Hi guys,
I played in the tournament Amsterdam yesterday, and i was thinking
about some things,...
The first, i was 6th on basis of those "stayingpoints" (can't remember
the real name ...)
I haven't read it yet, but how does that work, how many points does
who get? (And does that mean that if your prey sweeps the table you
get the most points apart from your prey? If that is the case i think
it should change, your prey sweeped, because you let him...)
And second, coming for that...i only won 1 (4-player-) table, and got
1 vicpoint somewhere else, and that ALMOST got me in THE FINALS...
Sure, i wouldn't have mind playing the finals, but it sounds strange
to me that playing 1 good game can get you to the finals....
I haven't given it much thought, but wouldn't it be better if decks
that get victory-points in ALL games got to the finals (and at least 1
tablewin) ? I mean, those decks are obviously least screwed by table
position, and show the most stable performance...
What do you think?
Wouter
"Wouter Kuyper" <wouter...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:155a2de5.02042...@posting.google.com...
[ quoted text not captured ]
There's been a very long thread on the merits and flaws of the Game Wins
system. My main argument for the Game Wins system ( which is similar to a
lot of other's ) is that the objective of the game is to win. The Game Wins
system makes the objective of the rounds the same as the finals ( to win
individual games ). If you have a deck that gains 2 VPs every game but
doesn't ( and usually wont ) win games with those 2 VPs then it's no good.
Sure, it's consistent, but it's consistent in loosing, not winning. Give me
a 1 in 3 sweep the table deck any day.
If sometimes you get 2 VPs and occasionally 3VPs then you have a good deck
and you'll most likely get into the finals. But if you can't get that 3rd VP
often enough, you need to change it or play it differently.
The rounds + final system could be considered inherently flawed, but as long
as we have that system, the Game Wins system for ranking is makes much more
sense.
wouter...@yahoo.com (Wouter Kuyper) wrote in message news:<155a2de5.02042...@posting.google.com>...
I'm sure by the time you read this someone with a faster newsreader
than Google will already have responded. Still:
> Hi guys,
>
> I played in the tournament Amsterdam yesterday, and i was thinking
> about some things,...
>
> The first, i was 6th on basis of those "stayingpoints" (can't remember
> the real name ...)
Tournament Points?
> I haven't read it yet, but how does that work, how many points does
> who get? (And does that mean that if your prey sweeps the table you
> get the most points apart from your prey? If that is the case i think
> it should change, your prey sweeped, because you let him...)
I think you can find an explanation of Tournament Points on the White
Wolf site. Either that, or D-L the Archon.
I have a vague recollection that what you mention is true: the last
player to leave the table has slightly more points than the first, all
other factors being equal.
It is indeed a good question whether you should 'reward' letting the
prey sweep... on the other hand, you are neither the first person
kicked off the table - also a signal of weakness. And I'm sure that
'letting the prey sweep' is not a valid tactic for 3 rounds in a row
in a tournament ;)
> And second, coming for that...i only won 1 (4-player-) table, and got
> 1 vicpoint somewhere else, and that ALMOST got me in THE FINALS...
> Sure, i wouldn't have mind playing the finals, but it sounds strange
> to me that playing 1 good game can get you to the finals....
Well, it's just a matter of calculation, average performance, and
chance. With a total of 22 players (as in Amsterdam), and 5 tables,
there are 81 VP's available over the whole of 3 rounds. That's 3.7 VP
a person 'on average', but there will be games that time out, scoring
a whole lot less points.
So, with some people scoring heavily, and some poorly, you will
certainly be ahead of the pack (I count 6 vp for you, but I do not
know whether you had a 'sweep'). Then again, you ALSO have a
Table/Game win, which is rated as more important than just getting
VPs.
And anyway, you wouldn't want to play the final, but go to eat in that
student cafe, since the food was good. ;)
> I haven't given it much thought, but wouldn't it be better if decks
> that get victory-points in ALL games got to the finals (and at least 1
> tablewin) ? I mean, those decks are obviously least screwed by table
> position, and show the most stable performance...
Well, there's always the deck that has been discussed earlier - the
weenie computer hack deck. It can probably always take 1 VP at each
table, no more. It cannot sweep a table and will in all likelyhood
never win the final. And, in the final, the winner is the person able
to kill and keep alive the most - the person who most closely
approaches the Table Sweep. So it is 'good' to reward peak performance
in a few places over adequate mean performance.
