The so-called Top Seed Curse
Kevin M.
Top seed: 22
TIES: 6
2nd seed: 10
3rd seed: 8
4th seed: 8
5th seed: 11
So, it appears there is no 'Top Seed Curse'. =)
Kevin M., Prince of Las Vegas
"Know your enemy and know yourself; in one-thousand battles
you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, *The Art of War*
"Contentment...Complacency...Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier
Please visit VTESville daily! http://vtesville.myminicity.com/
Please bid on my auctions! http://shop.ebay.com/kjmergen/m.html
Obtenebration
seed curse myth.
Peter D Bakija
> WHO WON THE FINAL?
>
> Top seed: 22
> TIES: 6
>
> 2nd seed: 10
> 3rd seed: 8
> 4th seed: 8
> 5th seed: 11
>
> So, it appears there is no 'Top Seed Curse'. =)
So based on these numbers, you got:
-Top Seed Wins: 34%
-Someone Other Than Top Seed Wins: 57%
-Game Ends in a Tie: 9%
Well, there you go. As surmised, the Top Seed has a better than 20%
chance of winning, but still is considerably less likely to win than
not.
Thanks Kevin!
-Peter
Kevin M.
> "Kevin M." wrote:
>> WHO WON THE FINAL?
>> Top seed: 22
>> TIES: 6
>>
>> 2nd seed: 10
>> 3rd seed: 8
>> 4th seed: 8
>> 5th seed: 11
>>
>> So, it appears there is no 'Top Seed Curse'. =)
>
> So based on these numbers, you got:
> -Top Seed Wins: 34%
> -Someone Other Than Top Seed Wins: 57%
> -Game Ends in a Tie: 9%
No, no. There are no ties in a final. I meant to show
the number of times that a Top Seed won a tied-final.
So, it's really:
- Top Seed Wins: 37%
- Someone Else Wins: 63%
So:
- it's a straight 20% in a final for each player to win
- final-ties are about 10% of the games
- in those final-ties, the Top Seed wins 25% of the time
And, most importantly:
- nearly doubling your chance to win the final is a pretty
damn good reason to try to achieve Top Seed
John Whelan
>
> Top seed: 22
> TIES: 6
>
> 2nd seed: 10
> 3rd seed: 8
> 4th seed: 8
> 5th seed: 11
>
> So, it appears there is no 'Top Seed Curse'. =)
Not so fast.
First off, all other things being equal (which they are not) we would
expect any given player in a 5-player game to win 20% of the time --
NOT COUNTING TIES! So to simplify our analysis, the first thing to do
is eliminate the ties from consideration, which gives us:
1st seed: 16/53 = 30%
2nd seed: 10/53 = 19%
3rd seed: 8/53 = 15%
4th seed: 8/53 = 15%
5th seed: 11/53 = 21%
Next thing we must take into consideration is that all things are not
equal. The best players with the best decks will tend to win more
often, as well as end up with the top seed more often. We would
expect that, based on skill alone, the top seed would win more than
20% of non-tied final games..
How often the top seed SHOULD win non-tied games, based on the skill
factor alone, is anyone's guess, but it could conceivably be as low as
(say) 25%, or as high as (say) 35% or more.
So we still don't really know if the seating ceremony is increasing a
top seed's chances of victory (due to the seating advantage) or
reducing it (because the ceremony paints a big fat target on his
forehead).
Peter D Bakija
"Kevin M." <you...@imaspammer.org> wrote:
> > So based on these numbers, you got:
> > -Top Seed Wins: 34%
> > -Someone Other Than Top Seed Wins: 57%
> > -Game Ends in a Tie: 9%
>
> No, no. There are no ties in a final. I meant to show
> the number of times that a Top Seed won a tied-final.
Oh, yeah--duh.
> So, it's really:
> - Top Seed Wins: 37%
> - Someone Else Wins: 63%
>
> So:
> - it's a straight 20% in a final for each player to win
> - final-ties are about 10% of the games
> - in those final-ties, the Top Seed wins 25% of the time
>
> And, most importantly:
> - nearly doubling your chance to win the final is a pretty
> damn good reason to try to achieve Top Seed
That sounds good enough to me.
Peter D Bakija
pd...@lightlink.com
http://www.lightlink.com/pdb6/vtes.html
"It's too bad she won't live! But then again, who does?"
-Gaff
John Alston Campbell
"John Whelan" <jwjbw...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:393292e9-753f-409f...@t10g2000yqg.googlegroups.com...
>
> So we still don't really know if the seating ceremony is increasing a
> top seed's chances of victory (due to the seating advantage) or
> reducing it (because the ceremony paints a big fat target on his
> forehead).
Perhaps this is what we call the swings balancing out the roundabouts?
J
ira...@gmail.com
> WHO WON THE FINAL?
>
> Top seed: 22
> TIES: 6
>
> 2nd seed: 10
> 3rd seed: 8
> 4th seed: 8
> 5th seed: 11
>
> So, it appears there is no 'Top Seed Curse'. =)
Kevin, this is great data. Thanks for posting. Just to clarify, I
believe you are showing the results of 22 + 10 + 8 + 8 + 11
tournaments = 59 tournaments. Of those 59 tournaments, 22 were won by
the top seed. Of those 22, 6 of them were due to a tie.
Is that correct?
Also, could you confirm the min, average, and max number of players in
these 59 tournaments? If these are all 10 person tournaments, I think
that would be good to know. Also, could you give the date range for
these tournaments - what is the oldest and newest tournament in this
data set?
Assuming this data is relatively recent (say, within the last 3-4
years) and includes a decent size mix (not just 10 person
tournaments), I think it's a very convincing case for tie-breaks alone
being a sufficient reward for top seed.
If so, I'd love to remove the seat-picking ritual, which would speed
up tournaments, reduce the impact of scouting, and make the final game
more similar to all the qualifying games.
Peter D Bakija
<7436d5e4-f050-44fe...@n19g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
"ira...@gmail.com" <ira...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Assuming this data is relatively recent (say, within the last 3-4
> years) and includes a decent size mix (not just 10 person
> tournaments), I think it's a very convincing case for tie-breaks alone
> being a sufficient reward for top seed.
Well, unless the Top Seed won those 22 games (instead of the expected,
say, 10 games) due to the seat picking advantage. At which point,
removing the seat picking advantage significantly impacts the end
results.
> If so, I'd love to remove the seat-picking ritual, which would speed
> up tournaments, reduce the impact of scouting, and make the final game
> more similar to all the qualifying games.
I mean, I certainly see where you are coming from, but I can't imagine
that seat picking for the final lengthens the tournament by more than a
couple minutes at most. And scouting should be a complete non
issue--assume people scout, assume people share information, and don't
worry about it.
ira...@gmail.com
> In article
> <7436d5e4-f050-44fe-8834-4cac37011...@n19g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
>
> "ira...@gmail.com" <ira...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Assuming this data is relatively recent (say, within the last 3-4
> > years) and includes a decent size mix (not just 10 person
> > tournaments), I think it's a very convincing case for tie-breaks alone
> > being a sufficient reward for top seed.
>
> Well, unless the Top Seed won those 22 games (instead of the expected,
> say, 10 games) due to the seat picking advantage. At which point,
> removing the seat picking advantage significantly impacts the end
> results.
I didn't write, "Irrefutable proof of The Truth(tm)." I just wrote
"very convincing," which obviously has the caveat "in my opinion."
Perhaps you disagree with me and aren't convinced. Personally, when I
look at the data Kevin posted, it convinces me.
> > If so, I'd love to remove the seat-picking ritual, which would speed
> > up tournaments, reduce the impact of scouting, and make the final game
> > more similar to all the qualifying games.
>
> I mean, I certainly see where you are coming from, but I can't imagine
> that seat picking for the final lengthens the tournament by more than a
> couple minutes at most. And scouting should be a complete non
> issue--assume people scout, assume people share information, and don't
> worry about it.
The seat picking ritual often lengthens the tournament by 5-10
minutes, which certainly isn't a big deal, but it's also not 0.
Regarding scouting, I definitely disagree with your conclusion of
"complete non issue." I agree with you that it happens, but it's an
issue. Players should not be rewarded for scouting, or penalized for
not scouting. It would also be nice if players who finish their games
early could be allowed to watch games in peace, without other players
feeling bad that they're being scouted.
Ira
Peter D Bakija
<f9065296-742f-4ea9...@x18g2000pro.googlegroups.com>,
"ira...@gmail.com" <ira...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I didn't write, "Irrefutable proof of The Truth(tm)." I just wrote
> "very convincing," which obviously has the caveat "in my opinion."
> Perhaps you disagree with me and aren't convinced. Personally, when I
> look at the data Kevin posted, it convinces me.
Hmm. I think I'm misunderstanding you. You seemed to indicate that
looking at the data presented, where Top Seed having seat choice wins
about twice as often as other competitors, indicated that not having
seat choice would be just as good due to the advantage of winning ties.
I think if you remove the seat choice, Top Seed may or may not go back
to the same chance of winning as anyone else. Which might be what you
are looking for. But it certainly would be significantly different.
> Regarding scouting, I definitely disagree with your conclusion of
> "complete non issue."
No, no. It *should* be a complete non issue. Scouting should not be an
issue. We should assume that people scout. And share information with
each other about what decks they run into. As trying to prevent that is
way too much work to be worth it. So assume everyone is going to scout
to the best of their ability. And don't worry about it.
> I agree with you that it happens, but it's an
> issue. Players should not be rewarded for scouting, or penalized for
> not scouting. It would also be nice if players who finish their games
> early could be allowed to watch games in peace, without other players
> feeling bad that they're being scouted.
I agree with this--that people should be able to watch games in peace
without other players feeling bad that they are being scouted. As people
shouldn't feel bad that they are being scouted. 'Cause scouting should
not be an issue that people are worrying about. But I don't think that
making the final round random will have any impact on this one way or
the other. Even if your seating is random in the final, you gain a lot,
and lose nothing, but finding out as much information as possible about
the decks that you are sitting at the final table with, picking seats or
no.
John Whelan
> Hmm. I think I'm misunderstanding you. You seemed to indicate that
> looking at the data presented, where Top Seed having seat choice wins
> about twice as often as other competitors, indicated that not having
> seat choice would be just as good due to the advantage of winning ties.
