Questions that came up at the last tournament....

1. Is it ever legal to agree to a withdraw-deal if it gives one player a gamewin? Ex. 5 player table. One player is ousted. There are almost no time left, and none of the players have any chance of ousting anyone. Are the players without VP allowed to agree to a deal that everyone (but one) withdraws, leaving the table with a 2-1-1-1-0 VP split. The way I see it, all the players are maximizing their VP's (they are all getting 0,5 VP more) but they are allso giving away a GW... 2. Are you allowed to keep a deal that you have made, even if it ends up with you not getting a GW? Ex. 5 player table. A-B-C-D-E. C makes a deal with A that if A helps him, C will give A 2 VP. C then ousts B, and D ousts E. C now cannot give A 2VP and himself getting a gamewin. Are he allowed to aid in ousting D and then withdrawing (even though he'd at that point easily could have taken the remaining VPs)? 3. What happens in this scenario: 2 players are left in a game, with 1 VP each. The time is almost out and it lookes like they'll time-out, giving them 1,5 VP each. A bystander (another player, or someone not involved in the tournament) says: Why don't you let one of you withdraw? The players now want to withdraw before the time is out. 4. Just to be really sure once again: When are you allowed to accept a deal that gives you more VP, but gives someone else a gamewin? The way I understand it is that if you're without any chance of getting any more VP's, you can make a deal that, for instance, gives you 1 VP and another player 4 VP. But exactly how little must the chance be to get a GW for you to be allowed to make the deal. I mean, there's always a theoretical chance that you could win. Should it be less than 1% or something like that? The same question applies to when you're allowed to oust yourself... Let's say you have no minions, 6 pool left and only vampires with 6+ capacity in the crypt. Theoretically you could get pool from someone's parity shift or see you prey get ousted by a KRC, even if the chance is very slim. Exactly when are you allowed to, for instance, transfer yourself out? I'd apreciate some *good* answers on these questions, especially number 4, preferably with confirmation by LSJ, because questions like these allways seem to come up at the tournaments, and noone has the truth... /Henrik Isaksson, prince of Halmstad, Sweden

In message <af7dra$bug2j$1...@ID-135400.news.dfncis.de>, Henrik Isaksson <hen...@nissamedia.net> writes: >1. Is it ever legal to agree to a withdraw-deal if it gives one player a >gamewin? If you could not get a gamewin (in the opinion of the judge or whoever), then you are legally entitled to maximise your VPs too. >2. Are you allowed to keep a deal that you have made, even if it ends up >with you not getting a GW? Yes. When you make a deal, you are required to make a deal that obeys the rules but you can follow through with a deal even if it's not necessarily in your best interests when it comes to it. If you always had to back-stab when you made a deal, no-one could ever make any deal. >Ex. 5 player table. A-B-C-D-E. C makes a deal with A that if A helps him, C >will give A 2 VP. If the deal is "A chooses to give up the chance of a game win for two victory points", you'd need someone to check that that was a legitimate deal for A. If a deal is made that says "I will not get a game win", get someone to check that that's in that person's interests. >C then ousts B, and D ousts E. C now cannot give A 2VP and >himself getting a gamewin. Are he allowed to aid in ousting D and then >withdrawing (even though he'd at that point easily could have taken the >remaining VPs)? Assuming that the deal was legal in the first place, going along with it in the end is legal. Breaking it is also legal. >3. What happens in this scenario: 2 players are left in a game, with 1 VP >each. The time is almost out and it lookes like they'll time-out, giving >them 1,5 VP each. A bystander (another player, or someone not involved in >the tournament) says: Why don't you let one of you withdraw? The players now >want to withdraw before the time is out. The judge would be obliged to fix the introduction of outside assistance. (Receiving such is a form of cheating, under 5.1, but there is nothing you can do about random people just shouting things out.) If, in the judge's opinion, neither player was about to suggest such just before the time-out, I would be inclined to rule (as a judge) that both players received .5 VP, assuming that it had timed out. >4. Just to be really sure once again: When are you allowed to accept a deal >that gives you more VP, but gives someone else a gamewin? When you could not gain a game win. >The way I >understand it is that if you're without any chance of getting any more VP's, >you can make a deal that, for instance, gives you 1 VP and another player 4 >VP. But exactly how little must the chance be to get a GW for you to be >allowed to make the deal. Things aren't exact. >I mean, there's always a theoretical chance that >you could win. Should it be less than 1% or something like that? Erm, quite how are you planning to mathematically determine a 1% chance? -- James Coupe PGP 0x5D623D5D I am woman. Here, me raw. EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 13D7E668C3695D623D5D

