About deals and withdrawing

I'm a bit tired of explaining over and over during games how a deal based on withdrawal can be achieved, so I'll do it here. First of all, it's not dirty doing that. The goal of the game being to have the GW or at least score the more VPs as possible, agreeing to deal with someone in order to get more VP than you could expect by not dealing with him is in the spirit of the game. We'll keep in mind that the tournament rules state that once in duel, all deals are void and players must try to score the more VP possible. The rule also state that once you have the GW, you're free to dispose of the remaining VPs. Finally, if you're in duel but unable to do anything without dying, you maximize your VP by letting the other player withdraw. Let's have an example. Game is A > B > C > D > E. At some point, B and E oust their preys, leaving B, D and E in the game. D is going to be ousted by B, and has no reasonable chance of killing E. D can still get a VP by getting B ousted, then letting E withdraw. How is that possible when deals are void in duel? Many players don't grasp the concept that even when the deals are void, the rules force you to play in order to maximize your points. Sometimes maximizing points mean being clever and withdraw or let the other player withdraw. This can only be done if either player gets the GW, and if the player getting the GW agrees to leave some points to the other player. Suppose D and E have a deal where D spends his resources resisting to B while E ousts B. Once in duel, D and E's deal is void. But D still has no reasonable change of ousting E (perhaps even less since E got 6 pool). E has 2 vp. By withdrawing or letting D withdraw, or reaching the time limit, E has the GW. Option 1 E can torporize/paralyze all of D's minion That case is simple. Once D has no minion left, he can't stop E from withdrawing. E scores GW 2.5, D scores 1 VP Option 2 D is at 1 pool, E can oust D anytime (E plays stealth, D has no intercept). This case is tricky because it's based on what E could do. But if D has 99.9% chances of being ousted if he takes any offensive action against E, D maximizes his victory points by withdrawing, or letting E withdraw. Option 3 D has no reasonable chances of ousting E, but those chances are much greater if E empties his library in order to attempt to withdraw In that case, E will ask D to withdraw (otherwise, E will just oust D). D gets 0.5 VP which is better than 0. Option 4 There's not enough time left for D to oust E. If E attempts to withdraw and succeeds, D will get 1 VP instead of 0.5 for time limit. D can let E withdraw. Duels can and should be prepared while there's still a third player on the table and while the deals are still legal. The idea is that once only 2 players are left in the game, one of them have no other option than withdrawing in order to maximize his VPs while the other gets the GW. Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

> Ankha wrote: > First of all, it's not dirty doing that. The goal of the game being to have the GW or at least score the more VPs as possible, agreeing to deal with someone in order to get more VP than you could expect by not dealing with him is in the spirit of the game. > Ok. Imagine V:tes as a sports tournament. " - I will sit there looking at you while you score your points. Oh, and if you can make a small move, like scoring against yourself, just so i have one point, it would be cool". - Excuse me referee, why are those people not really fighting ? - But no sir, rest assured that they are playing by the rules !" Please tell me how the rules are different in vtes. Please tell me about sportsmanship. Please tell me that letting another player win is "maximizing" anything, really. You don't see me in tournaments ? But why, I'd love to sit there while other players are splitting the table on the basis one of them has a completely useless deck Imagination is our only weapon in the war against reality -Jules de Gaultier

> Reyda wrote: > Ok. > Imagine V:tes as a sports tournament. > " - I will sit there looking at you while you score your points. Oh, and if you can make a small move, like scoring against yourself, just so i have one point, it would be cool". > - Excuse me referee, why are those people not really fighting ? > - But no sir, rest assured that they are playing by the rules !" > > Please tell me how the rules are different in vtes. Please tell me about sportsmanship. Please tell me that letting another player win is "maximizing" anything, really. > Problem is, I don't see the relation between what you say and what Ankha say. That Ankha say something is possible and allowed does not mean that something else -in another sport, no less- is also possible and allowed > Reyda wrote: > You don't see me in tournaments ? But why, I'd love to sit there while other players are splitting the table on the basis one of them has a completely useless deck > And you see people making deal with useless decks ? In the world where I play, people deals with other player that can actually contribute to their victory.

> Ohlmann wrote: > That Ankha say something is possible and allowed does not mean that something else -in another sport, no less- is also possible and allowed > name me a game where king making or playing to lose is recommended and kindly viewed by the judges ? > Ohlmann wrote: > And you see people making deal with useless decks ? In the world where I play, people deals with other player that can actually contribute to their victory. > I think you are lying a bit. Most of the time people make losing deals because they can't handle another deck. Like in "ok, i know you could bleed me out, so let's split the table". Or "If you rush me I am dead, so please let me have 1 or 2 VP, I give you the table". Their inability to face a threat or build a deck with sufficient defense leads to kingmaking. PEOPLE Y U NO MAKE BALANCED DECKS ? But sure it's better to stuff your deck with 8 Parity, 10 Zillah, mass obfuscate and tell yourself that if there is combat around, you can still have 2 VP by dealing your way out. I think it hurts Vtes, but hey, it's just one random guy's opinion B-) Imagination is our only weapon in the war against reality -Jules de Gaultier

> Reyda wrote: > name me a game where king making or playing to lose is recommended and kindly viewed by the judges ? > Except it's neither case here, which is what you convieniently forget. Both player gain in a not-idiotic deal, which is what Ankha talk about. So there is no playing to lose to anyone involved. It's only prevent itself from being betrayed at the end. It's not kingmaking either, because the main thing in kingmaking is that people choose the winner when they cannot win anything. Here, there is important VP to make. Also, you forgot a big part of kingmaking : you cannot avoid it. If D can make a deal to "kingmake" A, it also mean he kingmake for another one if he do nothing. > > Reyda wrote: > I think you are lying a bit. > Oh, yes, I forgot, when people don't agree with you, it's because they lie or are troll. > > Reyda wrote: > Most of the time people make losing deals because they can't handle another deck. Like in "ok, i know you could bleed me out, so let's split the table". Or "If you rush me I am dead, so please let me have 1 or 2 VP, I give you the table". > Their inability to face a threat or build a deck with sufficient defense leads to kingmaking. > So, in short, you think that people trying to maximize their points (because of initial bad decision, I concede you that) is both a bad play and bad for the game ? VtES is not a duel game. If you're angry that people actually negociate and do deal to make the best of a bad situation, play something else. Seriously : multiplayer strategy, deal, and betrayal are a good part of what make VtES interesting. Don't do bad analogy because you are frustrated you can lose because two people gang up on you.

> Ohlmann wrote: > > > Reyda wrote: > > name me a game where king making or playing to lose is recommended and kindly viewed by the judges ? > > > Except it's neither case here, which is what you convieniently forget. > > Both player gain in a not-idiotic deal, which is what Ankha talk about. So there is no playing to lose to anyone involved. It's only prevent itself from being betrayed at the end. > > It's not kingmaking either, because the main thing in kingmaking is that people choose the winner when they cannot win anything. Here, there is important VP to make. > 1- the deals are not idiotic, the tournament rules are. 2- It is in fact kingmaking. By agreeing to be on the lose end of a deal, you are playing to lose. The fact that you gain 1 or 2 VP while someone else grabs GW3 makes you playing to lose, not playing to win. And that is a FACT my dear, not an opinion. > Ohlmann wrote: > > > Reyda wrote: > > I think you are lying a bit. > > > Oh, yes, I forgot, when people don't agree with you, it's because they lie or are troll. > Not really. I said you were lying a bit because you conveniently forgot to mention all the games where one of the players just abandons all will to fight and decide to bleed or rush cross table, thus ruining the game of 3 other players who just as badly wan the game win. But if you want to take it personnaly, then fine ! > Ohlmann wrote: > > > Reyda wrote: > > Most of the time people make losing deals because they can't handle another deck. Like in "ok, i know you could bleed me out, so let's split the table". Or "If you rush me I am dead, so please let me have 1 or 2 VP, I give you the table". > > Their inability to face a threat or build a deck with sufficient defense leads to kingmaking. > > > So, in short, you think that people trying to maximize their points (because of initial bad decision, I concede you that) is both a bad play and bad for the game ? > In a sense, yes. It's exactly what I wrote, and I don't really understand the need for reiteration. > Ohlmann wrote: > VtES is not a duel game. > Well thank you, I did not realize that. do you realize this kind of comment is of condescending nature ? Talking about trolling... I expressed a sincere opinion, but you feel the need to pass them as ridiculous. Did you think for a minute about the real implication of this idea of no table-split instead of dismissing the idea as an heresy ? But sure, I am certainly not able to think outside the trollbox. > Ohlmann wrote: > If you're angry that people actually negociate and do deal to make the best of a bad situation, play something else. Seriously : multiplayer strategy, deal, and betrayal are a good part of what make VtES interesting. > > Don't do bad analogy because you are frustrated you can lose because two people gang up on you. > Oh sure, let's make it personal again ! It's just because I am an angry and frustrated person of course. It's absolutely not because I think something may be wrong here. Again, it's a random guy's opinion. Does it trouble you so much so you have to rely on such arguments ? Do you have any interesting things to declare at all in favor of table splitting deals or will you just continue your armchair analysis on me forever ? Imagination is our only weapon in the war against reality -Jules de Gaultier

Hey Reyda, we both know we have different view of the game. You prefer to score 0 VP if you can't get the GW. For my part, *I* find unsportsmanlike not to act according the goal of the game which is to "accumulate the most victory points" (rulebook, chapter 1). Such a player is unreliable and spoils the game, just like any player who doesn't play to win. The only case where I could agree with you is when the player accepting the deal is a bad player manipulated by the other player that is *wrongly* convinced he can't do more points just by himself. But this is no more or no less than the displeasure of playing with a bad player. But we've already discussed of this so it's pointless to continue here. Your example is nonsensical because you're comparing VTES to duel games. VTES is a multiplayer game, and the only game I can think of where scoring points even if you don't win has an importance. If you want to compare VTES to other games, find relevant games. As a final note, withdrawing is not always the best strategy as you may not be in finals because of the VP you left behind. Anyway, the topic was about "how to withdraw", not "is is moral to withdraw or not" (since it's perfectly legal according to the rules). Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

> Reyda wrote: > 2- It is in fact kingmaking. By agreeing to be on the lose end of a deal, you are playing to lose. The fact that you gain 1 or 2 VP while someone else grabs GW3 makes you playing to lose, not playing to win. And that is a FACT my dear, not an opinion. > Well, it's not a fact either, no matter how you try to put it. Except maybe on finals In VtES, you're playing for maximum victory point, even if you don't like that. It's both in the rule and for tie breaking after GW for final Now, you can stop stupid comparison, and state directly your position : "I want people to only play for the first place on the current table and nothing else should matter, especially not trying to actually be in the final". Which you didn't do. You just said that it was unsportmanship to do that, which it isn't. (and by the way, even if we change the rule so that only GW count, not doing anything and/or not doing deal is kingmaking in the exact same way, just not for the benefit of the same player) > Reyda wrote: > In a sense, yes. It's exactly what I wrote, and I don't really understand the need for reiteration. > So, it has nothing to do with sportmanship, since the bad attitude consist to trying to win.