(If the tournament rules said that the final winner is the person that
had most VPs in all 4 rounds summed, your argument would hold out
better).
> What do you think?
That next time I want to sit at a table with you and Tim and Pepijn
and Mike.
Tobias
Deventer
Tobias wrote:
> wouter...@yahoo.com (Wouter Kuyper) wrote in message> > The first, i was 6th on basis of those "stayingpoints" (can't remember
> > the real name ...)
>
> Tournament Points?
>
> > I haven't read it yet, but how does that work, how many points does
> > who get? (And does that mean that if your prey sweeps the table you
> > get the most points apart from your prey? If that is the case i think
> > it should change, your prey sweeped, because you let him...)
>
> I think you can find an explanation of Tournament Points on the White
> Wolf site. Either that, or D-L the Archon.
Tournament Point scoring is described in [VEKN 3.8.3], yes.
> I have a vague recollection that what you mention is true: the last
> player to leave the table has slightly more points than the first, all
> other factors being equal.
No. Ousting order (timing) is not tracked. Tournament Points are
awarded based on table rank. First place gets 60 TP. Fifth place gets
12 TP. Tied positions split TPs.
--
LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc.
Links to V:TES news, rules, cards, utilities, and tournament calendar:
http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/
LSJ wrote:
>
> Tobias wrote:
> > wouter...@yahoo.com (Wouter Kuyper) wrote in message
> > > The first, i was 6th on basis of those "stayingpoints" (can't remember
> > > the real name ...)
> >
> > Tournament Points?
> >
> > > I haven't read it yet, but how does that work, how many points does
> > > who get? (And does that mean that if your prey sweeps the table you
> > > get the most points apart from your prey? If that is the case i think
> > > it should change, your prey sweeped, because you let him...)
> >
> > I think you can find an explanation of Tournament Points on the White
> > Wolf site. Either that, or D-L the Archon.
>
> Tournament Point scoring is described in [VEKN 3.8.3], yes.
>
> > I have a vague recollection that what you mention is true: the last
> > player to leave the table has slightly more points than the first, all
> > other factors being equal.
>
> No. Ousting order (timing) is not tracked. Tournament Points are
> awarded based on table rank. First place gets 60 TP. Fifth place gets
> 12 TP. Tied positions split TPs.
--
Whether it is nobler in the mind to suffer the slings and arrows of
outragous fortune, or get fat on chocolate cake, eat the cake, life
is too short to worry!
> And second, coming for that...i only won 1 (4-player-) table, and got
> 1 vicpoint somewhere else, and that ALMOST got me in THE FINALS...
> Sure, i wouldn't have mind playing the finals, but it sounds strange
> to me that playing 1 good game can get you to the finals....
> I haven't given it much thought, but wouldn't it be better if decks
> that get victory-points in ALL games got to the finals (and at least 1
> tablewin) ? I mean, those decks are obviously least screwed by table
> position, and show the most stable performance...
>
> What do you think?
>
> Wouter
Ive been thinking about this myself since i played a small tourney once
and went to the finals once with only one point. It was a small one and
some games
didnt have a winner after 2 hours (each player at the table then
receives 1/2 point) so some people only had 1/2 point and i had 1.
I then won the final with two VP (I ousted 2 in one round) and the
others got one VP each.
So all in all i won a 3 round + final tournament with only 3 VP all in
all.
Go figure..
--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
"Nikolaj Wendt" <niko...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:c534913d985ed405002...@mygate.mailgate.org...
[ quoted text not captured ]
I'd say that there's a good chance that the decks that only got .5 VPs were
flawed. They couldn't get a single VP in the time limit, yours could.
Therefore you deserve to be in the final. Not only that but your deck was
good enough to get 2 VPs in the final round within the time limit. I had 2
Settite decks that won most of their games but it takes them about 3.5hrs, I
pulled them apart because they're bloody useless as tournament decks because
they can't get their VPs in 2 hrs.
I was just thinking about it some more, how about this for an idea:
Tablewins are still most important, but victorypoints gathered at the
table you won do NOT count for your total...
This means that you need to perform well at more tables...1 sweep and
being kicked out twice early won't do you any good.
What do you think?
