So I've taken a huge break in VTES, but it continues to amuse me...
however, there are a few things that keep me from jumping right back
in full force (or even casualy dipping my foot in the waters).
One biggy that I wish to address here is that
Once you sit down at a table, you are contractually obligated to stay
there.
The rules to the game do not allow for standing up from the table and
quitting in a fair manner.
Are there any solutions?
On Jul 10, 11:50 am, Screaming Vermillian <alexandernja...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> So I've taken a huge break in VTES, but it continues to amuse me...
> however, there are a few things that keep me from jumping right back
> in full force (or even casualy dipping my foot in the waters).
>
> One biggy that I wish to address here is that
>
> Once you sit down at a table, you are contractually obligated to stay
> there.
Unless you signed an actual contract, you are not.
(However, if you sit down at a table knowing that you will have to
leave soon for some reason, it would be quite discourteous not to
mention that before seating.)
> The rules to the game do not allow for standing up from the table and
> quitting in a fair manner.
>
> Are there any solutions?
Some solutions to this problem are discussed (among other places) in
this thread:
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/browse_thread/thread/b9eef88d7f957b3f/3dba6582417ad254?q=oust+prey+author%3Axzealot&lnk=ol&
witness1
On Jul 10, 11:50 am, Screaming Vermillian <alexandernja...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> So I've taken a huge break in VTES, but it continues to amuse me...
> however, there are a few things that keep me from jumping right back
> in full force (or even casualy dipping my foot in the waters).
>
> One biggy that I wish to address here is that
>
> Once you sit down at a table, you are contractually obligated to stay
> there.
No, but depending on the situation, there are certainly consequences
to standing up.
If you are playing in a casual game (i.e. with friends or with random
people in a store) and you get up and leave for no good reason (i.e.
you get cranky and scoop your cards; I'm not really addressing "my
wife called and I need to go pick her up right now" or "Uh oh, my
basement just flooded", as those are both unintentional and
understandable, and everyone will just deal), people will eventually
stop inviting you to play with them, or generally avoid you. As that
is both bad sportsmanship, and kind of dicky.
If you are in a competitive game, if you get up and leave for no good
reason, you are breaking the tournament rules of "not playing to win",
which can get you thrown out of the tournament or banned from future
tournaments (i.e. if you piss off the judge enough, it will eventually
come back to you). And will also result in people not inviting you to
play in the future, presumably, if you make a habit of it. Again, if
your basement floods and you need to get out right then, everyone can
deal. But if you are just cranky and scoop? Not cool.
> The rules to the game do not allow for standing up from the table and
> quitting in a fair manner.
Well, they do, actually--in casual play, people can deal with it
however is appropriate (start over, represent you with some pool
counters, whatever). In tournament play, the Judge can take whatever
action is most appropriate to remedy the situation (rewind the game,
leave a place keeper pool pile, sit in and keep the game going if a
possibility, whatever). I mean, there aren't iron clad rules for
dealing with someone standing up and leaving, but there are plenty of
ways to generally deal with it when it occurs, many of which don't
ruin the current game.
-Peter
[ quoted text not captured ]
But if there was some formalized system of fairly standing up from the
table, so that if i DO have to go get my wife or something, I can not
feel guilty about it.
On Jul 10, 1:34 pm, Screaming Vermillian <alexandernja...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> But if there was some formalized system of fairly standing up from the
> table, so that if i DO have to go get my wife or something, I can not
> feel guilty about it.
When possible, leave your deck and/or pool at the table, and come back
for them when the crisis is resolved. The "best" solution is to allow
another player to play your deck for the remainder of the current
game, and have the judge remove you from the tournament at the end of
the round (assuming tournament play).
If you have to take your cards with you for whatever reason (or a
substitute player cannot be found), it can be more difficult for a
judge to handle the situation. However, this is what judges are for,
and there's no particularly good reason to feel guilty about it
(unless, again, you knew in advance that it could be a problem and
decided not to tell anyone).
-witness1
[ quoted text not captured ]> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/browse_t...
It might also be worthwhile to consider ways of playing an alternate
version of VTES that still feels mostly likely VTES, but is faster.
Off the top of my head, if each player had to pay 1 pool at the
beginning of his/her turn, the game might end faster. Starting with
+20 transfers would also likely speed up the game.
You're obviously playing a different game at that point, but it might
be more fun, especially if you only have 1 hour.
Ira
[ quoted text not captured ]
typically my problem consists of only ever having like 1-2 hours to
invest in the game. Also there's the 'being forced to sit there and
die when you know its a lost cause' aspect.