I thought he was merely saying that six extra victories, traceable to
the tie-breaking advantage alone, is a very substantial advantage for
top seed, and, in his view, a sufficient incentive to PTW in the final
preliminary round.
> I think if you remove the seat choice, Top Seed may or may not go back
> to the same chance of winning as anyone else.
Seems rather unlikely that they will, if they are really getting six
extra victories from the tie-breaking advantage alone.
> No, no. It *should* be a complete non issue. Scouting should not be an
> issue. We should assume that people scout. And share information with
> each other about what decks they run into. As trying to prevent that is
> way too much work to be worth it. So assume everyone is going to scout
> to the best of their ability. And don't worry about it.
This logic is circular. Yes, I agree that I should merrily accept
what I cannot change. If you can't beat 'em join 'em, and all that.
But in this context, we are actually discussing a change which might
have some effect on scouting. And implementing this change would NOT
be too much work.
henrik
> On Jul 20, 6:42 pm, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote:
>
> > Hmm. I think I'm misunderstanding you. You seemed to indicate that
> > looking at the data presented, where Top Seed having seat choice wins
> > about twice as often as other competitors, indicated that not having
> > seat choice would be just as good due to the advantage of winning ties.
>
> I thought he was merely saying that six extra victories, traceable to
> the tie-breaking advantage alone, is a very substantial advantage for
> top seed, and, in his view, a sufficient incentive to PTW in the final
> preliminary round.
They're not traceable to tie-breaking advantage alone since those
games might only have tied in the first place due to clever seating
choice by the top seed, or due to top seed playing for time etc. With
random seating the games might have ended with a non-tie victory.
John Whelan
This is true. Lots of uncertainties here. Also, I am not sure Kevin
told us how many other ties were NOT won by the top seed?
Still, I am not sure it is sufficiently true to entirely negate the
logic. If so many top seeds are playing for time, it can only mean
that the advantage they are taking advantage of is indeed substantial.
henrik
> Still, I am not sure it is sufficiently true to entirely negate the
> logic. If so many top seeds are playing for time, it can only mean
> that the advantage they are taking advantage of is indeed substantial.
Of course. The tie-winning part of being first seed isn't crap, I hope
noone has or would say that. It's enhanced by the ability to pick seat
last though, making the whole greater than the sum of it's parts and
all that.
John Whelan
> It's enhanced by the ability to pick seat
> last though, making the whole greater than the sum of it's parts and
> all that.
I cannot honestly see why the difference would be vary much from being
proportional. If the tie-breaker advantage can add 6 wins to a base
of 16 (+37.5%) then it seems to me it ought to add at least 4 wins to
a base of 12 (+33%).
Frankly, I would be more worried about those 6 ties being a fluke.
Kevin M.
> "Kevin M." wrote:
>> WHO WON THE FINAL?
>>
>> Top seed: 22
>> TIES: 6
>>
>> 2nd seed: 10
>> 3rd seed: 8
>> 4th seed: 8
>> 5th seed: 11
>>
>> So, it appears there is no 'Top Seed Curse'. =)
>
> Kevin, this is great data. Thanks for posting. Just to clarify,
> I believe you are showing the results of 22 + 10 + 8 + 8 + 11
> tournaments = 59 tournaments. Of those 59 tournaments, 22 were
> won by the top seed. Of those 22, 6 of them were due to a tie.
> Is that correct?
Yes.
> Also, could you confirm the min, average, and max number of players
> in these 59 tournaments?
I'd like NOT to go back and retrieve that data, as it's a lot of work,
but I can tell you that none of those tournaments were less than
15 players, most were 18-35 players, most were 2R+F, and every
tournament was standard constructed, i.e. non-draft, non-storyline.
> Also, could you give the date range for these tournaments --
> what is the oldest and newest tournament in this data set?
A few of these tournaments were pre-GW, i.e. most are post-GW.
> Assuming this data is relatively recent (say, within the last
> 3-4 years) and includes a decent size mix (not just 10 person
> tournaments), I think it's a very convincing case for tie-breaks
> alone being a sufficient reward for top seed.
>
> If so, I'd love to remove the seat-picking ritual, which would
> speed up tournaments, reduce the impact of scouting, and make
> the final game more similar to all the qualifying games.
Yea, I'd prefer the "set" seating method we discussed a while back
(3-4-1-5-2, or something equivalent) but I agree with your analysis.
Kevin M.
> And scouting should be a complete non issue--assume people scout,
> assume people share information, and don't worry about it.
And yet people have been arguing rather vehemently that scouting
matters, so it seems like purifying our game by using a method which
removes scouting yet preserves everything else is a good idea.
Kevin M.
> Also, I am not sure Kevin told us how many other ties
> were NOT won by the top seed?
No, I didn't. I only looked at the ties where the top seed won.
I can't tell you how many ties there were in those 59 tounaments,
but it wasnt very many. Not many more than 6...maybe 9 or 10?
Kevin M.
> Frankly, I would be more worried about those 6 ties being a fluke.
I'm unsure what you mean by a "fluke" tie. How could this happen?
John Whelan
> I'm unsure what you mean by a "fluke" tie. How could this happen?
I am merely thinking of statistical flukes, which can occur in any
small sampling.
Peter D Bakija
"Kevin M." <you...@imaspammer.org> wrote:
> And yet people have been arguing rather vehemently that scouting
> matters, so it seems like purifying our game by using a method which
> removes scouting yet preserves everything else is a good idea.
Ah, yeah, that. I think they are mistaken, but that is me. I don't think
scouting is something that people should worry about on the grounds that
people will do it unless you put bags over their heads and usher them
out of the room. And randomly you get to see half the decks in the
tournament. And randomly your buddies see another half the decks, and it
is easy to compare notes and there is no way to prevent that.
Making the final round randomly seated (the idea in question here)
doesn't remove scouting, nor does it remove the advantage of or the
incentive to scout. Knowing what your opponents is playing is just as
handy if you have random seating as if you have selected seating.
Peter D Bakija
<f042b36e-b05d-4032...@f6g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>,
John Whelan <jwjbw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I thought he was merely saying that six extra victories, traceable to
> the tie-breaking advantage alone, is a very substantial advantage for
> top seed, and, in his view, a sufficient incentive to PTW in the final
> preliminary round.
Ah, ok. Then I was misunderstanding him. The premise here is that the
advantage that comes from winning ties as top seed is enough of an
incentive/reward for being top seed. Check.
> This logic is circular. Yes, I agree that I should merrily accept
> what I cannot change. If you can't beat 'em join 'em, and all that.
> But in this context, we are actually discussing a change which might
> have some effect on scouting. And implementing this change would NOT
> be too much work.
How will making the finals randomly seated have any effect at all on
scouting? I still want to know what my opponent's decks are and do, even
if I'm sitting randomly. Thus, I still have all the incentive in the
world to check out other people's decks when I can, and find out from my
buddies what people are playing. Why would this change if final seating
is random?
And to be clear--I think scouting is great. I have no problem at all
with people looking at other folks' decks after they are ousted, trying
to see what everyone else is playing, and talking to people to compare
notes (assuming they are not disrupting anything while doing so).
Everyone should scout all the time in all tournaments. I think trying to
stop, disincentivize, dissuade, or discourage scouting is just silly.
Random final or no.
suoli
> In article <i25fbb$sn...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote:
>
> > And yet people have been arguing rather vehemently that scouting
> > matters, so it seems like purifying our game by using a method which
> > removes scouting yet preserves everything else is a good idea.
>
> Ah, yeah, that. I think they are mistaken, but that is me. I don't think
> scouting is something that people should worry about on the grounds that
> people will do it unless you put bags over their heads and usher them
> out of the room. And randomly you get to see half the decks in the
> tournament. And randomly your buddies see another half the decks, and it
> is easy to compare notes and there is no way to prevent that.
It's probably more about the necessity of scouting to stay competitive
than being annoyed by other players scouting.
> Making the final round randomly seated (the idea in question here)
> doesn't remove scouting, nor does it remove the advantage of or the
> incentive to scout. Knowing what your opponents is playing is just as
> handy if you have random seating as if you have selected seating.
>
> Peter D Bakija
> p...@lightlink.comhttp://www.lightlink.com/pdb6/vtes.html
>
> "It's too bad she won't live! But then again, who does?"
> -Gaff
That's like saying that 1 cake is just as good as 2 cakes. Being able
to use your knowledge of other players' decks during a game is not
"just as handy" as using that knowledge during AND before the game.
suoli
>
> How will making the finals randomly seated have any effect at all on
> scouting?
It would remove one incentive to scout.
> I still want to know what my opponent's decks are and do, even
> if I'm sitting randomly. Thus, I still have all the incentive in the
> world to check out other people's decks when I can, and find out from my
> buddies what people are playing. Why would this change if final seating
> is random?
Roughly speaking, there are people who enjoy scouting, people who
don't like scouting, people who don't like scouting but feel like they
need to do it anyway because of all the advantages it provides and
people who don't like scouting but feel like they need to do it anyway
because of the advantage it provides when choosing seats. If seating
is randomized the last group doesn't have to scout anymore.
> And to be clear--I think scouting is great. I have no problem at all
> with people looking at other folks' decks after they are ousted, trying
> to see what everyone else is playing, and talking to people to compare
> notes (assuming they are not disrupting anything while doing so).
Sure.
> Everyone should scout all the time in all tournaments.
Not so sure. I don't like the idea that I'm going to be disadvantaged
in the finals because I was hungry and went to get a snack instead of
scouting between rounds. Why not reduce that potential disadvantage by
randomizing seats? It won't stop anyone who enjoys scouting from doing
it.
> I think trying to
> stop, disincentivize, dissuade, or discourage scouting is just silly.
> Random final or no.
>
> Peter D Bakija
> p...@lightlink.comhttp://www.lightlink.com/pdb6/vtes.html
John Whelan
not to repeat.
Peter D Bakija wrote:
> How will making the finals randomly seated have any effect at all on
> scouting?
It will (marginally) alter the balance of power between those who do
scout, and those who do not.
> I still want to know what my opponent's decks are and do, even
> if I'm sitting randomly. Thus, I still have all the incentive in the
> world to check out other people's decks when I can, and find out from my
> buddies what people are playing. Why would this change if final seating
> is random?
