TIE Breaker for finals

Hello. After several encounters with final splits where one ousted player was higher seed and won. We are several ppl in sweden that wonders why this is and not winner goes to the last player on the table. AKA beeing last player VP wins you the game if it is a splitt. We understand that in the case of a timeout tie high seed wins but not why it would take it in a game where there is a last player standing. Prince of Lidingö

The goal of the game is to have more VPs than the others, not staying alive. Being first seed means you have scored more VPs during the preliminary rounds; as a reward you win the final in case of a tie. Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

> Ankha wrote: > The goal of the game is to have more VPs than the others, not staying alive. > Being first seed means you have scored more VPs during the preliminary rounds; as a reward you win the final in case of a tie. > The goal of the game can be changed, if enough people think it´s stupid. Personally I think being first seed is strong enough as you get to choose seating late. Logically being ousted out of the Eternal Struggle should mean you cannot win the Eternal Struggle (at least unless there is a timeout). Please give us some strong argument for the rules not being changed! "My strategy? Luck is my strategy, of course."

> Ashur wrote: > > > Ankha wrote: > > The goal of the game is to have more VPs than the others, not staying alive. > > Being first seed means you have scored more VPs during the preliminary rounds; as a reward you win the final in case of a tie. > > > The goal of the game can be changed, if enough people think it´s stupid. Personally I think being first seed is strong enough as you get to choose seating late. Logically being ousted out of the Eternal Struggle should mean you cannot win the Eternal Struggle (at least unless there is a timeout). Please give us some strong argument for the rules not being changed! > What is the strong argument for changing it ? (people "thinking it's stupid" is not an argument. And "logically" doesn't apply if you're refering to lore when considering tournament rules). Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

I think that one strong argument is that it is unintuitive that a player not in the game has a chance to win it. Also that while in certain positions a high seed player who gets two points then gets ousted giving one point to its predator creates a potential loss position for a third player who now can freely choose to self oust if he or she wishes instead of fighting for a win.(AKA fighting for another players win). This situation is not cool. And in my opinion a player who has made it to the finals and is last person standing deservs the victory more than the player who "only" got two and then got ousted. Prince of Lidingö

I respect your opinion. Personally, I think that a player who scores 3 vps and gets ousted in the duel still deserves to win the game, especially if that player exhausted all his resources and loses to a player who just waited until the others die. If the first seed player manages to score 2 vps, then either the other players are to blame (you don't let the first seed player scores vps if you want to win, whatever position on the table he has), or the first seed was clearly superior and deserves to win. In the situation you describe, the predator of the first seed still has a chance to get the GW so it was a bit of a gambit for the first seed player. The fact that the third player who apparently wasn't very effective (no vp at that time) has no chance of winning the tournament doesn't seem a problem to me. Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

I agree with Ankha. National Coordinator Germany nc [dot] germany [at] magenta [dot] de

> Randy wrote: > I think that one strong argument is that it is unintuitive that a player not in the game has a chance to win it. > It works in exactly the same way for the earlier rounds - the Game Win can go to someone who's been ousted. V:TES isn't, and has never been intended to be, a last-man standing game. The whole point of V:TES's multiplayer structure is that you get players with totally different incentives, and if one of my cross-table "allies" is proving to be troublesome, getting rid of them may be good for me (e.g. they're no longer contesting my Inner Circle title) but it's also a conflict for me (it helps someone else get a step closer to winning). Richard Garfield was very careful in not setting up a game that is solely social because of the distinct aims we each have, but where alliances and scheming have a part to play. If we play the earlier rounds with one set of rules, it's generally much better for us all if we can play the final with the same set - so if 'winning' means being last man standing in the final, it should probably mean it in the earlier rounds. Otherwise you can create a situation where the 'best' deck in the earlier rounds is screwed by the change in format of the later round, which is odd.[0] Moving to a last-man standing game also radically alters the desirability and viability of certain deck types. Back-ousting with bleeds, for example, becomes potentially much stronger, because then a given player has two effective predators - their real predator, and the !Malkavians back-ousting them with Kindred Spirits. Potentially very unpleasant. It also (potentially) massively increases the incentives to dogpile someone. Can we also re-write the rules of chess? It's weird that I can beat you, even though you might have more pieces on the board. [0] We already have that to a limited extent with the tweaks to how you get the win in the final (e.g. the tie-break), but that's a relatively minimal tweak overall.