What is the problem with picking up your crap and giving your pred 6
pool and a VP?
And mostly I'm talking casual. its obvious that I would allocate the
time to play in a full tournament, because, I went to the thing, and
its usually a good assumption that you'll be needing to play. :)
> One biggy that I wish to address here is that
>
> Once you sit down at a table, you are contractually obligated to stay
> there.
>
> The rules to the game do not allow for standing up from the table and
> quitting in a fair manner.
>
> Are there any solutions?
I listed a set of "titanium rules" you could apply when a player
unexpectedly leaves a table.
Look at the player leaving the table. The pool level of that player
determines the benifit to his predator.
30-26 Pool, 0 VP for predator
25-21 Pool, 0 VP for predator but predator earns 1 Pool
20-16 Pool, 0 VP for predator but predator earns 2 Pool
15-11 Pool, 0 VP for predator but predator earns 3 Pool
10-6 Pool, 1 VP for Predator and predator earns 4 Pool
5-1 Pool, 1 VP for Predator and predator earns 5 Pool
Hope this helps.
Comments Welcome,
Norman S. Brown, Jr
XZealot
Archon of the Swamp
On Jul 10, 3:15 pm, Screaming Vermillian <alexandernja...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> typically my problem consists of only ever having like 1-2 hours to
> invest in the game. Also there's the 'being forced to sit there and
> die when you know its a lost cause' aspect.
When you know it's a lost cause, you aren't forced to sit there. Take
your zero VPs any way you can get them.
> What is the problem with picking up your crap and giving your pred 6
> pool and a VP?
Well, you should actually transfer yourself out if that's what you're
doing. Or leave behind a set amount of pool for your predator to bleed
through.
> And mostly I'm talking casual. its obvious that I would allocate the
> time to play in a full tournament, because, I went to the thing, and
> its usually a good assumption that you'll be needing to play. :)
In casual games, the "right" answer is frequently to leave behind a
sack of pool for your predator to bleed through. Unless the game just
started, in which case you should maybe just remove yourself from the
table and let the game play on as though you were never there.
witness1
> In casual games, the "right" answer is frequently to leave behind a
> sack of pool for your predator to bleed through. Unless the game just
> started, in which case you should maybe just remove yourself from the
> table and let the game play on as though you were never there.
....but that gives the prey of the poolsack such a huge atvantage,
that it is patently unfair to everyone else at the table.
[ quoted text not captured ]
On Jul 10, 4:27 pm, XZealot <xzea...@cox.net> wrote:
> > In casual games, the "right" answer is frequently to leave behind a
> > sack of pool for your predator to bleed through. Unless the game just
> > started, in which case you should maybe just remove yourself from the
> > table and let the game play on as though you were never there.
>
> ....but that gives the prey of the poolsack such a huge atvantage,
> that it is patently unfair to everyone else at the table.
Sometimes. That depends on how large the poolsack is.
If the poolsack is small, the predator of the poolsack takes a few
actions and has a new prey - the game is roughly where it should have
been.
If the poolsack is large, you can pretend that the poolsack has traded
his deck in for one of those found in this thread:
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/browse_thread/thread/d59c0367712f3806/dcab06d7e9c8f187?q=withdraw+corrupt+construction&lnk=ol&
Let the predator of the poolsack decide whether or not to let the
poolsack withdraw each turn.
For casual games, I would take this to be "fair enough".
-witness1
On Jul 10, 2:38 pm, witness1 <jwnewqu...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> On Jul 10, 4:27 pm, XZealot <xzea...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > > In casual games, the "right" answer is frequently to leave behind a
> > > sack of pool for your predator to bleed through. Unless the game just
> > > started, in which case you should maybe just remove yourself from the
> > > table and let the game play on as though you were never there.
>
> > ....but that gives the prey of the poolsack such a huge atvantage,
> > that it is patently unfair to everyone else at the table.
>
> Sometimes. That depends on how large the poolsack is.
>
> If the poolsack is small, the predator of the poolsack takes a few
> actions and has a new prey - the game is roughly where it should have
> been.
Which is completely subjective. What is small, what is large?
> If the poolsack is large, you can pretend that the poolsack has traded> his deck in for one of those found in this thread:http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/browse_t...>
> Let the predator of the poolsack decide whether or not to let the
> poolsack withdraw each turn.
>
> For casual games, I would take this to be "fair enough".
What do you think of the "titanium rules"?
