are logged in, but most of the princes agred to send me a copy of their archon whenever they held an official tournament. I've built up a site for recording the spanish results this way, backed with a self made database, check http://www.hermetex4.com/vekn . Not to say, this site is in spanish, but it applies the french unofficial rating system. As a side note, must say that princes should do a clean up on their player's registry on the vekn, as i have found 2 and even 3 records for the same player. Smiling Tom