On Mon, 24 Jun 2002 17:29:55 +0200, Henrik Isaksson wrote: >1. Is it ever legal to agree to a withdraw-deal if it gives one player a >gamewin? It's stupid that VEKN rules encourage players to withdraw rather then fight it out until the end. (because withdrawal is worth 1 VP while survival is only worth 0.5 VP) If survival wasn't penalised then this question wouldn't arise. >2. Are you allowed to keep a deal that you have made, even if it ends up >with you not getting a GW? LSJ will say yes but I'll still call such action cheating. >3. What happens in this scenario: 2 players are left in a game, with 1 VP >each. The time is almost out and it lookes like they'll time-out, giving >them 1,5 VP each. A bystander (another player, or someone not involved in >the tournament) says: Why don't you let one of you withdraw? The players now >want to withdraw before the time is out. That's the perverse VEKN incentive for withdrawal again. >4. Just to be really sure once again: When are you allowed to accept a deal >that gives you more VP, but gives someone else a game win? In practise, the answer seems to be any time you feel like it. Has doing this ever been forbidden or penalised? With the example of the World Cup fresh in our minds, one might see whether the game could provide some equivalent of the penalty shootout to resolve a game which didn't produce a natural winner. Doomtown has something of the sort - a final shootout between players that have equal tie-break points. I can't think of an appropriate equivalent in VTES but maybe you can ...? Andrew

"Andrew S. Davidson" wrote: > On Mon, 24 Jun 2002 17:29:55 +0200, Henrik Isaksson wrote: > >4. Just to be really sure once again: When are you allowed to accept a deal > >that gives you more VP, but gives someone else a game win? > > In practise, the answer seems to be any time you feel like it. Has > doing this ever been forbidden or penalised? Playing to achieve the best finish you can has only ever been penalized by the old tournament rules that didn't rank game wins over total VPs, and then only in a small portion of the cases. The current rules no longer penealize playing for best possible finish in game even in those small portion of cases. -- 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/