It won't. Not for you, at any rate. But it is also true that there are
some people who do not scout, and will not scout and/or will get
little or no benefit from trying to scouting even if the rule is kept
as is. (Somewhere in between these extremes, there might be folks on
the edge, who might scout less if there were less incentive).
For instance (to take an extreme example), a disabled guy in a
wheelchair, with moderately poor distance vision, poor memory for
faces, and lacking a network of informants, may be effectively unable
to scout, but still be a very good player of the game as it is
normally played.
My point is not that V:tES tournaments should make special allowances
for the handicapped -- but merely that tournament rules should be
geared towards rewarding those who are good at the game as it is
ordinarily played.
> Everyone should scout all the time in all tournaments.
Be careful what you wish for. "Everyone" does not scout, as it is;
most that do do not scout "all the time"; and I do not think Judges
would like it if they did.
> I think trying to
> stop, disincentivize, dissuade, or discourage scouting is just silly.
> Random final or no.
All we are "trying" to do is randomize seating in the finals. And
there is nothing silly about that.
It *might* be silly if we tried to do more than that, for all the
reasons you state, but that's a whole other question.
I could retort "I think trying to promote, incentivise, and encourage
scouting is just silly, Random final or no, because most of the people
who do it are going to do it anyway, and because some people will not
bother no matter what you do."
So why should we keep the current rule? Scouting skills have little
or nothing to do with the game as ordinarily played.
John Whelan
> Ah, yeah, that. I think they are mistaken, but that is me. I don't think
And yet you are worrying about it. You think it should be encouraged,
that it is something "everyone" should do.
> [...] on the grounds that
> people will do it unless you put bags over their heads and usher them
> out of the room.
Conversely, there are some who will not scout, and indeed cannot scout
effectively, even if you torture them with red hot irons.
> And randomly you get to see half the decks in the
> tournament.
This is part of the game as it is ordinarily played. Most players do
not design a new deck for every game, so players often play against
decks having played against those decks before.
Using this knowledge to choose who your predator and prey will be is
NOT part of the game as ordinarily played.
Darby Keeney
>
> Seems rather unlikely that they will, if they are really getting six
> extra victories from the tie-breaking advantage alone.
And what leads you to believe that being able to select seats as the
top seed isn't a contributing factor to the game ending in a tie.
Consider: As first seed, I place myself in a position where I will
survive and get my prey, just like one other person. We end in a tie
and I win being higher seed, which in large part is likely due to my
ability to pick a predator.
Kevin M.
> "Kevin M." <you...@imaspammer.org> wrote:
>> And yet people have been arguing rather vehemently that scouting
>> matters, so it seems like purifying our game by using a method
>> which removes scouting yet preserves everything else is a good
>> idea.
>
> Ah, yeah, that. I think they are mistaken, but that is me. I don't
> think scouting is something that people should worry about on the
> grounds that people will do it unless you put bags over their heads
> and usher them out of the room. And randomly you get to see half the
> decks in the tournament. And randomly your buddies see another half
> the decks, and it is easy to compare notes and there is no way
> to prevent that.
So if a method of removing scouting became available, and this
method would (hopefully) change nothing else about the game, you'd
be against it? ;) 'Cause that's all we're talking about here.
John Whelan
> On Jul 20, 4:54 pm, John Whelan <jwjbwhe...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Seems rather unlikely that they will, if they are really getting six
> > extra victories from the tie-breaking advantage alone.
>
> And what leads you to believe that being able to select seats as the
> top seed isn't a contributing factor to the game ending in a tie.
Do I believe that?
Kevin M.
> Darby Keeney wrote:
>> John Whelan wrote:
>>> Seems rather unlikely that they will, if they are really getting
>>> six extra victories from the tie-breaking advantage alone.
>>
>> And what leads you to believe that being able to select seats as
>> the top seed isn't a contributing factor to the game ending in a tie.
>
> Do I believe that?
Instead of asking people to tell you what you believe when they are
wrong, just tell them that they are wrong, tell them what you really
meant, and continue forward. It'll save us all lots of heartache
thinking you are baiting, which I hope you aren't. ;)
John Whelan
> John Whelan wrote:
> > Darby Keeney wrote:
> >> John Whelan wrote:
> >>> Seems rather unlikely that they will, if they are really getting
> >>> six extra victories from the tie-breaking advantage alone.
> >>
> >> And what leads you to believe that being able to select seats as
> >> the top seed isn't a contributing factor to the game ending in a tie.
> >
> > Do I believe that?
>
> Instead of asking people to tell you what you believe when they are
> wrong, just tell them that they are wrong, tell them what you really
> meant, and continue forward.
Why should I have to clarify whether I *meant* it? Surely it is clear
enough that I did not SAY it.
I'll tell you what I DO think, though. I think any defense of the
current seating rule that depends on the premise that the rule
promotes ties in the final game, is not much of a defense. I do not
think that promoting ties is a good thing for a seating rule to do.
Obtenebration
>
> How will making the finals randomly seated have any effect at all on
> scouting? I still want to know what my opponent's decks are and do, even
> if I'm sitting randomly. Thus, I still have all the incentive in the
> world to check out other people's decks when I can, and find out from my
> buddies what people are playing. Why would this change if final seating
> is random?
It won't have much if any effect, and trying to prevent scouting is
likely more effort than it is worth. Unless we force everyone ousted
to leave the room, you can't stop it nor should you even try. V:TES
remains a social game and removing part of that environment between
games is not going to stop any deck discussions and will just annoy
players.
Choosing where you sit in the finals though can take scouting beyond
what it should be and give a player an out of game advantage. If
seating in finals is random, like it is in every other round, then the
only advantage a scouter has going into the finals is minimal. Any
player in a final who doesn't scout should be able to figure out what
their pred/prey are playing fairly quickly and not be at much if any
disadvantage.
If choosing seating in a final is fine, then why shouldn't we allow
players to choose their table positions every round? Random draw for
Round 1, Round 2 and beyond every table is seated just like finals are
now. It wouldn't add more than a minute or two to every round, and
The Archon could be adjusted to show tournament rank on each round's
table matchup so the judge could order the seating cards during a
round without adding time to the event.
Peter D Bakija
<c5a5a21c-db5f-4fbc...@d37g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
John Whelan <jwjbw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> It will (marginally) alter the balance of power between those who do
> scout, and those who do not.
Very marginally. As people in the finals have likely seen most of the
decks in the finals already anyway.
> It won't. Not for you, at any rate. But it is also true that there are
> some people who do not scout, and will not scout and/or will get
> little or no benefit from trying to scouting even if the rule is kept
> as is. (Somewhere in between these extremes, there might be folks on
> the edge, who might scout less if there were less incentive).
People play games vs a good number of decks that they are likely to face
already anyway. So already have a lot of information about the decks in
question, even without intentional scouting.
> For instance (to take an extreme example), a disabled guy in a
> wheelchair, with moderately poor distance vision, poor memory for
> faces, and lacking a network of informants, may be effectively unable
> to scout, but still be a very good player of the game as it is
> normally played.
Yes. That is an extreme example. If I ended up in a final with this guy,
and he didn't know what all the other decks in the final were, I'd give
him all the information I had.
> My point is not that V:tES tournaments should make special allowances
> for the handicapped -- but merely that tournament rules should be
> geared towards rewarding those who are good at the game as it is
> ordinarily played.
Which it currently is.
> Be careful what you wish for. "Everyone" does not scout, as it is;
> most that do do not scout "all the time"; and I do not think Judges
> would like it if they did.
Why wouldn't judges like if they did? What is not to like? This is where
I am most confused by all of this. Why does anyone view scouting as
something that is to be avoided at all? It makes zero sense to me.
We start at a wide level of information that is imperfect
information--everyone sees many of the decks in a given tournament just
by virtue of sitting down (in a tournament with enough people so that I
play 3 games vs 4 different players every round, I'm seeing 12 different
decks before the final. Which could easily be about half. Or more in a
smaller event). Then you probably have some information on other decks
just by virtue of knowing what some friends are playing. So even without
intentionally looking at other people's decks between rounds, you likely
have information on a majority of the decks anyway in all but the
biggest tournaments. Why are folks so insistent on propping up the
completely random disadvantage of not knowing what a couple decks in the
tournament do?
> All we are "trying" to do is randomize seating in the finals. And
> there is nothing silly about that.
I'm not quite sure why you are "trying" rather than just trying. But I
meant "trying to minimize scouting" in a grand sense.
> So why should we keep the current rule? Scouting skills have little
> or nothing to do with the game as ordinarily played.
I'm not saying that we should keep the current final rule due to
scouting or the lack thereof. I'm just going off on a tangent about
scouting.
Peter D Bakija
<2f0f022b-7143-41b0...@e5g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
suoli <suolir...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Not so sure. I don't like the idea that I'm going to be disadvantaged
> in the finals because I was hungry and went to get a snack instead of
> scouting between rounds. Why not reduce that potential disadvantage by
> randomizing seats? It won't stop anyone who enjoys scouting from doing
> it.
Fair enough.
Peter D Bakija
pd...@lightlink.com
Peter D Bakija
"Kevin M." <you...@imaspammer.org> wrote:
> So if a method of removing scouting became available, and this
> method would (hopefully) change nothing else about the game, you'd
> be against it? ;) 'Cause that's all we're talking about here.
Hmm. I don't think I'm understanding you. How would making the final
round randomly seated be a method of removing scouting?
Peter D Bakija
<14320c9a-35a9-49d2...@y11g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
John Whelan <jwjbw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> And yet you are worrying about it. You think it should be encouraged,
> that it is something "everyone" should do.
I think it is something that happens, is something that can't be
prevented, and isn't something that anyone should try to prevent.
> This is part of the game as it is ordinarily played. Most players do
> not design a new deck for every game, so players often play against
> decks having played against those decks before.
>
> Using this knowledge to choose who your predator and prey will be is
> NOT part of the game as ordinarily played.
Which has nothing to do with scouting and everything to do with
selecting seats for a game of VTES. So object to picking where you sit
in a game of VTES on the grounds of that not being how the game is
normally played, not 'cause of scouting.