"Wouter Kuyper" <wouter...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:155a2de5.02050...@posting.google.com...
[ quoted text not captured ]
Hmm, intersting, could potentially advantage more consistent decks as
opposed to, say fast decks that either sweep or get nothing. I think though,
you'll find that is all tables are 5 player the more consistent, decks will
end up on more VPs than the inconsistent ones. One thing I really have a
problem with is 4 player tables. For my money, it's much more difficult to
get a table win on a 4 player table and anyone who plays more 4 player games
than others is signifigantly disadvantaged. Unfortunately, I can't really
see a way around this. The optimal seating order chart tries to share the 4
player tables around as much as possible tho.
"Wouter Kuyper" <wouter...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:155a2de5.02050...@posting.google.com...
[ quoted text not captured ]
Interesting idea. If I understand you right, you'd use this
scoring to determine who gets into the finals:
1. Games Won
2. VPs earned in games not won
3. Tournament Points
I'm not sure how much of a difference this would end up making -
it'd probably affect ranking going into the finals (and therefore
who gets to decide where to sit last), but as long as game wins
are still most important, you'll only be able to get into the
finals (generally) with at least one game win, and winning more
than one game would still be better than winning only one.
I guess the practical effect of subtracting out "how much you won
by when you won" would be that the first tiebreaker would become
"how well you did when you lost" rather than "how well you did
when you won and lost put together". Compared to the current
system, it ranks non-sweeping decks higher. (The current system
favors sweeping decks because getting 5 VPs and winning a table
is substantially better than getting 3 VPs to win the table, at
the moment. They'd be equivalent under this proposal.)
I doubt that the end result would be enough of a change to have
any large effect on who gets into final games. It's also pretty
hard to say with any great certainty that particular decks "always
sweep" or "always score"; it'd probably have fairly random effects
most of the time. At a guess, anyway. :-)
Josh
if it ain't broke...?
"Joshua Duffin" <jtdu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<aapapt$cmr02$1...@ID-121616.news.dfncis.de>...
> "Wouter Kuyper" <wouter...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:155a2de5.02050...@posting.google.com...
> > I was just thinking about it some more, how about this for an idea:
> > Tablewins are still most important, but victorypoints gathered at the
> > table you won do NOT count for your total...
> >
> > This means that you need to perform well at more tables...1 sweep and
> > being kicked out twice early won't do you any good.
>
> Interesting idea. If I understand you right, you'd use this
> scoring to determine who gets into the finals:
>
> 1. Games Won
> 2. VPs earned in games not won
> 3. Tournament Points
>
yeah, or possibly: 3) total victorypoints, 4) tournament points
whatever is better...
> I'm not sure how much of a difference this would end up making -
> it'd probably affect ranking going into the finals (and therefore
> who gets to decide where to sit last), but as long as game wins
> are still most important, you'll only be able to get into the
> finals (generally) with at least one game win, and winning more
> than one game would still be better than winning only one.
True and THAT i don't want to change, i mean the object is still
winning..
>
> I guess the practical effect of subtracting out "how much you won
> by when you won" would be that the first tiebreaker would become
> "how well you did when you lost" rather than "how well you did
> when you won and lost put together". Compared to the current
> system, it ranks non-sweeping decks higher. (The current system
> favors sweeping decks because getting 5 VPs and winning a table
> is substantially better than getting 3 VPs to win the table, at
> the moment. They'd be equivalent under this proposal.)
>
> I doubt that the end result would be enough of a change to have
> any large effect on who gets into final games. It's also pretty
> hard to say with any great certainty that particular decks "always
> sweep" or "always score"; it'd probably have fairly random effects
> most of the time. At a guess, anyway. :-)
>
I am not sure if it would make much difference...but i know that very
often, once you ousted the first two, it isn't that hard to sweep the
table...I am not sure, but i think most tablewins came from sweeps in
the last tournaments i played in. And very often, if the deck didn't
sweep it had no vicpoints at all...
I think decks/players are better if they don't just have the choice
between sweeping or dying...I think it is a good thing if a
deck/player can do something in a not too favorable environment (an
environment in which you loose)...and that it should be rewarded as
such.
> Josh
>
> if it ain't broke...?
True, but i am arguing that it might be broke, if it takes only 1 good
game to get to the finals...then you only need 1 weak predator...