I Think you got me wrong, My intent was to give the tiebreak in a 2-2 split in the final to last man instead of seed and not giving the win to a person with 2 vps if he or she is last person and there is another with more. SO Winner of a final is: 1. The person with most VPs when the game has ended 2. Highest seed in the case of a timeout and there is a tie for most VPs 3. Last person on the table when there is no timeout but there is a 2-2 split. I myself dont know if this would promot "better" play but it feels wierd when you sit there and you are fighting for another players win. Prince of Lidingö

> Randy wrote: > I myself dont know if this would promot "better" play but it feels wierd when you sit there and you are fighting for another players win. > It's a similar situation if you are in a duel with another player that already has 3 VP. You can play, but it won't change anything for you. In your situation, one of the two player can still win, meaning that the ousted top seed player took a big gambit because the third player has no motivation to play to win as many points as he can. It doesn't mean that the third player should be able to win for all that. I Think you got me wrong, My intent was to give the tiebreak in a 2-2 split in the final to last man instead of seed and not giving the win to a person with 2 vps if he or she is last person and there is another with more. > Randy wrote: > Winner of a final is: > 1. The person with most VPs when the game has ended > 2. Highest seed in the case of a timeout and there is a tie for most VPs > 3. Last person on the table when there is no timeout but there is a 2-2 split. > Does it mean that if player A and B scores 2 vp, and that player C manages to be the last man standing, player C wins? Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

> Randy wrote: > I Think you got me wrong, > Well, you said: I think that one strong argument is that it is unintuitive that a player not in the game has a chance to win it. So I'm figuring that you, you know, think that it's "unintuitive" that a player who is not in the game has a, how do you put it, chance to win it. Why is it only weird in a 2-2 split?

I strongly disagree with the idea of last man standing winning over another player with 2 VPs and here is why: 1. If the higher seated player manages to gain 2 VPs he deserves the win more than the player who is last man standing, since that player only ousted 1 other player and merely got his second VP as a result of being last man while the first player actually killed 2 other players 2. The first player in that scenario got his 2 VPs earlier in the game, that means it took him less time hence he was more effective in scoring those VPs. 3. This is the most important one. Changing the rule like this would give a very bad incentive to the top seated player. If he had a choice of scoring 1 VP and than running down the clock by playing very defensivly vs. scoring 2 VP and loosing the final to the last man standing it is clear what would happen. This would result in even more incentive for higher seated players to play slow games in order to tie for VPs and win based on seating instead of winning by max. amount of VPs.

Also, this would skew the meta in the same way changing the round time from 2 to 3 hours. Now Walls are far stronger. I say no change, because: -As explained above, it would skew the meta a bit. Might not be enough to create a problem, but IF we want to benefit "saying alive", then one of those players did not or could not do it correctly. -This happens in what? 8% of Finals? Less? Should we change something fundamental in the game because of a little problem? I just don't think we should change that much of the game. A guys has an advantage because he did better in the prelims? I think that's great. I always take that into account in the Finals I'm in. I love you Swedes (my adopted brethren), but I think we are so idle without a company releasing the game that we look for things to discuss that otherwise we would not even give two cents. I think this goes into the category of "Una tech must be banned".

As always, it´s not possible to discuss things at an internet forum without people actively trying to misunderstand and getting nasty. If you disagree, please just state your arguement and refrain from the insults. My point is: It´s fucked up that that someone EVER should end up in a situation when he/she only plays someone else´s victory. This has nothing to do with "lore" thank you very much, it´s just common sense. "My strategy? Luck is my strategy, of course."

> Ashur wrote: > As always, it´s not possible to discuss things at an internet forum without people actively trying to misunderstand and getting nasty. If you disagree, please just state your arguement and refrain from the insults. > > My point is: It´s fucked up that that someone EVER should end up in a situation when he/she only plays someone else´s victory. This has nothing to do with "lore" thank you very much, it´s just common sense. > I'm gonna assume you're talking about me, since you didn't say who was actively misdunderstanding and being nasty. By no means did I missunderstood on purpose. The nasty bit is subjective. This game allows for players to cross table rush you and king make. It is legal to stop a player from playing or winning, under (wrong) assertions. What you speak of is something that people should be aware 100%: if a player is top seed in a final, allowing him to have 2 vps is a good way not to win. That is my point. Asbur: we all love you man. Please relax a bit.

