Greetings fellow Methuselahs !
I would like to ask your opinion and if BCP agrees about changing a rule on sanctioned tournaments.
Can we authorize the Multi decks system for any number of players as soon as it is announced before the event ?
To remind you
3.1.5 Multi-Deck System
Players are prohibited from making modifications to their decks between rounds unless the tournament uses the following multi-deck rules. The multi-deck system can be used at any tournament with fewer than 12 players (i.e., fewer than three tables). Organizers choosing to use this system must announce its use in advance of the tournament date. Players may choose to bring any number of tournament-legal decks to the tournament and/or extra cards to exchange with cards in their decks (also known as a sideboard in some games). Between rounds, players may freely switch decks (or cards in their decks). A tournament begun with the multi-deck system cannot admit more players between rounds if doing so would create a round with 12 or more players.
Thanks for your time and answers.
Pentex Board of Directors
Prince of Oye Plage
Alastor Grand Nord
Hey Vlad ☺︎
TLDR; rather no but no hard feelings ☺︎
The way I see it, the multi-deck system was devised so that when you're not that many and you play the same players round after round, you all get to change decks so that it's not too boring.
So first question we need to answer is what would be the point of allowing multi-decks for larger tournaments? This is what I make of it, but maybe you could expand on that first, @Vlad: why the change? It allows for deck adjustments when you bring an experimental deck. Lately, many communities have been playing online leagues with a "1 round a week" structure. With that time between rounds, being unable to modify your deck is frustrating. We do have mostly online tournaments nowadays and that makes enforcing a no change policy harder (In theory online tools could help with that but, in reality, nobody checks really) It allows for deeper strategies (playing EC/NAC 2 days / 2 decks structure requires a plan), more strategy is good, it makes for better competition. It can only lead to more deck archetypes being relevant. It equalises chances between old players with a big network and newcomers. Mark's article on meta game makes it clear that older Methusalahs have an edge: they do rely on their network to predict what decks people will bring and crush them since they can't change deck. (Well, since we're in the Camarilla here, I guess Princes would probably argue that older Methusalahs having an edge is the way of the Ivory Tower ☺︎ More on that in the conclusion). Allowing deck changes in larger tournaments raise multiple issues though: The first obvious idea is to bring different decks for 4p and 5p tables. As an extension, bringing different decks depending on your initial seat to get more optimal setups. The second idea is to use a different deck in the Finals as opposed to the deck you play in rounds. EC and NAC with their 2 days structure and last year World's championship make it clear that allowing any kind of deck change in large tournaments leads to a shift in the meta depending on the stage. If you change decks then the whole point of a tournament becomes moot: the winner is not necessarily the best deck anymore In real life large tournaments, players with larger collections will benefit most. This makes the seating choice in the finals moot. This rewards scouting as opposed to playing. If you gather good intel and know your opponents decks, you can adapt yours to include strong counters. This ruins the "World of Darkness" ambiance of a V:tES tournament. When you play your Stanislava deck for three rounds, you become the "Stanislava" Methusalah. I think pros and cons are debatable on each of those points, this is my 2 cents: Tournament strategy being more technical is not a bad thing, it's proof of the game's strategic depth. A bit of structure in the timing (EC/NAC) and or range (side limit MtG style) of changes you can operate demonstrably leads to interesting strategies. But my feeling is that allowing unlimited changes anytime will not. I'm not opposed to multi-decks, but some kind of limit will probably yield better results (throwing ideas but, for example, 2 decks and 20 cards side) A tournament should aim at selecting the best player, not the best deck. Allowing deck changes will not hinder that, rather the opposite. BCP is making heroic efforts to reprint all cards at very decent prices. Compared to any other CCG, card price and "pay to win" factor is far lower in V:tES. So in my opinion 3. is moot. The seating dance is an important part of a tournament structure. Removing it or making it moot will raise the luck factor and lower the skill factor, which is not good. On that point, again, limiting the allowed changes is I think the only way to go: the only question that remains is do you choose/modify your deck before or after seating. Scouting is already rewarded too much, some players have complained that scouts get an illegitimate edge in the finals. On that point, we could take a hint from more competitive CCGs and make the deck lists public after everybody submitted. This equalises the chances, which is more competitive. But more importantly, it improves tournament promotion and game exposure a lot. No secrecy means streamers can stream any round, and commentators can discuss player tactics with precision and analyse deck list and meta-game more easily. Publicising deck lists is demonstrably a huge boost in both the level of competition and the quality of game promotion. For me, that's the biggest issue. We could make a multi-deck system work, but, given previous points, that would change the ambiance of a tournament a lot. Too much in my opinion. As a conclusion, I'd say allowing some form of structure multi-decks in major tournaments sounds like a good way to raise the competitive level and get more exposure.
