My trip to barcelona

Hi all, just my toughts about the ec in barcelona. first of all big tourney vtes became a game of luck. 3 rounds is simply not enough! next years ec should have 5 or 6 rounds using the swiss format!!! the original archon sucks! since it splits big tourney into groups of 25 players the ec was basically an event which consisted of 3 separate tourneys and one final. so while some will say they saw heavy stealth bleed in their part of the tourney i saw a lot of combat and only 1 stealth bleeder!!!! another sideeffect of the tourney was that people that registered together also played together (sten and beatrice during, rob treasure and dave hammond, i and martin, chris and sascha, etc). anyways on to the tourney: i wanted to play a stani purge deck, but martin weinmayer convinced me that i might not have a chance with it and i thought that all my games would be quite short either winning or losing quite fast, so i decided to switch decks while waiting to register. since i expected little combat i decided to play my weenie auspex deck i just played once before ( i played several versions of wennie, intercept and weenie intercept decks, but this deck i just put togehter when anarchs were released because i really like martin (weinmayer) frankel, feo ramos and maldavis. during the tourney i realised that there were some minor design flaws in this deck, but anyways. round one: ( i don´t remember names so please don´t be offended) french guy that talks way to much (arika mind rape)> fun belgium guy (cell with guns)>cool french guy (cel with guns)>me> martin weinmayer (his famous 66 card tremere intercept wall pool machine deck). i have a nice draw some blood support (hg with blood doll), some bounce and since my pred doesn´t rush me i am quite fine. the two gun decks fight, martin and the french guy fight and i am pretty much left alone. so when martin trys to kill the french guy he taps him self out and i manage to oust him (after an hour and 30 minutes) i can also oust the frech guy and then we all agree to withdraw. my pred didn´t have any rushes and was just relying on bleeds that i was able to soak or bounce so i managed to stay out of combat with him. 1 gw 3 vps second round and i am happy, i have the chance to play a game of vampire with rob treasure. dave hammond (fatima multirush)>jan? from norway (big malk bleed)> chris (weenie pot rush)> rob (lasombra vote ?)>me once again playing against two combat decks. once again sorry rob. first turn milli smith V.H. rob brought out gratiano first and got hit with an haven uncovered right away by chrisand brought down to to blood(gratiano) so he decided to switch places with dave. i then hit gratiano with a society of leopold and attacked him twice bringin him down to zero blood thus burining him during his untap phase. when he then attempted an action with ingnacio i blocked him with my ivory bow guy and send him to torpor. he then brought out guido lucciano. in my next master phase i hit guido with a pentex subversion bleed for one and the diablerized ingnacio. so robs game was pretty much over right after it started. with rob down on 4 pool his prey having the millicent tried to equip esau with 10 blood with an leather jacket. needless to say i used my eagle sight and some spare intercept to burn esau. right after i ousted rob, dave came out of his hand jam and started to attack me i lost a lot of minions, was down on 5 pool ( i didnßt draw a blood doll the whole game). with fatima bothering chris pot weenies and my aus weenies we agreed that i would play my pentex sub on fatiama if he would be happy with his one vp. he agreed. i then went on to oust jan his last action was the removal of the penteyx subversion. and fatiama started killing my minions again, but eventually dave ran out of cards was ousted by chris and i ousted chris then. so one hell of a game 2gw 7 vps. 3 round: 3 potence decks :-(((((((( sascha (wote deck)> me > some spanish guy that should learn english (nossie princes rush)> smiling tom (reactive euro brujah)> shane spencer (wennie pot rush)(by the way the aussies were really cool it was fun playing and talking with them) while sascha and smiling tom were killed i managed to saty alive and we withdrew due to time reasons. so 2 gw 8 vps tie for 3rd with jay (he wins the tiebreaker). seeing combat all day i had a really bad feeling going to the finals. i thought i really played a crappy deck and thought i would stand no chance during the finals. i knew that jay was playing mono auspex (so i expected him playing his nac deck) and that jo was playing stealth bleed. so assuming that the tatus told jay what i was playing my game plan was to sit right behind toni and hoping that jay would try to sit in front of toni (far away from me)so we both would sandwich him with auspex and i would gain an easy vp. then hold on for maybe a second or third place finish. i am not going to bore you with my views on the finals. just a few comments. after figuring out what everybody played i was sure that jay would win (he would have would he have drawn a gun and been more aggressive against zsolt) if jo would have had enough stealth to remove the pentex he would have been trying to bleed me more often. if zsolt would have tried to remove the pentex he would have wasted actions and might not have finished second ( he ousted jo with his last minion) and i had more minions than he had and would have blocked his actions ( would he then hit me into torpor and pave the way for his prey?). jay was afraid of arika and didn´t offer any good deals to toni. so humble spectators who should ahve removed the pentex? aranthebenes could and would have been blocked!!!!!!!! i had an eagle sight in my staring hand and had one in my hand most of the time. the guns would hurt ne a lot i guess zsolt would have won then (but i had a society and was hoping for my second pentex) i really liked zsolts deck but he was almost out of cards when he ousted jo so he would not have been able to oust me i guess sorry jo that i didn´t give you enough pool. finally thanks to damnas and the organizing crew and all the fun players i meet and had the chance to play with. robin, dave and jeff i was fun seeing you again and i hope i´ll have the chance play at the next atlanta qualifier!!!! congrats to the finalists for getting there and thanks for letting me win :-) my deck deck name: i wanted to call this deck "the carppiest deck that ever made it to the finals" going into the finals, but since it won i´ll call it "little brother is watching you" there are some minor flaws and this deck needs to be tweaked a little: franciscus feo ramos almiro suarez milo david morgan zoe martin franckel isabell de Leon Maldavis richard tauber remiliard idalia master 5 blood doll 3 smiling jack to many! 3 society of leopold 2 milicent smith puritan vampire hunter 2 pentex subversion 2 auspex don´t need them, maybe one! 1 powerbase montreal 1 the rack 1 academic hunting ground 1 asylum hunting ground minion 9 forced awakening 5 eagle sight 5 enhanced senses 5 spirits touch 5 precognition 5 my enemys enemy 5 telepathic misdirection 8 dodge 2 pulled fangs 1 disguised weapon ivory bow sengir dagger palatial estate muddled vampire hunter this deck is currently 75 cards it should be tuned down to 60-65 cards or increase the number of blood dolls. play style be patient gain pool influence minions and stay in the background there has to be always a bigger threat on the table. try to burn vamps with the society play them when the vamp is on one or 2 blood. stefan ferenci