"Andrew S. Davidson" <a...@csi.com> wrote in message news:11A7CBE76E8DC82B.E2EAC57A...@lp.airnews.net... > On Mon, 24 Jun 2002 17:29:55 +0200, Henrik Isaksson wrote: > > >1. Is it ever legal to agree to a withdraw-deal if it gives one player a > >gamewin? > > It's stupid that VEKN rules encourage players to withdraw rather then > fight it out until the end. (because withdrawal is worth 1 VP while > survival is only worth 0.5 VP) If survival wasn't penalised then this > question wouldn't arise. Survival isn't penalized, it's pointless. You have done nothing worth rewarding by making a game go to time. Withdrawing is quite difficult if you're not being allowed to do it by your opponents; if a game is stalemated, then yes, it's to the advantage of all players still in it to agree to discard through their decks as fast as they can and then withdraw instead of continuing to play within the stalemate until time runs out. But why is this a problem? It only applies to games where *no one* sees a chance of accomplishing anything before time runs out. > >2. Are you allowed to keep a deal that you have made, even if it ends up > >with you not getting a GW? > > LSJ will say yes but I'll still call such action cheating. You're allowed to break it, too... and IMO if you're smart, you will. And you're only allowed to keep such a deal if it was legal in the first place; IMO you can rarely (legally) offer a deal where you help someone else win a game. > >3. What happens in this scenario: 2 players are left in a game, with 1 VP > >each. The time is almost out and it lookes like they'll time-out, giving > >them 1,5 VP each. A bystander (another player, or someone not involved in > >the tournament) says: Why don't you let one of you withdraw? The players now > >want to withdraw before the time is out. > > That's the perverse VEKN incentive for withdrawal again. Not really perverse. It's better to withdraw than to go to time, but it's better to get a VP and then go to time than to withdraw. In other words, if you can manage to work toward the goal of the game, it's better to not withdraw. > >4. Just to be really sure once again: When are you allowed to accept a deal > >that gives you more VP, but gives someone else a game win? > > In practise, the answer seems to be any time you feel like it. Has > doing this ever been forbidden or penalised? People throwing games will always be penalized/forbidden in tournaments I'm judging. I'm sure most judges feel the same way. People accepting deals that let others win a game, when they have no chance of winning themselves, is probably an unavoidable feature of multiplayer one-winner games. > With the example of the World Cup fresh in our minds, one might see > whether the game could provide some equivalent of the penalty shootout > to resolve a game which didn't produce a natural winner. Doomtown has > something of the sort - a final shootout between players that have > equal tie-break points. I can't think of an appropriate equivalent in > VTES but maybe you can ...? You could do something like this, but I don't know how you'd do it while keeping the incentive to finish games before time instead of relying on the "shootout". Josh incentsed

"James Coupe" <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote in message news:axGmR6jv...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk... > In message <af7dra$bug2j$1...@ID-135400.news.dfncis.de>, Henrik Isaksson > <hen...@nissamedia.net> writes: > >1. Is it ever legal to agree to a withdraw-deal if it gives one player a > >gamewin? > > If you could not get a gamewin (in the opinion of the judge or whoever), > then you are legally entitled to maximise your VPs too. Sure. You might not *want* to, though, if you're more concerned about the "other guy" getting a GW than about you getting an extra 0.5 VP. > >2. Are you allowed to keep a deal that you have made, even if it ends up > >with you not getting a GW? > > Yes. > > When you make a deal, you are required to make a deal that obeys the > rules but you can follow through with a deal even if it's not > necessarily in your best interests when it comes to it. > > If you always had to back-stab when you made a deal, no-one could ever > make any deal. That last isn't entirely true. Some deals have no "downside" when it comes time to keep them. For example you make a deal with your grandpredator that she will diablerize one of your predator's vampires, and you'll vote to save in the bloodhunt. It's in your interest to keep your deal, if you believe she won't be able to put enough pressure on your predator without that vampire. It's true that it would greatly reduce the number of possible deals if it *were* illegal to keep deals that would be advantageous to break, though. > >3. What happens in this scenario: 2 players are left in a game, with 1 VP > >each. The time is almost out and it lookes like they'll time-out, giving > >them 1,5 VP each. A bystander (another player, or someone not involved in > >the tournament) says: Why don't you let one of you withdraw? The players now > >want to withdraw before the time is out. > > The judge would be obliged to fix the introduction of outside > assistance. (Receiving such is a form of cheating, under 5.1, but there > is nothing you can do about random people just shouting things out.) > > If, in the judge's opinion, neither player was about to suggest such > just before the time-out, I would be inclined to rule (as a judge) that > both players received .5 VP, assuming that it had timed out. But note that there's no such thing as "agree to withdraw, you all automatically withdraw" in the VEKN rules. All the players have to actually burn through their entire libraries and fulfill the withdrawal conditions in the rulebook. In other words, it's not always feasible to do an "agree to withdraw" deal if people *have* been trying to oust each other until nearly the time limit. Sort of a tangent there, I guess. :-) Josh judge not lest ye be judged