But an important point is the ambiance. Right now, there is a WoD quality in the way V:tES tournaments work. You bring your deck and you play it for multiple games, you essentially become "the Gangrel player" (or any other clan of course) for the duration fo the tournament. Old Methusalahs perform well because they know the inner workings of this ruthless world. The kindred network spans the entire world and clever Methusalahs prepare their Eternal Struggle well in advance, to rip the rewards ont the finals table. And during the tournament, politics and exchange of information are tools the best of us use to get an edge for their next round. Personally I'm not so sure I would want to depart from all of that. I've been playing competitive CCGs. This feeling you get from a V:tES tournament is exactly what brought me back to the game and the tournaments in the first place. Why exchange that for a highly competitive aseptic scene that cares only about statistics ? We've got Magic for that already. Let's play our strength, trying to copy a successful cousin will only throw us in its shadow.
I first didn't think about it but being first in finals, you could add a bunch of autarkis persecution in your vote deck and you have a good old time limit
The question is not the pros and cons of multi-deck tournaments but whether such a rule should be centrally enforced. Why would a rule team on the other side of the world assume they know what the local players want better than the tournament organizer? There are many places in the world where tournaments are (or at least were before the Plague) the only tabletop scene left. Those tournaments are bound to look very different from the competitive events of a big city with multiple weekly games.
I think this thread is onlu about VEKN-sanctioned tournaments using VEKN Tournament Rules.
Within your playgroup you can even play tournaments with right-bleeds if you like it and have fun.
Boris is right : I don't want all tournaments to become Multi Deck ones but simply the possibility to play one even if there are 20 players (that want to do so, and even if 4 of those decide to play the same deck they Can of course)
Pentex Board of Directors
Prince of Oye Plage
Alastor Grand Nord
Well but smeeag is right - I thought your point was about sanctioned tournaments. You can multi decks already in an unsanctioned one.
The point is still important for larger sanctioned tournaments. For example the 2020 world championship, although online and unsanctioned, used a multideck 6 rounds system and had more than a hundred participants - it still made the newsletter and was a great final to watch
I don't ask for NAC or EC to become Multi Deck but why a Big Tournament couldn't earn rating points with the Multi Deck système, as you said with the 2020 World Championship it was used. The winner was even THE WORLD CHAMPION, so why couldn't he/she had earnt rating points ?
I simply ask for the possibility to sanction a Tournament with Multi Deck option for more than 11 players.
And you gave me the perfect exemple of one that 100s of players enjoyed...
Pentex Board of Directors
Prince of Oye Plage
Alastor Grand Nord
OK...
What is the goal of having points of rating ?
The obvious answer seems to be : "to rate players" no ?
So why rate different kind of tournament in the same place ?
Playing a multi-deck tournament IS a different kind of tournament.
For 10- players tourneys, it doesn't have an heavy weight on the rating because small tournaments have small coefficient.
But if you want to have fun, you don't need to sanction a tournament (and it has been done all around the world time and time again...)
So again, why rate everything in the same system ? If the rating is important to you, you will probably play more than 2 to 3 local tournaments a year and you will not need to have multideck tournament with 20+ players and if the rating is not important to you and you want multi deck tournament, why not ask to your local playgroup if they are OK with that and organize one (unsanctionned).
> @ Tim & Ezra : Can you please read again my previous message and this one from Boris.
> And if there are some words or concepts that you don't fully understand, don't hesitate to ask for explanations.
> Because repeating that you are against the possibility to get rating points for 11 or less players and not for 12+ is the question.
>
> Why not choosing a limit of 20 or 50 or a NC or CC ?
>
> That is my question.
>
> The same that I asked Floppy (then Rules Director and French Coordinatrice) why no proxies for every Tournament ? I was told : "We dunno what Paradox thinks about it". So I told him to ask them once and for all, and maybe 2 weeks later we all could play proxies until the game came back into printing.
>
> Why do you seem to fear a so little change ?
> You don't have to organize Multi Deck, you simply can...
>
> Thx for reading, good night / day.