"Stefan Ferenci" <a950...@nospammmunet.univie.ac.at> wrote in message news:<3f96f8a7$0$29350$3b21...@usenet.univie.ac.at>... (...) > second round > so one hell of a game 2gw 7 vps. > I think you really earned the finals in this two games. I never thought that your deck would be able to stay alive in two such combatheavy rounds. Good job. > 3 round: 3 potence decks :-(((((((( > sascha (wote deck)> me > some spanish guy that should learn english (nossie > princes rush)> smiling tom (reactive euro brujah)> shane spencer (wennie pot > rush)(by the way the aussies were really cool it was fun playing and talking > with them) > > while sascha and smiling tom were killed i managed to saty alive and we > withdrew due to time reasons. > It is the losing rounds that count in the end. Getting out 1 VP of a bad situatiion makes the difference often enough. > after figuring out what everybody played i was sure that jay would win (he > would have would he have drawn a gun and been more aggressive against zsolt) > if jo would have had enough stealth to remove the pentex he would have been > trying to bleed me more often. > if zsolt would have tried to remove the pentex he would have wasted actions > and might not have finished second ( he ousted jo with his last minion) and > i had more minions than he had and would have blocked his actions ( would he > then hit me into torpor and pave the way for his prey?). > jay was afraid of arika and didn´t offer any good deals to toni. > so humble spectators who should ahve removed the pentex? Jo of course. This is a directed action and you had not enough Eagle Sights at all to block every attempt. And even if you block what then? He would not have to fear anything. Going for the Pentex would have been much smarter than bleeding you for three just to be misdirected to Toni. I have to say that the final was so easy to play for you after you seated the way you did. Just making no mistakes was enough (not your fault of course). But seeing your fight going for the finals I have to admit you are a worthy champion. So congrats. again, Stefan. And I like your deck because it is strange, that you can win such a tournament with it.

>>so humble spectators who should ahve removed the pentex? > > > Jo of course. This is a directed action and you had not enough Eagle > Sights at all to block every attempt. And even if you block what then? > He would not have to fear anything. Going for the Pentex would have > been much smarter than bleeding you for three just to be misdirected > to Toni. Yes, it is a directed action, but directed at the controller of the card, which would have been Stefan. :) Carl

Just of few ideas about the correct name of the players on your table. Don´t mind you do not remember the names, I can´t either. I just happen to know most of your adversaries :-) [snip...] > round one: ( i don´t remember names so please don´t be offended) french guy > that talks way to much (arika mind rape) Must be Jean-Noel Jourdan ;-) > fun belgium guy (cell with > guns)>cool french guy (cel with guns)> Could be Christophe Baltazar >me> martin weinmayer (his famous 66 > card tremere intercept wall pool machine deck). > dave hammond (fatima multirush)>jan? from norway (big malk bleed)> If his forename was Jan his last name should be Roger. > chris > (weenie pot rush)> rob (lasombra vote ?)>me once again playing against two > combat decks. [snip...] > sascha (wote deck)> me > some spanish guy that should learn english (nossie > princes rush)> smiling tom (reactive euro brujah) > shane spencer (wennie pot > rush)(by the way the aussies were really cool it was fun playing and talking > with them) Actually his name is Shane Schneider -- johannes walch v:ekn germany - http://www.vekn.de/

Carl Pilhatsch <car.pi...@chello.at> wrote in message news:<MQKlb.94856$bU3.1...@news.chello.at>... [ quoted text not captured ] Ups, if this is the case poor Jo really couldn't help Toni, you are right, Stefan. I thought, the action is directed at the Methuselah who's minion has the card. Although trying going for the Pentex would still be smarter than bleeding (just my opinion).

[ quoted text not captured ] >I Agree with Carl here. Don't think I would have been able to remove it on my own. If my pred would have tried, I could have followed up, or if he would have agreed to stay off my back for a while, then maybe. But as it was, there was IMHO no really good point in trying. In retrospect of course, there wasn't any in *not* trying either so hey, "if if if ..".. Greetz Jo

Stefan Ferenci wrote: [...] > another sideeffect of the tourney was that people that registered together > also played together (sten and beatrice during, rob treasure and dave > hammond, i and martin, chris and sascha, etc). This fact had nothing to do with people registering together. Every player rolled 3 ten-sided dice (i.e., a D1000) when registering. So it was luck, not the Archon, which made them play together. Beatrice Düring's die roll was 456. Sten Düring's die roll was 448. And, between them there was just one player, Carl Pilhatsch, who rolled 455. David Hammond's roll was 16. Rob Treasure's roll was 134. There were 7 players between them, so they did not play together during the first round. They played together in the second round. And so on with the other players you mentioned :-) [...] Greetings, Damnans

Stefan Ferenci wrote: > the original archon sucks! since it splits big tourney into groups of 25 > players the ec was basically an event which consisted of 3 separate tourneys > and one final. Each player played against 12 distinct other players during three rounds. How would you improve on that (using only three rounds)? > so while some will say they saw heavy stealth bleed in their > part of the tourney i saw a lot of combat and only 1 stealth bleeder!!!! One would get the same results no matter what arrangement. There's no way to play against more than 12 different players in three rounds. And !!!!, too. > another sideeffect of the tourney was that people that registered together > also played together (sten and beatrice during, rob treasure and dave > hammond, i and martin, chris and sascha, etc). Incorrect. Players were assigned random numbers generated by dice rolled by the players at registration. Players who rolled numbers close to one another were placed close to one another in the initial round's seating chart. -- 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> schrieb im Newsbeitrag news:3F97C3...@white-wolf.com... > Stefan Ferenci wrote: > > the original archon sucks! since it splits big tourney into groups of 25 > > players the ec was basically an event which consisted of 3 separate tourneys > > and one final. > > Each player played against 12 distinct other players during three rounds. > How would you improve on that (using only three rounds)? > yes but i played 12 pplayers out of a pool of 24 players not the 80 that played. that sucks. the vienniese archon just makes random seating every round. more fun stefan stefan [ quoted text not captured ]

i did not mean to critisize you. you made the best out of the weak archon. the idea with dice was great. so well done damnans, but still the archon sucks stefan "Damnans" <damna...@ono.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag news:3F97B295...@ono.com... [ quoted text not captured ]