> I listed a set of "titanium rules" you could apply when a player
> unexpectedly leaves a table.
>
> Look at the player leaving the table. The pool level of that player
> determines the benifit to his predator.
Heh, I thought you were going to say "Look at the player leaving the
table. Make a face and pelt them with their remaining pool counters as
they retreat in disgrace."
That would be ONE solution...
On Jul 10, 4:45 pm, XZealot <xzea...@cox.net> wrote:
> On Jul 10, 2:38 pm, witness1 <jwnewqu...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > Sometimes. That depends on how large the poolsack is.
>
> > If the poolsack is small, the predator of the poolsack takes a few
> > actions and has a new prey - the game is roughly where it should have
> > been.
>
> Which is completely subjective. What is small, what is large?
Let the predator decide. Pretend the poolsack will successfully
withdraw each turn if nobody at the table takes an action to stop it.
If it's "small" based on where the predator subjectively draws the
line, the predator will take the actions to bleed it out, gain his 6
pool, and earn a VP. The table will be back to something resembling
normality in a few turns at most.
If it's "large" based on where the predator subjectively draws the
line, the predator will allow it to withdraw. The game will be back to
something resembling normality immediately after that happens.
> > If the poolsack is large, you can pretend that the poolsack has traded
> > his deck in for one of those found in this thread:http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/browse_t...
>
> > Let the predator of the poolsack decide whether or not to let the
> > poolsack withdraw each turn.
>
> > For casual games, I would take this to be "fair enough".
>
> What do you think of the "titanium rules"?
I dislike the idea of a player spontaneously gaining up to 5 pool and
up to 1 VP without taking an additional action to acquire it. I
especially dislike the possibility (however remote) of a player with 2
pool and no minions suddenly gaining 5 pool and a VP that, were the
game to have played out "normally", would very likely have instead
been 6 pool and a VP for someone else at the table. In general, I
think players should get no pool nor VPs if they do not manage to
remove their prey's last pool before being ousted themselves.
The spirit of VtES is that getting halfway there and stalling out
rewards your predator, not you.
That doesn't make your idea bad or even unfair. I suspect there are a
lot of situations in which it would work just fine, and I am mostly
focusing on the ones where it doesn't to explain why I don't like it
as a general rule.
I prefer the guidelines I listed above (call them "stainless steel
guidelines"?) because they (mostly) stay within the normal parameters
of how one earns (or fails to earn) VPs.
-witness1
On Jul 10, 3:02 pm, witness1 <jwnewqu...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> On Jul 10, 4:45 pm, XZealot <xzea...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > On Jul 10, 2:38 pm, witness1 <jwnewqu...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > > Sometimes. That depends on how large the poolsack is.
>
> > > If the poolsack is small, the predator of the poolsack takes a few
> > > actions and has a new prey - the game is roughly where it should have
> > > been.
>
> > Which is completely subjective. What is small, what is large?
>
> Let the predator decide. Pretend the poolsack will successfully
> withdraw each turn if nobody at the table takes an action to stop it.
That sucks. It still doesn't solve the problem of the prey of the
player getting up getting a free ride. Basic greed will dictate that
the player go after the poolsack rather than lose the opportunity to
get a relatively "free" VP and 6 pool
<snip subjective interpretation that doesn't relate to basic greed>
> > > For casual games, I would take this to be "fair enough".
>
> > What do you think of the "titanium rules"?
>
> I dislike the idea of a player spontaneously gaining up to 5 pool and
> up to 1 VP without taking an additional action to acquire it.
That player has already knocked his prey down to 5 or less pool, which
is no small feat in an of itself. He has almost ousted his prey, and
he gains relative to how much effort that he put into it.
I
> especially dislike the possibility (however remote) of a player with 2
> pool and no minions suddenly gaining 5 pool and a VP that, were the
> game to have played out "normally", would very likely have instead
> been 6 pool and a VP for someone else at the table. In general, I
> think players should get no pool nor VPs if they do not manage to
> remove their prey's last pool before being ousted themselves.
It doesn't matter that a player gets a vp and 6 pool if they can't do
anything but be ousted soon after that. So that is two players off
the table, which leaves at most 3 players left. Play on! Almost
nothing has changed. Under your method, "the poolsack", you basically
hand the grandpredator of the "poolsack" who has vaporized his prey
TWO Victory points which for all intensive purposes IS THE GAME WIN.
If he can vaporize his prey, then he can just go backwards around the
table since he already has TWO VPs sitting on the table.