> Ohlmann wrote: > > > Reyda wrote: > > 2- It is in fact kingmaking. By agreeing to be on the lose end of a deal, you are playing to lose. The fact that you gain 1 or 2 VP while someone else grabs GW3 makes you playing to lose, not playing to win. And that is a FACT my dear, not an opinion. > > > Well, it's not a fact either, no matter how you try to put it. Except maybe on finals > > In VtES, you're playing for maximum victory point, even if you don't like that. It's both in the rule and for tie breaking after GW for final > Would you be surprised if I tell you i fracking know this ? The problem is : why then not systematically make an alliance with the strongest so you scavenge 2 VP out of your *defeat* ? Oh wait : that's what most people do in tournaments. Can you tell me if it is intuitive to you, that in most tournament you have to gain one table, and just beg for crumbles to get to the finals ? I know how tournament works. I played tournaments. I played tournaments before you went into V:tes, maybe. I saw tournament rules change too. I went to finals, with old and new rules. I won tournaments with old and new rules (and 100% of the time without table splitting, mind you). I am in the oh-so-cool vtes hall of fame, so maybe you could give me some credit ? Is it because i am angry and frustrated that i post this, rather than wanting for something better ? No, but it is your conclusion, and i can't do a damn thing about it. > Now, you can stop stupid comparison, and state directly your position : "I want people to only play for the first place on the current table and nothing else should matter, especially not trying to actually be in the final". Which you didn't do. You just said that it was unsportmanship to do that, which it isn't. > I am trying to point something that amounts to a flaw : you are supposed to sit at a table to win a game, in most games. Why should vtes have an exception clause to reward someone from losing ? I am asking a question, I am saying that i think something is wrong. You could chose to ignore me, yet you are biting on my sack as if i made a "your mom" joke. You are incredible, man. Does it offend you so much that I may think differently than you do about tournament rules ? If it is the case, why not provide good arguments in favor of Table splitting ? What were you doing the last two posts ? > (and by the way, even if we change the rule so that only GW count, not doing anything and/or not doing deal is kingmaking in the exact same way, just not for the benefit of the same player) > Oh. So this is your argument ? May I tell you that I think you are lying a bit here ? But no, you might not understand, and it will give you another opportunity to belittle your interlocutor instead of trying to use your brain for, you know, reasoning. > Ohlmann wrote: > > > Reyda wrote: > > In a sense, yes. It's exactly what I wrote, and I don't really understand the need for reiteration. > > > So, it has nothing to do with sportmanship, since the bad attitude consist to trying to win. > UNDER CURRENT TOURNAMENT RULES. Let me put that in caps for you because you are clearly not understanding. Man, I've seen more calm and interesting talks on m:tg forums, which is quite something. Is it even possible to have a civil and constructive discussion here ? Can we discuss about the tournament rules or is it a taboo ? Did i offend anyone's god or creed by just saying "there maybe something wrong with current tournament rules" ? Imagination is our only weapon in the war against reality -Jules de Gaultier

> Ankha wrote: > Hey Reyda, we both know we have different view of the game. You prefer to score 0 VP if you can't get the GW. > > For my part, *I* find unsportsmanlike not to act according the goal of the game which is to "accumulate the most victory points" (rulebook, chapter 1). Such a player is unreliable and spoils the game, just like any player who doesn't play to win. > It's not really true : i am not willing to split a table, but i will play the game the way it is designed. I will attempt to kill my preys in successive order to obtain the game win because i think it's the right thing to do. you say that not willing to split tables is unsportsmalike. I say negating 3 other players by ruining their games to offer the game to a person in a stronger position is what's unsportsmanlike. Allow me to disagree here. > The only case where I could agree with you is when the player accepting the deal is a bad player manipulated by the other player that is *wrongly* convinced he can't do more points just by himself. > Fine. But how do you draw the line ? > But we've already discussed of this so it's pointless to continue here. > we discussed it on the french forum. I think it's okay to talk about here. Some people here may have different opinions ? Any way, a forum is for discussion with other players, so why not discuss about it ? > Your example is nonsensical because you're comparing VTES to duel games. VTES is a multiplayer game, and the only game I can think of where scoring points even if you don't win has an importance. If you want to compare VTES to other games, find relevant games. > I am not. I play multiplayer boardgames, that allow you to finish 2nd. Is it cool to finish second ? Yes, sure. Better than last. But you are not supposed to do all you can to help the first player achieve his goal in order to secure your second place. You are supposed to give the best of yourself to finish first : that's sportsmanship. If we apply the vtes tournament rules to other games, then suddelny they are not worth playing anymore. There is a basis of vtes: prey-predator relationship. Garfield, designer of vtes explained he did not want to have a multiplayer game were "ganking on the first" was the norm, since those interactions were unbalanced. The current tournament rules have, again in my opinion, a giant loophole that makes it "pleasing and serving the first for crumbles". Is it the way the game was designed ? I strongly think not. And I also think it affects the metagame in a dramatic way but that's another story. > As a final note, withdrawing is not always the best strategy as you may not be in finals because of the VP you left behind. > > Anyway, the topic was about "how to withdraw", not "is is moral to withdraw or not" (since it's perfectly legal according to the rules). > According to the rules. That changed in the past. That may change again. But before that, it's worth discussing. Imagination is our only weapon in the war against reality -Jules de Gaultier

Never lay down for anybody. Always play for the game win, not for vp's. If you have to die, die gracefully, and do not drag others down (unless they effin deserved it). Always remember who dealbroke, and make them pay, that way less people will dealbreak you. Play to win. Have fun. There is no fun in gaining one measly vp opposed to burning out in a blaze of glory trying to get it all. Just some personal preferences, a simple 2 pool from a dedicated assamite player. Carry on

> Pendargon wrote: > Always remember who dealbroke, and make them pay, that way less people will dealbreak you. > NIT: This is illegal if done in any game other than the one in which the deal was broken. Kevin M., Prince of Las Vegas "Know your enemy and know yourself; in one-thousand battles you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, *The Art of War* "Contentment...Complacency...Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier Please visit VTESville daily! vtesville.myminicity.com/ Facebook: www.facebook.com/groups/129744447064017

it's only illegal if you can't find an excuse for it!!!!

> Ankha wrote: > Suppose D and E have a deal where D spends his resources resisting to B while E ousts B. > Once in duel, D and E's deal is void. But D still has no reasonable change of ousting E (perhaps even less since E got 6 pool). > E has 2 vp. By withdrawing or letting D withdraw, or reaching the time limit, E has the GW.[/b] > What kind of deal is that? D would do that anyway, right? > Option 1 > E can torporize/paralyze all of D's minion > That case is simple. Once D has no minion left, he can't stop E from withdrawing. E scores GW 2.5, D scores 1 VP > E would score 4 VP if just ousted D, so why do anything else? > Option 2 > D is at 1 pool, E can oust D anytime (E plays stealth, D has no intercept). > This case is tricky because it's based on what E could do. But if D has 99.9% chances of being ousted if he takes any offensive action against E, D maximizes his victory points by withdrawing, or letting E withdraw. > E would score 4 VP if just ousted D, so why do anything else? > Option 3 > D has no reasonable chances of ousting E, but those chances are much greater if E empties his library in order to attempt to withdraw > In that case, E will ask D to withdraw (otherwise, E will just oust D). D gets 0.5 VP which is better than 0. > E would score 4 VP if just ousted D, so why do anything else? > Option 4 > There's not enough time left for D to oust E. > If E attempts to withdraw and succeeds, D will get 1 VP instead of 0.5 for time limit. D can let E withdraw. > You haven't said why E is withdrawing, but O.K. > Duels can and should be prepared while there's still a third player on the table and while the deals are still legal. > I am sensing the gist of this to justify, D kingmaking E over B.

> KevinM wrote: > > > Pendargon wrote: > > Always remember who dealbroke, and make them pay, that way less people will dealbreak you. > > > NIT: This is illegal if done in any game other than the one in which the deal was broken. > No it ain't. Lying douchebag A : " Why you are rushing me crosstable with your first action" Me : (silence) " anything before range?" Lying douchebag A : " Juuuudge!!! whinewhinewhien" Judde (takes me away, asks in confidence) : "Why are you rushing him crosstable with your first action?" Me : "I strongly and utmostly and unshakeably believe that i will most easily achieve my game win if he dies first on this table." Judge : " Ok, carry on."

Fact is: there are not many ways to make it work differently. Kingmaking is part of any interactive multiplayer game. You can make it less relevant by removing second place, but then you cannot run tournaments. After 3 rounds, there is a high probability that several players have the number of GWs, so a tie breaker is needed. Heck, even with the current GW+VP+TP system, it still comes down to a coin toss sometimes. So VPs are needed in the formula and as long as you have VPs, you will have kingmaking and table splitting deals. Here are two possible options: 1) Get rid of withdrawing altogether. It adds nothing to the game and is never used except in table splitting deals. There is a reason it was downgraded to 0.5VPs in the tournament rules. 2) Change the PTW rules to force a player to maximise his VPs even if he has the GW, so that the duel must always be played out. That would actually fit the tournament definition of winning better since VPs are a part of tournament scoring. 1GW5 is better than 1GW3, that should reflect in the PTW definition. Table splitting deals would still be possible, but everyone in the deal would have to earn their own VPs by ousting non-cooperative preys.

Thank you for all the suggestions. and yes, i am inclined to see the withdraw as part of the loophole. I like the original mechanism but in practice, in tournament play it is almost impossible to withdraw except if your predator willingly lets you go. Imagination is our only weapon in the war against reality -Jules de Gaultier

In tournaments I have only withdrawn succesfully once. I was playing Assamites, loss + something and my Harbringer predator was slaughterhousing my deck as fast as he could. story short: my deck was exhausted by turn 8, but I had managed to store 4 Nest of Eagles in my hand. Declare withdrawal, do nothing and reduce my predators 3 bleed actions to 0.

> Pendargon wrote: > > > KevinM wrote: > > > > > Pendargon wrote: > > > Always remember who dealbroke, and make them pay, that way less people will dealbreak you. > > > > > NIT: This is illegal if done in any game other than the one in which the deal was broken. > > > No it ain't. > > Lying douchebag A : " Why you are rushing me crosstable with your first action" > Me : (silence) " anything before range?" > Lying douchebag A : " Juuuudge!!! whinewhinewhien" > Judde (takes me away, asks in confidence) : "Why are you rushing him crosstable with your first action?" > Me : "I strongly and utmostly and unshakeably believe that i will most easily achieve my game win if he dies first on this table." > Judge : " Ok, carry on." > Oh, you're correct. I forgot that some players are just fucking idiots. I withdraw my former statement. Get back at me in another game all you like. Enjoy losing. Kevin M., Prince of Las Vegas "Know your enemy and know yourself; in one-thousand battles you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, *The Art of War* "Contentment...Complacency...Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier Please visit VTESville daily! vtesville.myminicity.com/ Facebook: www.facebook.com/groups/129744447064017

yes, some players are just fucking idiots, like you are kevin

Well... That escalated quickly. Is it possible to talk about deals, in a friendly way ? Imagination is our only weapon in the war against reality -Jules de Gaultier

> Reyda wrote: > Well... That escalated quickly. > > Is it possible to talk about deals, in a friendly way ? > This should tell you that many players strongly feel that, at it's heart, V:TES is a game of table politics. Not because it gets them cheap wins but because it's fun, intriguing and adds an exponential layer of depth to the game. A player with a "prey-is-to-the-left" mentality only has to interact with the players next to him. A table politician, on the other hand, has to not only interact with every player at the table but recognize who and how those players are or should be interacting with each other as well. I feel doing well in this area is the defining feature of a good tournament player, as it can even the odds against getting randomly screwed by table seating or, conversely, deal with table hate when you're clearly in the strongest position. If this element was removed, games would probably be dictated less by players and more by seating and deck strength than they are now. Of course, many players hold the opposite view and I have nothing but respect for them. If someone doesn't want to negotiate, fine, that doesn't take anything away from me. I would only ask that they acknowledge table politics as a valid and, at least to some, enjoyable way to play the game. I'd even encourage trying it themselves to see what they're missing out on. If they still don't like it, discuss the issue with the playgroup and try to find some sort of compromise. For example, I would object to legislating crosstable dealing out of the game but have no strong feelings one way or the other about withdrawing.

> Pendargon wrote: > yes, some players are just fucking idiots, like you are kevin > The example was a player who chooses to use his first action to go cross-table to get revenge on someone from a prior game, instead of going against his prey or predator and advancing his game. Generally, these players lose badly, because they're playing badly, because they aren't playing the game, they're playing some other game. And in losing in that way, losing by playing "I'm a poor sport" instead of playing "V:TES", they are acting like idiots. I'll not hurl personal insults upon you and instead ask you to advance the discussion, if you wish: Do you disagree with what I have said here? Kevin M., Prince of Las Vegas "Know your enemy and know yourself; in one-thousand battles you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, *The Art of War* "Contentment...Complacency...Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier Please visit VTESville daily! vtesville.myminicity.com/ Facebook: www.facebook.com/groups/129744447064017

I will first apologize to nice members of the forum for what i am about to write. But it is my impression that Kevin will understand what i am trying to convey only if i stoop to his level and put it to him his way. Sorry all. no Kevin, it is NOT whar you said. You said : "Oh, you're correct. I forgot that some players are just fucking idiots. I withdraw my former statement. Get back at me in another game all you like. Enjoy losing." Who the fuck gives you the right to call anyone a fucking idiot? What are you, self appointed messiah of VTES? I just about had it with your nasty remarks and deplorable attitude on these forums, condescending, rude and downright insulting. And don't try to strawman argument this one, or divert the topic. I am sick and tired of your tirades and keyboard-warrior type sniveling know-it-all. If you made that remark to me live you would be sucking on a soup with a straw, and trying to wank off with your feet for a couple of weeks. Sp grow up, grow a pair and suck on a lemon, or get some basic manners for crying out loud.