"Henrik Isaksson" <hen...@nissamedia.net> wrote in message news:af7dra$bug2j$1...@ID-135400.news.dfncis.de... [snip] > I'd apreciate some *good* answers on these questions, especially number 4, > preferably with confirmation by LSJ, because questions like these allways > seem to come up at the tournaments, and noone has the truth... I put in my thoughts in another message or two, but on this part - LSJ probably won't confirm anything because no one *does* have the truth; all of this stuff is judgement calls and is up to the judge at any particular event. At least, as I understand it. Josh we're going to blindfold you and run

"Henrik Isaksson" <hen...@nissamedia.net> wrote in message news:af7dra$bug2j$1...@ID-135400.news.dfncis.de... [ quoted text not captured ] Something I've observed that's related but doen't answer your questions. I've found deal making to be a lot more difficult under the GW system. No-one wants to give you a GW and you don't want to give anyone else a GW, this makes it very difficult to make VP deals. In 5 player games 2-2-1 splits used to happen reasonably often as most ppl were happy to get 2 VPs a round because doing so usually got you into the final. Under the GW system 2-2-1 splits are undesireable, usually because both of the ppl who would normally be happy with 2 VPs want to try to get that 3rd one and the GW. Personally I think this is a good thing. How has the GW rule affected ppls deal making in other tournaments? Now for a bit of a rant-ish thing. This whole maximising your VPs thing is a bit of a joke. I mean, it's all very subjective. To me, you should never be allowed to transfer yourself out, that's not maximising your VPs. You never know, someone might plan on Life Booning you and keeping you alive so that they can get that VP. Only to find themselves ousted and you're able to get a VP. I frequently go to lengths to keep my "cross table buddies" in the game. Someone might call an Ancient Influence, giving you 5 pool, loosing your prey 2 and giving you a chance to get a VP. It's not likely but you just never know, which is why I always fight to the bitter end. It seems to me though that, despite having this maximising your VPs rule, you can pretty-much do whatever the hell you want, all you have to do is claim that your situation was hopeless or that you thought you'd be maximising your VPs or that you just made some poor decisions. It just seems a rather pointless and unenforceable rule the way it is being interpereted.

>Something I've observed that's related but doen't answer your questions. >I've found deal making to be a lot more difficult under the GW system. >No-one wants to give you a GW and you don't want to give anyone else a GW, >this makes it very difficult to make VP deals. In 5 player games 2-2-1 >splits used to happen reasonably often as most ppl were happy to get 2 VPs a >round because doing so usually got you into the final. Under the GW system >2-2-1 splits are undesireable, usually because both of the ppl who would >normally be happy with 2 VPs want to try to get that 3rd one and the GW. >Personally I think this is a good thing. How has the GW rule affected ppls >deal making in other tournaments? My deal making? I delay deals that involve someone winning a table by a round. Once you get past the first round, I see the same level of tournament manipulation that existed prior (for "local-sized" tournaments, big tournaments will always be different). So, I don't believe the TW system solved the problem of playing to the tournament rather than to individual games. Might have made it better, might not; there's a bunch of hidden effects. Also, how one plays depends upon how the prizes are doled out. We had one tournament where each table was worth X boosters. If someone won the table, they got the boosters. If no one did, those boosters were opened and randomly given out to all of the participants at the end of the tournament. The winner got whatever prizes were set aside for the final table. IOW, getting to the final table by itself didn't get you squat. I believe something like this system is a good way to encourage people to focus on their games rather than play to the tournament. But, like anything that heavily rewards winning tables, does lead to an all or nothing experience.