>
> Vlad
>
> This was Boris the Blade message (but I kinda misclicked somewhere on my phone so the quoting part seems to have failed)
>
> The question is not the pros and cons of multi-deck tournaments but whether such a rule should be centrally enforced. Why would a rule team on the other side of the world assume they know what the local players want better than the tournament organizer? There are many places in the world where tournaments are (or at least were before the Plague) the only tabletop scene left. Those tournaments are bound to look very different from the competitive events of a big city with multiple weekly games.
>
Pentex Board of Directors
Prince of Oye Plage
Alastor Grand Nord
> @ Tim & Ezra : Can you please read again my previous message and this one from Boris.
> And if there are some words or concepts that you don't fully understand, don't hesitate to ask for explanations.
>
First thing first : you don't have to be condescending when someone answer a question you ask in a public forum and the answer is not to your liking.
And the answers I gave was (and still is) :
>
> Playing a multi-deck tournament IS a different kind of tournament.
>
And so in my opinion should be rated in a different place.
As it is, the rating system as some flaws (again, "in my opinion", I don't think my point of view is universal but it was asked). It is not a good reason to add other flaws to it...
And yes, I understand that if your proposal was accepted, I would not have to play in such tournaments but I would have to be ranked in a rating system that mix different kind of tournament.
And about the why this question should be "centrally enforced", because if you begin to rate different kind of tournament in the same rating system, the system has no value whatsoever...
> lip wrote:
> Let's behave like any rightful players association. Let's use ELO ratings.
>
The topic is not about how the rating is calculated, but if the same rating should apply to different types of tournaments.
I am not in favor of using the same rating for different types of tournaments since it would defeat the purpose of rating. The purpose of rating is to see how a player compares with another with as little variation as possible outside the players' skills. It would be like using the same rating in chess for blitz or standard.
Prince of Paris, France
Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director
For me even more important is contamination of TWDA, because deck winning tournament will be not the deck best for the entire tournament, but just best among 5 decks on the final table.
I was joking with the ELO thing - It's not a rating we could use in a multi-player game like V:tES.
I must agree with Ankha and smeeag here - I mean, why not a new sanctioned form of tournaments, but this has to be a separated rating and deck archive.
> smeeag wrote:
> For me even more important is contamination of TWDA, because deck winning tournament will be not the deck best for the entire tournament, but just best among 5 decks on the final table.
>
> Sorry on my phone i can't get out of the Quote Zone. Here's my answer to you Smeeag :
>
> So let's not put them in the TWDA.
>
Pentex Board of Directors
Prince of Oye Plage
Alastor Grand Nord
> Ankha wrote:
>
> > lip wrote:
> > Let's behave like any rightful players association. Let's use ELO ratings.
> >
> The topic is not about how the rating is calculated, but if the same rating should apply to different types of tournaments.
> I am not in favor of using the same rating for different types of tournaments since it would defeat the purpose of rating. The purpose of rating is to see how a player compares with another with as little variation as possible outside the players' skills. It would be like using the same rating in chess for blitz or standard.
>
> And my question is why this choice of 11 and not 20 or 50 or any non NC or CC ?
> As long as players want to play like that ?
>
Pentex Board of Directors
Prince of Oye Plage
Alastor Grand Nord
With 11 players there are only 2 tables, and so multi-decking allow to:
1) Extend presented archetypes
It's not necessarily good to artificially widen it as it's a part of preparation to the tournament to forecast metagame and take best-fitting deck.
But with small number of attendee, chances quite high it will be just a matter of luck that you get perfectly fit for the meta (or opposite).
2) It makes rounds less boring
Yes, allowing multideck for 2 tables tournament is a kind of "less of 2 evils". But with 3 tables, you will have more diversity in the decks you will encounter and so multi-deck is no longer a "lesser evil" ^^
> Vlad wrote:
>
> > Ankha wrote:
> >
> > > lip wrote:
> > > Let's behave like any rightful players association. Let's use ELO ratings.
> > >
> > The topic is not about how the rating is calculated, but if the same rating should apply to different types of tournaments.
> > I am not in favor of using the same rating for different types of tournaments since it would defeat the purpose of rating. The purpose of rating is to see how a player compares with another with as little variation as possible outside the players' skills. It would be like using the same rating in chess for blitz or standard.
> >
> And my question is why this choice of 11 and not 20 or 50 or any non NC or CC ?
>
You are probably right. Multi-Deck System should not be rated the same way as standard constructed tournaments.
>
> Vlad wrote:
> As long as players want to play like that ?
>
Sure, the organizer can use another system. But it will not be ranked.
Prince of Paris, France
Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director
The question is still not answered, lol...