Matthew T. Morgan
> Not so sure. I don't like the idea that I'm going to be disadvantaged
> in the finals because I was hungry and went to get a snack instead of
> scouting between rounds. Why not reduce that potential disadvantage by
> randomizing seats? It won't stop anyone who enjoys scouting from doing
> it.
If scouting is the concern, then I think the better solution would be to
get the judge to give a brief summery of every deck before the final
begins (before seats are chosen). The fact is that even with random
seating, a player who takes the time to ask around and find out what the
other finalists are playing will have an advantage. If you want to reduce
that advantage, all you need to do is institutionalize scouting so the
players need do nothing.
suoli
> Kevin M. wrote:
>
> > Instead of asking people to tell you what you believe when they are
> > wrong, just tell them that they are wrong, tell them what you really
> > meant, and continue forward.
>
> Why should I have to clarify whether I *meant* it?
Because someone couldn't tell.
> Surely it is clear
> enough that I did not SAY it.
It wasn't clear enough if someone didn't understand what you meant. In
a polite conversation the goal is to understand and be understood. You
don't get points for formally precise statements, you get them for
being understood. You don't loose points for misunderstood statements
if you can correct the misunderstanding. And the best part? If we're
all playing in the same team everybody is a winner!
John Whelan
> It wasn't clear enough if someone didn't understand what you meant.
Perhaps you mean to suggest that I should have said "I didn't say
that" instead of "Do I believe that?". Maybe so, but you are
quibbling.
Matthew T. Morgan
> It wasn't clear enough if someone didn't understand what you meant. In
> a polite conversation the goal is to understand and be understood. You
> don't get points for formally precise statements, you get them for
> being understood. You don't loose points for misunderstood statements
> if you can correct the misunderstanding. And the best part? If we're
> all playing in the same team everybody is a winner!
But stating one's opinion clearly and rephrasing it upon request makes it
very difficult to claim that the matter is already settled and avoid all
further discussion and/or challenges to one's position!
John Whelan
> But stating one's opinion clearly and rephrasing it upon request makes it
> very difficult to claim that the matter is already settled and avoid all
> further discussion and/or challenges to one's position!
I did not understand that. Please rephrase.
Matthew T. Morgan
Glad to. "Read what I wrote" and the like is a fairly common response
around here when either a lack of clarity/understanding is noted or ones
core points are directly challenged. I contend that this is just a cheap
bullying tactic and that anyone actually interested in having a discussion
or debate should be glad to restate what was written before to ensure that
all readers have a good grasp of the points being made.
Or to put it another way, if one can't remake ones argument, then it
likely isn't a very strong one.
John Whelan
Forgive me, Matt, but to my eyes, the entire above post seems like a
cheap bullying tactic. But I think you could have said it more
succinctly. You are basically calling me a dishonest coward.
Peter D Bakija
> Forgive me, Matt, but to my eyes, the entire above post seems like a
> cheap bullying tactic. But I think you could have said it more
> succinctly. You are basically calling me a dishonest coward.
As third party, mostly uninterested observer, it seems a lot more like
he is saying:
It is generally a better plan to be willing to restate one's position
than it is to say "go reread my position, as it is already stated".
-Peter
Matthew T. Morgan
I didn't say anything like that and didn't refer to you by name. It does
seem to me that you are less enthused about defending your points when
others disagree with you. You aren't the only one.
If not, then lets let bygones be bygones and you can answer this question:
what problem are you attempting to solve by randomize final seating?
"Please refer to my entire volume of newsgroup posts for the answer"
suggests to me that you aren't actually interested in debating it. That's
the answer I got before.
John Whelan
> As third party, mostly uninterested observer, it seems a lot more like
> he is saying:
>
> It is generally a better plan to be willing to restate one's position
> than it is to say "go reread my position, as it is already stated".
Okay. Seriously now. Is there anyone who needs me to clarify? My
original words were quoted. The misquotation was directly below it
for comparison. Where is the confusion?
If anyone is truly confused, I will do my best to clarify. I just
pray such person is interesting in discussing Jyhad, and not my
character flaws, which are indeed considerable.
Yes yes. By now I fervently wish I had spend more time responding to
that post. It would have saved time in the long run. But it was late
at night, and I was tired.
John Whelan
> It does
> seem to me that you are less enthused about defending your points when
> others disagree with you.
I'm not sure I can agree with your assessment of my character. Seems
to me my flaws run in the other direction, and that I need to better
resist the compulsive urge to get sucked into pointless repetitive
debates.
> If not, then lets let bygones be bygones and you can answer this question:
> what problem are you attempting to solve by randomize final seating?
It would be nice to get some acknowledgment that I am under no
obligation to repeat and rehash my position on demand.
But fine. You've nagged me enough, I guess. I'll give you a rehash
tonight.
Peter D Bakija
<4e36f6da-f951-408b...@y11g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
John Whelan <jwjbw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Okay. Seriously now. Is there anyone who needs me to clarify? My
> original words were quoted. The misquotation was directly below it
> for comparison. Where is the confusion?
I think it was more of a general comment than a specific attack on your
statements. I read what Matt said, and read it as "It is good to restate
one's position rather than say 'go read what I already wrote'" was like
"Yaa!". Not 'cause of this discussion in specific, but 'cause of
discussion in general.
Kevin M.
> "Kevin M." <you...@imaspammer.org> wrote:
>> So if a method of removing scouting became available, and this
>> method would (hopefully) change nothing else about the game, you'd
>> be against it? ;) 'Cause that's all we're talking about here.
>
> Hmm. I don't think I'm understanding you. How would making the
> final round randomly seated be a method of removing scouting?
I should've said "lessening scouting", since it clearly doesn't remove it.
Peter D Bakija
"Kevin M." <you...@imaspammer.org> wrote:
> I should've said "lessening scouting", since it clearly doesn't remove it.
Like, I'm not trying to be argumentetive here (well, no more so than
usual :-), but still, I'm not seeing how a randomized final seating will
make scouting less common. I mean, yeah, if final seating is randomized,
you have less to lose by not knowing what the other finalists are
playing, but you still want to know what they are playing.
Currently, when you get into the finals, if you are 5th or 4th seed, you
already have essentially random seating. 3rd and 4th seed get slightly
less, yet still pretty much, random seating. Top Seed gets to pick the
seat of their choice. Yet 4th and 5th seed *still* benefit from knowing
what other folks are playing, so scouting opposing decks, even if you
aren't going to be top seed (heck, even if you aren't getting into the
final), is worth doing. As knowing what folks are playing is helpful,
even if seat choice isn't part of the equation. If I sit down in a
random seat, and my predator spends his first 10 transfers getting out
what is clearly an 11 cap, how I play my first 3 or 4 turns is going to
be different if I know my predator is probably bringing out Arika as
opposed to probably bringing out Enkidu. Knowing up front that my
predator is playing Arika (or Enkidu or Malkavians or Imbued or
whatever) is helpful information. Even if I'm their prey randomly as
opposed to by someone's choice.
Yes. I agree that if final rounds were random as opposed to the result
of seat choice, yeah, *not* scouting is less likely to shoot you in the
foot. But as that sort of information is *always* useful, seat picking
final or no, people still are going to want to do it. As it is helpful.
All the time.
suoli
I brought up the issue because it seems to be a big contributing
factor in turning discussions into meaningless 5+ page arguments on
the newsgroup. I feel that we could have more content with less volume
if we examine our own posting habits and how they affect the general
quality of discussions.
Kevin M.
> "Matthew T. Morgan" wrote:
>> It does seem to me that you are less enthused about defending
>> your points when others disagree with you.
>
>> question: what problem are you attempting to solve by randomize
>> final seating?
>
> It would be nice to get some acknowledgment that I am under
> no obligation to repeat and rehash my position on demand.
Obviously, you are under no obligation to repeat and/or rehash your
position on demand and/or mis- or non-understanding. It's odd that
you could have ever thought you were under some sort of compulsion
from a bunch of people on a computer forum.
But it you don't, then there will be consequences for you and your
argument -- clearly I understand such things around here. ;)
John Whelan
> But it you don't, then there will be consequences for you and your
> argument -- clearly I understand such things around here. ;)
I have spent as much time rehashing this issue as anybody. Obviously,
if I rehash it some more, it is possible I will convince more people.
But there is a law of diminishing returns in such things.
Matthew T. Morgan
> Yes. I agree that if final rounds were random as opposed to the result
> of seat choice, yeah, *not* scouting is less likely to shoot you in the
> foot. But as that sort of information is *always* useful, seat picking
> final or no, people still are going to want to do it. As it is helpful.
> All the time.
Yeah, Peter is right. Ask anybody, I say to you, anybody who has played
in a lot of finals. Would randomizing seating make you less likely to
want to scout? No. It is highly useful to know what you're up against
and not every deck reveals it's true nature. Say I'm going 3rd and my
predator influences Feo Ramos. What is it? Una? Weenie auspex? Legacy
of Pander? Imagine I need to discard one of these cards: Pentex
Subversion, Forgotten Labyrinth, Delaying Tactics. If I know what deck my
predator has, the decision is easy. If I don't, then I'd be a fool to
lose any of those.
Kevin M.
> "Kevin M." wrote:
>> But it you don't, then there will be consequences for you and your
>> argument -- clearly I understand such things around here. ;)
>
> I have spent as much time rehashing this issue as anybody.
When Darby entered the discussion for the first time, with a single post,
you didn't rehash anything. You confronted his question with your own
question, first time around. That is where you chose the consequences.
Granted, we all have styles of communication and your style of
answering a question with a question is not taken as badly in a real-
life setting, but if a particular group of people in a particular forum
are suggesting to you that it isn't the best way to communicate with
them, take the idea kindly and see if you can modify your arguments
in their setting. If they say that it'll benefit you, perhaps it will. =)
suoli
>
> Yes. I agree that if final rounds were random as opposed to the result
> of seat choice, yeah, *not* scouting is less likely to shoot you in the
> foot. But as that sort of information is *always* useful, seat picking
> final or no, people still are going to want to do it. As it is helpful.
> All the time.
>
> Peter D Bakija
>
> "It's too bad she won't live! But then again, who does?"
> -Gaff
It could similarly be said that people should always wear sunglasses
when playing because it makes reading expressions harder. Most people
don't because their personal advantage/effort ratio for wearing
sunglasses isn't high enough, even when it would be helpful all the
time.