On Thu, 23 Oct 2003 15:39:29 +0200, "Stefan Ferenci" <a950...@nospammmunet.univie.ac.at> scrawled: > >"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag >news:3F97C3...@white-wolf.com... >> Stefan Ferenci wrote: >> > the original archon sucks! since it splits big tourney into groups of 25 >> > players the ec was basically an event which consisted of 3 separate >tourneys >> > and one final. >> >> Each player played against 12 distinct other players during three rounds. >> How would you improve on that (using only three rounds)? >> >yes but i played 12 pplayers out of a pool of 24 players not the 80 that >played. that sucks. the vienniese archon just makes random seating every >round. more fun But that pool of 24 was drawn from the pool of 80. Just because there were two steps in the random process doesn't mean you were any less randomly seated. Prior to the rolling of dice for player number, you would have had a probability of playing all 12 of those people. Whether it was broken down into blocks of 24 before actually working out who you sat with, or just worked randomly fromt he very start makes no difference. Imagine a simplified example: you could play 1 round against one person from a pool of 4. A, B, C, D. You're randomly paired, and you get A. there were 4 people with equal probabilities. therefore it was a 1/4 chance. Now imagine they were broken into 2 groups first, then you were assigned a random group, then a random opponent within that group. possible pairs in groups would be: AB CD AC BD AD BC each row has a 1/3 chance of happeneing. being assigned to each group has a 1/2 chance of happeneing. your chance of playing against A under this scheme is: 1/3 * 1/2 * 1/2 + 1/3 * 1/2 * 1/2 + 1/3 * 1/2 * 1/2 = 1/4 same as if you were just randomly sat next to a player at the start, without breaking it down. You had 0 chance of playing against the _other_ 12 people from your pool of 24 once the group of 24 was determined. and you had 0 chance of playing against the other 56 people in the field once the group was determined. so whether the people were in your group or not didn't matter if you weren't playing against them anyway. salem domain:canberra http://www.geocities.com/salem_christ.geo/vtes.htm

Stefan Ferenci wrote: > "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag > news:3F97C3...@white-wolf.com... >>Each player played against 12 distinct other players during three rounds. >>How would you improve on that (using only three rounds)? >> > yes but i played 12 pplayers out of a pool of 24 players not the 80 that > played. that sucks. the vienniese archon just makes random seating every > round. more fun Incorrect. 12 out of 24 chosen at random from a set of 80 is no different than 12 out of 80. What is this Viennese Archon? Do you refer to the seating chart generator that was used in the Barcelona qualifier? That one resulted in some players facing the same opponents more than once, so that they saw only 9, 10, or 11 decks out of 171 (instead of the optimal 11 or 12, which is trivially attained when working with a field of 171). Some players were even seated at 4-player tables more than once. More fun? [ quoted text not captured ]

This is an interesting thread for me in my function as next years EC head judge and tournament organizer. I appreciate all comments about seating and randomness of seating, judging style and every other aspect related to the organization of the tournament (not the event!). Everybody, shoot now. I like the idea of total randomness of each rounds seating, though. With a big player field there shouldn´t be too much double team ups because of sheir probability. It also handles well the case of dropping players because you just have a pool of players (=numbers), "shuffle it" and distribute it on 4/5 player tables. [ quoted text not captured ]

"Kimbal" <kim...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:678de5b5.03102...@posting.google.com... > >yes but i played 12 pplayers out of a pool of 24 players not the 80 > that > > >played. that sucks. the vienniese archon just makes random seating every > > >round. more fun > > > > But that pool of 24 was drawn from the pool of 80. Just because there > > were two steps in the random process doesn't mean you were any less > > randomly seated. > > > The Question Being does the pool of players change at the beggining of > each round? because if it doesnt you'll end up having like X separate > tournaments of 24 people each, because each group wil only play with > ppl of the group. > > Antoni Morey But there's no difference. If you never see the same people at your table does it matter what "pool" they are drawn from? If everybody was in the "same" pool you could conceivably see the exact same seating arrangements as you do with seperate "pools". The use of the pools saves a hell of a lot of coding to enable the archon to handle that many people. I'm sure that if you develop the seating charts for a 300 hundered person tournament that the powers that be would consider incorperating them. But be assured its a pointless exercise. -JTP

salem <salem_ch...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<7opfpvslsocd03pro...@4ax.com>... > On Thu, 23 Oct 2003 15:39:29 +0200, "Stefan Ferenci" > <a950...@nospammmunet.univie.ac.at> scrawled: > > > > >"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag > >news:3F97C3...@white-wolf.com... > >> Stefan Ferenci wrote: > >> > the original archon sucks! since it splits big tourney into groups of 25 > >> > players the ec was basically an event which consisted of 3 separate > tourneys > >> > and one final. > >> > >> Each player played against 12 distinct other players during three rounds. > >> How would you improve on that (using only three rounds)? > >> > >yes but i played 12 pplayers out of a pool of 24 players not the 80 that > >played. that sucks. the vienniese archon just makes random seating every > >round. more fun > > But that pool of 24 was drawn from the pool of 80. Just because there > were two steps in the random process doesn't mean you were any less > randomly seated. > You had 0 chance of playing against the _other_ 12 people from your > pool of 24 once the group of 24 was determined. and you had 0 chance > of playing against the other 56 people in the field once the group was > determined. so whether the people were in your group or not didn't > matter if you weren't playing against them anyway. > > salem > domain:canberra http://www.geocities.com/salem_christ.geo/vtes.htm While it doesn't make a difference in who *you* play as an individual, it does make a difference when you consider a group of players. For example, if I and my 3 buddies all drive together to an 80-person tournament, it'd be nice to have all 4 of us *not* be in the same 24-person sub-group, for instance, to increase the chances that we won't all be playing the same opponent - because the odds are good that we'll talk to each other between rounds about what decks we saw. Why does this matter at all? I don't think it matters that much - it certainly doesn't matter statistically, but if you happen to have figured out partway through round 2 that you're in a 24-person sub-group, you should be able to identify which tables contain your sub-group, and that gives you an edge in checking out potential decks to face - it's much easier to glance at the other 4 tables full of potential round-3 opponents than it is to glance at the other 14. And if you have a friend, or 2, or 3 also in that sub-group, that scouting gets even easier. Yeah, it's the same for everybody else, which helps bring it back to 'doesn't matter that much.' I think there's probably some tiny advantage to be gained from the meta-game deck building process here too; I would hazard to guess that in most large tournaments, players conciously build decks with a consideration to 'I know the buddy I am going there with is playing this deck type, so I won't, so to avoid contesting.' The smaller the potential pool of decks, the more this benefits the buddies, as it increases the odds that they would have faced each other eventually, which is an edge to them that a single foe might not have. (Again, as salem notes this last point isn't a massive problem because the determination of which sub-group of players you end up in is totally random.) I don't think it's a very significant problem to have a tourney organizer break groups into sub-groups that play internally; but I do think there might be some corner-case tiny advantage, especially if you can determine that this is the case, compared to shuffling the entire player pool around. (Now just be thankful that Archon doesn't do things in a Swiss system where subsequent rounds are grouped by previous GW/VPs!) -John Flournoy