> Brum wrote: > This game allows for players to cross table rush you and king make. > It is legal to stop a player from playing or winning, under (wrong) assertions. > > What you speak of is something that people should be aware 100%: if a player is top seed in a final, allowing him to have 2 vps is a good way not to win. > Yes, this is how it is. But is it good? My point it that it´s worth discussing if the tournament rules should promote this. I think top seed is strong enough as you get to pick seating. "My strategy? Luck is my strategy, of course."

Its funny how people have different views from the same thing. I always felt that being top seed brings along a stigma that is detrimental to the top seed player. For instance, it is the player that has the hardest time to make deals with anyone. Maybe I think that way because my playgroup is filled with inexperienced players and being Tiago Brum is an issue all in of itself. It is normal, being the most experienced and owning all the cards I would want, I guess. Anyway, even in EC Finals, being top seed is only good IF you're experienced and know what you're doing in sitting. But once the game starts, you're number one to go. The second seed guy/girl wants you dead and will always shut down any deal you might try. Also I think this discussion differs allot depending the decks that are in game. Top seed with Ventrue Grinder or Tzimmy Wall (Tzimmy!) is completely different than !Malk S&B. I just think it's one of those things that people should be aware IF they wanna win. Like don't let Una grow, or learn to stop Imbued.

> Ashur wrote: > Yes, this is how it is. But is it good? My point it that it´s worth discussing if the tournament rules should promote this. I think top seed is strong enough as you get to pick seating. > You have to tie-break somehow.[0] Is it bad that it works this way? If you want to change things, the work has to be to demonstrate that the old way is problematic and/or the new way is significantly better. Then, if the current "top seed wins tie-breaks" is problematic for whatever reason, why is the current suggestion better - or even good? It tilts the game towards wall decks, and is that good for the game?[1] Wall decks have a tendency to slow games down, especially those involving cross-table blocking - Eagle's Sight et al - and that ability is very useful in a final to control the way the table falls in this situation. But having extra incentives to play such decks almost certainly leads to more time-outs, and I don't see more time-outs being something that people want to see increase as a deliberate measure, or something they'd want to accept as reasonable collateral damage for a change. That's not to say that you couldn't change the tie-break criteria, but I'm not at all sure that the suggestion is a good one. [0] Well, technically you don't. You could declare joint winners. This is not problem free, as it essentially brings back some of the problems that previously existed in the game - two players make a deal that leads to a tie, leading to table-splitting, so they both "win". The "one player is first, everyone else joint second" structure is good at eliminating that. [1] The game as a whole, not whether it's a rational choice for an individual player. Players will often do whatever they can to win within the current structure/card set etc., but that doesn't mean it's good for the game as a whole.

Okay, this is my attempt to get the emotions out of this discussion. Feel free to correct me if I do re-phrase something wrong. We have a proposal: »Please, change the winning conditions in a final when there is a 2–2–1 table split.« This is based on personal perception of some players that the actual »The top seed player wins« condition is suboptimal in comparison with a suggested »The last player standing wins« condition. We have some other players who disagree with this suggestion for various reasons. Without any valid data or playtesting, this discussion has much in common with e.g. the »Let’s change the text of a specific card« discussion or the »I want to have a new card that does X« discussion or the »I want to have card X banned« discussion. I don’t know what would be the best way to go on now. What I can imagine personally: 1) The »official way«: Ask the Inner Circle to collect information from the National Coordinators, if the case is considered »a problem« or at least »worthy to discuss«. 2) The »French way«: Invest a year (or more) of (unsanctioned) tournaments (e.g. in Sweden) with the rules changed according to the suggested »The last man standing wins in case of a 2–2–1 table split«, and report the results. 3) Create a new tournament format (e.g. for side events at the EC or Grand-Prixs) »The Last Man Standing«: In every round at every table, you get a VP for ousting your prey (maybe you still get 0.5 VP if there is a time-out and you are still alive) up to a maximum of 4 (!), and there is only one (!) way to get a Game-Win, and that is to be the last man standing. [And the final table should be played with 2.5 hours time-limit or without any time-limit at all.] National Coordinator Germany nc [dot] germany [at] magenta [dot] de