I think we all acknowledge that scouting is useful with or without
randomized final seats. What is being argued is that randomized seats
reduce the advantage of scouting (or disadvantage of not scouting) in
such a way that advantage/effort ratio would be tilted in favor of not
scouting for some players.
John Whelan
> When Darby entered the discussion for the first time, with a single post,
> you didn't rehash anything. You confronted his question with your own
> question, first time around.
We keep switching back and forth. Are we talking about the Darby
issue, or Matt Morgan's grievances? When I address one, someone
switches to the other.
> That is where you chose the consequences.
I am certainly being punished.
suoli
If that is what you sincerely feel I naturally apologize for
contributing to what you might perceive as a witch hunt.
Matthew T. Morgan
> We keep switching back and forth. Are we talking about the Darby
> issue, or Matt Morgan's grievances? When I address one, someone
> switches to the other.
For the record, my grievance is that I don't think the solution matches
the problem (or lack of one), but I can't really address that when nobody
will say what the problem is.
> I am certainly being punished.
Oh your poor soul. Have a kitten!
John Whelan
> Oh your poor soul. Have a kitten!
Thanks, Matt.
suoli
>
> For the record, my grievance is that I don't think the solution matches
> the problem (or lack of one), but I can't really address that when nobody
> will say what the problem is.
I can't speak for John Whelan but one possible problem is that some
people might want to take a break and do whatever unrelated thing one
does between games instead of spending that time scouting. Reducing
the advantage gained from scouting would allow them to stay a bit more
competitive vs. players who scout.
Matthew T. Morgan
> It could similarly be said that people should always wear sunglasses
> when playing because it makes reading expressions harder.
Bah. That makes hypnosis nearly impossible!
> Most people
> don't because their personal advantage/effort ratio for wearing
> sunglasses isn't high enough, even when it would be helpful all the
> time.
Or because we are better without them.
> I think we all acknowledge that scouting is useful with or without
> randomized final seats. What is being argued is that randomized seats
> reduce the advantage of scouting (or disadvantage of not scouting) in
> such a way that advantage/effort ratio would be tilted in favor of not
> scouting for some players.
It still would be. I can think of no end of examples. Imagine somebody
influences Nikolaus Vermulen. Is he playing Progeny? Signposts/Grapples?
2nd Traditions? Loads of Parity Shift? Just a little Parity Shift?
Heavy stealth? Light stealth? Knowing the answer to these questions will
greatly improve ones odds against such a deck. It's much better to know
what the deck is all about before the game than to find out halfway
through.
Matthew T. Morgan
> I can't speak for John Whelan but one possible problem is that some
> people might want to take a break and do whatever unrelated thing one
> does between games instead of spending that time scouting. Reducing
> the advantage gained from scouting would allow them to stay a bit more
> competitive vs. players who scout.
Yes, I can understand that. I don't really agree this is the best fix for
that problem though. I already proposed, but will do so again, that a
more direct fix to this would be for the judge to announce what decks the
finalists are playing before seats are chosen.
Something like:
Kevin is playing filthy group 2-3 DEM bleed
Peter is playing 1 cap hack
Matt is playing Hazimel multi-rush (with Eye of Hazimel!)
etc.
Now who do you want to sit by?
Unless I'm quite mistaken, it's already perfectly legal for a judge to do
this. Just as it would be legal for finalists to agree to "choose" the
seats which are randomly determined by a roll of a die.
suoli
> On Wed, 21 Jul 2010, suoli wrote:
>
> > Most people
> > don't because their personal advantage/effort ratio for wearing
> > sunglasses isn't high enough, even when it would be helpful all the
> > time.
>
> Or because we are better without them.
What point are you making here? Are you arguing against the specifics
of the example or the general principle behind it? Keep in mind that
it's an illustrative example, not a proof. If it makes the example
easier to understand feel free to replace "sunglasses" with
placeholder X that has the property a<e, where a is advantage gained
by X and b is effort required by X.
> > I think we all acknowledge that scouting is useful with or without
> > randomized final seats. What is being argued is that randomized seats
> > reduce the advantage of scouting (or disadvantage of not scouting) in
> > such a way that advantage/effort ratio would be tilted in favor of not
> > scouting for some players.
>
> It still would be. I can think of no end of examples. Imagine somebody
> influences Nikolaus Vermulen. Is he playing Progeny? Signposts/Grapples?
> 2nd Traditions? Loads of Parity Shift? Just a little Parity Shift?
> Heavy stealth? Light stealth? Knowing the answer to these questions will
> greatly improve ones odds against such a deck. It's much better to know
> what the deck is all about before the game than to find out halfway
> through.
We can all imagine the examples. We all know that scouting helps your
game. Nevertheless, in one end of the spectrum there are people who
enjoy scouting, in the other are people who don't like it and never do
it even if it would be useful and somewhere in between are people who
wouldn't bother with scouting if it weren't for non-random seating in
the finals.
suoli
>
> Yes, I can understand that. I don't really agree this is the best fix for
> that problem though. I already proposed, but will do so again, that a
> more direct fix to this would be for the judge to announce what decks the
> finalists are playing before seats are chosen.
Not a bad idea.
Matthew T. Morgan
> What point are you making here?
No point. Just goofing around.
> We can all imagine the examples. We all know that scouting helps your
> game. Nevertheless, in one end of the spectrum there are people who
> enjoy scouting, in the other are people who don't like it and never do
> it even if it would be useful and somewhere in between are people who
> wouldn't bother with scouting if it weren't for non-random seating in
> the finals.
Would you bother with scouting if the judge was going to tell you what the
other four decks were before you had to pick your seat?
suoli
>
> Would you bother with scouting if the judge was going to tell you what the
> other four decks were before you had to pick your seat?
I would scout even if there was no advantage to it. I like seeing what
decks people have come up with. Someone else might rather take a
smoking break or whatever.
John Whelan
> On Wed, 21 Jul 2010, suoli wrote:
> > I can't speak for John Whelan but one possible problem is that some
> > people might want to take a break and do whatever unrelated thing one
> > does between games instead of spending that time scouting. Reducing
> > the advantage gained from scouting would allow them to stay a bit more
> > competitive vs. players who scout.
>
> Yes, I can understand that. I don't really agree this is the best fix for
> that problem though.
But the question here is merely whether one seating method is
preferable to another. There may be other ways to reduce the
incentives for scouting, but we still must choose seating, which
requires a seating method.
> I already proposed, but will do so again, that a
> more direct fix to this would be for the judge to announce what decks the
> finalists are playing before seats are chosen.
>
> Something like:
> Kevin is playing filthy group 2-3 DEM bleed
> Peter is playing 1 cap hack
> Matt is playing Hazimel multi-rush (with Eye of Hazimel!)
> etc.
>
> Now who do you want to sit by?
>
> Unless I'm quite mistaken, it's already perfectly legal for a judge to do
> this. Just as it would be legal for finalists to agree to "choose" the
> seats which are randomly determined by a roll of a die.
I don't like this method. It requires too much judgment on the part
of the judge, as he strains to make a fair but brief summary of every
deck. I think a judge should not have such worries.
If I were to try to implement a similar idea, I would suggest a rule
that, before the finals begin, each player reveals 4 vampires chosen
randomly from his crypt. Then they reshuffle the crypt, and begin
play. (I would suggest a similar rule for the library, but libraries
take longer to reshuffle).
This replicates the easiest information to get via scouting: crypt
information. Players that do not scout would then feel less
disadvantaged. Less-hard-core scouters might decide there are better
ways to use their time.
But I would still want seating determined randomly.
Peter D Bakija
"Matthew T. Morgan" <far...@io.com> wrote:
> Would you bother with scouting if the judge was going to tell you what the
> other four decks were before you had to pick your seat?
I would. As it is helpful to know what decks people are playing before
you sit down for the second round. Or the third round. Even if that
seating is random.
Peter D Bakija
pd...@lightlink.com
Kevin M.
> "Kevin M." wrote:
>> When Darby entered the discussion for the first time, with a single
>> post, you didn't rehash anything. You confronted his question with
>> your own question, first time around.
>
> We keep switching back and forth. Are we talking about the Darby
> issue, or Matt Morgan's grievances? When I address one, someone
> switches to the other.
Two issues are being discussed at the same time. This is reasonable.
>> That is where you chose the consequences.
>
> I am certainly being punished.
Your so-called punishment has been quite mild, and has even
tended toward constructive. You should be so lucky. ;)
John Whelan
> Two issues are being discussed at the same time. This is reasonable.
You and Matt can continue then. As fascinating as my sinful life may
be, I think I shall return to discussing V:tES.
John Whelan
> you can answer this question:
> what problem are you attempting to solve by randomize final seating?
Let me first point out that you are loading the question.
The question is a choice between two seating methods. I could just as
easily ask you, "What problem are you attempting to solve by
eliminating random seating?" Random seating is the norm in V:tES, or
at least, it is usual for seating to be effectively random as to decks
(if not necessarily the players) because seating is almost never
chosen with knowledge of what an opponent is playing. Finals seating
is the exception to the rule. You are able to take the offensive only
because non-random seating has somehow become a 15-year old tradition.
So the question, really is, what seating method do you prefer and
why.
Let's start with a totally subjective and selfish consideration. I
hate scouting. And I am terrible at it. I am one of those people who
(for the most part) does not scout, and when I do I get almost nothing
out of it. Unless I actually sit down and play against a person, I
can rarely remember who is playing what. Thus any rule that helps
scouters is not helping me -- it is only helping my opponents.
Lets move to a second consideration -- also somewhat subjective, but
more theoretical. I am a fan of V:tES, and by V:tES, I mean the
Standard Game. For me, the Standard Game is an end in itself, and any
changes thereto, for tournament purposes, require justification. I
see the purpose of the tournament is to measure skill at standard
V:tES.
Most changes to Standard Rules, for tournament purposes, were caused
by a regrettable necessity -- the time limit. V:tES, in its standard
form, is a kill or be killed, eat or be eaten game. Very rarely will
a completed standard game (especially a 5-player game) end in a tie,
and only the most unlikely situations end with a table being split
1,1,1,1,1. But with a time limit, this can easily be achieved -- all
that need happen is for two hours to pass with no-one being ousted --
or that would be the score if tournaments were scored consistently
with the pattern of the standard rules (with every player who is not
ousted keeping the 1 vp he brought to the table).