On Mon, 24 Jun 2002 14:57:37 -0400, Joshua Duffin wrote: >advantage of all players still in it to agree to discard through >their decks as fast as they can and then withdraw instead of >continuing to play within the stalemate until time runs out. >But why is this a problem? Because it makes a mockery of the game. Instead of playing hard to try to squeeze one last oust in, the players start playing a real-time card-burning exercise that's more like Twitch, Brawl or Falling. The game was not designed to played in this way and the tournament rules shouldn't encourage it. >It only applies to games where *no one* sees a chance of accomplishing >anything before time runs out. I've not done this but imagine that there is huge peer pressure to cooperate to beat the system. What if one player wants to stop and re-evaluate the situation, part-way through this play-acting? The players should be doing this at every step but I expect that the others would come down hard on anyone who tried to do so. >People accepting deals that let others win a game, when >they have no chance of winning themselves, is probably an >unavoidable feature of multiplayer one-winner games. I've run and played in 100+ multi-player tournaments for Shadowfist and have _never_ seen it happen in that game. The deal-making that you get in VTES is extreme - I've not seen anything like it since I played Diplomacy a lot and, in that game, the deal-making came with a healthy expectation that deals would be broken. That's why I rail against VTES deal-making practises - they are way out of line with what I expect to see in a multi-player game. >You could do something like this, but I don't know how you'd >do it while keeping the incentive to finish games before time >instead of relying on the "shootout". What incentive? The current incentive is to switch to mutual withdrawal when time runs out. Here's an alternative idea which would keep players fighting hard to the end. If the game times out and there is no proper winner then the table win would be divided amongst the survivors in proportion to their VP with the edge counting as a VP for this purpose. Example: 3 survivors with 1 VP, 1 VP and 0 VP. The first player has the edge. He gets 2/3 of a table win and the second player gets 1/3. The player with nothing gets nothing. Now you can fiddle with the scoring for this but the general idea is to encourage a scramble for the edge which would make the end-game bear a better resemblance to the normal play of the game than mutual withdrawal does. Andrew

In message <2220D5B4075729D1.B8898675...@lp.airnew s.net>, Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> writes: >Because it makes a mockery of the game. Instead of playing hard to >try to squeeze one last oust in, the players start playing a real-time >card-burning exercise that's more like Twitch, Brawl or Falling. In part, it's a strategy game. If a specific strategy or tactic at a given time leads to greatest rewards, it makes a mockery of the game to require players to fight for lower rewards. What you're arguing for is a set of rules where players can't maximise their game win/victory points (amend as to the specific situation), and are forced not to do so by the rules. [ quoted text not captured ]