> Pendargon wrote: > Sp grow up, grow a pair and suck on a lemon, or get some basic manners for crying out loud. > Considering you wrote "Always remember who dealbroke, and make them pay, that way less people will dealbreak you." which clearly means you would encourage a non-PTW-style of playing does not really go well with the attitude of encouraging people to grow up. Either play according to the rules or don't play at all. Note: I'm not calling you an idiot, I have no idea of how you are as a person whatsoever. I do, however, find the vengence perspective insulting to those who play to win. Regardless of what you think of deals and whether playing for a GW should be the only goal in a game (as opposed to GW, or maximizing VP if GW is not an option), playing to get revenge is not an option.

> Pendargon wrote: > I just about had it with... > And yet you keep talking to me. > Pendargon wrote: > If you made that remark to me live you would be sucking on a soup with a straw, and trying to wank off with your feet for a couple of weeks. > And yet, I have never threatened anyone with violence, as you just did. In fact, I've never heard of such a threat of violence in VTES, online or in-person, ever. Let's all remember that, shall we? If you call players who go cross-table for revenge from a previous game "fucking idiots" then Pendargon will threaten you with physical violence. No matter how much you dislike someone, their attitude, or their philosophy, there's no reason to threaten them with physical violence. Kevin M., Prince of Las Vegas "Know your enemy and know yourself; in one-thousand battles you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, *The Art of War* "Contentment...Complacency...Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier Please visit VTESville daily! vtesville.myminicity.com/ Facebook: www.facebook.com/groups/129744447064017

> KevinM wrote: > > > Pendargon wrote: > > I just about had it with... > > > And yet you keep talking to me. > > > Pendargon wrote: > > If you made that remark to me live you would be sucking on a soup with a straw, and trying to wank off with your feet for a couple of weeks. > > > And yet, I have never threatened anyone with violence, as you just did. In fact, I've never heard of such a threat of violence in VTES, online or in-person, ever. > > Let's all remember that, shall we? If you call players who go cross-table for revenge from a previous game "fucking idiots" then Pendargon will threaten you with physical violence. > > No matter how much you dislike someone, their attitude, or their philosophy, there's no reason to threaten them with physical violence. > no, i do not keep talking to you. I responded to you when you clearly tried to divert topic instead of saying " i was outta line, i am sorry" but no, that would not be you, now would it, mister I-am-always-right-and-everyone-else-is-always-wrong-and-i-get-to-insult-everyone. Many, MANY posters here tried to reason and talk nicely to you over the course of existance of this forums, and tried to divert your attention that your language and attitude is disgusting and deplorable. Yet you continue to plod along, not paying heed to anybody but your own selfish keyboard wanking. So, it is my deepest belief that ONLY by explaining it to you on the most basic level would get to your head. And it appears i am succeeding in it.

So, in order to bring this back to the topic on hand and less about whatever personal problem two of the forum posters have (and should be handled elsewhere) ... Wedge is exactly right, which is the logical point that was being made to Ankha in the actual game that his (nearly accurate) scenario represents. Thank you, Wedge

> Wedge wrote: > > > Ankha wrote: > > Suppose D and E have a deal where D spends his resources resisting to B while E ousts B. > > Once in duel, D and E's deal is void. But D still has no reasonable change of ousting E (perhaps even less since E got 6 pool). > > E has 2 vp. By withdrawing or letting D withdraw, or reaching the time limit, E has the GW.[/b] > > > What kind of deal is that? D would do that anyway, right? > D has two options: - getting killed by B trying (with little chance of success) to oust E. If E is weakened in the process, D is actually "king-making" player B - agreeing with E to resist to B in exchange of a VP. D is actually "king-making" player E, but gets a VP in the process. D is lost anyway, so any of his actions is helping either of the two winning players. D could also deal with B, but it's much harder since B must have a deck capable of back-ousting. > Wedge wrote: > > > Option 1 > > E can torporize/paralyze all of D's minion > > That case is simple. Once D has no minion left, he can't stop E from withdrawing. E scores GW 2.5, D scores 1 VP > > > E would score 4 VP if just ousted D, so why do anything else? > Because of the previous agreement. Even though all deals are void, since E has the GW he can choose to leave D 1 VP. D on the other must try to oust E, unless it's not possible (that's why I stated that preparing the duel is important). > Wedge wrote: > Option 2 > E would score 4 VP if just ousted D, so why do anything else? > Option 3 > E would score 4 VP if just ousted D, so why do anything else? > Same as above. > Wedge wrote: > > > Option 4 > > > You haven't said why E is withdrawing, but O.K. > Because it's the same for him, and he may give the remaning VP to D as long as he has the GW (but this can be a little risky). > Wedge wrote: > > > Duels can and should be prepared while there's still a third player on the table and while the deals are still legal. > > > I am sensing the gist of this to justify, D kingmaking E over B. > D "kingmakes" B or E anyway, so it's better for him to get a VP in the process. Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

> Wedge wrote: > Option 1 > E can torporize/paralyze all of D's minion > That case is simple. Once D has no minion left, he can't stop E from withdrawing. E scores GW 2.5, D scores 1 VP > > E would score 4 VP if just ousted D, so why do anything else? > > Because of the previous agreement. Even though all deals are void, since E has the GW he can choose to leave D 1 VP. > E does NOT have the GW. E has 2 VP in a game that has 2 unresolved VP's in it. In order for E to maximize his VP's he must attempt to oust D or go to time trying. Choosing to leave D 1 VP will win him the game but is not maximizing his VP's: 4 by ousting is more than 2.5 by letting D withdraw or withdrawing himself.

That is not how the tournament rules are currently written. > Tournament wrote: > For tournaments, playing to win means playing to get a Game Win if it is reasonably possible, and when a Game Win is not reasonably possible, then playing to get as many Victory Points as possible. > Although it is indubitably a worse result for the tournament, E has the right to prefer a GW2.5 to a GW4. In the tournament rounds, the PTW rule does not match the definition of winning.

Still has nothing to do with this "agreement" that is void. 4 is better for him in every way (and it seems he can do it easily, through the example) and there is no deal to honor. So as Matt has stated "Why do anything else?".

I just realized why I get annoyed trying to get into these strategy discussions. I always think there might be something interesting involved when most of the time it's really not much. Like this one. Basically Ankha stated that in this crappy situation one should make a deal that, hope against hope, your prey will toss you a bone for all your trouble of not dying to your predator, though he is not obligated at all to do. If he honors it, great!! If he doesn't, oh well you weren't getting anything the other way at all. And your prey isn't breaking any agreement, so Pendargon won't crosstable rush him next game, and Kevin won't call him a "fucking idiot" and be subsequently "sipping soup through a straw" and everybody's happy!

> Non-existant user wrote: > That is not how the tournament rules are currently written. > > > Tournament wrote: > > For tournaments, playing to win means playing to get a Game Win if it is reasonably possible, and when a Game Win is not reasonably possible, then playing to get as many Victory Points as possible. > > > Although it is indubitably a worse result for the tournament, E has the right to prefer a GW2.5 to a GW4. In the tournament rounds, the PTW rule does not match the definition of winning. > So, just throwing this out there... What if Game Wins were only awarded when there is a "last man standing?" It would put the premium back on earning VPs and thus making the game come to a conclusion faster (so a GW could then be awarded as well). This would break some of the contradictions that Boris mentions (though it's a bit off topic for this withdraw discussion, except in the context of finishing the game. It would also truly invalidate any deals in the two-player game since getting more VPs (and faster) is ALWAYS a good thing. When you are anvil, be patient; when a hammer, strike. pckvtes.wordpress.com @pckvtes

> Jeff wrote: > > > Non-existant user wrote: > > That is not how the tournament rules are currently written. > > > > > Tournament wrote: > > > For tournaments, playing to win means playing to get a Game Win if it is reasonably possible, and when a Game Win is not reasonably possible, then playing to get as many Victory Points as possible. > > > > > Although it is indubitably a worse result for the tournament, E has the right to prefer a GW2.5 to a GW4. In the tournament rounds, the PTW rule does not match the definition of winning. > > > So, just throwing this out there... > > What if Game Wins were only awarded when there is a "last man standing?" > > It would put the premium back on earning VPs and thus making the game come to a conclusion faster (so a GW could then be awarded as well). This would break some of the contradictions that Boris mentions (though it's a bit off topic for this withdraw discussion, except in the context of finishing the game. It would also truly invalidate any deals in the two-player game since getting more VPs (and faster) is ALWAYS a good thing. > Question is: is it bad that a deal where E scores GW 2.5 in order to give 1 VP to D? Is it worth changing the tournament rules? For my part (and apparently some of you disagree), I like it that way. Even when situation is desesperate, if there's still hope, you are (or D is in my example) still in the game. You can't win because your predator has a deck that screws yours? Your predator has crashed on your vampires and is now dead while you struggle to survive? There's always a possibility to deal, bargain, make clever choices. "Your prey is on the left, bwaaaah, kill it" is the exact opposite of that, and can be very annoying (especially when it brings nothing to the player crashing himself on his prey while his predator just wait for the moment to strike and take 2 VPs). Some people (usually the same that thinks that D should try ousting E and die in the process) miss that psychologic point. Why on earth does D want his VP? Why doesn't he die? Why doesn't he take pleasure in being crushed and denied his chances? Because he plays to win. Without fighting spirit, the game would be dull. Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

> Ankha wrote: > Question is: is it bad that a deal where E scores GW 2.5 in order to give 1 VP to D? > Is it worth changing the tournament rules? > The problem is not E giving away a VP, it is E and D not fighting it out when they are the only ones left. It is a bad thing that the game is not played to the end and it is worth correcting. If it wasn't, then why cancel deals in the duel in the first place?

> Question is: is it bad that a deal where E scores GW 2.5 in order to give 1 VP to D? > Bad for who? It could be bad for E too "keep" a non-existent deal that reduces his total V.P.'s by 1.5 > > Is it worth changing the tournament rules? > No > > Some people (usually the same that thinks that D should try ousting E and die in the process) miss that psychologic point. Why on earth does D want his VP? > D has presumably been trying to get his V.P. (oust E) for over an hour. What possible reason is there for him to help E (likely a higher sead) get in the finals? > > Why doesn't he die? > Because he is hoping his prey who has been able to stop all game long will be his prey again in the finals? > > Why doesn't he take pleasure in being crushed and denied his chances? > Denied by E. > > Because he plays to win. Without fighting spirit, the game would be dull. > 1 V.P. is not a win. Now, IF E chose to honor the deal and D waited for E to deplete his library/hand and then take it to him, that would be playing to win. I for one would not make the deal, because I do not believe anyone would honor it.