Since ties were not in keeping with the eat-or-be-eaten "spirit of the
game", time limits and ties had to be dis-incentivized in time-limited
games. Surviving to time out was only given 0.5 vp as a "risk
incentive". Though this distorted the standard rules, its aim was to
preserve the "spirit" (rather than the letter) of the Standard Rules.
(This change ultimately led to other changes, such as the discounting
of the withdrawal bonus).
I recognize that others (probably you among them, judging by your
earlier comments) do not have this attitude. For some, the tournament
rules have become an end in themselves. For such, it is irrelevant to
you to what extent they accurately reflect the standard rules (spirit
or letter), and to what extent they distort them. I cannot say others
are wrong for this, any more than I can say you would be wrong for
preferring Monopoly. I can only say that I do have a loyalty to
Standard V:tES.
But to those with whom I do have some common ground, in believing the
tournament rules should reflect at least the spirit of the Standard
Game, I have this argument. Scouting is not a skill which is relevant
in the Standard Game. Similarly, the ability to choose your predator
and prey, using knowledge of what they are playing, in the hope of
gaining an advantage, is likewise not a skill that is relevant to the
Standard Game. If the goal of a tournament is to find the best V:tES
player, then rewarding the skill of scouting and the skill of predator-
picking makes as much sense as rewarding beauty, weight lifting
ability, or knowledge of legal theory.
enough for now ...
Kevin M.
> If the goal of a tournament is to find the best V:tES player,
Not that this is the goal of a tournament, mind you.
> then rewarding the skill of scouting and the skill of predator-
> picking makes as much sense as rewarding beauty, weight
> lifting ability, or knowledge of legal theory.
Why aren't those valid VTES tournament player skills?
They sure do seem to be one of the variables.
John Whelan
> John Whelan wrote:
> > If the goal of a tournament is to find the best V:tES player,
> > picking makes as much sense as rewarding beauty, weight
> > lifting ability, or knowledge of legal theory.
>
> Why aren't those valid VTES tournament player skills?
No idea. Maybe someone wrote a post about it.
Kevin M.
Kevin M.
> "Kevin M." wrote:
>> John Whelan wrote:
>>> If the goal of a tournament is to find the best V:tES player,
>>> then rewarding the skill of scouting and the skill of predator-
>>> picking makes as much sense as rewarding beauty, weight
>>> lifting ability, or knowledge of legal theory.
>>
>> Why aren't those valid VTES tournament player skills?
>
> No idea. Maybe someone wrote a post about it.
Wow. Guess I was right about you. Sad, really.
John Whelan
> Wow. Guess I was right about you. Sad, really.
What are you right about and why are you sad?
If you wanted a discussion, perhaps you should have given SOME
indication of having read the long post I just wrote. Disagree is you
like, but don't just ask me to repeat myself.
LSJ
> But to those with whom I do have some common ground, in believing the
> tournament rules should reflect at least the spirit of the Standard
> Game, I have this argument. Scouting is not a skill which is relevant
> in the Standard Game. Similarly, the ability to choose your predator
> and prey, using knowledge of what they are playing, in the hope of
> gaining an advantage, is likewise not a skill that is relevant to the
> Standard Game. If the goal of a tournament is to find the best V:tES
> player, then rewarding the skill of scouting and the skill of predator-
> picking makes as much sense as rewarding beauty, weight lifting
> ability, or knowledge of legal theory.
I share that ground.
A justification for using the current seating method is that the
seating matters. In the preliminary rounds, as in the Standard Game,
there is no basis on which to award seating choice priority, so the
seating choice (with the corresponding advantages and disadvantages it
imparts to each player) is done randomly.
Similarly, choosing who sits at each table is done randomly (again
having no merit basis for distinguishing the players).
For the final however, there is a measure of relative performance for
comparing each player to each other player.
This measure is used to determine who merits a seat at the final table
(rather than leaving that random)
And this measure is used to determine who merits seat choice priority
(rather than leaving that random)
This is done in other competitions, as well, as mentioned in earlier
threads (cf. short track, ski cross, etc.)
Another justification is more akin to bending to the needs of the
tournament (cf. time limits as you mention). In a single game
(Standard Game), players have no reason no to play to win that single
game. In a series-of-games setting (as in the preliminary rounds),
situations may arise due to the tournament's addition of "determining
who goes to the final" that may result in a player having a choice
between improving xeir tournament performance and improving their
single game performance.
We have the sportmanship rule, the PTW portion of which dictates that
the player in such a situation must sacrifice the tournament
performance for the game performance, which is not a good position for
the player to be in and could promote/reward cheating.
As such, reducing the occurrence of such situations is warranted, so
that players are put into such situations less often, if ever.
Increasing the advantage of finishing 1st over finishing 2nd going
into the finals arguably does some of that.
Matthew T. Morgan
> But the question here is merely whether one seating method is
> preferable to another. There may be other ways to reduce the
> incentives for scouting, but we still must choose seating, which
> requires a seating method.
The question for me is whether the existing rule is creating an
undesireable situation which can be improved by changing it. If it comes
down to six of one, half dozen of the other, then I'd rather stick with
the rule everybody knows.
> I don't like this method. It requires too much judgment on the part
> of the judge, as he strains to make a fair but brief summary of every
> deck. I think a judge should not have such worries.
I don't really see how it's a worry. Every tournament is always conducted
at the mercy of the good judgment of the judge. This is nothing
different. Any player who doesn't feel the judge will give a sufficiently
good review of the decks is free to scout.
> If I were to try to implement a similar idea, I would suggest a rule
> that, before the finals begin, each player reveals 4 vampires chosen
> randomly from his crypt. Then they reshuffle the crypt, and begin
> play. (I would suggest a similar rule for the library, but libraries
> take longer to reshuffle).
This could be extremely misleading. Imagine the vampires revealed are 4
Panders. You think Legacy of Pander, but it turns out to be an Una deck.
I'm not saying I have a huge problem with doing this. It's just that the
information received would sometimes be immensely useful and other times
lead one to have to guess.
> This replicates the easiest information to get via scouting: crypt
> information. Players that do not scout would then feel less
> disadvantaged. Less-hard-core scouters might decide there are better
> ways to use their time.
>
> But I would still want seating determined randomly.
Because?
Matthew T. Morgan
> On Jul 21, 12:27 pm, "Matthew T. Morgan" <farq...@io.com> wrote:
>> you can answer this question:
>> what problem are you attempting to solve by randomize final seating?
>
> Let me first point out that you are loading the question.
Sounds good. I'll point out how I'm not.
> The question is a choice between two seating methods. I could just as
> easily ask you, "What problem are you attempting to solve by
> eliminating random seating?"
You could ask that or any other number of non-sequitors. Currently we
don't do random final seating, so it can't be eliminated. Currently final
seating is not random, so randomizing that represents a change. I believe
change should be driven by a reason, not just because somebody felt like
it.
> Random seating is the norm in V:tES, or
> at least, it is usual for seating to be effectively random as to decks
> (if not necessarily the players) because seating is almost never
> chosen with knowledge of what an opponent is playing. Finals seating
> is the exception to the rule. You are able to take the offensive only
> because non-random seating has somehow become a 15-year old tradition.
Yes, I represent the status quo in this argument. I took up that position
because I would like to see any changes to vtes actually improve organized
play rather than just make it different, but no better. I have inertia on
my side and I should. It shouldn't be possible to just change the rules
willy-nilly all the time.
> So the question, really is, what seating method do you prefer and
> why.
That's not the question for me. The question is whether or not the
proposed change will make for better organized play.
> Let's start with a totally subjective and selfish consideration. I
> hate scouting. And I am terrible at it. I am one of those people who
> (for the most part) does not scout, and when I do I get almost nothing
> out of it. Unless I actually sit down and play against a person, I
> can rarely remember who is playing what. Thus any rule that helps
> scouters is not helping me -- it is only helping my opponents.
Okay, we've already talked about this. I think my counter-proposal will
help you more because before you begin the final, the judge will let you
know that Peter is playing weenie potence, Kevin is playing Aabbt Kindred
vote, etc. Whether you pick your seat or not, this would help most
players get into the right frame of mind to tackle those decks.
> Lets move to a second consideration -- also somewhat subjective, but
> more theoretical. I am a fan of V:tES, and by V:tES, I mean the
> Standard Game. For me, the Standard Game is an end in itself, and any
> changes thereto, for tournament purposes, require justification. I
> see the purpose of the tournament is to measure skill at standard
> V:tES.
Any argument involving the standard game in regards to seating is
spurious as the standard game has no rules for seating. 2.1: "Seating
position can be determined by whatever method the players choose." But
that's clearly not feasible in a tournament environment because the
players may not agree - or one could argue that by participating in a
tournament, the players have chosen to be seated according to the
tournament rules. Perfectly in line with the standard game rules.
I see the tournament rules as an extension for the standard rulebook since
the standard rulebook doesn't cover how to organize a tournament. As far
as I know, the only place the two come into conflict is that tournament
games can only include 4 or 5 players and tournament decks can (typically
indivisibly) be 90 cards, even in a 4 player game. That and the time
limit, which is clearly a necessary evil because you can't allow a single
tournament round to last 11 hours. There's also a very small banned list.
So I would venture to say you are seeing something that isn't there. You
can retain your loyalty to the core game and participate in tournaments.
Just bring an 80 card deck and don't complain about not getting to play 3
and 7 player games.
> But to those with whom I do have some common ground, in believing the
> tournament rules should reflect at least the spirit of the Standard
> Game, I have this argument. Scouting is not a skill which is relevant
> in the Standard Game. Similarly, the ability to choose your predator
> and prey, using knowledge of what they are playing, in the hope of
> gaining an advantage, is likewise not a skill that is relevant to the
> Standard Game. If the goal of a tournament is to find the best V:tES
> player, then rewarding the skill of scouting and the skill of predator-
> picking makes as much sense as rewarding beauty, weight lifting
> ability, or knowledge of legal theory.
Scouting directly relates to vtes. It is the ability to determine the
nature of a deck on casual observation. That is far more relevant to vtes
than weight-lifting. I can understand not liking it and wanting to
minimize its effect, but to say it's not relevant is just inaccurate. The
same skill that makes a player good at scouting will also let that player
recognize the relative danger of a deck after only a few cards are played.