"Andrew S. Davidson" <a...@csi.com> wrote in message news:2220D5B4075729D1.B8898675...@lp.airnews.net... > On Mon, 24 Jun 2002 14:57:37 -0400, Joshua Duffin wrote: > > >advantage of all players still in it to agree to discard through > >their decks as fast as they can and then withdraw instead of > >continuing to play within the stalemate until time runs out. > >But why is this a problem? > > Because it makes a mockery of the game. Instead of playing hard to > try to squeeze one last oust in, the players start playing a real-time > card-burning exercise that's more like Twitch, Brawl or Falling. The > game was not designed to played in this way and the tournament rules > shouldn't encourage it. I don't really think they do encourage it. This only happens, in my experience, when no one believes they have any chance of squeezing that last oust in; if they *did*, they'd benefit hugely from trying for it rather than agreeing to a withdrawal attempt. > >It only applies to games where *no one* sees a chance of accomplishing > >anything before time runs out. > > I've not done this but imagine that there is huge peer pressure to > cooperate to beat the system. What if one player wants to stop and > re-evaluate the situation, part-way through this play-acting? The > players should be doing this at every step but I expect that the > others would come down hard on anyone who tried to do so. I haven't seen such peer pressure. I agree that players should be able to stop partway through and don't think the others would have any realistic way to "come down hard" on them. Have you actually seen these "withdrawal pacts" become a "problem" in tournament play? From my experience you're suggesting a solution to a problem that doesn't exist. > >People accepting deals that let others win a game, when > >they have no chance of winning themselves, is probably an > >unavoidable feature of multiplayer one-winner games. > > I've run and played in 100+ multi-player tournaments for Shadowfist > and have _never_ seen it happen in that game. Neither have I, but (while admitting that I haven't played Shadowfist tournaments regularly for a couple years now) I suspect this is because Shadowfist players have yet to figure out and play to the tiebreakers. And probably also because "getting second" in Shadowfist isn't rewarded (at least under the systems I was familiar with) nearly as much as it is in VTES, and because it's much less worthwhile in Fist to help someone else into second place in return for them helping you win - in Fist winning requires a lot less set up than VTES. (in VTES you have to defeat at least two players sequentially to win while being attacked constantly by a third; in Fist you have to defeat three, but all at once and only for an instant.) > The deal-making that > you get in VTES is extreme - I've not seen anything like it since I > played Diplomacy a lot and, in that game, the deal-making came with a > healthy expectation that deals would be broken. That's why I rail > against VTES deal-making practises - they are way out of line with > what I expect to see in a multi-player game. I feel that the deal-making in VTES should also come with a healthy expectation that deals will be broken, but there does seem to be some dissension on this point. :-) > >You could do something like this, but I don't know how you'd > >do it while keeping the incentive to finish games before time > >instead of relying on the "shootout". > > What incentive? The current incentive is to switch to mutual > withdrawal when time runs out. The incentive now is to finish games rather than let them go to time, because if a game goes to time VPs are lost (with "living" players being worth only 0.5 VP where they'd be worth 1 VP dead). If there were a shootout system that assigned all VPs/GWs, there would be less incentive to try to finish the game before time; you could try to stall until the end and win the shootout instead. Mutual withdrawal at nearly-time is still inferior to finishing legitimately; people will probably not agree to a withdrawal pact that gives someone a game win, and if no one is getting a game win it would've been much better to finish legitimately. > Here's an alternative idea which would keep players fighting hard to > the end. If the game times out and there is no proper winner then the > table win would be divided amongst the survivors in proportion to > their VP with the edge counting as a VP for this purpose. Example: > > 3 survivors with 1 VP, 1 VP and 0 VP. The first player has the edge. > He gets 2/3 of a table win and the second player gets 1/3. The player > with nothing gets nothing. > > Now you can fiddle with the scoring for this but the general idea is > to encourage a scramble for the edge which would make the end-game > bear a better resemblance to the normal play of the game than mutual > withdrawal does. This was suggested several times right after the GW system was implemented; as written it entirely undermines the point of the GW system. If you don't have to actually *win* a game to get (at least part of) a game win, then dealmaking for "split wins" becomes more attractive again. Giving a "bonus" for the Edge is interesting but could also encourage "slow play" toward the end of the game with each player trying to spend as long as possible on her own turn where she's holding the Edge. And of course the opponents would try to slow down any attempts to get the Edge from them... Josh

"Curevei" <cur...@aol.commetal> wrote in message news:20020624184742...@mb-cb.aol.com... [someone else wrote] > >Something I've observed that's related but doen't answer your questions. > >I've found deal making to be a lot more difficult under the GW system. [...] > >Personally I think this is a good thing. How has the GW rule affected ppls > >deal making in other tournaments? > > My deal making? I delay deals that involve someone winning a > table by a round. Doesn't this only apply if you have yourself won the first round, though? I'd think you couldn't afford to "give away" game wins without having at least one yourself. Personally I'd not even be comfortable "giving away" game wins after having one, both due to the "play to win" rule and the fact that many tournaments I play in have enough players that one GW isn't necessarily enough to get you into the finals. It's a different story when you don't see any chance for getting the game win yourself, I suppose. > Once you get past the first round, I see the same level of tournament > manipulation that existed prior (for "local-sized" tournaments, big tournaments > will always be different). I've never really seen that much manipulation in the sense of, say, "trying to control who gets to the finals by manipulating the preliminary rounds". I'm more used to just seeing everyone try to manipulate every game toward their own victory, when possible; when not possible there's the occasional spitefulness on the way out but I don't recall noticing any serious "fixing" attempts. Maybe it's a regional variation thing? > Also, how one plays depends upon how the prizes are doled out. We had one > tournament where each table was worth X boosters. If someone won the table, > they got the boosters. I like this approach a lot and have been using it for the last few sanctioned tournaments here - X has only equaled 1 so far, and there have been additional prizes for 2nd through 5th finalists, but I like the additional incentive to "play to the game". > I believe something like this system is a good way to > encourage people to focus on their games rather than > play to the tournament. But, like anything that heavily > rewards winning tables, does lead to an all or nothing > experience. As far as prizing goes, I've been also having a "one pack for showing up" "prize" (essentially the same as a "one pack entry fee") so that no one goes home with nothing. But there's not nearly enough prize support (without charging quite a bit for entry fees) to give, for example, a pack per VP in prelim rounds. It'd certainly be nice, though. And could be done with a "one pack per round" entry fee, but I don't know if people really want to "spend" that much on regular VTES tournaments. Josh the brew was gone and so was i she showed me the door