> Ankha wrote: > . Without fighting spirit, the game would be dull. > There so much to say about this last sentence... Is crawling through a whole game to get one vp in the end what you really call " fighting spirit" ? Imagination is our only weapon in the war against reality -Jules de Gaultier

So, I'm about to sum up what some of you said. be warned, it maybe the longest post of the vekn universe ! > Ankha wrote: > I'm a bit tired of explaining over and over during games how a deal based on withdrawal can be achieved, so I'll do it here. > > First of all, it's not dirty doing that. The goal of the game being to have the GW or at least score the more VPs as possible, agreeing to deal with someone in order to get more VP than you could expect by not dealing with him is in the spirit of the game. > Ok, why the need in the first place to explaine it's not dirty ? Is it because it somewhat counter intuitive to decide to play to make someone else win ? Again, I am just asking a question, being devil's advocate. I like this game as much as you do. Then, you claim that dealing is the spirit of the game. I tend to disagree. If it's the spirit of the game, why is there no printed card that is specifically about deals ? I think the "small deals" like "you rescue me, if i try to block una" which bound the players during one or two turns, are great. But the deals that bounds 2 players toward splitting the table are a fabrication of tournament players. They do not exist in the original game. They developped at some point because some influential players needed it. At first, there was a lot of discussion about collusion, "I make an alliance with this guy from my playgroup", because it's easier than to rely on a stranger. Then, the practice spread and evolved a bit, so most "strong players" tended to rely on them. They are not the spirit of the game, but they became a standard in tournaments, which I think is a different thing. > Ankha wrote: > For my part, *I* find unsportsmanlike not to act according the goal of the game which is to "accumulate the most victory points" (rulebook, chapter 1). Such a player is unreliable and spoils the game, just like any player who doesn't play to win. > In the contrary, I think a players that does not want to risk anything and deals spoils the game. Ok, you have a fighting prey. choice 1 : you make a deal, he gains 3, you gain 2. choice 2 : you ask for rescue, you drain his blood, you block with empty vamps so he cannot taste... Until he eventually he deck runs out of steam. that, my friend, is better for the game. Players playing theirs decks. Players outwitting their opponents in their quest for the game win. the problem with those deals that chose a king and a servant : they destroy normal interaction. You look at a v:tes table seconds after a deal, suddelny you see people bleeding, rushing, shifting cross table. You may have, by influencing the right vamps, discarded the right cards, a perfect defense for your predator and prey, but someone who is supposedly a temporary ally now steals 10 pool from you and there is nothing you can do. You may try to prevent that by drawing and using resources from your deck, but they may then not be present when you want to strike your predator or prey. So, most deals are negating what is the heart of v:tes : deck building and clever choice of actions. The game is now something like diplomacy, where your silver tongue is better than your deck. This is something i regret, and it why i don't really want to go to tournaments anymore. Again, it's a personnal opinion. > Ankha wrote: > The only case where I could agree with you is when the player accepting the deal is a bad player manipulated by the other player that is *wrongly* convinced he can't do more points just by himself. But this is no more or no less than the displeasure of playing with a bad player. > You still did not answer : where do you draw the line ? Any good player can convince a "lesser" player (god i hate those terms) into dealing with him. It's good to have a puppet on the table, but when did it become the main goal of v:tes ? I'd rather have a bad player playing his deck badly, than a bad player playing his deck for another, more experienced player. But again, it's a personal opinion. > Non-existant user wrote: > Here are two possible options: > > 1) Get rid of withdrawing altogether. It adds nothing to the game and is never used except in table splitting deals. There is a reason it was downgraded to 0.5VPs in the tournament rules. > 2) Change the PTW rules to force a player to maximise his VPs even if he has the GW, so that the duel must always be played out. That would actually fit the tournament definition of winning better since VPs are a part of tournament scoring. 1GW5 is better than 1GW3, that should reflect in the PTW definition. Table splitting deals would still be possible, but everyone in the deal would have to earn their own VPs by ousting non-cooperative preys. > for 1) the withdraw rule has already been weakened a bit. Of course it has to do with the fact that the rule, intended for a single methuselah use, has been a bit corrupted by the tournament players themselves. So is it incorrect to say that dealmaking has already changed the rules we play for tournaments ? Judge for yourself. for 2) It may be a good idea to force people to fight it out and play their decks. > Suoli wrote: > > This should tell you that many players strongly feel that, at it's heart, V:TES is a game of table politics. Not because it gets them cheap wins but because it's fun, intriguing and adds an exponential layer of depth to the game. > I am ok with this. Politics is already a large part of the game ! The deals rule creates an artificial layer that adds something interesting, but retracts a lot from the main game. the social aspect of V:tes is present, but does it have to negate the card game that happens at the same time ? Let's develop further .... > Suoli wrote: > A player with a "prey-is-to-the-left" mentality only has to interact with the players next to him. A table politician, on the other hand, has to not only interact with every player at the table but recognize who and how those players are or should be interacting with each other as well. > But what is so bad with "prey is to the left" (and i guess "predator is to the right" ) mentality ? There are players whith this mentality, who are also capable of making very good choices, who interacts with other players ingame a lot, but still consider that their source of VP is ousting their prey. They are playing the game the way it is designed, don't they ? I think you are sticking the "prey-is-to-the-left" label on bad players and think they are bad because of this mentality. Like in "I know i am ousted next turn but i want to beatdown me prey's monçada 'cause he's ugly" . In this vision, the dealmaking would be the mark of the great players, because they can understand things beyond the card that lies on the table. I think this vision is not really serious. Because there are a lot of "bad" players who also do deals. there are a lot of "good players" who are not really into deals. Accepting deals and/or kingmaking has nothing to do with a player's ability. I saw very good players accept losing deals, where they could have beaten the hell out of their prey for fear of putting efforts and thinking into something that had 50% risk to fail. > Suoli wrote: > I feel doing well in this area is the defining feature of a good tournament player, as it can even the odds against getting randomly screwed by table seating or, conversely, deal with table hate when you're clearly in the strongest position. If this element was removed, games would probably be dictated less by players and more by seating and deck strength than they are now. > The deals, as you say it subtly, comes most of the times from good players that cannot accept being screwed by table seating. Is there any way those people could question themselves about what their deck is capable of doing or not ? I was half joking when i wrote that " it's easier to put no combat defense and 8 parity or so, hoping to deal your way out, than trying to build a solid and balanced deck." (i put quotes, but it's not very accurate, sorry.) The game, even without deals, is dictated by players by definition : they all bring their own deck. There is way to cope with your own lackings in the deckbuilding department : talk your way out. The tournament rules effectively allows good players to do that. Hell, I did it myself. But instead of splitting table, you can just deal no aggression turns, no bleed = no rush and so on. Why the need to frustrate other players just because you cannot adapt the metagame ? It's one of the very thing that baffles me (the other being the hatred for lutz ) It's difficult to accept one's fate when seating between a tupdog and Ozmo, but sometimes it's just where you seat. Build accordingly, and maybe your deck will be a bit less strong, but you'll have reasonnable chances at winning -or at least you are not forced to kingmaking. > Suoli wrote: > Of course, many players hold the opposite view and I have nothing but respect for them. If someone doesn't want to negotiate(...) > I'd even encourage trying it themselves to see what they're missing out on. If they still don't like it, discuss the issue with the playgroup and try to find some sort of compromise. For example, I would object to legislating crosstable dealing out of the game but have no strong feelings one way or the other about withdrawing. > Some players just don't really like it. They feel they are playing something else, like "chatting and kingmaking over a v:tes game". I did deals in the past. I was never satisfied with the outcome. I was never happy that someone else fed me the vps by cross table shennanigans. I was never happy to play for losing either. I think deals became a standard in tournament games for wrong reasons, and maybe it's time to change it and reward players for playing the original game. > Ankha wrote: > You can't win because your predator has a deck that screws yours? Your predator has crashed on your vampires and is now dead while you struggle to survive? There's always a possibility to deal, bargain, make clever choices. > "Your prey is on the left, bwaaaah, kill it" is the exact opposite of that, and can be very annoying (especially when it brings nothing to the player crashing himself on his prey while his predator just wait for the moment to strike and take 2 VPs). > As usual, you are presenting that as "clever choice". Of course, surviving is a clever choice in any game ! But at some point, you can also claim that pour pred played well, did good metagame choices, and maybe should win his vp ? That's sportsmanship too, isn't it ? I think the kingmaking derives from the "let's win at all cost" mentality, that made some good natured players left vtes. Sometime, yes, you seem doomed to lose. You can still try to fight it out, and wait at 2 pools with your wakes and delaying tactics in hand, because you never know : so many things happen during other methuselahs turns ! vampires get banned, bleeds get deflected, fame get contested... For me it's what I call fighting spirit. Fighting spirit is about fighting to win against all odds. Not selling your soul, not making someone else win. There is a difference between "my predator has mad good choices and made a good deck during this game, but i will try my best to survive" and "ok, my predator screwed me, I am going to use all my resources so someone else wins so he gains nothing out of his clever choices". And I really mean it. Oh, and again, presenting "prey is on the left" as if it's a bad thing : as i wrote above, it's the very essence of the game. > Ankha wrote: > Some people (usually the same that thinks that D should try ousting E and die in the process) miss that psychologic point. Why on earth does D want his VP? Why doesn't he die? Why doesn't he take pleasure in being crushed and denied his chances? > Because he plays to win. Without fighting spirit, the game would be dull. > Please do not imply that D is masochistic because he refuses a deal. that's bad argumentation, really. when you say "because he plays to win", you are a bit lying : he plays to gain 1 or 2 VP, but not winning. He still plays for losing, and that's the truth. > Non-existant user wrote: > > > Ankha wrote: > > Question is: is it bad that a deal where E scores GW 2.5 in order to give 1 VP to D? > > Is it worth changing the tournament rules? > > > The problem is not E giving away a VP, it is E and D not fighting it out when they are the only ones left. It is a bad thing that the game is not played to the end and it is worth correcting. If it wasn't, then why cancel deals in the duel in the first place? > That's also a good point. If they changed the rules of dealing to void deals, they can also change it to reward players who play according to the golden tenets of v:tes. I know I have no real solution yet, but in android:netrunner we use prestige point for duels, and then to decide in the case of a tie, the "fighting" spirit is counted this way : how many agenda points we scored / let our opponent score. So maybe we should use what Jeff suggested (game win only of last man standing) plus "jyhad points" if you oust your prey yourself. This kind of thing. I am searching, but would anyone be interested by experimental rules ? Imagination is our only weapon in the war against reality -Jules de Gaultier

> Reyda wrote: > I am ok with this. Politics is already a large part of the game ! The deals rule creates an artificial layer that adds something interesting, but retracts a lot from the main game. the social aspect of V:tes is present, but does it have to negate the card game that happens at the same time ? > Let's develop further .... > I don't agree that it detracts from the game more than it adds to it or that it negates the card game. > > Suoli wrote: > > A player with a "prey-is-to-the-left" mentality only has to interact with the players next to him. A table politician, on the other hand, has to not only interact with every player at the table but recognize who and how those players are or should be interacting with each other as well. > > > But what is so bad with "prey is to the left" (and i guess "predator is to the right" ) mentality ? There are players whith this mentality, who are also capable of making very good choices, who interacts with other players ingame a lot, but still consider that their source of VP is ousting their prey. > Did I say it's bad? Good for them if they get a kick out of it. I don't. Playing like that is too one dimensional for my tastes, for reasons I've already explained. > They are playing the game the way it is designed, don't they ? > Who knows. Are they? Can you speak on behalf of Richard Garfield? Not that it matters. Arguments based on perceived designer intent are meaningless. Tortured Confession was designed to be played, am I playing the game wrong by using the card as a bookmark? The only thing that matters is whether deal making as an emergent property of the game is a good thing or a glitch. > I think you are sticking the "prey-is-to-the-left" label on bad players and think they are bad because of this mentality. Like in "I know i am ousted next turn but i want to beatdown me prey's monçada 'cause he's ugly" . In this vision, the dealmaking would be the mark of the great players, because they can understand things beyond the card that lies on the table. > I think this vision is not really serious. Because there are a lot of "bad" players who also do deals. there are a lot of "good players" who are not really into deals. > How about I tell you what I think so you don't have to guess? Refusing to make deals is a clear handicap. I don't care how good you are, you'd be better if you made deals. But that's not a point I was trying to make or discuss at length. It's not really relevant. > > Suoli wrote: > > I feel doing well in this area is the defining feature of a good tournament player, as it can even the odds against getting randomly screwed by table seating or, conversely, deal with table hate when you're clearly in the strongest position. If this element was removed, games would probably be dictated less by players and more by seating and deck strength than they are now. > > > The deals, as you say it subtly, comes most of the times from good players that cannot accept being screwed by table seating. Is there any way those people could question themselves about what their deck is capable of doing or not ? I was half joking when i wrote that " it's easier to put no combat defense and 8 parity or so, hoping to deal your way out, than trying to build a solid and balanced deck." (i put quotes, but it's not very accurate, sorry.) > I didn't say any of that, that's your own conjecture and prejudice talking again. In my experience, a strong grasp of table politics is possibly even more necessary and useful to the player in the winning position than it is to the player in the losing position. > The game, even without deals, is dictated by players by definition : they all bring their own deck. There is way to cope with your own lackings in the deckbuilding department : talk your way out. The tournament rules effectively allows good players to do that. Hell, I did it myself. But instead of splitting table, you can just deal no aggression turns, no bleed = no rush and so on. > What are we discussing here again? Deal making in general or just table splitting specifically? > Why the need to frustrate other players just because you cannot adapt the metagame ? It's one of the very thing that baffles me (the other being the hatred for lutz ) > Why do you say that a deal maker can't adapt to the metagame? Is he not already adapted if he wins through deal making? > It's difficult to accept one's fate when seating between a tupdog and Ozmo, but sometimes it's just where you seat. Build accordingly, and maybe your deck will be a bit less strong, but you'll have reasonnable chances at winning -or at least you are not forced to kingmaking. > This ventures into a completely different topic. Focused vs. well-rounded decks has nothing to do with deal making. > Some players just don't really like it. They feel they are playing something else, like "chatting and kingmaking over a v:tes game". > And some players really do like it, and if it's not there they feel like they're playing something other than V:TES. If it's a huge problem for you I suppose you could try to arrange Silence of Death tournaments or something. > I think deals became a standard in tournament games for wrong reasons, and maybe it's time to change it and reward players for playing the original game. > What exactly are you implying with that? That players who make deals are playing wrong? What would give you the right to decide how the game should be played? I don't mind discussing different points of view on the issue and believe that it's even necessary. But your attitude as a whole is just plain disrespectful.