> The spirit of VtES is that getting halfway there and stalling out
> rewards your predator, not you.
But you didn't stall out.
That motherfucker, who is your prey, just quit and left you holding
the bag.
Now you get to choke on all your stealth/combat/non-bleed modifiers
while your grandprey gets a free ride.
....and throws the table balance out of whack
.....and taps out every turn until you can get through the poolsack
that is your prey.
It's just not right.
> That doesn't make your idea bad or even unfair. I suspect there are a
> lot of situations in which it would work just fine, and I am mostly
> focusing on the ones where it doesn't to explain why I don't like it
> as a general rule.
>
> I prefer the guidelines I listed above (call them "stainless steel
> guidelines"?) because they (mostly) stay within the normal parameters
> of how one earns (or fails to earn) VPs.
I am sorry if my strong language may have offended you, but IMHO this
is the SINGLE BIGGEST PROBLEM WITH VTES!
PLAYERS QUITTING RUINS THE GAME FOR EVERYONE
IF YOU ARE A NEW PLAYER THEN YOU WILL NEVER PLAY AGAIN BECAUSE YOU
HAVE INVESTED OVER AN HOUR TO HAVE SOMEONE QUIT/LEAVE/GIVE BIRTH/
SUFFER AN ORGAN FAILURE, AND THE RULES FOR THE GAME CAN'T COMPENSATE
FOR IT.
[ quoted text not captured ]
On Jul 10, 4:00 pm, XZealot <xzea...@cox.net> wrote:
> I am sorry if my strong language may have offended you, but IMHO this
> is the SINGLE BIGGEST PROBLEM WITH VTES!
>
> PLAYERS QUITTING RUINS THE GAME FOR EVERYONE
You know what else ruins the game for everyone? Deleting JOL games
that are in the middle, for the reason that your interface was
cluttered.
Ira
XZealot wrote:
>> In casual games, the "right" answer is frequently to leave behind a
>> sack of pool for your predator to bleed through. Unless the game just
>> started, in which case you should maybe just remove yourself from the
>> table and let the game play on as though you were never there.>> .....but that gives the prey of the poolsack such a huge atvantage,> that it is patently unfair to everyone else at the table.
I most cases, yes.
Any hard-and-fast simply-stated rule suffers that problem.
On Jul 10, 1:34 pm, Screaming Vermillian <alexandernja...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> But if there was some formalized system of fairly standing up from the
> table, so that if i DO have to go get my wife or something, I can not
> feel guilty about it.
No, there isn't, as there are simply too many variables to address--if
it is early in the game, you can just restart; if it is late in the
game, you can just say "I am represented by the number 8..." or
whatever. If you are playing casually, and you need to leave on the
fly (wife calls; you look at your watch and say "holy crap! I gotta go
to work!" or whatever), I'd expect that everyone you are playing would
just adjust as necessary--assuming that you are leaving 'cause you
have no choice and aren't a dick about it, and you are playing
casually, I'd figure that everyone would just adjust as needed, and
either finish out the game as they are capable of, or just throw it in
and start over, with no hard feelings.
VTES is a multi-player game, and one of the flaws of a multi player
game is that if someone has to leave in the middle? It falls apart.
Which is the same with all multi player games, for the most part
(well, except for Titan. Which has rules that specifically say "at the
start of your turn, you can self destruct and remove all of your units
from the map"...)
-Peter
On Jul 10, 3:15 pm, Screaming Vermillian <alexandernja...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> typically my problem consists of only ever having like 1-2 hours to
> invest in the game. Also there's the 'being forced to sit there and
> die when you know its a lost cause' aspect.
Well, if you have already lost (i.e. you are in a "lost position", and
you have no hope of getting any VPs in the future) you can vaporize
yourself however you see fit--transfer yourself out, neglect to block
that incoming bleed of 8, whatever.
> What is the problem with picking up your crap and giving your pred 6
> pool and a VP?
Well, if you have a fighting chance (i.e. you are still a factor in
the game) and you scoop and leave? That fucks up the game for everyone
else. But if you are already mostly dead (i.e. you have 5 pool, all
your minions are in torpor, and you are just hosed), I can't imagine
that anyone would scorn you saying "I gotta go. Just represent me with
these here 5 pool..." and taking off.