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:3F97EE8E...@white-wolf.com... > Stefan Ferenci wrote: > > yes but i played 12 pplayers out of a pool of 24 players not the 80 that > > played. that sucks. the vienniese archon just makes random seating every > > round. more fun > > Incorrect. > 12 out of 24 chosen at random from a set of 80 is no different than 12 > out of 80. This is true. But what *is* a little different about having "one big tournament" as opposed to "three parallel 25-player tournaments" is that in a 25-player tournament, the 12 people you play against can have played against 12 people that you didn't play against. In a 75-player tournament, they could have played against 62 people that you didn't play against. This doesn't directly affect your preliminary-round experience, of course. If "strength of opponent's record" were actually used as a tiebreaker (not currently done for reasons of being computationally difficult, I believe), it could matter, I imagine. And it does affect what the people you played with would be able to tell you about the decks of the players in the finals (if a finalist came from a different "pod", no one you played with would have played against her). These are very possibly not compelling enough reasons to go to the effort of making "cross-group randomized" Archon seating charts for large tournaments. But it's not *exactly* the same to group players into subsets of 25 as it is to group them all together in one big set. Josh doesn't have this particular problem with eight-player tournaments

"Johannes Walch" <johanne...@vekn.de> wrote in message news:<bn919f$5lr$05$1...@news.t-online.com>... [ quoted text not captured ] With 171 players there shouldn't need to be ANY double ups, in my opinion. There's no reason for any player to see the same opponent twice when you're facing 13 or 14 opponents out of 170 (or some similarly large number.) And in terms of 'sheer probability' - I'm not willing to do out the math, but I'd bet the odds are actually pretty high that a pure randomization each round will have double-ups, much like the classic birthday-share probability question that surprises people (How many random people do you need before getting a 50% chance that any two share a birthday? Only 23.) -John Flournoy

On Thu, 23 Oct 2003 14:05:26 -0500, "John P" <verg...@hotmail.com> scrawled: > >"Kimbal" <kim...@hotmail.com> wrote in message >news:678de5b5.03102...@posting.google.com... >> >yes but i played 12 pplayers out of a pool of 24 players not the 80 >> that >> > >played. that sucks. the vienniese archon just makes random seating every >> > >round. more fun >> > >> > But that pool of 24 was drawn from the pool of 80. Just because there >> > were two steps in the random process doesn't mean you were any less >> > randomly seated. >> >> >> The Question Being does the pool of players change at the beggining of >> each round? because if it doesnt you'll end up having like X separate >> tournaments of 24 people each, because each group wil only play with >> ppl of the group. >> >> Antoni Morey > >But there's no difference. If you never see the same people at your table >does it matter what "pool" they are drawn from? If everybody was in the >"same" pool you could conceivably see the exact same seating arrangements >as you do with seperate "pools". The use of the pools saves a hell of a lot of >coding to enable the archon to handle that many people. Exactly. If you did do the seating totally randomly each round, but 'tweaked' so that each person never plays at the same table as someone they've already played against, at the end of the day, i am pretty sure you would be able to go back and, with enough mind-numbing analysis, be able to 'create' sub-groups of people who never got to play against other sub-groups. But those groups would probably all be of different sizes, potentially being advantageous to those in groups of certain sizes (i don't care to try and consider if it would be an advantage to be in a big or a small group, but i would be willing to assert that if everyone was in as similar sized group as possible, it'd be more fair). So you're still in groups, you just didn't know what those groups were prior to each round's seating being generated. If you decided to generate all seating for all rounds from the total pool before any round started, you could work out what groups the people were in before hand, and you'd be injust the same situation as if you'd uniformly broken the people into groups, except now the groups are of a random size instead of all equal. As someone else pointed out, the only disadvantage to prior group creation is people might be able to get a 'feel' for what group they are in and scout the approriate tables. But if everyone gets to do this, what does it matter? Imagine if seating were pure random. then imagine eah person scouts one other random table. some of those people will get lucky and scout decks they are about to face. some people will scout decks they'll never face. So the people who got lucky get an advantage. Another random element added in to the mix of trying to work out who's the best player. Personally, i like to keep the random element as minimal as possible. >I'm sure that if you develop the seating charts for a 300 hundered person >tournament that the powers that be would consider incorperating them. >But be assured its a pointless exercise. Maybe not pointless, but definately tedious and not really necessary. [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] Yes. The optimal seating charts merely give you an optimal instance of such a randomization. With 171 players, straight random produced quite a few double team ups and even a triple team up, and several double four-player table assignments, the correction (reoptimization, but in a sub-optimal fashion, since repeated seating positions and balanced starting transfers were ignored) of which took about an hour. Drops are handled at least as well with the optimal seating charts as a base as they are with straight random as a base. Use of the optimal seating charts isn't mandatory, it's simply optimal. [ quoted text not captured ]

John Flournoy wrote: > While it doesn't make a difference in who *you* play as an individual, > it does make a difference when you consider a group of players. For > example, if I and my 3 buddies all drive together to an 80-person > tournament, it'd be nice to have all 4 of us *not* be in the same > 24-person sub-group, for instance, to increase the chances that we > won't all be playing the same opponent - because the odds are good > that we'll talk to each other between rounds about what decks we saw. Guaranteeing that you and some given definition of what a "buddy" is are not seated so as to play the same opponent (i.e., that you and any given "buddy" for whatever definition you have of "buddy" have a Bacon Number that is either non-existent or is greater than 2) is a far step from "random". > Why does this matter at all? I don't think it matters that much - it > certainly doesn't matter statistically, but if you happen to have > figured out partway through round 2 that you're in a 24-person > sub-group, you should be able to identify which tables contain your > sub-group, and that gives you an edge in checking out potential decks > to face - it's much easier to glance at the other 4 tables full of > potential round-3 opponents than it is to glance at the other 14. And Both of which are illegal. > if you have a friend, or 2, or 3 also in that sub-group, that scouting > gets even easier. Yeah, it's the same for everybody else, which helps And still illegal. > bring it back to 'doesn't matter that much.' > > I think there's probably some tiny advantage to be gained from the > meta-game deck building process here too; I would hazard to guess that > in most large tournaments, players conciously build decks with a > consideration to 'I know the buddy I am going there with is playing > this deck type, so I won't, so to avoid contesting.' The smaller the > potential pool of decks, the more this benefits the buddies, as it > increases the odds that they would have faced each other eventually, > which is an edge to them that a single foe might not have. (Again, as > salem notes this last point isn't a massive problem because the > determination of which sub-group of players you end up in is totally > random.) Which exactly offsets the former. The odds of you facing a given deck are the same whether the optimal seating charts are used or if a straight random method is used. [ quoted text not captured ]