> Suoli wrote: > But your attitude as a whole is just plain disrespectful. > I tried to be polite 100% of the time in the above answer. Explain me where i was disrespectful, then I shall review and discuss your aguments. If you don't want or cannot do it, fine, I will not adress them. Imagination is our only weapon in the war against reality -Jules de Gaultier

> Reyda wrote: > I tried to be polite 100% of the time in the above answer. > Explain me where i was disrespectful, then I shall review and discuss your aguments. > Disrespectful is possibly a strong word for it. You were not being rude but you definitely were making some unwarranted and condescending assumptions about things like deck building ability and chose to discuss that instead of the points being actually made. I only bring this up because you yourself asked for a civil discussion. > If you don't want or cannot do it, fine, I will not adress them. > I'm not necessarily looking for a counter-argument. I just want you to acknowledge and understand that there is another completely valid position on deal making that a significant portion of the players agrees with. Not because they can't build decks, are sore losers or whatever other discrediting characteristic you might attribute to them but because they genuinely enjoy playing that way. This shouldn't be that hard to believe.

> Non-existant user wrote: > Fact is: there are not many ways to make it work differently. Kingmaking is part of any interactive multiplayer game. You can make it less relevant by removing second place, but then you cannot run tournaments. After 3 rounds, there is a high probability that several players have the number of GWs, so a tie breaker is needed. Heck, even with the current GW+VP+TP system, it still comes down to a coin toss sometimes. So VPs are needed in the formula and as long as you have VPs, you will have kingmaking and table splitting deals. > Missed this very astute post earlier. Tournaments usually have a winner. Points and tie-breakers determine this. The key is making sure the metrics used both accurately represent the goals of the game being played, and the goals of the tournament event. Boris also correctly noted that these are not perfectly in synch currently. They are close, but can they be better? Perhaps. > Non-existant user wrote: > Here are two possible options: > > 1) Get rid of withdrawing altogether. It adds nothing to the game and is never used except in table splitting deals. There is a reason it was downgraded to 0.5VPs in the tournament rules. > 2) Change the PTW rules to force a player to maximise his VPs even if he has the GW, so that the duel must always be played out. That would actually fit the tournament definition of winning better since VPs are a part of tournament scoring. 1GW5 is better than 1GW3, that should reflect in the PTW definition. Table splitting deals would still be possible, but everyone in the deal would have to earn their own VPs by ousting non-cooperative preys. > I am not a fan of #1. Withdrawing should be a *very* rare occurrence, but when it legitimately happens (not part of a deal), that's fine by me. While I don't think a change in the PTW rules is needed (#2), I think that the tournament scoring could possibly provide better incentives for PTW and (simultaneously) disincentives against king-making. But, my ideas for that are for another thread and another time. When you are anvil, be patient; when a hammer, strike. pckvtes.wordpress.com @pckvtes

Fine. > Suoli wrote: > > I'm not necessarily looking for a counter-argument. I just want you to acknowledge and understand that there is another completely valid position on deal making that a significant portion of the players agrees with. Not because they can't build decks, are sore losers or whatever other discrediting characteristic you might attribute to them but because they genuinely enjoy playing that way. This shouldn't be that hard to believe. > It's not really "counter argument" i want to provide, but maybe shed another light on the game that tournament players don't always realize or remember. I know for sure that there is a completely valid position, since it's the one i am "attacking" in a way. Just look at the visceral reaction from Ohlmann in the beginning : it was like i was a madman just by saying the tournament rules are flawed. You are expressing the "mainstream opionion" here, the one validated by most serious tournament players. I am not discrediting your opinion in any way, but i have at heart to point valuable things : for example, when you talk about "prey-to-the-left". > Suoli wrote: > > > reyda wrote: > > > > > Suoli wrote: > > > A player with a "prey-is-to-the-left" mentality only has to interact with the players next to him. A table politician, on the other hand, has to not only interact with every player at the table but recognize who and how those players are or should be interacting with each other as well. > > > > > > > > But what is so bad with "prey is to the left" (and i guess "predator is to the right" ) mentality ? There are players whith this mentality, who are also capable of making very good choices, who interacts with other players ingame a lot, but still consider that their source of VP is ousting their prey. > > > Did I say it's bad? Good for them if they get a kick out out of it. > Is it grossly exagerating your words, to say you have a low opinion of those players ? Would you tell me sincerely that i misake your words for what they are not ? It's a way of thinking that bugs me, since the way you describe it, one way to play is considered "superior". You cannot ask me to view your opinion as totally respectable and not at least trying to behave the same towards mine because i might side with the "player-to-the-left" specie. my theory may be bad, or maybe simply annoying, but i'd like any tournament to consider it like some tried to do instead of dismissing it totally. Again I love the game and would not have those lenghty discussion if it was not the case. > suoli wrote: > Can you speak on behalf of Richard Garfield? Not that it matters. Arguments based on perceived designer intent are meaningless. > Garfield wrote a book about jyhad, sitting on my shelf, where he describes lenghty most of his choices. Of course, the game has evolved since, and some things got better, some things got worse. The game has been changed by the tournament players to fit their needs. > Suoli wrote: > The only thing that matters is whether deal making as an emergent property of the game is a good thing or a glitch. > that's the problem. A glitch in a video game can be fun. It may be cool to walk through walls (idclip anyone ? ) but does it make the game more interesting in the long run ? The more i consider it, the more i thing it's a glitch. Because most of the time, it supercedes the prey-predator rules, and even the content of each player's deck. It also destroys almost all preparation a player did during his previous turns in a given game. When the talking goes proeminent above the gaming, there is a problem. Again, it's only my opinion. > How about I tell you what I think so you don't have to guess? > > Refusing to make deals is a clear handicap. I don't care how good you are, you'd be better if you made deals. But that's not a point I was trying to make or discuss at length. It's not really relevant. > The tournament system as it is now, litteraly forces you to make a deal. Think about the people on the other end of a deal. So you make a really balanced deck. Your seating is okay, not perfect but ok. You play 45 minutes the best you can. But someone who is not your prey, not your predator has decided you have to die now, because he needs 1 VP to make someone else win. I'm sorry to use such a basic exemple here, but when you sum it up it's just this : one guy throws every other player's clever decisions to go into kingmaking. He plays to lose and make you lose. That's insane if you think about it. The aim of any game is to win. It does not feel ok to me anymore, and that's why I want to discuss it. they have a saying in los angeles : "Wanna game ? We can have fun. Or we can play v:tes". It's exactly how i see it now. I don't want to drive the discussion to "toolboxy vs focused". The argument "table splitting is a tool fabricated by tournament players to prevent harm restulting from bad seating" still stand strong in my opinion. > Suoli wrote: > > > Why the need to frustrate other players just because you cannot adapt the metagame ? It's one of the very thing that baffles me (the other being the hatred for lutz ) > > > Why do you say that a deal maker can't adapt to the metagame? Is he not already adapted if he wins through deal making? > Because adapting to a metagame is a matter of deckbuilding before gaming and taking decisions during gaming. In other words I am not adapting to the spanish metagame if i start talking in spanish at a table in mallorca. > Suoli wrote: > > > It's difficult to accept one's fate when seating between a tupdog and Ozmo, but sometimes it's just where you seat. Build accordingly, and maybe your deck will be a bit less strong, but you'll have reasonnable chances at winning -or at least you are not forced to kingmaking. > > > This ventures into a completely different topic. Focused vs. well-rounded decks has nothing to do with deal making. > why is it another topic ? Putting a fear of mekhet is not making it toolboxy ! It just gives you a chance to trump an inner circle and avoid being on the lose end of a deal, for exemple. you have to sacrifice slots to make your deck more viable. If you don't want to do it, you can still rely on table splitting : that's what most experienced players do it, and it's not insulting them to say so... > Suoli wrote: > > > I think deals became a standard in tournament games for wrong reasons, and maybe it's time to change it and reward players for playing the original game. > > > What exactly are you implying with that? That players who make deals are playing wrong? > Not at all. They are playing by making the best *of the tournament rules*. the same rules that have changed in the past and can change again if people ask for it. We could include splitting deals in the rules, and add a penalty/bonus victory point if a deal is completed / disabled by the other players. We could think about something. If there is enough people willing change. Imagination is our only weapon in the war against reality -Jules de Gaultier

> Reyda wrote: > Is it grossly exagerating your words, to say you have a low opinion of those players ? Would you tell me sincerely that i misake your words for what they are not ? > > It's a way of thinking that bugs me, since the way you describe it, one way to play is considered "superior". You cannot ask me to view your opinion as totally respectable and not at least trying to behave the same towards mine because i might side with the "player-to-the-left" specie. > This is what I had to say about players who don't like making deals: "Of course, many players hold the opposite view and I have nothing but respect for them. If someone doesn't want to negotiate, fine, that doesn't take anything away from me." I still maintain that not making deals is a clear handicap, but, again, each to his own. > A glitch in a video game can be fun. It may be cool to walk through walls (idclip anyone ? ) but does it make the game more interesting in the long run ? > There are many examples of glitches and other unforeseen playstyles that sometimes single-handedly made certain games a success. Of course, in those cases everybody starts calling it a feature, not a glitch. > The more i consider it, the more i thing it's a glitch. Because most of the time, it supercedes the prey-predator rules, and even the content of each player's deck. It also destroys almost all preparation a player did during his previous turns in a given game. > When the talking goes proeminent above the gaming, there is a problem. Again, it's only my opinion. > > Think about the people on the other end of a deal. > So you make a really balanced deck. Your seating is okay, not perfect but ok. You play 45 minutes the best you can. But someone who is not your prey, not your predator has decided you have to die now, because he needs 1 VP to make someone else win. > You seem to be of the opinion that negotiations exist separately from the gameplay and dynamics of a given table. This has not been my experience. Deals are made as a result of and a reaction to the state of the table. They have very clear root causes that develop throughout the course of the game. A good player should be able to influence where the political atmosphere of a given table is headed. If a player doesn't have the ability or will to manipulate the table to a state where they have a diplomatically strong position then he, in my opinion, didn't play well enough. If you get screwed by a table split it's because someone else made that deal viable through his own actions (or inactions) while you were unable or unwilling to see the signs and stop this from happening. Prey-predator mechanics are no excuse for not recognizing your real enemies. > I'm sorry to use such a basic exemple here, but when you sum it up it's just this : one guy throws every other player's clever decisions to go into kingmaking. He plays to lose and make you lose. That's insane if you think about it. The aim of any game is to win. > It does not feel ok to me anymore, and that's why I want to discuss it. > You focus on the losing end of the deal. Another way to sum it up would be "one guy makes sound decisions to create a situation where he can get a game win by giving out one or more vp's". That doesn't sound bad to me at all. > > Suoli wrote: > > Why do you say that a deal maker can't adapt to the metagame? Is he not already adapted if he wins through deal making? > > > Because adapting to a metagame is a matter of deckbuilding before gaming and taking decisions during gaming. In other words I am not adapting to the spanish metagame if i start talking in spanish at a table in mallorca. > I would argue that deal making is a decision taken during gaming. It's really not at all the same as changing languages. > > Suoli wrote: > > > > > It's difficult to accept one's fate when seating between a tupdog and Ozmo, but sometimes it's just where you seat. Build accordingly, and maybe your deck will be a bit less strong, but you'll have reasonnable chances at winning -or at least you are not forced to kingmaking. > > > > > > > > This ventures into a completely different topic. Focused vs. well-rounded decks has nothing to do with deal making. > > > why is it another topic ? Putting a fear of mekhet is not making it toolboxy ! It just gives you a chance to trump an inner circle and avoid being on the lose end of a deal, for exemple. you have to sacrifice slots to make your deck more viable. > If you don't want to do it, you can still rely on table splitting : that's what most experienced players do it, and it's not insulting them to say so... > It's a different topic because the topic under discussion is deal making and whether it's good or bad for the game. I don't know why you are intent on attributing table splitting to players who build focused (or would you rather say boring and overpowered?) decks. Frankly, it reeks of rhetoric. > We could include splitting deals in the rules, and add a penalty/bonus victory point if a deal is completed / disabled by the other players. We could think about something. If there is enough people willing change. > Absolutely. Like I said, though, Silence of Death exists for those who really can't stand deal making. I would promote that over taking something away from the players who really like deal making.