>> >Personally I think this is a good thing. How has the GW rule affected >ppls >> >deal making in other tournaments? >> >> My deal making? I delay deals that involve someone winning a >> table by a round. > >Doesn't this only apply if you have yourself won the first round, >though? I'd think you couldn't afford to "give away" game wins >without having at least one yourself. Actual example: My grandprey from round one became my predator round two. He was almost a lock for the finals. A three VP TW would have probably had gotten me in. So, from the beginning of the second round, my interest was a 3-2 split. He didn't particularly want me in the finals [another aspect of manipulation], but as I had a deck that could wreck him, it wasn't a horrible idea to go for the split to guarantee that he'd get in or to get a better seeding. Yes, if no one has a TW and it appears that a TW is absolutely necessary, then it's hard to deal. But, as soon as anyone in your game does, there's all sorts of potential for manipulation. >Personally I'd not even be comfortable "giving away" game wins >after having one, both due to the "play to win" rule and the >fact that many tournaments I play in have enough players that >one GW isn't necessarily enough to get you into the finals. >It's a different story when you don't see any chance for getting >the game win yourself, I suppose. Of course, it depends on what the projected cut line is. Whether the tournament has two prelims or three and how many tables there are will affect this going in. With three prelims and a bunch of tables, there's not a whole lot you can do, but then, there never was. Given how many of our games time out, one TW in a two prelim tournament is nearly a lock, while one TW and 5+ VPs is pretty much a lock for a three prelim. Another example: Second to last tournament, I somehow ended up with a TW after the first round. Three prelim, so I had a bit more work to do for the guaranteed slot. I went into my second round with a 1-2 VP goal. I was willing to split 2-2-1 with my grandpredator, but he waffled to where I was forced to get another TW. >> Once you get past the first round, I see the same level of tournament >> manipulation that existed prior (for "local-sized" tournaments, big >tournaments >> will always be different). > >I've never really seen that much manipulation in the sense >of, say, "trying to control who gets to the finals by >manipulating the preliminary rounds". I'm more used to >just seeing everyone try to manipulate every game toward >their own victory, when possible; when not possible there's >the occasional spitefulness on the way out but I don't >recall noticing any serious "fixing" attempts. Maybe it's >a regional variation thing? In the third round of that tournament, having 2 TWs in hand, my interest was entirely in manipulating the final. I didn't want anyone from my table in except the person already in, so I did as little as possible. The irony was that I still ended up with more VPs than anyone else when the game timed out. But, if I had to do something for myself or if I particularly wanted someone else in the finals from my table, the game would have been entirely different. I might even have had an interest in trying to set my predator up for a sweep if I particularly wanted him in the finals for match up purposes. Maybe it's just being used to playing multiplayer CCG tournaments with final tables, but I see a lot of potential for playing to the tournament over playing to the individual games even in the postTW era. Note that I don't think is necessarily bad, it's just the nature of multiround CCG tournaments.