The same skill will remind that player that, assuming the deck hasn't
changed from a prior game, it runs two Giants Blood but lacks Pentex
Subversion. It will inform the player that another player frequently
ousts quickly, then runs out of steam. All of these observations are
relevant to vtes, whether one is playing or observing.
But I'm not saying scouting should be the most important skill of a vtes
player. I'm disputing your saying it isn't relevant. It clearly is. I'm
all for lending a helping hand to those who don't want to spend their off
time spying on other games - or for players who dramatically clean up with
just seconds to spare and thus have no opportunity to view other games.
That's why I proposed having the judge scout on everyone's behalf. I
think this would do a better job at achieving your aim than randomizing
final seating. Even with random final seating, scouting is still hugely
important and those who don't/can't/won't do it will be disadvantaged.
Kevin M.
> "Kevin M." wrote:
>> Wow. Guess I was right about you. Sad, really.
>
> What are you right about and why are you sad?
>
> If you wanted a discussion, perhaps you should have given SOME
> indication of having read the long post I just wrote. Disagree is you
> like, but don't just ask me to repeat myself.
I did read your post, and I was engaging you and I thought
we were having a discussion about something fundamental,
but all you want to do is write smart-ass posts and not engage,
probably because your arguments are so incredibly weak as
not to be able to withstand debate (as Matt said earlier).
That's why I feel sorry for you. Bye.
Robert Dudock
> Peter D Bakija wrote:
> > "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote:
> >> So if a method of removing scouting became available, and this
> >> method would (hopefully) change nothing else about the game, you'd
> >> be against it? ;) 'Cause that's all we're talking about here.
>
> > Hmm. I don't think I'm understanding you. How would making the
> > final round randomly seated be a method of removing scouting?
>
> I should've said "lessening scouting", since it clearly doesn't remove it.
>
> Kevin M., Prince of Las Vegas
> "Know your enemy and know yourself; in one-thousand battles
> you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, *The Art of War*
> "Contentment...Complacency...Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier
> Please bid on my auctions!http://shop.ebay.com/kjmergen/m.html
If people want to eliminate scouting, the tournament rule should be
that the Judge announces, in very general terms, what each person at
the final table is playing. "He's playing !Malk stealth/bleed. She's
playing Torrie breed/boon"
I'm all for random seating in the finals.
Robb Dudock
John Whelan
> > The question is a choice between two seating methods. I could just as
> > easily ask you, "What problem are you attempting to solve by
> > eliminating random seating?"
>
> You could ask that or any other number of non-sequitors. Currently we
> don't do random final seating, so it can't be eliminated.
We may not do random finals seating, but we *do* do random seating, in
virtually every game I have played for the last 15 years. Except in
the finals, where we eliminate it. So my question stands. I'm not
sure what the point was in your pretending you did not understand
me.
> I have inertia on
> my side and I should.
Sure. If there is a tie, you win. Still, the question is which rule
would be better. We are measuring one rule against the other.
> > So the question, really is, what seating method do you prefer and
> > why.
>
> That's not the question for me. The question is whether or not the
> proposed change will make for better organized play.
That does not sound any different different from my intended meaning.
> Any argument involving the standard game in regards to seating is
> spurious as the standard game has no rules for seating. 2.1: "Seating
> position can be determined by whatever method the players choose." But
> that's clearly not feasible in a tournament environment because the
> players may not agree - or one could argue that by participating in a
> tournament, the players have chosen to be seated according to the
> tournament rules. Perfectly in line with the standard game rules.
I have made no argument based on any claim that the current seating
method explicitly violates the letter of the Standard Rulebook
> Scouting directly relates to vtes. It is the ability to determine the
> nature of a deck on casual observation. That is far more relevant to vtes
> than weight-lifting.
So is cheating. What's your point?
> I can understand not liking it and wanting to
> minimize its effect, [...]
You understand me then. So why quibble?
> [...] but to say it's not relevant is just inaccurate.
Scouting is not relevant to Standard V:tES as it is normally played.
> The
> same skill that makes a player good at scouting will also let that player
> recognize the relative danger of a deck after only a few cards are played.
A player who is good at the latter will not necessarily be equally
good at the former. There may be some overlap. Still, the goal
should be to measure the latter, not the former.
John Whelan
[snip merit argument]
> This is done in other competitions, as well, as mentioned in earlier
> threads (cf. short track, ski cross, etc.)
Neither your merit argument nor your PTW incentive argument you offer
below necessarily stands against my last objection. One can offer
awards and incentives in any number of ways, and need not choose those
whose value varies based on factors that are not particularly relevant
to Standard V:tES.
But I am still opposed to the merit argument (standing on its own and
divorced from the need for incentives).
I imagine that the idea, in the sports competitions you mention, is
usually not to INTRODUCE imbalance and unfairness to the final
competition. Rather the idea is that some unfairness is already
inherent in the competition, and, if such unfairness MUST be assigned
to someone, it might as well be assigned on the basis of previous
merit.
If you assign the best start position to just anyone, folks might say
“the only reason he won was because he had the best start position.”
But if you assign the best start position to the top seed, folks are
more likely to say, “Oh well, he was the most likely to win anyway,
since he did best in preliminary rounds, so the ultimate outcome would
probably have been the same.” People are more likely to feel that,
despite unavoidable flaws, the competition has probably served its
purpose – finding the best player.
It is far less likely that such competitions will deliberately
introduce unfairness not already inherent. For instance, I have never
heard that, in the 100 meter dash, the lower-seeded players are forced
to carry five-pound weights. Such measures would only reduce our
confidence that the best player really has won.
Some such “inherent” unfairness can be found in V:tES, in terms of
order of play. For instance, it is universally agreed that going
fifth is a disadvantage. I would have less objection to assigning
such “inherent” unfairness of the basis of previous merit. For
instance, one might have random seating, but still have a rule that
the fifth seed’s prey (whoever that is) goes first, or it could be the
rule that (after relative seating is chosen, but before decks are cut)
the top seed decides who goes first.
Once you separate the “who goes first” question, I see no basis for
the idea that there is ANY inherent unfairness in the random assigning
of predator-prey relationships. If, in Short Track, you randomly
assign starting positions, someone always gets lucky and someone
always gets the short end of the stick. But no claim can be made
that this is necessarily true of random predator-prey assignments in
V:tES. Why cannot such a result be “fair”? It is possible that,
after such random assignment, some of the players (perhaps all of
them) can imagine that a different arrangement could have been more
advantageous to them. But it does not necessarily follow from this
that anyone has been given an “unfair” advantage, or an “unfair”
disadvantage. In fact, it is hard to imagine by what standard such
“unfairness” should be measured.
However, player choice may create unfairness that might not otherwise
existed. Players will not choose fairness because they are not
interested in fairness. They want the result that will ensure their
victory. Thus top-seed seating choice may be more analogous to
forcing lower-seeded sprinters to wear 5 lb weights than it is to
assigning starting positions in Short Track.
For instance, a top seed with a dominate stealth bleed deck, with lost
of wakes and deflections, can place himself between his non-bleed-
bouncing prey and a predator who is also a dominate stealth bleeder
with some wakes and deflections. In this way, he ensures that his
prey will become the bleed-sink for half the table, overwhelming his
defenses.
(Indeed, if he knows or suspects he will be top seed, he can even
throw a bunch of extra deflections in his deck for precisely this
purpose. This is totally cheating, of course, but who’s to know? I
was only ever in one tournament where I was asked to provide a deck-
list in advance).
> Another justification is more akin to bending to the needs of the
> tournament (cf. time limits as you mention).
[snip ]
> As such, reducing the occurrence of such situations is warranted, so
> that players are put into such situations less often, if ever.
> Increasing the advantage of finishing 1st over finishing 2nd going
> into the finals arguably does some of that.
I have more sympathy for this argument (the PTW-incentive argument)
than for the merit argument. I am unsure that anything more than the
tie-breaker advantage is necessary, or that anything beyond that
would be helpful in preventing unsportsmanlike behavior, but if it is,
there may be other ways of creating such incentive.
But the current seating rule has potential to cause trouble too. It
is never good, IMHO, for a player to be able to predict, in advance of
seating, who and what his predator and prey and cross-table buddy will
be. Such advance knowledge gives him the opportunity to make pre-
seating deals (as in the story Jay Kristoff reported), and may even
create too much temptation and incentive to illegally tweak his deck.
John Whelan
> I did read your post, and I was engaging you and I thought
> we were having a discussion about something fundamental,
> but all you want to do is write smart-ass posts and not engage,
Sorry if I offended. But I don't really understand where you expected
the discussion to go. A discussion requires some common ground to
serve as its basis. Otherwise we each have nothing more than our
arbitrary preferences. I cannot criticize the tournament rules
without some OTHER standard by which they can be judged. If the
tournament rules are thought of as self justifying, the "debate" is
over.
> probably because your arguments are so incredibly weak as
> not to be able to withstand debate (as Matt said earlier).
If you like. At least, I have no argument to give to one who does not
share the starting premise I proposed.
Matthew T. Morgan
> On Jul 22, 10:11 am, "Matthew T. Morgan" <farq...@io.com> wrote:
>>> The question is a choice between two seating methods. I could just as
>>> easily ask you, "What problem are you attempting to solve by
>>> eliminating random seating?"
>>
>> You could ask that or any other number of non-sequitors. Currently we
>> don't do random final seating, so it can't be eliminated.
>
> We may not do random finals seating, but we *do* do random seating, in
> virtually every game I have played for the last 15 years. Except in
> the finals, where we eliminate it. So my question stands. I'm not
> sure what the point was in your pretending you did not understand
> me.
Well, that's sort of a wide interpretation of "elminate" but okay. So why
do we do it? Because such is how the rules were written long ago. I
don't have to justify not changing something because it isn't changing.
If you want to divert the Mississippi River so it passes through Maine, I
don't need to provide reasons not to. The default is to leave it.
Now if there's a good reason, then fine, let's change it. I'm just
looking for that good reason. So far all I really see is "I want it this
way" which isn't a good reason.
>> I have inertia on
>> my side and I should.
>
> Sure. If there is a tie, you win. Still, the question is which rule
> would be better. We are measuring one rule against the other.