> Suoli wrote: > I still maintain that not making deals is a clear handicap, but, again, each to his own. > Dude. Please. Can you stop saying one thing in a sentence, and then a different thing in the next ? First you say some guys have "play to the left mentality". then you say, "oh but i respect that" then "i never said it was a bad thing" and finally "it is a clear handicap for them". Is it possible for you to stand on firm ground when you are saying something instead of trying to say subtle things ? My feeling, when i read this is there is on one hand Suoli gently speaking with me about deals, assuring me they are the best thing since mayonnaise, and on the other hand the bad Suoli sending subliminal messages and winking to his fellow tournament players, half saying "prey to left players are, like you handicapped monkeys, and think like monkeys. Oh and i respect that. Here, toss them a Silence of death banana so they stop question what we are doing on the *real* tournament scene". > Suoli wrote: > > > Reyda wrote: > > A glitch in a video game can be fun. It may be cool to walk through walls (idclip anyone ? ) but does it make the game more interesting in the long run ? > > > There are many examples of glitches and other unforeseen playstyles that sometimes single-handedly made certain games a success. Of course, in those cases everybody starts calling it a feature, not a glitch. > Excuse me, but i know of only one glitch who became game standard : The chain combo system of Street Fighter 2 (actually a result of "cancel" animation). All the other were wiped out, because they were abuses from players. Bunny hop from CS ? Not anymore. Hover walk from Tribes ? Not anymore. In video gaming environment, most glitchy games get fixed for everyone's satisfaction. Of course, some guy who mastered the art of silly moves will get upset. But all the community benefits from a new deal. But no, Vtes is not like this. Vtes tournament scene is made of serious players. A better species maybe ? They will not allow anyone to touch their precious kingmaking rules. And when you try to even discuss it, you are "frustrated" and "angry". > Suoli wrote: > Deals are made as a result of and a reaction to the state of the table. They have very clear root causes that develop throughout the course of the game. A good player should be able to influence where the political atmosphere of a given table is headed. If a player doesn't have the ability or will to manipulate the table to a state where they have a diplomatically strong position then he, in my opinion, didn't play well enough. > I understand your explanations, but come on : at some point it all comes down to reality, namely, which cards you are playing. I cannot pass myself as a player who is not stealthbleeding if the first vamp out is dolphin black and the first card played Kindred spirits. Yes, a player should be able to influence the table, I never tell anything different, really, but at some point, what your deck does is what your deck does. If I play an ahrimane deck with raven spies, it's maintly to intercept stuff. Someone tells me "ok, interecept nothing except him, guaranted 2VP". What's the incentive of playing the *card game* then ? > Suoli wrote: > If you get screwed by a table split it's because someone else made that deal viable through his own actions (or inactions) while you were unable or unwilling to see the signs and stop this from happening. Prey-predator mechanics are no excuse for not recognizing your real enemies. > No no, the deal does not come from my inability as a player to see it coming. The deal does come from the inability of another player to fight it out. Or the ability of another player to manipulate someone less clever / or someone who has an aversion for risk. So what would you suggest ? That i do the table splitting deal with this hopeless player myself ? So the only answer to a table splitting deal is a table splitting deal ? It does not make sens to fight an artificial problem with the exact same artificial problem. > Suoli wrote: > You focus on the losing end of the deal. Another way to sum it up would be "one guy makes sound decisions to create a situation where he can get a game win by giving out one or more vp's". That doesn't sound bad to me at all. > It's as valid to say " A player uses long tirades and a loophole in tournament rules to get away with bad seating, by temporary slaving a willing victim who also gets to lose". Two faces of the same coin. The tournament rules give *incentive to Play to Lose* in form of VP crumbles. Remove this incentive and Nobody will deal anymore ! They'd better fight it out and play the game as it is designed ! Do you think I am insane because i write this simple thing ?? Glitch creates problem. Remove glitch, remove problem. > Suoli wrote: > > > reyda wrote: > > > > > Suoli wrote: > > > Why do you say that a deal maker can't adapt to the metagame? Is he not already adapted if he wins through deal making? > > > > > > > > Because adapting to a metagame is a matter of deckbuilding before gaming and taking decisions during gaming. In other words I am not adapting to the spanish metagame if i start talking in spanish at a table in mallorca. > > > I would argue that deal making is a decision taken during gaming. It's really not at all the same as changing languages. > No. Metagame has a definition you are chosing to ignore, and it has nothing to do with table talk. By definition, deal making has nothing to do with adapting to metagame. It's almost the opposite : you can and generally will use deals to avoid the metagame interaction which are an obligation in other card games... > suoli wrote: > Like I said, though, Silence of Death exists for those who really can't stand deal making. I would promote that over taking something away from the players who really like deal making. > No. Not this banana. Imagination is our only weapon in the war against reality -Jules de Gaultier

for the TL; DR people ! The tournament rules give *incentive to Play to Lose* in form of VP crumbles. Remove this incentive and Nobody will deal anymore ! They'd better fight it out and play the game as it is designed ! Imagination is our only weapon in the war against reality -Jules de Gaultier

> Reyda wrote: > Dude. Please. Can you stop saying one thing in a sentence, and then a different thing in the next ? > First you say some guys have "play to the left mentality". > then you say, "oh but i respect that" > then "i never said it was a bad thing" > and finally "it is a clear handicap for them". > 1. Some players have a very strict adherence to the prey-predator relationship. 2. I have no problem with this. 3. Those players are not playing as well as they could be playing. In other words, they are playing with a handicap. 4. All of these statements are internally consistent. You are aware of the non-offensive uses of the term "handicap", right? > Is it possible for you to stand on firm ground when you are saying something instead of trying to say subtle things ? > My feeling, when i read this is there is on one hand Suoli gently speaking with me about deals, assuring me they are the best thing since mayonnaise, and on the other hand the bad Suoli sending subliminal messages and winking to his fellow tournament players, half saying "prey to left players are, like you handicapped monkeys, and think like monkeys. Oh and i respect that. Here, toss them a Silence of death banana so they stop question what we are doing on the *real* tournament scene". > You have a wild imagination. I never called anyone a retard. I did say that some players are playing with a handicap. There's a difference. > Reyda wrote: > Excuse me, but i know of only one glitch who became game standard : The chain combo system of Street Fighter 2 (actually a result of "cancel" animation). All the other were wiped out, because they were abuses from players. Bunny hop from CS ? Not anymore. Hover walk from Tribes ? > Going off-topic here but skiing is what made Tribes. > But no, Vtes is not like this. Vtes tournament scene is made of serious players. A better species maybe ? They will not allow anyone to touch their precious kingmaking rules. And when you try to even discuss it, you are "frustrated" and "angry". > I'm not frustrated or angry. You are imagining things. As I've already said, my goal is to bring to your attention the other side of the argument. It would do you well to truly understand the opposing position if you want to be taken seriously and have a serious discussion about the issue. > Yes, a player should be able to influence the table, I never tell anything different, really, but at some point, what your deck does is what your deck does. If I play an ahrimane deck with raven spies, it's maintly to intercept stuff. Someone tells me "ok, interecept nothing except him, guaranted 2VP". What's the incentive of playing the *card game* then ? > I'm not sure I clearly understand you here. > > Suoli wrote: > > If you get screwed by a table split it's because someone else made that deal viable through his own actions (or inactions) while you were unable or unwilling to see the signs and stop this from happening. Prey-predator mechanics are no excuse for not recognizing your real enemies. > > > No no, the deal does not come from my inability as a player to see it coming. The deal does come from the inability of another player to fight it out. Or the ability of another player to manipulate someone less clever / or someone who has an aversion for risk. > > So what would you suggest ? That i do the table splitting deal with this hopeless player myself ? > So the only answer to a table splitting deal is a table splitting deal ? > It does not make sens to fight an artificial problem with the exact same artificial problem. > Or you could create a situation where the table split is unviable before it happens. Or team up with the other players. Hard to say without having a specific table as an example. > The tournament rules give *incentive to Play to Lose* in form of VP crumbles. > Remove this incentive and Nobody will deal anymore ! They'd better fight it out and play the game as it is designed ! > Again you imply that deal making was not explicitly designed into the game and therefore it should be removed. That's nonsense. Whether the original designer foresaw deal making or not is absolutely irrelevant to the question at hand. But if that's really what you want to debate, I would say that shady conspiracies and ruthless politics are appropriate for a game about methuselahs. > Do you think I am insane because i write this simple thing ?? > I think you are self-centered for wanting to impose your own preferences on everybody else without giving any thought to other views. > Glitch creates problem. Remove glitch, remove problem. > You think there's a problem. Others don't. > > Suoli wrote: > > I would argue that deal making is a decision taken during gaming. It's really not at all the same as changing languages. > > > No. Metagame has a definition you are chosing to ignore, and it has nothing to do with table talk. By definition, deal making has nothing to do with adapting to metagame. It's almost the opposite : you can and generally will use deals to avoid the metagame interaction which are an obligation in other card games... > That's like saying that rushing a bleeder is the same as subverting the metagame. Deal making is a part of the game. Making deals is playing the game as much as rushing a bleeder is. > > suoli wrote: > > Like I said, though, Silence of Death exists for those who really can't stand deal making. I would promote that over taking something away from the players who really like deal making. > > > No. Not this banana. > So the only acceptable solution to you is that everybody plays the way you want? Is there no compromise that you would be happy with?