-Peter
On Jul 10, 7:00 pm, XZealot <xzea...@cox.net> wrote:
> That sucks. It still doesn't solve the problem of the prey of the
> player getting up getting a free ride. Basic greed will dictate that
> the player go after the poolsack rather than lose the opportunity to
> get a relatively "free" VP and 6 pool
If it is early in the [casual] game, and someone ups and leaves? Just
suck it up and start a new game. If it is late and someone ups and
leaves? Assuming they are doing crappy, just leaving them as a
poolsack (assuming they were sucking already) isn't going to change
the game much.
> That motherfucker, who is your prey, just quit and left you holding
> the bag.
And if it was an emergency or something, you suck it up and adjust as
needed. If he left 'cause he was a douchebag? You suck it up, adjust
as needed, and then not ask him to play in the future. I'm not really
seeing the problem here.
> I am sorry if my strong language may have offended you, but IMHO this
> is the SINGLE BIGGEST PROBLEM WITH VTES!
>
> PLAYERS QUITTING RUINS THE GAME FOR EVERYONE
Yes. This is often true. But as noted in a previous discussion on just
this subject, how often does this actually happen? The answer is, in
my experience, "rarely". Once and a while, someone will get a phone
call (damn cell phones...) and have to take off on the fly. And we'll
say "Sorry man, that sucks", and we'll adjust as needed. And very,
very rarely, in competition, someone will get so cranky in a
tournament game or something that they'll scoop and take off in the
middle of a game (and in my many years of competitive VTES, I can't
think of a single instance of this happening in the middle of a game).
And then you have a judge to fix it as best as they can. But in
practice, this is simply something that not happens often enough to
worry about.
-Peter
On Jul 10, 6:48 pm, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote:
> On Jul 10, 7:00 pm, XZealot <xzea...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > That sucks. It still doesn't solve the problem of the prey of the
> > player getting up getting a free ride. Basic greed will dictate that
> > the player go after the poolsack rather than lose the opportunity to
> > get a relatively "free" VP and 6 pool
>
> If it is early in the [casual] game, and someone ups and leaves? Just
> suck it up and start a new game. If it is late and someone ups and
> leaves? Assuming they are doing crappy, just leaving them as a
> poolsack (assuming they were sucking already) isn't going to change
> the game much.
I will and is for the points I have listed.
> > That motherfucker, who is your prey, just quit and left you holding
> > the bag.
>
> And if it was an emergency or something, you suck it up and adjust as
> needed. If he left 'cause he was a douchebag?
But...how do you adjust that is fair to everyone?
> You suck it up, adjust
> as needed, and then not ask him to play in the future. I'm not really
> seeing the problem here.
But we need players, and there are many differing opinions as to what
is an "acceptable emergency".
> > I am sorry if my strong language may have offended you, but IMHO this
> > is the SINGLE BIGGEST PROBLEM WITH VTES!
>
> > PLAYERS QUITTING RUINS THE GAME FOR EVERYONE
>
> Yes. This is often true. But as noted in a previous discussion on just
> this subject, how often does this actually happen?
Well, why can't it be an option?
If I have 12 pool, and I want to leave. Just leaving a poolsack on
the table royally screws people, but self-ousting also royally screws
people. Why can't I just quit and not be hated for doing so? Why
can't I quit and why can't I get some rules to ease the pain of
quitting?
"I'm a newbie and I'm not having fun anymore. Why can't I quit?"
[ quoted text not captured ]
On Jul 10, 9:33 pm, XZealot <xzea...@cox.net> wrote:
> Well, why can't it be an option?
The same reason it can't be an option in Advanced Civ or Axis and
Allies or Diplomacy. 'Cause that is how multi-player games work. It is
a flaw. But trying to make hard and fast rules that address every
possible contingency that comes up when someone just ups and leaves in
the middle isn't a realistic goal. So you just work with what you got
and move on.
> If I have 12 pool, and I want to leave. Just leaving a poolsack on
> the table royally screws people, but self-ousting also royally screws
> people. Why can't I just quit and not be hated for doing so? Why
> can't I quit and why can't I get some rules to ease the pain of
> quitting?
'Cause there are simply too many variables to make rules like this
work well. You can certainly make rules that attempt to cover the
variables, but most of the time, those rules aren't going to be any
better than just figuring out how to fix the issue when it comes up
and dealing with that you have.
> "I'm a newbie and I'm not having fun anymore. Why can't I quit?"
You can. And we non newbies can say "Well, sorry you didn't have a
good time, maybe we can get you to try again on a later date" and then
pick up the game and start a new one.