Joshua Duffin wrote: > "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message > news:3F97EE8E...@white-wolf.com... > >>Stefan Ferenci wrote: > > >>>yes but i played 12 pplayers out of a pool of 24 players not the 80 that >>>played. that sucks. the vienniese archon just makes random seating every >>>round. more fun >> >>Incorrect. >>12 out of 24 chosen at random from a set of 80 is no different than 12 >>out of 80. > > > This is true. But what *is* a little different about having > "one big tournament" as opposed to "three parallel 25-player > tournaments" is that in a 25-player tournament, the 12 people > you play against can have played against 12 people that you > didn't play against. In a 75-player tournament, they could > have played against 62 people that you didn't play against. No. It is not true that (in a 75-player tournament with three preliminary rounds) each pair of players seated together at any table will not also individually face a third player. That is, there will be some pair of players seated at a given table whose Bacon Numbers ignoring the table at which they were seated together is 2. Any counter example? > This doesn't directly affect your preliminary-round > experience, of course. If "strength of opponent's record" > were actually used as a tiebreaker (not currently done for > reasons of being computationally difficult, I believe), it > could matter, I imagine. And it does affect what the people I don't imagine it would matter more than infinitesimally. > you played with would be able to tell you about the decks > of the players in the finals (if a finalist came from a > different "pod", no one you played with would have played > against her). What difference does it make if the person who reports on what someone else is playing had played with you previously or not? > These are very possibly not compelling enough reasons to > go to the effort of making "cross-group randomized" Archon > seating charts for large tournaments. But it's not > *exactly* the same to group players into subsets of 25 as > it is to group them all together in one big set. Those who desire more cross-group randomization are free to start with the optimal seating chart and then randomly swap a player or two between each "pod". [ quoted text not captured ]

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:3F991228...@white-wolf.com... > > Why does this matter at all? I don't think it matters that much - it > > certainly doesn't matter statistically, but if you happen to have > > figured out partway through round 2 that you're in a 24-person > > sub-group, you should be able to identify which tables contain your > > sub-group, and that gives you an edge in checking out potential decks > > to face - it's much easier to glance at the other 4 tables full of > > potential round-3 opponents than it is to glance at the other 14. And > > Both of which are illegal. They are? Not last I checked. Scouting hasn't been illegal in VEKN tournaments since at least 2000. [LSJ 15-Sep-2000] http://www.google.com/groups?selm=39C20C65.7D0C361B%40white-wolf.com Josh checking the game film and the scouting reports

[ quoted text not captured ] There you go. I must've simply had the EC on the brain, where scouting was prohibited. [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] No, the minimum number of players such that each player never plays anyone who has played one of his previous opponents is 125 (assuming 3 rounds and 5-players per table). However, the set of players that your opponents have played against can be greater than 24, 24 is actually the minimal solution (assuming no repeated pairs). >> These are very possibly not compelling enough reasons to >> go to the effort of making "cross-group randomized" Archon >> seating charts for large tournaments. But it's not >> *exactly* the same to group players into subsets of 25 as >> it is to group them all together in one big set. > > > Those who desire more cross-group randomization are free to > start with the optimal seating chart and then randomly swap > a player or two between each "pod". For two rounds, 25 players is the optimal solution. So, any swapping needs only be made in the third round, which simplifies the problem considerably. Then the number of players that is _not_ swapped should be inversely proportional to the number of 25 player sets (ie, 1/2 for 50 players, 1/3 for 75, etc...). This was going to be a simple example, but I ended up writing a full solution for 25-player sets: ;) Let A, B, C... denote the sets of 25 players. Take the seatings for the third round as made in optimal seating chart as A1-A2-A3-A4-A5 A6-A7-... ... B1-B2-B3-B4-B5 B6-B7-... ... ... If you're at a 50-player tournament, you should swap half those player. So, the seating becomes A1-B2-A3-B4-A5 A6-B7-... B1-A2-B3-A4-B5 B6-A7-... If you're at a 75-player tournament, you should swap 2/3 of the players. The seating becomes A1-B2-C3-A4-B5 ... B1-C2-A3-B4-C5 ... C1-A2-B3-C4-A5 ... At a 100-player tournament it's A1-B2-C3-D4-A5 ... B1-C2-D3-A4-B5 ... C1-D2-A3-B4-C5 ... D1-A2-B3-C4-D5 ... ...and so for a 125 player tournament, it would be A1-B2-C3-D4-E5 ... B1-C2-D3-E4-A5 ... C1-D2-E3-A4-B5 ... D1-E2-A3-B4-C5 ... E1-A2-B3-C4-D5 ... There are a number of permutations that can be made from these for randomization. There is also the matter of how to deal with a number of players that is not a multiple of 25 (including 4-player tables). I leave those issues as an exercise to the reader. :) Of course, since you're dealing with fractions of 5-player tables you can never have an exact, perfectly balanced solution without using a chainsaw. Feel free to use one if someone complains about this small imbalance. ;) Flux

"Joshua Duffin" <jtdu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<bnbee4$vpbfa$1...@ID-121616.news.uni-berlin.de>... [ quoted text not captured ] What Josh said. The VEKN tournament rules allow ousted players to be spectators; and while any player can say 'hey judge, I don't want that person spectating this game', it's not actually illegal (as far as I can tell) to go look at games in progress once you're ousted - so long as they don't ask you not to, and so long as you don't take written notes about what you see. I suppose talking with a friend between rounds about how your respective games went, or how respective opponents play, could fall under the category of 'outside assistance' which is illegal, yeah... but I've never been to a tournament where people *weren't* casually discussing each other's decks between rounds - not just friends, but with whomever happened to be handy. Admittedly, I haven't been to a regional/national tournament in a couple of years, but still. Is there some provision in the rules that I didn't see that says 'scouting other decks once you're ousted is illegal'? Is it technically illegal to discuss how completed games or rounds or decks of a tournament have turned out between rounds (or so long as all the players are not actively in the middle of a game?) -John Flournoy

"Stefan Ferenci" <a950...@nospammmunet.univie.ac.at> wrote in message news:<3f96f8a7$0$29350$3b21...@usenet.univie.ac.at>... Hi Stefan, all of you at the table made a mistake, which J-No (the nice French guy) discovered right during the final: You bled with Martin Frankl all the time for one although he does -1 bleed vs. non-Tremere or non-!Tremere. Now that fortunately was not decisive but it was a mistake (and could have become important). My question to all: Should a spectator inform the judge if he sees sth. like that (as J-No was thinking over to do) or should you keep quiet and let the players play like you are not there (as I proposed)? Joscha

those french guys spreading lies all around i never bleed with martin frankel as it will be proofed by damnas transcript. i hunted a lot with him and i removed the atonement with him. still i could bleed with him and did so in a previous round for a whooping zero. but as i said i never bleed with martin frankel in the finals. and ij Jo-N is the same Jo-N i played the first round with, he talks way to much and maybe forgot that in the first round when i bleed with martin like hell my prey controlled tremere. stefan "Joscha Duell" <joscha...@gmx.de> schrieb im Newsbeitrag news:8b87b6c9.03102...@posting.google.com... [ quoted text not captured ]