"Curevei" <cur...@aol.commetal> wrote in message news:20020625183749...@mb-fz.aol.com... > Actual example: My grandprey from round one became my predator round two. He > was almost a lock for the finals. A three VP TW would have probably had gotten > me in. So, from the beginning of the second round, my interest was a 3-2 > split. He didn't particularly want me in the finals [another aspect of > manipulation], but as I had a deck that could wreck him, it wasn't a horrible > idea to go for the split to guarantee that he'd get in or to get a better > seeding. You figured a 3-2 split with you getting 3 was good enough? By the "play to win" rule he's not allowed to take that deal unless he has no chance of getting more than 2 VPs, though. Admittedly it's hard to prove either way but as a judge Iwould rarely allow anyone to accept a game-losing deal. A prey's deck that "wrecks" you isn't enough justification (IMO) to take a losing deal. > Yes, if no one has a TW and it appears that a TW is absolutely > necessary, then it's hard to deal. But, as soon as anyone in your > game does, there's all sorts of potential for manipulation. As long as people aren't too concerned with the "play to win" rule. A difficult rule to enforce, of course. > Of course, it depends on what the projected cut line is. Whether > the tournament has two prelims or three and how many tables there > are will affect this going in. With three prelims and a bunch of > tables, there's not a whole lot you can do, but then, there never > was. True. So maybe big tournaments are the way to go? :-) > Another example: Second to last tournament, I somehow ended up with > a TW after the first round. Three prelim, so I had a bit more work to > do for the guaranteed slot. I went into my second round with a 1-2 VP > goal. I was willing to split 2-2-1 with my grandpredator, but he > waffled to where I was forced to get another TW. Heh. It is a hardship. What does this illustrate, though? That "gaming the tournament" is desirable to the players? Not entirely surprising I guess, but it is at least to some extent prohibited by the letter and spirit of the tournament rules. If the players don't care about that (and I don't mean to make any moral judgements here) those rules may not be very enforceable, though. > In the third round of that tournament, having 2 TWs in hand, my > interest was entirely in manipulating the final. OK. > I didn't want anyone from my table in except the person already in, > so I did as little as possible. The irony was that I still ended up > with more VPs than anyone else when the game timed out. But, if I > had to do something for myself or if I particularly wanted someone > else in the finals from my table, the game would have been entirely > different. I might even have had an interest in trying to set my > predator up for a sweep if I particularly wanted him in the finals > for match up purposes. Hmm. Funny, yeah. I wonder if this is an argument in favor of not publicizing standings and asking players not to discuss them? Also not enforceable but might cut down on this kind of manipulation, if people are interested in reducing it. > Maybe it's just being used to playing multiplayer CCG tournaments > with final tables, but I see a lot of potential for playing to the > tournament over playing to the individual games even in the postTW > era. Note that I don't think is necessarily bad, it's just the > nature of multiround CCG tournaments. Sure. Probably no scoring system can eliminate the incentive to "play to the tournament" rather than "the game". I do think the GW system has better "play to the game" incentives than the VPs system did, though. Prizing the prelim tables for game winners may also "help". I don't know what more could be done beyond asking players to stick to the spirit of the "play to win" rules. Again, if it *is* desired to reduce "manipulation". Josh fixing a hole where the rain gets in

Andrew S. Davidson wrote: > With the example of the World Cup fresh in our minds, one might see > whether the game could provide some equivalent of the penalty shootout > to resolve a game which didn't produce a natural winner. Doomtown has > something of the sort - a final shootout between players that have > equal tie-break points. I can't think of an appropriate equivalent in > VTES but maybe you can ...? I find playing a new game in order to resolve the original game to be insipid. Can't wait for another 0-0 game between Germany and Brazil, resolved by the other game called "shootout". - Ben Peal, Prince of Boston fu...@mindstorm.com