Like, whenever this discussion comes up, I'm always totally at a loss
as to why folks aren't just willing to start over a game in the small
number of instances when this sort of thing happens (assuming casual
play; tournament play is a whole other ball of wax, but I'd figure
that you aren't going to likely run into a newbie that is just going
to up and leave in the middle of a game in a tournament). You are
teaching a new guy to play, he stops having a good time, he wants to
go? Ok then. You thank him for playing, and start a new game. How
often is this going to happen that there need to be complicated rules
to address the situation?
I realize that when you (this being the generic "you") are playing a
game, you like to see the outcome. Even if someone ups and leaves in
the middle. But VTES isn't really a game that handles this well, and I
don't think there are any hard and fast rules than can fix that. So
when it happens, you just go on as best you can. And a lot of the time
"going on as best you can" is just going to mean picking up and
starting over. Which isn't optimal, no. But a solution. Why is this
such a bad thing?
-Peter
Screaming Vermillian schrieb:
> On Jul 10, 1:52 pm, witness1 <jwnewqu...@bellsouth.net> wrote:>> On Jul 10, 1:34 pm, Screaming Vermillian <alexandernja...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>>>> But if there was some formalized system of fairly standing up from the
>>> table, so that if i DO have to go get my wife or something, I can not
>>> feel guilty about it.>> When possible, leave your deck and/or pool at the table, and come back
>> for them when the crisis is resolved. The "best" solution is to allow
>> another player to play your deck for the remainder of the current
>> game, and have the judge remove you from the tournament at the end of
>> the round (assuming tournament play).
>>
>> If you have to take your cards with you for whatever reason (or a
>> substitute player cannot be found), it can be more difficult for a
>> judge to handle the situation. However, this is what judges are for,
>> and there's no particularly good reason to feel guilty about it
>> (unless, again, you knew in advance that it could be a problem and
>> decided not to tell anyone).
>>
>> -witness1>
> typically my problem consists of only ever having like 1-2 hours to
> invest in the game. Also there's the 'being forced to sit there and
> die when you know its a lost cause' aspect.
Usually when it is really a lost cause the game winds down quickly. On
the other often the cause is not as lost as it seems. Try to talk your
way out of the grave, that is the fun in V:TES no?
> What is the problem with picking up your crap and giving your pred 6
> pool and a VP?
The the game mechanics never accounted for such a thing to happen. So it
will disturb the rest of the game. E.g you leave after 1h, if you would
have stayed it would have been another 30 minutes. So you choose 30
minutes of personal "freedom" and let 4x 30minutes (the other guys) have
a unsatisfying game experience. Thats very selfish from my point of view.
On Jul 10, 7:00 pm, XZealot <xzea...@cox.net> wrote:
> On Jul 10, 3:02 pm, witness1 <jwnewqu...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > On Jul 10, 4:45 pm, XZealot <xzea...@cox.net> wrote:
> > > Which is completely subjective. What is small, what is large?
>
> > Let the predator decide. Pretend the poolsack will successfully
> > withdraw each turn if nobody at the table takes an action to stop it.
>
> That sucks. It still doesn't solve the problem of the prey of the
> player getting up getting a free ride. Basic greed will dictate that
> the player go after the poolsack rather than lose the opportunity to
> get a relatively "free" VP and 6 pool
>
> <snip subjective interpretation that doesn't relate to basic greed>
Basic greed doesn't win that many VtES games, IME. You have to upgrade
to enlightened self-interest.
> > > > For casual games, I would take this to be "fair enough".
>
> > > What do you think of the "titanium rules"?
>
> > I dislike the idea of a player spontaneously gaining up to 5 pool and
> > up to 1 VP without taking an additional action to acquire it.
>
> That player has already knocked his prey down to 5 or less pool, which
> is no small feat in an of itself. He has almost ousted his prey, and
> he gains relative to how much effort that he put into it.
The only pool you are rewarded for taking is the last one.
> > especially dislike the possibility (however remote) of a player with 2
> > pool and no minions suddenly gaining 5 pool and a VP that, were the
> > game to have played out "normally", would very likely have instead
> > been 6 pool and a VP for someone else at the table. In general, I
> > think players should get no pool nor VPs if they do not manage to
> > remove their prey's last pool before being ousted themselves.
>
> It doesn't matter that a player gets a vp and 6 pool if they can't do
> anything but be ousted soon after that. So that is two players off
> the table, which leaves at most 3 players left. Play on! Almost
> nothing has changed. Under your method, "the poolsack", you basically
> hand the grandpredator of the "poolsack" who has vaporized his prey
> TWO Victory points which for all intensive purposes IS THE GAME WIN.