> Suoli wrote: > " I'm not frustrated or angry. " > Yes, I know. It has nothing to do with your personnality : I was just pointing at the first argument I was served on this topic by previous poster. > Suoli wrote: > You think there's a problem. Others don't. > Because like you saw just above, when you try to talk about it you are branded as a "poor player", "prey to the left mentality" (i heard it many times, not just from you), and plain "stupid". As I stated before, I used them deals. I know how they works. I think in the end, they supercede the cards, and I am here to mostly play cards. If i really want to impress & seduce someone with my talking skilzz, i can still go to any bar and try my luck with no card game involved > Suoli wrote: > Again you imply that deal making was not explicitly designed into the game and therefore it should be removed. That's nonsense. > I do not imply it, I am 100% positive about it. I wrote like 3 times that table splitting deals (the one we talk about here) are a fabrication of tournament players. How can i be more precise, should I tattoo it on my forehead or what ? more seriously : The designer wrote a book about the game. No deals involved. The designer wrote card texts about the game. No deals involved. There is no reference to tablesplitting deals except in tournament rules. And they appear quite lately, which is several years after the game was printed. Removed or not removed, that is the question. But there is no question whether it was explicitely designed where there is a clear answer stating it is not part the original game. > suoli wrote: > I think you are self-centered for wanting to impose your own preferences on everybody else without giving any thought to other views. > Mmm, I am discussing at the moment. I did not came here with nuclear weapons to force you into repent of your kingmaking. I want to see if there is an alternative to turn 5 chose 3 or 2 VPS. I want to know if the game can be better be removing a rule that gives a good reason to play to lose in the disguise of play to win (oh the irony). That's all. Imagination is our only weapon in the war against reality -Jules de Gaultier

> Reyda wrote: > Because like you saw just above, when you try to talk about it you are branded as a "poor player", "prey to the left mentality" (i heard it many times, not just from you), and plain "stupid". > You'll have to take that up to them. I only speak for myself. > As I stated before, I used them deals. I know how they works. I think in the end, they supercede the cards, and I am here to mostly play cards. > I still don't agree that deals supercede the cards. If anything, it's the other way around: the conditions of deals are primarily dictated by cards, mechanics and the actions of players. Saying that deals make cards obsolete is like saying that forests make trees obsolete. > If i really want to impress & seduce someone with my talking skilzz, i can still go to any bar and try my luck with no card game involved > If you want to play V:TES without talking, there's a very popular tournament format for- oh, wait, it wasn't prestigious enough for you. > I do not imply it, I am 100% positive about it. I wrote like 3 times that table splitting deals (the one we talk about here) are a fabrication of tournament players. How can i be more precise, should I tattoo it on my forehead or what ? > more seriously : The designer wrote a book about the game. No deals involved. The designer wrote card texts about the game. No deals involved. > There is no reference to tablesplitting deals except in tournament rules. And they appear quite lately, which is several years after the game was printed. > > Removed or not removed, that is the question. > But there is no question whether it was explicitely designed where there is a clear answer stating it is not part the original game. > Do you have a quote of Richard Garfield saying that deal making is not and should not be an implicit part of the game? And again, it wouldn't matter if you did. It would have zero impact on the legitimacy of deal making as a part of the game. Can we drop this now? > Mmm, I am discussing at the moment. I did not came here with nuclear weapons to force you into repent of your kingmaking. > "The tournament rules give *incentive to Play to Lose* in form of VP crumbles. Remove this incentive and Nobody will deal anymore ! They'd better fight it out and play the game as it is designed !" Sorry but that does sound a little aggressive. I'm willing to accept that that wasn't your intention. > I want to see if there is an alternative to turn 5 chose 3 or 2 VPS. > I want to know if the game can be better be removing a rule that gives a good reason to play to lose in the disguise of play to win (oh the irony). > That's all. > Why do you call it "play to lose"? Getting some victory points instead of no victory points is not a loss. Getting the game win by helping someone else get victory points is definitely not a loss. Also, I would seriously consider promoting Silence of Death more heavily. There's no reason why it shouldn't get equal official standing with the regular format as long as enough players support it. Everybody wins. Is there some reason you consider this a bad option?

So you bring the " how do you know about designer'intent ? " argument and then you just say it's not valid anyway ? Okay, I accept that too. > Suoli wrote: > Why do you call it "play to lose"? Getting some victory points instead of no victory points is not a loss. Getting the game win by helping someone else get victory points is definitely not a loss. > I am saying one big thing. Lets re-do it again. You have a victory point system. this system is used in tournaments. this system, under the name "play to win", gives incentive to players to king making, since securing the position of kingmaker allows you to gain 1 to 2 points. This system gives a good reason to play *not to* win to players willing to kingmake. Getting victory point out of a planned loss is something validated only by a flawed system. You are presenting the idea that players like table splitting deals because it's a cool addition ton v:tes. I am presenting the idea that in the end it's not a cool addition for the reasons. I think that if there was no incentive to play for 1 or 2VP, then Nobody would like to kingmake. Can i be more clear ? Imagination is our only weapon in the war against reality -Jules de Gaultier

> Reyda wrote: > Getting victory point out of a planned loss is something validated only by a flawed system. > But you're not getting a VP due to a planned loss — it's not like players start the game planning to loose. Due to events that occur within the game players may find themselves in a position where they're unable to win — maximising VPs in that situation makes sense, regardless of the means. Amaranth Deck Building Tool : VTES NZ : VTES ANZ Facebook

> Reyda wrote: > I am saying one big thing. Lets re-do it again. > > You have a victory point system. > this system is used in tournaments. > this system, under the name "play to win", gives incentive to players to king making, since securing the position of kingmaker allows you to gain 1 to 2 points. > This system gives a good reason to play *not to* win to players willing to kingmake. > I disagree. The system might give incentive to make king makers but it does not give incentive to plan to become a king maker. I've never seen players actively strive to be second from the start and I've never seen someone being fully content with it. It's a role that you might get after failing to be the king but never a primary objective. > Getting victory point out of a planned loss is something validated only by a flawed system. > Planning to lose when you have a reasonable shot at winning is already illegal under the play to win rules. > You are presenting the idea that players like table splitting deals because it's a cool addition ton v:tes. > I am presenting the idea that in the end it's not a cool addition for the reasons. > > I think that if there was no incentive to play for 1 or 2VP, then Nobody would like to kingmake. > > Can i be more clear ? > I don't think anybody currently likes to be the king maker rather than the king. Sometimes it just happens to be the only thing left to play for. Furthermore, what would a player be expected to do when he has no reasonable chance to gain the game win? Help someone else by self ousting? Help someone else by trying to survive? Rush crosstable? Decide by a coin flip? If there is nothing left to be gained, all of those options are equally valid.

Without te Vp crumbles, the only option remaining would be : Play. The. Game. Imagination is our only weapon in the war against reality -Jules de Gaultier

> Reyda wrote: > Without te Vp crumbles, the only option remaining would be : Play. The. Game. > Playing for VPs is playing the game. If vp's don't matter, what is the goal of the game when you can't get the game win? Ousting doesn't help you. Surviving doesn't help you. Helping someone else doesn't help you. There's no game to the player who can't get the game win.

I agree that kingmaking is often inevitable. If you have no chance to win or only a negligeable chance to win, anything you do may still help or hurt someone else. I don't see a way around that. It's the age-old question: do you "poolsack" or do you push forward until the end? The nice thing about pre-final tournament games is that you can usually work towards a constructive goal, regardless of your position. You can try for 1 VP, 0.5 VPs, or even for more table points. Heck, I'd rather see rankings based on final table positions in the finals, too. (Sorry, Reyda )

From all this lenghty discussion, I don't understand, why would keeping a deal which would not be valid in two player situation is not playing against rules? In the spirit of the game, where grudges should not be carried from table to table, why would winner "feed" someone else VPs? Sabbat. If this vampire's bleed is successful, he laughs manicly and untaps.

> kombainas wrote: > From all this lenghty discussion, I don't understand, why would keeping a deal which would not be valid in two player situation is not playing against rules? > Because there is a loophole in the PTW rules: once someone has a GW, he can do whatever he wants, including keeping the now invalid deal. Note that if that loophole was fixed, it would not force the player to break the deal, it would prevent the deal from being made in the first place. Any deal would at most end by "and then we'll see how the duel goes."

> AaronC wrote: > The nice thing about pre-final tournament games is that you can usually work towards a constructive goal, regardless of your position. You can try for 1 VP, 0.5 VPs, or even for more table points. > And this is in essence what the OP was about: How can a withdraw deal work within the context of PTW and the current tournament rules? I don't think there's much argument that tournament games could end up with those results (positive statement). I think the discussion here devolved into whether games should end up with those results (normative debate). > AaronC wrote: > Heck, I'd rather see rankings based on final table positions in the finals, too. (Sorry, Reyda ) > I would tend to agree with AaronC here as well. But, the complicating factor is THE GAME WIN. The game win is the most important part of standings in a tournament. However, Game wins can be earned even if the ultimate outcome of a game is in doubt. Many times people "earn" game wins with 2.5 VPs, even though there are still 3 people left in the game! One can only assume how the table reached such an outcome, possibly including deal-making. The problem is that once a player is close to locking in a game win, their incentives to "finish the game" rapidly diminish. Why continue to be aggressive and overextending in front of a predator who lunges? Why alienate cross-table "allies" and get everyone to turn against you? Why not take the easier path and play defensive, friendly V:TES? With 12 additional pool, you are likely in a strong position anyway. These situations are very common. Reyda has a particular aversion to them, and he is not alone in this opinion. There is a bit of "hate the game, not the player" going on here. We have a set of tournament rules and in order to come out on top, it is necessary to work them to your advantage. People just do this. But, it's not necessarily the case that the existing rules are the best set of rules. As Americans sometimes say, "...in order to form a more perfect union..." What we have is very good. But it can probably be improved with a few touches around the edges. I think it's worth exploring those options with all due deliberation. When you are anvil, be patient; when a hammer, strike. pckvtes.wordpress.com @pckvtes

> Jeff wrote: > The game win is the most important part of standings in a tournament. However, Game wins can be earned even if the ultimate outcome of a game is in doubt. Many times people "earn" game wins with 2.5 VPs, even though there are still 3 people left in the game! One can only assume how the table reached such an outcome, possibly including deal-making. > I think it's unfair to implicate deal making as a cause for timeouts. From what I've seen, negotiating out of gridlocks is more likely to resolve the game and prevent timeouts than cause them. But I do agree that timing out during finals is a real problem, it's just not a problem related to deal making.

> Suoli wrote: > I think it's unfair to implicate deal making as a cause for timeouts. From what I've seen, negotiating out of gridlocks is more likely to resolve the game and prevent timeouts than cause them. > I don't think it's unfair to implicate deal-making as an occasional source of a time-out. Usually, that's not the case, to be sure and I don't mean to imply that deal-making is a major cause. Heck, I made a nice deal just 1 month ago to secure victory at a final table. Nonetheless, there certainly are people who, when sitting on 2 VPs, are willing to talk a lot about this or that minor detail to exhaust valuable time. But, this is drifting a bit from the original post, which was mainly to show the mechanics of how a withdraw deal would be tourney legal. Just by pointing out such a deal is a rational choice to make doesn't imply that the poster advocates that course of action all the time. It's just another option. When you are anvil, be patient; when a hammer, strike. pckvtes.wordpress.com @pckvtes

> Suoli wrote: > > > Reyda wrote: > > Without the Vp crumbles, the only option remaining would be : Play. The. Game. > > > Playing for VPs is playing the game. > Yes. Under current tournament rules. (Hey, I'll never get tired of this !) For you information : under former tournament rules, playing to get 1,5 VP was ok too. Some people raised voice. It was changed. Under other tournament rules, withdrawing granted 1 VP. some people objected and it was changed too. so I want to create a discussion to maybe make things change. - Again. The current games give incentive to play to lose. (never tired either) so why should i play to win then ? Being the puppet of another player grants me 2VP, why should I fight and get maybe 1 or 1,5 VP if there is a coalition of players that splits the table and has most chance of destroying my efforts ? you still did not answer You said nobody likes being the kingmaker, but there is one on every table ! How can players be so willing to lose if it's so unenjoyable ? Because : VP crumbles. I am foreseeing your next answer, which will be "playing for VPs is playing the game / not playing to lose". Imagination is our only weapon in the war against reality -Jules de Gaultier

> Suoli wrote: > I disagree. The system might give incentive to make king makers but it does not give incentive to plan to become a king maker. I've never seen players actively strive to be second from the start and I've never seen someone being fully content with it. It's a role that you might get after failing to be the king but never a primary objective. > I have seen this. Player A sees his predator's first few minions/cards/actions and says, "Oh crap, I know I cannot handle your deck, so help me oust my prey and I will weaken my next prey and not oust him until you oust me. In fact, at that point, I will act to help you get the GW." Even as a judge, how are you going to stop such a deal when the justification is "I am in a lost position anyway, so I am playing to get 1 VP as opposed to 0 VP, which is maximising VPs and thus play to win"? In case I get nitpicked on, there is nothing wrong with maximising VPs when losing, but there is something wrong with the current rules that allow Player A's predator to accept the deal because he can get a easy GW out of this. I have to side with Reyda on this. How will you feel if you were Player A's prey or grand prey? You made no silly mistakes and have not taken the position of the table threat and yet you are suddenly faced with 2 predators, one of whom will keep flinging his resources against you with no thought towards defense. Is it fair then, that the current rules allow for kingmaking? Also, we seem to have gone a fair ways off from the original topic of withdrawals as part of a valid deal. Suaku Inceptor Asian Continental Championship 興っ www.youtube.com/SuakuOz

> Reyda wrote: > - Again. > The current games give incentive to play to lose. (never tired either) > This is false. The current rules give incentive to keep on playing even when you can't get the game win. They don't give incentive to try to lose. > so why should i play to win then ? Being the puppet of another player grants me 2VP, why should I fight and get maybe 1 or 1,5 VP if there is a coalition of players that splits the table and has most chance of destroying my efforts ? > How is playing for 1,5 vp over 2 vp "playing to win"? > you still did not answer > > You said nobody likes being the kingmaker, but there is one on every table ! How can players be so willing to lose if it's so unenjoyable ? Because : VP crumbles. > I am foreseeing your next answer, which will be "playing for VPs is playing the game / not playing to lose". > Who said they are willing to lose? Who is this player who intentionally puts himself in a position where he can't win?