Why ?
And Why 11 and not any other options ? Like the proxies any non NC or CC ??? or a 20 or 50 players limit ?
If we remove the TWDA contamination...
I still can't understand why the answer is no...
No one is obliged to do that but let us do if we want and get rated.
Really, I don't understant what is blocking you...
Pentex Board of Directors
Prince of Oye Plage
Alastor Grand Nord
11 players is the maximum player for 2 tables tournaments.
It is arbitrary.
And Ankha answered you that even that seems too much to be rated with "normal" tournaments.
I don't understand what you ask if the answers given here do not answer your question.
Oh and by the way, you didn't answer my question :
>
> What is the goal of having points of rating ?
>
Yes and what Ankha said and I agree
:
The logical change should be to not rate at all multi deck tournament. Or to add a new rating for a multi deck tournament.
And what about the question I asked ? I could ask it differently :
Why do you want rating points for multi deck ? What is the purpose ?
They are already rated !!
But only for 11 or less players.
I dunno what you mean with your question, really.
Pentex Board of Directors
Prince of Oye Plage
Alastor Grand Nord
> Vlad wrote:
> They are already rated !!
> But only for 11 or less players.
> I dunno what you mean with your question, really.
>
What I ask is why having point of rating is important to you ?
And yes, why having 20+ players multi deck tournament with rating point is important to you ?
And also, because of what you wrote on the other thread : why you would like to change this limit to the rating of tournament and not other kind of limits (like for example the numer of player on each table or the number of card allowed in a deck ?
> Boris wrote:
> The question is not the pros and cons of multi-deck tournaments but whether such a rule should be centrally enforced. Why would a rule team on the other side of the world assume they know what the local players want better than the tournament organizer? There are many places in the world where tournaments are (or at least were before the Plague) the only tabletop scene left. Those tournaments are bound to look very different from the competitive events of a big city with multiple weekly games.
>
Pentex Board of Directors
Prince of Oye Plage
Alastor Grand Nord
I hope this will answer your question Timo.
I don't ask for myself or for my rating points.
If "little" Multi Deck tournaments are authorized, why this 11 limit ?
And why keeping it seems SO important ?
At some point Vekn ruled it can be sanctioned, so my simple question is why was this 11 limit chosen and is not changeable today ?
We are playing (Well we were) with proxies in all non NC / CC tournaments so what could be so horrible to change that limit ?
As I said, it could be 20 or 50 or the same than for proxies, I don t care. But what is the problem if some playgroups want to play once in a while a Multi Deck Tournament, have fun AND rating points ???
Is there a link between those points and some revenue in bitcoins that I am not aware of ??? Lol
That way to Always say No to changes seems so "medieval" to me..
Are you afraid that someone will play lots and lots of Multi Deck tournaments and get so much rating points that he will be the World Number 1 ?!?
So what ?
Play more than him/her/they and it's settled...
Have a good day and thanks for reading (you Timothée and all others of course).
Pentex Board of Directors
Prince of Oye Plage
Alastor Grand Nord
> Vlad wrote:
> The question is still not answered, lol...
>
> Why ?
>
> And Why 11 and not any other options ?
>
I suppose it is to mitigate the fact that in a tournament with less than 12 players, you are bound to play 2 or 3 times with the same players, and changing decks allow to avoid the same deck configurations repeating themselves.
Awarding rating points is a consolation prize when you've travelled a lot and discover than only 8 players show up, and since the coefficient is < 1 (from 0.02 to 0.77, see www.vekn.net/rating-system), it doesn't have a big impact compared to not rating them.
However, the rating system is only meaningful when applied to the same category of tournament. Ratings for other types of tournament (eg., a multi-deck) would have to go in another category that doesn't exist currently (and probably never will).
Prince of Paris, France
Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director
Ok thank you for this full and understandable answer.
This still makes me sad that it can't be changed but Life is Life
Pentex Board of Directors
Prince of Oye Plage
Alastor Grand Nord
In short
Nothing has changed correct? Multideck only in tournaments with a maximum of 10 players!
Desso Alastor
Organized Play Coordinator VEKN
Prince of São Paulo / Brazil ID#706
> Non-existant user wrote:
> Desso Alastor post=102739
>
> In short
> Nothing has changed correct? Multideck only in tournaments with a maximum of 10 players!
>
Yep ! No change (for now).
But it's 11 players maximum to get sanctioned and multi deck.
Pentex Board of Directors
Prince of Oye Plage
Alastor Grand Nord