> If he can vaporize his prey, then he can just go backwards around the
> table since he already has TWO VPs sitting on the table.
He gets TWO VPs if he can oust his one prey and deal at least one pool
damage on the poolsack every turn (including the current turn), and
survive until the poolsack is ousted.
If the poolsack is "small" (for varying values of small based on the
decks at the table) he will get the same TWO VPs he was very likely to
have gotten anyway, by ousting two consecutive preys.
If the poolsack is "large" (for varying values of large based on the
decks at the table) he will be unable to earn both VPs before
succumbing himself. If he recognizes this fact far enough in advance,
he can allow the poolsack to withdraw to give him more chances
> > The spirit of VtES is that getting halfway there and stalling out
> > rewards your predator, not you.
>
> But you didn't stall out.
>
> That motherfucker, who is your prey, just quit and left you holding
> the bag.
>
> Now you get to choke on all your stealth/combat/non-bleed modifiers
> while your grandprey gets a free ride.
Only if you choose to choke on it. Only if you choose to give that
other player at the table a free ride. It's up to you to make the
choice that maximizes your ability to earn a game win.
(I confess there are some issues that may complicate this, such as
crosstable KRC damage - that is why the stainless steel guidelines are
merely guidelines, not rules.)
> ....and throws the table balance out of whack
>
> .....and taps out every turn until you can get through the poolsack
> that is your prey.
>
> It's just not right.
>
> > That doesn't make your idea bad or even unfair. I suspect there are a
> > lot of situations in which it would work just fine, and I am mostly
> > focusing on the ones where it doesn't to explain why I don't like it
> > as a general rule.
>
> > I prefer the guidelines I listed above (call them "stainless steel
> > guidelines"?) because they (mostly) stay within the normal parameters
> > of how one earns (or fails to earn) VPs.
>
> I am sorry if my strong language may have offended you, but IMHO this
> is the SINGLE BIGGEST PROBLEM WITH VTES!
>
> PLAYERS QUITTING RUINS THE GAME FOR EVERYONE
Players quitting is indeed a serious problem. It's a lot less serious
in casual games, IMO - as Peter's already said, starting over is a
perfectly fair way to handle the situation.
-witness1
Peter D Bakija schrieb:
> I realize that when you (this being the generic "you") are playing a
> game, you like to see the outcome. Even if someone ups and leaves in
> the middle. But VTES isn't really a game that handles this well, and I
> don't think there are any hard and fast rules than can fix that. So
> when it happens, you just go on as best you can. And a lot of the time
> "going on as best you can" is just going to mean picking up and
> starting over. Which isn't optimal, no. But a solution. Why is this
> such a bad thing?
IMHO the best solution for casual gaming.
3 out of the 4 other players were loosing anyway :))
"typically my problem consists of only ever having like 1-2 hours to
invest in the game. Also there's the 'being forced to sit there and
die when you know its a lost cause' aspect.
What is the problem with picking up your crap and giving your pred 6
pool and a VP? "
There is a lot of posts and I didn't go through all of them, but I
figured I could put in my two cents for this piece Vermillian.
For the 'being forced to sit there and die when you know its a lost
cause' aspect. If you feel that you have no chance to win, you may
choose lose your VP in any way that you choose. However, for
"What is the problem with picking up your crap and giving your pred 6
pool and a VP? " - This goes against the rules, because there is no
rule that says you can do that. But if you really feel that you have
no chance you can tell the table that you will block nothing and you
will transfer maximum every turn. Abstain from all voting and no
discard. [You don't even don't have to sit at table and you can go
save wife or dog or hampster or whatever.]
This means that you are not ousted immediately but now everyone knows
that you will be ousted soon. This allows the others to adjust their
gameplay for the eventually player (i.e. you) leaving the table.
Hope this helps.
Adam
---------------
On Jul 10, 3:15 pm, Screaming Vermillian <alexandernja...@gmail.com>
[ quoted text not captured ]
witness1 wrote:
> He gets TWO VPs if he can oust his one prey and deal at least one pool
> damage on the poolsack every turn (including the current turn), and
> survive until the poolsack is ousted.
>
> If the poolsack is "small" (for varying values of small based on the
> decks at the table) he will get the same TWO VPs he was very likely to
> have gotten anyway, by ousting two consecutive preys.