> I will weaken my next prey and not oust him until you oust me > Isn't this completely against rules, if it comes to 3 player table? The deal would make you suicide instead of trying to get GW? Probably the only way out of this deal would be backousting, but I doubt this would be wanted by the predator (as it would make him target of the table)? Sabbat. If this vampire's bleed is successful, he laughs manicly and untaps.

> the1andonlime wrote: > Player A sees his predator's first few minions/cards/actions and says, "Oh crap, I know I cannot handle your deck, so help me oust my prey and I will weaken my next prey and not oust him until you oust me. In fact, at that point, I will act to help you get the GW." > > I have to side with Reyda on this. How will you feel if you were Player A's prey or grand prey? You made no silly mistakes and have not taken the position of the table threat and yet you are suddenly faced with 2 predators, one of whom will keep flinging his resources against you with no thought towards defense. Is it fair then, that the current rules allow for kingmaking? > I would feel like I failed if I allowed such a pact without interfering or undermining it somehow. For example, as A's grandprey I could offer to back oust, help him survive his predator or, if the situation is dire, threaten A's predator by promising to give A another vp if the deal goes through. These are just some examples, with the point being that deals are not something that is completely out of your control. If you see a pact forming against you it's up to you to take countermeasures. There's also A's point of view to consider. Is it any fairer that he should lose with no recourse just because he had bad luck with seating?

> Suoli wrote: > There's also A's point of view to consider. Is it any fairer that he should lose with no recourse just because he had bad luck with seating? > Uh, I just thought that someone sitting down at the table with no chance not to be quickly ousted was just an inherent part of the game. I certainly don't notice many VTES players expressing sympathy for the bad luck of that person.

> AaronC wrote: > Uh, I just thought that someone sitting down at the table with no chance not to be quickly ousted was just an inherent part of the game. > Sure, just as much a part of the game as getting screwed by a table split.

> Suoli wrote: > > > AaronC wrote: > > Uh, I just thought that someone sitting down at the table with no chance not to be quickly ousted was just an inherent part of the game. > > > Sure, just as much a part of the game as getting screwed by a table split. > No. I disagree here. Table split deals are not inherent to the game, just inherent to the accepted norm of playing the game. The rules tell you that you must have a prey and a predator until there is only one person left at the table, or you are ousted. That implies that, at some point in time, your predator will be capable of ousting you even if you pull the greatest play of he century. Unless you are going to be the last man standing, it is inevitable. The rules don't tell you that every game should have a table split deal because at some point, someone will be losing. Personally, I feel that VPs should be maximised even after a GW, and that accepting a deal that will give you a GW, but require you to give up VPs that you can reasonably get should not be allowed by the rules. Suaku Inceptor Asian Continental Championship 興っ www.youtube.com/SuakuOz

> the1andonlime wrote: > > > Suoli wrote: > > > > > AaronC wrote: > > > Uh, I just thought that someone sitting down at the table with no chance not to be quickly ousted was just an inherent part of the game. > > > > > > > > Sure, just as much a part of the game as getting screwed by a table split. > > > No. I disagree here. > > Table split deals are not inherent to the game, just inherent to the accepted norm of playing the game. > > The rules tell you that you must have a prey and a predator until there is only one person left at the table, or you are ousted. That implies that, at some point in time, your predator will be capable of ousting you even if you pull the greatest play of he century. Unless you are going to be the last man standing, it is inevitable. > > The rules don't tell you that every game should have a table split deal because at some point, someone will be losing. > The issue being discussed was whether occasionally being steamrolled without any chance to survive is an inherent part of the game. I don't agree that it is any more or less inherent to the game than occasional table splits. I'm not sure how what you're talking about relates to this. > Personally, I feel that VPs should be maximised even after a GW, and that accepting a deal that will give you a GW, but require you to give up VPs that you can reasonably get should not be allowed by the rules. > No objections here. If VPs count toward tournament ranking it only makes sense that every player should try to maximize their VPs, whether they're getting the game win or not.

Also, it should be noted that in larger tournaments not only GWs, but VPs as well decide who's going to the finals. 3 GWs is usually enough to get there, but you should always try to maximize your VPs as well if you're playing well with a grander goal in mind. Giving out free VPs to others isn't a great plan. The question is so intervined, though, that I'm not going to touch it any further. There are a multitude of opinions, options and case spesific examples to consider, and there's really no one right answer here, nor is there only one spesific question either. "Oh, to the Hades with the manners! He's a complete bastard, and calling him that insults bastards everywhere!" -Nalia De-Arnise garourimgazette.wordpress.com/ www.vekn.net/forum-guidelines

I enjoy dealmaking in this game and will always try and get as many victory points as possible in a losing position. But I understand there is a problem and these are my suggestions: 1. Remove the possibility to withdraw from the game. Seriously - it adds nothing interesting at all and is, in today's tournament play, only used in shady deals. It also consumes time since there is always someone at a table who doesn't know the rules for withdrawal and needs to be reminded. 2. Remove the possibility for a player with a secured game win to self oust giving away victory points. I don't see any of my suggestions removing any of the good parts of table politics but they put an end to some of the bad parts. What do you think? www.lordoftheclog.blogspot.com

I have proposed exactly that on page 2 and no one seems to have argued against it. But it was just before the flamewar, so maybe people just missed it On a second thought, completely removing withdrawing would pose a slight problem for Brinksmanship. As much as I would like to see one less cornercase rule in the core rules, that is not possible if a (cornercase) card explicitely refers to that rule. Fixing the PTW might be enough. If it is not, one could also downgrade withdrawing to 0VPs in the tournament rules so that it is never a PTW move.

> Stefan wrote: > 2. Remove the possibility for a player with a secured game win to self oust giving away victory points. > How do you do it exactly ?

Actually, that is surprisingly simple. Just add 7 words to the PTW rule: > For tournaments, playing to win means playing to get a Game Win with as many Victory Points as possible if it is reasonably possible, and when a Game Win is not reasonably possible, then playing to get as many Victory Points as possible. > That is the lowest cost fix. Personally, I would prefer a deeper rewording where the PTW rule only states that players must play to maximize their score on the current game and refers to the tournament ranking system for the definition of the score. But that is mostly cosmetic, the content would be the same.

> Non-existant user wrote: > Actually, that is surprisingly simple. Just add 7 words to the PTW rule: > > > For tournaments, playing to win means playing to get a Game Win with as many Victory Points as possible if it is reasonably possible, and when a Game Win is not reasonably possible, then playing to get as many Victory Points as possible. > > It seem an extremely bad idea to implement it that way. * what happen if someone oust itself seemingly by mistake, like paying too much pool ? * what constitute 'trying to win with as many VP as possible' ? It seem horribly subjective and problem-prone. It's far more extensive than just deals. Then again, I believe withdrawal and thoses kind of deal as the very essence of VtES, not something to be eliminated.

> Ohlmann wrote: > * what happen if someone oust itself seemingly by mistake, like paying too much pool ? > That has been a problem of the PTW rule since day 1 and would be a problem of any PTW rule. It has nothing to do with this particular change. > * what constitute 'trying to win with as many VP as possible' ? It seem horribly subjective and problem-prone. It's far more extensive than just deals. > Once again, this is a problem with having a PTW rule in general, not with this particular change. The common solution nowadays is that PTW is only invoked sparingly. However the change I propose has one straightforward implication: it forbids players to agree to split points in the duel and it forbids them to make a deal that involves such a split. Once in a duel, each player must try to oust his opponent. If he can't, then he must at least try to survive. Nothing complicated, just a 2-player game as it should be. > Then again, I believe withdrawal and thoses kind of deal as the very essence of VtES, not something to be eliminated. > So why do you think there is a rule that declares deals void in the duel?

> Non-existant user wrote: > > > Ohlmann wrote: > > * what happen if someone oust itself seemingly by mistake, like paying too much pool ? > > > That has been a problem of the PTW rule since day 1 and would be a problem of any PTW rule. It has nothing to do with this particular change. > Except you make it even more precise, and so even more problem-prone. It should be an exceptional rule, and you talk about expanding it. > Non-existant user wrote: > So why do you think there is a rule that declares deals void in the duel? > Should I find every rules that existe are a good idea ? More importantly, it's mainly "don't forget you're not supposed to be gentleman". Deal are not enforced by the rule in the sense you don't have to follow them through ; the rule you cite is here to recall people this fact. My model for deal in VtES is diplomacy : a deal is valid as long as it's not tempting to break it. The original post from Ankha is here to show how avoiding betrayal is done.

> Stefan wrote: > 1. Remove the possibility to withdraw from the game. Seriously - it adds nothing interesting at all and is, in today's tournament play, only used in shady deals. It also consumes time since there is always someone at a table who doesn't know the rules for withdrawal and needs to be reminded. > > I don't see any of my suggestions removing any of the good parts of table politics but they put an end to some of the bad parts. > > What do you think? > I completely disagree with this. There are times when declaring a withdrawal is the best play to maximise your own VPs or guarantee the game win, or just to force your opponents to make sub-optimal plays to prevent you withdrawing. I do agree with your other point though.

> Mael wrote: > There are times when declaring a withdrawal is the best play to maximise your own VPs or guarantee the game win, or just to force your opponents to make sub-optimal plays to prevent you withdrawing. > Pics or it didn't happen Seriously, an honest question: how often have you declared a withdrawal? For me, it's 0. And it could not have been much more than that since the times I exhausted my library can be counted on the fingers of one hand, not even considering the other conditions. Even my 60 card Imbued with 18 convictions didn't manage to deck itself.

> Even my 60 card Imbued with 18 convictions didn't manage to deck itself. > That is in no way an example. That is akin to saying "I played a 60 card deck with 12 Ashur's when nobody else was and I never decked myself".

When you always play convictions from hand if you can (if only to draw more cards) and can play 2 or 3 powers in a turn when you get a new Imbued out, the cardflow is actually very good and stable. I didn't manage to put the whole deck on the table as I thought but went pretty close. What, off-topic?

> Non-existant user wrote: > > > Mael wrote: > > There are times when declaring a withdrawal is the best play to maximise your own VPs or guarantee the game win, or just to force your opponents to make sub-optimal plays to prevent you withdrawing. > > > Pics or it didn't happen Seriously, an honest question: how often have you declared a withdrawal? For me, it's 0. And it could not have been much more than that since the times I exhausted my library can be counted on the fingers of one hand, not even considering the other conditions. Even my 60 card Imbued with 18 convictions didn't manage to deck itself. > My 60 card Shatter the Gate deck would deck itself in about half the games I played with it (it's currently retired pending reconstruction for this reason). It's also the deck I have that's most likely to be able to successfully withdraw because of Mental Maze (with cost reduced by Nergal) and Unleash Hell's Fury. I don't think I ever did try to withdraw with it, but I considered it on a couple of occasions and if I played the deck more often I think I probably would eventually. The closest I came was in one game where I could withdraw for a safe 1.5 vp, but decided against it to try to go for the game win. If the rest of the table state had been different then that decision could have gone the other way. A contrived example that's possible to occur with other decks would be if a suicidal (or desperate) player had reduced both himself and his prey to smoking holes in the ground. The prey in this situation might see that there's no way to recover before his grand-predator bleeds through his predator and then himself, so would declare a withdraw if he could as half a vp is better than none. Edit: I also was ousted by a brinkmanship deck before, but I don't think that counts for the purposes of this discussion

Don't kill Brinkmanship decks! Anyway, interesting discussion with two opposite views of what the game is. And I fear you can't find a common ground, but we can try Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

> Ankha wrote: > Anyway, interesting discussion with two opposite views of what the game is. And I fear you can't find a common ground, but we can try > I'm glad you feel that way Imagination is our only weapon in the war against reality -Jules de Gaultier