On Fri, 24 Oct 2003, Stefan Ferenci wrote: > those french guys > spreading lies all around <grabs popcorn> David Cherryholmes Duke Radiology P.E.T. Facility (919) 684-7714 david.che...@duke.edu

In message <8b87b6c9.03102...@posting.google.com>, joscha...@gmx.de (Joscha Duell) mumbled something about: >My question to all: Should a spectator inform the judge if he sees >sth. like that (as J-No was thinking over to do) or should you keep >quiet and let the players play like you are not there (as I proposed)? I routinely inform judges if I see something that is not legal happening. Illegal play is illegal, and should not be happening. It is better to stop the illegal play when it happens than to try to reverse it after it has happened. Note that I inform the JUDGE, not the players. It is his decision whether or not to disrupt the play; also, he must confirm whether or not what I am reporting is illegal. I also inform the judge away from the players' immediate view, to not distract them. -- Derek "Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge." - C. Darwin, 1871

> > > > Hi Stefan, > > > > all of you at the table made a mistake, which J-No (the nice French > > guy) discovered right during the final: You bled with Martin Frankl > > all the time for one although he does -1 bleed vs. non-Tremere or > > non-!Tremere. Now that fortunately was not decisive but it was a > > mistake (and could have become important). > > > > My question to all: Should a spectator inform the judge if he sees > > sth. like that (as J-No was thinking over to do) or should you keep > > quiet and let the players play like you are not there (as I proposed)? > > > > Joscha "Stefan Ferenci" <a950...@nospammmunet.univie.ac.at> wrote in message news:<3f997eee$0$13326$3b21...@usenet.univie.ac.at>... > those french guys > spreading lies all around > i never bleed with martin frankel as it will be proofed by damnas > transcript. > i hunted a lot with him and i removed the atonement with him. > still i could bleed with him and did so in a previous round for a whooping > zero. > but as i said i never bleed with martin frankel in the finals. > and ij Jo-N is the same Jo-N i played the first round with, he talks way to > much and maybe forgot that in the first round when i bleed with martin like > hell my prey controlled tremere. > stefan Wo, wo , wo, hold it man, calm down. Hey I sat right beside him and we discussed that matter. No need to explode. A simple "I remembered Martin's flaw and did not bleed like the script will prove" would have been enough. I apologize for my impression you bled with him. But hey, this everlasting war between Austrian and French guys sucks enormously. As far as I know Jean-Noel didn't spread that around like you think he does. I did not want to attack you but to discuss if a spectator should intervene if he observes a mistake. But that is an argument against I think. Because how often a spectator thinks about something is wrong and actually there isn't.

Joscha Duell wrote: [...] > My question to all: Should a spectator inform the judge if he sees > sth. like that (as J-No was thinking over to do) or should you keep > quiet and let the players play like you are not there (as I proposed)? The V:EKN Rules read: 2.4. Spectator Responsibilities Spectators are expected to remain silent during the course of a game and are not permitted to communicate with players in any way while a game is in progress. A players who is ousted from a game is considered a spectator for the remainder of the round. SPECTATORS WHO BELIEVE THAT THEY HAVE OBSERVED RULES VIOLATIONS SHOULD INFORM A JUDGE, BUT THEY MUST NOT INTERFERE WITH THE GAME. Players have the right to request that any person, other than tournament officials, not observe their game. All such requests must be made through a judge. Greetings, Damnans

> those french guys > spreading lies all around > i never bleed with martin frankel as it will be proofed by damnas > transcript. > i hunted a lot with him and i removed the atonement with him. > still i could bleed with him and did so in a previous round for a whooping > zero. Stefan is right, he never bled me with martin, but if you notice he never bled with everyone, guess who was left defending :) Antoni Morey

"> Wo, wo , wo, hold it man, calm down. Hey I sat right beside him and we maybe i overeacted! > discussed that matter. No need to explode. A simple "I remembered > Martin's flaw and did not bleed like the script will prove" would have > been enough. I apologize for my impression you bled with him. no need to apologize > But hey, this everlasting war between Austrian and French guys sucks > enormously. # yes it does. > I did not want to attack you but to discuss if a spectator should > intervene if he observes a mistake. yoi did not attack me! i think that a spectator should tell the judges if he discovers any wrongdoing and Jo-No should have contacted a judge and told him the suspected mistake. >Because how often a spectator thinks about something is wrong > and actually there isn't. thats why i should tell the judge as quiet as possible stefan

On Sat, 25 Oct 2003 23:01:57 +0200, "Stefan Ferenci" <a950...@nospammmunet.univie.ac.at> scrawled: >>Because how often a spectator thinks about something is wrong >> and actually there isn't. > >thats why i should tell the judge as quiet as possible I, as a judge one time, walked past a table and saw one player had 8 cards in hand. I asked 'is there a reason why you have 8 cards?', the player replied 'erm, Elder Library?' and pointed at their Elder Library.... [ quoted text not captured ]

John Flournoy expounded: > "Johannes Walch" <johanne...@vekn.de> wrote in message news:<bn919f$5lr$05$1...@news.t-online.com>... > > This is an interesting thread for me in my function as next years EC head > > judge and tournament organizer. > > > > I appreciate all comments about seating and randomness of seating, judging > > style and every other aspect related to the organization of the tournament > > (not the event!). > > > > Everybody, shoot now. > > > > I like the idea of total randomness of each rounds seating, though. With a > > big player field there shouldn´t be too much double team ups because of > > sheir probability. It also handles well the case of dropping players because > > you just have a pool of players (=numbers), "shuffle it" and distribute it > > on 4/5 player tables. > > With 171 players there shouldn't need to be ANY double ups, in my > opinion. There's no reason for any player to see the same opponent > twice when you're facing 13 or 14 opponents out of 170 (or some > similarly large number.) I think he meant there shouldn't be too many in the random draw to have to be seperated by hand. I agree entirely with Johannes that this is the best way to go (epsecially for big tournaments). It is also the only legal way to do it ;-P In smaller tournaments it can certainly save on the thinking to use the Archon seating - you can easily miss relationships (cross table for instance) in a random draw on a too-small pool of people (few enough and you are more-or-less forced into the Archon seating orders by the guidelines [which you don't actually have to follow iirc])

LSJ expounded: > No. It is not true that (in a 75-player tournament with three > preliminary rounds) each pair of players seated together at > any table will not also individually face a third player. > That is, there will be some pair of players seated at a given > table whose Bacon Numbers ignoring the table at which they > were seated together is 2. > > Any counter example? What a lovely double negative. I believe you said this: In a 75 player tournament there will inevitably be some pairs of players at the same table such that each has/will faced a third player in another round. True. In the 'pod' arrangement: EVERY pair will hold this relationship to SEVERAL other players. You can't eliminate these relationships completely but that doesn't mean you need to maximise them.