I think this approach minimizes the luck of seating order, because you
need to be able to "play" at at least two different tables
well anyway, that is what i think,
Wouter
"GreySeer" <e...@i.think.not> wrote in message news:<ud06br8...@news.supernews.com>...
[ quoted text not captured ]
But maybe with not enough emphasis, as the Archon tried to have me
have 3 4-player rounds last tournament (22 players, 2 5 player tables
and 3 4 player tables). Of course, when I complained, the judge was so
kind as to move me.
Tobias
Deventer
Tobias wrote:
> "GreySeer" <e...@i.think.not> wrote in message> > see a way around this. The optimal seating order chart tries to share the 4
> > player tables around as much as possible tho.
>
> But maybe with not enough emphasis, as the Archon tried to have me
> have 3 4-player rounds last tournament (22 players, 2 5 player tables
> and 3 4 player tables). Of course, when I complained, the judge was so
> kind as to move me.
The optimal seating charts used by the Archon are "perfect" with regard
to equitable distribution of 4- and 5-player tables. Your situation
occured because of a drop, I'm guessing. (It is the responsibility of
the organizer to rework the seating after a drop.)
For 22-players, the Archon seats 14 players at 4 twice and 5 once (1,3,5,
7,9,10,12,13,14,15,17,19,20,22) and the other 8 at 4 once and 5 twice.
No one is seated at a 4-player table thrice by the optimal seating chart
for 22 players.
[ quoted text not captured ]
"Wouter Kuyper" <wouter...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:155a2de5.02050...@posting.google.com...
> True, but i am arguing that it might be broke, if it takes only 1 good> game to get to the finals...then you only need 1 weak predator...
Ah, I see. I don't know if this can "fix" that, though. If
a tournament is small enough that you can make it to the finals
with only one game win (in my experience, any tournament with
25 players or less will probably have at least some finalists
with only one GW), then it would still take only one "good"
game to make the finals. I suppose the effect would be that,
if one player had 5 VPs and 1 GW from one round and 0 VPs/GWs
in the other two, and a second player had 3 VPs and 1 GW from
one round and 2 VPs/0 GWs from the other two, the second player
would be ranked higher (instead of tied-except-for-TPs) than
the first. But is it really better to "win by a narrower margin"
in one game and "lose by a narrower margin" in another than to
"win by a lot" and "lose by a lot"? A matter of taste, I think.
And if you end up having any people that actually *do* have game
wins where they only had 3 VP (or less), that seems to contradict
your intuition that "if you get a couple VPs, it's easy to get
the rest".
> I think this approach minimizes the luck of seating order, because you
> need to be able to "play" at at least two different tables
True if not all the 1-GW players make the finals (and yeah, in
most tournaments with at least 15 players I think not *all* the
players with 1 GW generally make the finals). But there might
not be enough of them who got VPs in games they didn't win for
this tiebreaker to make much difference, either.
Example: In the last local tournament, there were 15 players.
After three rounds, five had one GW and one had two GWs (two
GWs were "lost" by tables that timed out). Of the 1-GW players,
"total VPs" were 5.5, 4.5, 4, 4, 3. "VPs in games not won"
were 0.5, 0.5, 0, 0, 0. So in this example, the first and
second player under the current system would still have been
first and second; the next tiebreaker either would replicate
the existing system ("total VPs") or potentially slightly
alter it. (if TPs was the only other tiebreaker - for these
players, TPs were 120, 120, 108, 102, 108, so the 3-VPs
player would have taken the place of the second 4-VPs player
if TPs were the only tiebreaker after "VPs in games not won".)
I think what this points to is that it's hard to get VPs at
all, let alone get them in more than one game. :-) So I'd
guess that not too many one-game-win players are ever going
to have very many "VPs in games not won" to use for this
tiebreaker. Even more so for two-game-win players - they
only played in one game that they didn't win.
Basically I get the idea you want to make it "harder" to
win tournaments - less luck-based... which I'd say is a
worthy goal, but given the same players under any system,
and no way of reducing the effects of luck within any
single game, we probably don't have - without playing more
preliminary rounds - any really good way to better determine
who's done better on the day than "Game Wins, then total
VPs, then Tournament Points".
For whatever that's worth...
Josh
stupid, stupid allies