>
> If the poolsack is "large" (for varying values of large based on the
> decks at the table) he will be unable to earn both VPs before
> succumbing himself. If he recognizes this fact far enough in advance,
> he can allow the poolsack to withdraw to give him more chances
i think we're getting to something workable here with the 'let them
withraw, or not' aspect.
but in the case where perhaps you were relying on their cards to help
you (anarch revolt, dragon bound, fame, etc.), i'd probably go for
something more like this, a "poolsack and a little bit more" approach:
When a player wants to bail:
- their crypt, uncontrolled region, library and hand are removed from
the game. All other cards and counters remain (proxied if necessary if
the player wants to run off with their cards).
- the player is assumed to use no optional effects (tapping cards,
non-compulsory acting, blocking, using MPAs for in-play effects, hunting
grounds, etc).
- apply all mandatory effects as usual (anarch revolt, forced hunts,
etc). These should never require the bailling player's input, working
under the 2nd point, and can be performed by the other players at the
table without bias in general. For the corner case situations where
there are options on a compulsory thing (eg, a ravnos forced hunt under
a Week of Nightmares), randomise among all the possible choices.
- the player is assumed to attempt to withdraw every turn.
- they forfeit all their vps, including any gained from a possible
withdrawal.
This gives options for the predator to make the value judgement as
proposed by witness1 - let them withdraw if it's too much work to get
through, or try and oust them themselves if it looks doable.
But it also gives the prey the opportunity to try and keep their bailled
predator in the game by attacking their vampires, doing pool damage
(krc, kindred spirits, etc) to foil the withdraw attempt. However, these
things will generally work towards ousting the bailled player, so it
would be a fine line to walk.
Thoughts?
--
salem
(replace 'hotmail' with 'gmail' to email)
On Jul 10, 12:15 pm, Screaming Vermillian <alexandernja...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> On Jul 10, 1:52 pm, witness1 <jwnewqu...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jul 10, 1:34 pm, Screaming Vermillian <alexandernja...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > > But if there was some formalized system of fairly standing up from the
> > > table, so that if i DO have to go get my wife or something, I can not
> > > feel guilty about it.
>
> > When possible, leave your deck and/or pool at the table, and come back
> > for them when the crisis is resolved. The "best" solution is to allow
> > another player to play your deck for the remainder of the current
> > game, and have the judge remove you from the tournament at the end of
> > the round (assuming tournament play).
>
> > If you have to take your cards with you for whatever reason (or a
> > substitute player cannot be found), it can be more difficult for a
> > judge to handle the situation. However, this is what judges are for,
> > and there's no particularly good reason to feel guilty about it
> > (unless, again, you knew in advance that it could be a problem and
> > decided not to tell anyone).
>
> > -witness1
>
> typically my problem consists of only ever having like 1-2 hours to
> invest in the game. Also there's the 'being forced to sit there and
> die when you know its a lost cause' aspect.
If you only have 1 hour then there isn't much of a work-around, but if
you know you have 2 hours a lot of groups are amenable to running the
game up to 2 hours (tournament standard). In fact some groups play
nothing but 2 hour timed games.
[ quoted text not captured ]
On Thu, 10 Jul 2008 12:15:37 -0700 (PDT), Screaming Vermillian
<alexand...@gmail.com> wrote:
> typically my problem consists of only ever having like 1-2 hours to
> invest in the game. Also there's the 'being forced to sit there and
> die when you know its a lost cause' aspect.
>
> What is the problem with picking up your crap and giving your pred 6
> pool and a VP?
>
> And mostly I'm talking casual. its obvious that I would allocate the
> time to play in a full tournament, because, I went to the thing, and
> its usually a good assumption that you'll be needing to play. :)
I went through a similar phase a while back (when I realized I was
playing more on tournaments than in casual because games sometimes
felt like a real eternal struggle). My solution:
1. Don't just stand up from the table because you feel you've had
enough of that particular game. It is very disrespectful to the
other players. Emergencies, et al, are a different topic of course.
2. If you have less than 2 hours to play, you might be better off to
find something else to do (e.g. just watch the game or something).
3. Play timed games. It only takes as much as agreeing on the 2-hour
limit before the game. Then you know it will not take more than 2
hours - no stalemate lockdown versus wall or rush for example that
can otherwise lead to very long games.
4. If you feel you had enough of the game and really don't have a
reasonable chance to win, go suicide. Just blast into your prey or
whoever locked down your game and die in the process. I often take
pride in taking down wall preys with me (weakening them to the
point that if I don't manage to oust them, my predator will). If
you get lucky, you get VPs, maybe even GW, by being reckless. If
not, then worst comes to worst, you can stand up and move on.
--
Regards,
Daneel