LSJ expounded: > Stefan Ferenci wrote: > > the original archon sucks! since it splits big tourney into groups of 25 > > players the ec was basically an event which consisted of 3 separate tourneys > > and one final. > > Each player played against 12 distinct other players during three rounds. > How would you improve on that (using only three rounds)? > > > so while some will say they saw heavy stealth bleed in their > > part of the tourney i saw a lot of combat and only 1 stealth bleeder!!!! > > One would get the same results no matter what arrangement. There's no way > to play against more than 12 different players in three rounds. Since it's come up again. You can play people who haven't played each other. The problem with a 'pool' of 25 out of the 80 is that you are playing people who have played other people you played when you could be playing totally different people who have only played people who have played people you have played. (or a combination of people from both groups) You can also play people in a random relationship in terms of who has played whom (precluded by using the [VEKN illegal] Archon). It is pretty unlikely that you will get any 'pool' as small as 25 in a random seating (it can't get smaller than 25 with the no repeat opponents rule!) so everyone gets more mixed opposition even if some people's is more mixed than others'. [There is a fairly huge difference between 'random' and 'randomly seeded predetermined pattern'.]

> > With 171 players there shouldn't need to be ANY double ups, in my > > opinion. There's no reason for any player to see the same opponent > > twice when you're facing 13 or 14 opponents out of 170 (or some > > similarly large number.) > > I think he meant there shouldn't be too many in the random draw to have > to be seperated by hand. Actually I was thinking about writing a little computer program which generates a random seating, checks for double ups with previous rounds and if there are some it just generates another random seating until the first "good" seating is found. As a recent computer can check for at least some 1000 seatings per minute it shouldn´t take more than 2-3 minuts to get a result. In the next few weeks I will write such a pogram and do some test benchmarks with it and post the result. Of course this brute-force strategy will only work for a larger number of playes (decreasing probability of double-ups). If one can think of a more intelligent algorithm let me know but I am a hardware guy so I shoot for sheer processing performance instead of clever thinking :-) > I agree entirely with Johannes that this is the best way to go > (epsecially for big tournaments). It is also the only legal way to do it > ;-P I don´t know about legal and stuff, but you are somehow right about the innate shittiness of 25 player pools :-) [snipped from other post] >[There is a fairly huge difference between 'random' and 'randomly seeded >predetermined pattern'.] When I speak of random I am always talking about the 'randomly seeded predetermined pattern' of course, because computers are involved. The mathematical difference is quite big but it should be no visible difference for the tournament organizer ;-))) -- johannes walch v:ekn germany - http://www.vekn.de/

"Stefan Ferenci" <a950...@nospammmunet.univie.ac.at> wrote in message news:<3f997eee$0$13326$3b21...@usenet.univie.ac.at>... > those french guys > spreading lies all around > i never bleed with martin frankel as it will be proofed by damnas > transcript. True. Stefan never bled in final with Martin Frankel in the final, as the report of Damnans will prove it. Please calm down with that "those french guys", it is racism. I don't like some austrians people, and they probably don't like me in return (and they are right lol : it includes outside the players, the neo nazi meeting i have the horror to see in front of the stephansdome cathedral, gulp...)). But I have no problem with the whole population of austria. The thing i have heard from jean noel is "when jay asked stefan how many minions can bleed him, stefan includes martin in his count." It is legal...(not very nice and kind, but do you have to be nice and kind in a ec final ??? ;-) ) I've looked at the final for 145 minutes and i don't see anything illegal. Congratulations for your win, and don't be so fast to make such general and insulting sentences. Kamel SENNI.

Johannes Walch expounded: > Of course this brute-force strategy will only work for a larger number of > playes (decreasing probability of double-ups). If one can think of a more > intelligent algorithm let me know but I am a hardware guy so I shoot for > sheer processing performance instead of clever thinking :-) You could try taking your initial seating and swapping players. 1) Find a bad pair. 2) Pick one 3) Pick a random table. Check for bad pairings between the tables. 4) Eliminate those members of second table that cannot be swapped -if none left pick another table 5) Pick a random good player from 2nd table and swap with player from first 'bad' table. 6) GOTO 1 .. or something. Not sure that this would actually save on the processing though. > [snipped from other post] > >[There is a fairly huge difference between 'random' and 'randomly seeded > >predetermined pattern'.] > > When I speak of random I am always talking about the 'randomly seeded > predetermined pattern' of course, because computers are involved. The > mathematical difference is quite big but it should be no visible difference > for the tournament organizer ;-))) Computer-random is different from Archon-random which I was referring to. I always wondered about computer random though.. can't you just include an input from the clock (the microsecond it gets checked or whatever) to make it genuinely random?

> Computer-random is different from Archon-random which I was referring > to. I always wondered about computer random though.. can't you just > include an input from the clock (the microsecond it gets checked or > whatever) to make it genuinely random? No. Because even with the input of a clock it is just randomly seeded predetermined patterns. The only way of "real" random data in computers are extension cards (e.g PCI) which feature an old-style analogue tube which generates noise. This noise is processed by some A/D converter and more stuff and the result is the best "random" you can get in computers. But as you can imagine this type of hardware is rather expensive, difficult to handle AND most of all unecessary for joe average (like me). [ quoted text not captured ]

Timlagor wrote: > Johannes Walch expounded: > >>Of course this brute-force strategy will only work for a larger number of >>playes (decreasing probability of double-ups). If one can think of a more >>intelligent algorithm let me know but I am a hardware guy so I shoot for >>sheer processing performance instead of clever thinking :-) > > > You could try taking your initial seating and swapping players. > 1) Find a bad pair. > 2) Pick one > 3) Pick a random table. Check for bad pairings between the tables. > 4) Eliminate those members of second table that cannot be swapped -if > none left pick another table > 5) Pick a random good player from 2nd table and swap with player from > first 'bad' table. > 6) GOTO 1 > > .. or something. Not sure that this would actually save on the > processing though. I believe it would generally be better than a 'brute force' method, but it does have some aditional problems (you'd have to be careful of infinite loops, for example). I would propose a different approach though. Instead of starting with a random seating and then try to optimize it, I'd rather start with an optimized seating and then randomize it (maintaining the optimization). On most cases there are a several permutations from the optimal charts that maintain the optimization (or even improve it in some cases, as I've shown in my previous post in this thread). >>[snipped from other post] >> >>>[There is a fairly huge difference between 'random' and 'randomly seeded >>>predetermined pattern'.] >> >>When I speak of random I am always talking about the 'randomly seeded >>predetermined pattern' of course, because computers are involved. The >>mathematical difference is quite big but it should be no visible difference >>for the tournament organizer ;-))) > > > Computer-random is different from Archon-random which I was referring > to. I always wondered about computer random though.. can't you just > include an input from the clock (the microsecond it gets checked or > whatever) to make it genuinely random? That's the 'randomly seeded' part. But if you start with the same input it will produce the same sequence of numbers - the 'predetermined pattern'. I believe you can get a good pseudo-random generators for small samples (as is the case), it's only when you go into the thousands of samples (or more - as required by many physics simulations, for example) that some problems become evident. Flux