> Hakuron wrote: > We have a proposal: »Please, change the winning conditions in a final when there is a 2–2–1 table split.« > But why only in that situation? And what is it that is objectionable? Unless anyone can actually explain why this is a problem, it's very difficult to evaluate whether any change is actually an improvement. If we use option 2, we can see that in 25 tournaments without this change, the following things happened, and that in 25 tournaments with this change, the following things happened - but with no actual agreement on what is actually problematic. If we see fewer ties, is that the right outcome? If we see more ties but with the lower seed player winning, is that the right outcome? If we see more ties, but with the top seeded player playing for last man standing rather than miscalculating a lunge/sweep, is that the right outcome? If we see a distinct change in the overall makeup of decks in a tournament (e.g. more walls, more !Malk back-ousters), but no significant change in the ties/tie-break scenario, is that the right outcome? What about the current situation is problematic, and why? Is the alternative better, or just arbitrarily different? So far, it appears to be just "But we could change this because I think it's weird." And we could change literally any V:TES rule based on that.

From what I understood the issue is Player A being ousted with 2 VPs and player B being last standing also with 2 VPs, while A wins because he is higher seed than B. Specially if player A did it purposefully to die in a way he would win, OR someone else played in a way for that to happen. Player A wins while being ousted and out of the game with the same points as a player that endured. I have no problem with this. None what so over. VtES is (still) a game of human machinations and plotting, besides having a deterministic math element with the card text (and THAT is also questionable sometimes). This is part of that human part that makes the game great, imho.

The problem is not whether B deserves to win or not, it is that B enters the duel with no goal, so he can only decide how to play based on out-of-game considerations. The Swede's proposal is to give B a goal, then play the duel. Another solution would be to decide the winner somehow without playing the duel.

> Non-existant user wrote: > The problem is not whether B deserves to win or not, it is that B enters the duel with no goal, so he can only decide how to play based on out-of-game considerations. The Swede's proposal is to give B a goal, then play the duel. Another solution would be to decide the winner somehow without playing the duel. > I dont understand the problem. If the top seated player has 2 VP, and no other player can gain 2,5 VP or more the game is over. All players have an already determined finishing spot, e.g. Top Seat wins, all other non-winning finalists tie for second place. Stop the game and drink beer.

I do agree that promoting slow endgame wall deck is very bad. Its just that losspositions are so wierd... The goal of my original post was to hear some arguments. Prince of Lidingö

The issue is, like Boris said, that you can have a situation where only ONE of the players in the duel is fighting for the win. Since B can't win he or she might as well just fold and go for a beer despite the results still being up in the air. I do agree with the counterpoint that promoting wall decks is unhealthy for the finals though. Lidingö Scourge

I would agree if that situation occured from the start. But I don't see an issue if the situation occurs after three players have been ousted (the same way that you can't win anymore after a player has collected 3 vp). Players should wake up before such a situation arises and do things to prevent it. It shouldn't be prevented by tournament rules. Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

> M.Schumacher wrote: > I dont understand the problem. If the top seated player has 2 VP, and no other player can gain 2,5 VP or more the game is over. All players have an already determined finishing spot, e.g. Top Seat wins, all other non-winning finalists tie for second place. Stop the game and drink beer. > Player C can still get a GW 3. C is the player who enters the duel with 1VP. That is the problem: C's game is not over, but he has no one else to play against. > > I would agree if that situation occured from the start. But I don't see an issue if the situation occurs after three players have been ousted (the same way that you can't win anymore after a player has collected 3 vp). > Players should wake up before such a situation arises and do things to prevent it. It shouldn't be prevented by tournament rules. > Again the problem is not judging who deserves to win or not, or a simple mechanical one: how does B play the duel? A simple coin toss is probably more robust than any deterministic measure to break ties.

> Non-existant user wrote: > Again the problem is not judging who deserves to win or not, or a simple mechanical one: how does B play the duel? A simple coin toss is probably more robust than any deterministic measure to break ties. > The player that has no way of winning can play like he likes. It's too late for him anyway. If he wants to give the victory to the other remaining player, he can. Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

> Non-existant user wrote: > Player C can still get a GW 3. C is the player who enters the duel with 1VP. That is the problem: C's game is not over, but he has no one else to play against. > This is a primary concern for the Player who is top seated with 2VP, not for the player that has already lost the final. If you are top seated, gain 2 VP and get ousted and then allow a Player who can potentially win the game play 1 on 1 against a player who has nothing to win or loose then you are putting your success in the finals in the hands of a player with no motivation to play to win. You should have played that table differently.