Flux expounded: > >>[snipped from other post] > >> > >>>[There is a fairly huge difference between 'random' and 'randomly seeded > >>>predetermined pattern'.] > >> > >>When I speak of random I am always talking about the 'randomly seeded > >>predetermined pattern' of course, because computers are involved. The > >>mathematical difference is quite big but it should be no visible difference > >>for the tournament organizer ;-))) Archon fixes the pattern of player relationships and then seeds it with a random order for the first round. A totally random seating would randomise the pattern as well. I'm obviously unclear on the problems of producing random numbers in computers (assuming random is possible at all ;) but there is a big difference between a pseudo-random seating (computer?) and one that is locked by the seating of the round before (Archon). If you did it with the computer you could randomly see the pattern as well as the original seating. That's the distinction I was trying to make. Hmm I hope that's reasonably clear. > > Computer-random is different from Archon-random which I was referring > > to. I always wondered about computer random though.. can't you just > > include an input from the clock (the microsecond it gets checked or > > whatever) to make it genuinely random? > > That's the 'randomly seeded' part. But if you start with the same input it > will produce the same sequence of numbers - the 'predetermined pattern'. I find this confusing. Suppose you want one random number in a given range. Can this not be achieved? If not: why not? If so: why can't you just repeat that? If a computer can randomise the seed -why shouldn't it randomise the pattern?

Timlagor wrote: > Flux expounded: > >>>>[snipped from other post] >>>> >>>> >>>>>[There is a fairly huge difference between 'random' and 'randomly seeded >>>>>predetermined pattern'.] >>>> >>>>When I speak of random I am always talking about the 'randomly seeded >>>>predetermined pattern' of course, because computers are involved. The >>>>mathematical difference is quite big but it should be no visible difference >>>>for the tournament organizer ;-))) > > > Archon fixes the pattern of player relationships and then seeds it with > a random order for the first round. A totally random seating would > randomise the pattern as well. > > I'm obviously unclear on the problems of producing random numbers in > computers (assuming random is possible at all ;) but there is a big > difference between a pseudo-random seating (computer?) and one that is > locked by the seating of the round before (Archon). > If you did it with the computer you could randomly see the pattern as > well as the original seating. There are limitations to how much 'randomization' you can do though. Consider that for each number of players, there is a finite number of permutations. You have to pick three, but most groupings will be ruled out by the seating rules and guidelines. Most of the ones that are left are actually equal with a simple permutation of the initial seating. This means that in some cases you have no choice, the guidelines force you to a certain pattern of seatings, which is the optimal seating pattern presented by the Archon. However, as the number of players increases, so should the number of valid seatings. > That's the distinction I was trying to make. > Hmm I hope that's reasonably clear. To me you were clear the first time, though you were mathematically imprecise. ;) >>>Computer-random is different from Archon-random which I was referring >>>to. I always wondered about computer random though.. can't you just >>>include an input from the clock (the microsecond it gets checked or >>>whatever) to make it genuinely random? >> >>That's the 'randomly seeded' part. But if you start with the same input it >>will produce the same sequence of numbers - the 'predetermined pattern'. > > > I find this confusing. Suppose you want one random number in a given > range. Can this not be achieved? > If not: why not? > If so: why can't you just repeat that? I think reading the system time (once) is random enough. However, there are problems with doing it repeatedly... (see below) > If a computer can randomise the seed -why shouldn't it randomise the > pattern? Because the program always runs the same way. Imagine getting the random seed from the system clock every time. Since the program always runs the same way, it will always take the same time to pick up the second 'random' seed. So, if the first seed is the same, so will the second, and you're no better off than simply calculating a pattern from the first seed. And, you're quite likely to get the same reading from the system time anyway, unless your program runs really slow. :) Just did a quick test with a simple 'roll dice' program: when seeding every roll from the system time I can get over 100.000 consecutive rolls with the same result. When using a rand() routine, I got different results every time I tested it. Obviously a 'pseudo-random' pattern is preferable. :) Flux

Flux expounded: > There are limitations to how much 'randomization' you can do though. > Consider that for each number of players, there is a finite number of > permutations. You have to pick three, but most groupings will be ruled out > by the seating rules and guidelines. Most of the ones that are left are > actually equal with a simple permutation of the initial seating. > > This means that in some cases you have no choice, the guidelines force you > to a certain pattern of seatings, which is the optimal seating pattern > presented by the Archon. > > However, as the number of players increases, so should the number of valid > seatings. Quite so. Note that the 'guidelines' are not actually VEKN rules (that have to be used) and in fact aren't necessarily legal (you are only allowed to rearrange to avoid repeated Pred-Prey or to seperate people who are at the same table again -not eg move to pred/prey from X-table to avoid that relation repeating). I'm not sure what force the guidelines have but they haven't made it through to the VEKN rules on the website (which they contradict) -or at any rate I can see no sign of them. > > If a computer can randomise the seed -why shouldn't it randomise the > > pattern? > > Because the program always runs the same way. Imagine getting the random > seed from the system clock every time. Since the program always runs the > same way, it will always take the same time to pick up the second 'random' > seed. So, if the first seed is the same, so will the second, and you're no > better off than simply calculating a pattern from the first seed. And, > you're quite likely to get the same reading from the system time anyway, > unless your program runs really slow. :) Hmm. I thought that the clock would be much more precise than that -do you know how small its increments are? I see what you mean though -you would have to press a button for each new random number (as I realised immediately after disconnecting last time :/ -though if the clock were precise enough then there might be interference within the computer [other software etc] to randomise the second number ;D ). Presumably if you have X players that gives something (considerably) less than X! permutations (for a round) and you can select one of those at random with a single keypress without any loss of independence or randomness due to using a program. In this case you are randomly selecting a combination of pattern + seed all at once.