That doesn't seem like a very useful exercise to me. It's better to look
directly at a rule change and see if the game would be improved by it. We
could find that rule X is better than rule Y but still not improve vtes by
implementing rule Y.
>> Scouting directly relates to vtes. It is the ability to determine the
>> nature of a deck on casual observation. That is far more relevant to vtes
>> than weight-lifting.
>
> So is cheating. What's your point?
Only to directly contradict you where you said "Scouting is not a skill
which is relevant in the Standard Game."
>> I can understand not liking it and wanting to
>> minimize its effect, [...]
>
> You understand me then. So why quibble?
Because (like I've already said a half-dozen times) I don't believe your
fix addresses the observed problem. Scouting remains just as important.
>> [...] but to say it's not relevant is just inaccurate.
>
> Scouting is not relevant to Standard V:tES as it is normally played.
However the same skills that apply to scouting do. Scouting employs the
very same ability to quickly grasp the game state, measure opponents and
mentally assemble deck lists that is extremely useful during a game of
vtes. I'm not trying to glorify scouting here. I'm just saying that the
skill does directly relate. It's silly to say it doesn't.
And all of those things remain important regardless of how finals are
seated. How important? All the way important. My suggestion doesn't
really fix things either because a judge is going to say "Kevin is playing
group 2-3 Kindred Spirits" not "Kevin is playing group 2-3 Kindred Spirits
with no reaction cards and a crap-ton of stealth. He's unlikely to bleed
anyone other than his prey and doesn't really want to gab a lot. He's
very focussed on gaining VPs quickly. He may listen to a deal, but you
need to make your case quickly....etc, etc."
With that in mind, if we really care about scouting and the effect it has
on vtes, Peter's suggestion (embrace and encourage scouting) is the only
one that makes any kind of sense. Either that or pop vtes players into
isolation tanks between rounds.
>> The
>> same skill that makes a player good at scouting will also let that player
>> recognize the relative danger of a deck after only a few cards are played.
>
> A player who is good at the latter will not necessarily be equally
> good at the former. There may be some overlap. Still, the goal
> should be to measure the latter, not the former.
According to whom? How are these skills different exactly? What are the
important vtes skills to you?
John Whelan
> The default is to leave it.
Agreed before. Ties you win.
> Now if there's a good reason, then fine, let's change it. I'm just
> looking for that good reason. So far all I really see is "I want it this
> way" which isn't a good reason.
If that really is your summary of my argument, then you can hardly
blame me for not wanting to waste my time on a discussion with you.
> Only to directly contradict you where you said "Scouting is not a skill
> which is relevant in the Standard Game."
What I meant by that ought to be clear enough, if you are trying to
understand me, and not straining to create a straw man.
The goal of the tournament should be to find the best Standard V:tES
player present, not the second-best Standard V:tES player who happens
to be a great scouter (thereby making him the best "tournament V:tES
player" per current rules).
II feel no need to argue with your point that the second-best Standard
V:tES player needs to be a good V:tES player in order to be a good
scouter. It does not change my point that a rule that rewards
scouting tends to sabotage the purpose and function of the tournament
as I have defined it.
> [...] I don't believe your
> fix addresses the observed problem. Scouting remains just as important.
Obviously, it becomes at least marginally less important if we remove
a rule that rewards it.
And obviously, since the rule has some potential to be decisive, it
has some potential to take the prize from the player who would
otherwise be proved the best Standard V:tES player present.
> With that in mind, if we really care about scouting and the effect it has
> on vtes, Peter's suggestion (embrace and encourage scouting) is the only
> one that makes any kind of sense. Either that or pop vtes players into
> isolation tanks between rounds.
Not at all. There is a third choice: Don't throw players into
isolation tanks, but don't reward scouting either (for instance,
change the current seating rule, which rewards it). Nobody is forced
to choose between your two extremes.
> > Still, the goal
> > should be to measure the latter, not the former.
>
> According to whom?
According to me for starters. Others on this NG have supported the
proposition.
> How are these skills different exactly?
It is obvious to me that they are different, because I am the worst
scouter in the world, but not quite the worst V:tES player in the
world. Mostly, it is that my mind works a bit differently.
Distance vision, also, is clearly a factor. Some people have sharper
eyes than others. Vision that may be adequate when sitting at a
table, may not be as adequate when viewing from further back.
I have met V:tES players for whom mobility is a factor. They cannot
move around the room as easily as some.
Obviously, some players have more informants then others. How is a
network of informants relevant to a game of standard V:tES?
More importantly, why are you asking me to repeat myself.
John McGlynn
> Matthew T. Morgan wrote:
> > [...] I don't believe your
> > fix addresses the observed problem. Scouting remains just as important.
>
> Obviously, it becomes at least marginally less important if we remove
> a rule that rewards it.
I think you're at a dead end here. Randomizing the seating of the
final round won't diminish the value of scouting. It's binary (even
though the amount of information can vary) -- either you actively
scout other decks at the tournament or you don't. Since knowledge of
opponents' decks is always valuable, there is no (feasible,
enforceable) way to eliminate the incentive.
Now if you were to argue that choosing final seating created
additional benefit to the top seed *above and beyond* what is due the
finalist, you might have some sympathetic ears. However I think LSJ's
comparison to Short Track competition is a convincing counter
argument: http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/60e55a51e05197a8
So at the risk of repeating myself: scouting is inherently valuable,
so any incentive from final seating is redundant. The premise of your
argument for randomizing finals seating is false.
--
John McGlynn
no one wins on usenet
John Whelan
> On Jul 26, 1:54 pm, John Whelan <jwjbwhe...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Randomizing the seating of the
> final round won't diminish the value of scouting.
Clearly it will. Perhaps you meant to say it won't ELIMINATE the
value of scouting.
> It's binary (even
> though the amount of information can vary) -- either you actively
> scout other decks at the tournament or you don't.
As others here have argued, the presence of those on both sides, who
will or won't "no matter what", does not eliminate the possibility of
people in the middle, who could go either way, if incentives are
varied. Your idea that NO such people exist is entirely contrary to
common sense. Why do you assume there is a sharp divide, and not a
continuum?
But none of this is relevant to my argument, which is merely that
ideally the crown should go to the best Standard V:tES player. A rule
that increases the chance such person's crown will be stolen by the
third-best Standard V:tES player because of a scouting advantage is a
Bad Thing for this reason alone, regardless of whether changing the
seating rule would actually alter player behavior.
> Now if you were to argue that choosing final seating created
> additional benefit to the top seed *above and beyond* what is due the
> finalist, you might have some sympathetic ears. However I think LSJ's
> comparison to Short Track competition is a convincing counter
> argument: http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/60e55a51e05197a8
I've already addressed the Short Track example, and need not repeat
myself. I wish only to add, to what I said before, that the
"inherent unfairness" distinction I applied earlier is rendered
minimally relevant in a game where randomness is accepted as part of
the game. In any game where randomness is accepted as a proper part
of the game, any "inherent unfairness" in starting positions can be
equalized by assigning such unfairness randomly. If this solution is
not deemed acceptable in Short Track, it is no doubt only because
randomness is not regarded as a proper part of that game.
> So at the risk of repeating myself: scouting is inherently valuable, [...]
True.
> [...] so any incentive from final seating is redundant.
Does not follow.
> The premise of your
> argument for randomizing finals seating is false.
I'm not sure what "premise" you are referring to, but in any even:
You fail!
wumpus
On Jul 26, 2:16 pm, John McGlynn <john.mcgl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jul 26, 1:54 pm, John Whelan <jwjbwhe...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Matthew T. Morgan wrote:
> > > [...] I don't believe your
> > > fix addresses the observed problem. Scouting remains just as important.
>
> > Obviously, it becomes at least marginally less important if we remove
> > a rule that rewards it.
>
> I think you're at a dead end here. Randomizing the seating of the
> final round won't diminish the value of scouting. It's binary (even
> though the amount of information can vary) -- either you actively
> scout other decks at the tournament or you don't. Since knowledge of
> opponents' decks is always valuable, there is no (feasible,
> enforceable) way to eliminate the incentive.
John W's point is that random final seating would reduce the impact of
scouting, in that the results of scouting would no longer have any
effect on finals seating. No one is disputing that 'level of
scouting' impacts finals seating choices, AFAIK. John W. is not
arguing that random final seating would eliminate scouting, or even
necessarily reduce it. Your analysis appears to me to miss his
argument.
> Now if you were to argue that choosing final seating created
> additional benefit to the top seed *above and beyond* what is due the
> finalist, you might have some sympathetic ears. However I think LSJ's
> comparison to Short Track competition is a convincing counter
> argument:http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/60e5...
This argument has already been made/suggested, including by LSJ
himself, I believe. It seems possible that the tie breaker is
incentive enough to keep people playing to win in late rounds.
> So at the risk of repeating myself: scouting is inherently valuable,
> so any incentive from final seating is redundant. The premise of your
> argument for randomizing finals seating is false.
I don't think that you've comprehended his argument, as I don't think
that that's a premise of his argument.
> John McGlynn
> no one wins on usenet
Indeed.
For the record, I agree both 1) that it is strange that the finals are
seated differently than every other round, and in a manner that
strongly rewards good individual (or team) scouting, and 2) that while
I love observing other players' games, I'm really uncomfortable with
deliberately scouting with an eye towards giving someone else an
advantage (either myself or a 'friend'). It doesn't seem sporting.
Hope that helps,
Alex
John McGlynn
> John McGlynn wrote:
> > On Jul 26, 1:54 pm, John Whelan <jwjbwhe...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Randomizing the seating of the
> > final round won't diminish the value of scouting.
>
> Clearly it will. Perhaps you meant to say it won't ELIMINATE the
> value of scouting.
>
> > It's binary (even
> > though the amount of information can vary) -- either you actively
> > scout other decks at the tournament or you don't.
>
> As others here have argued, the presence of those on both sides, who
> will or won't "no matter what", does not eliminate the possibility of
> people in the middle, who could go either way, if incentives are
> varied. Your idea that NO such people exist is entirely contrary to
> common sense. Why do you assume there is a sharp divide, and not a
> continuum?
That is a cool trick, cutting my paragraph in half to insert snark.
Now it looks like I didn't follow that statement up with supporting
statements.
Anyway, I don't see the continuum in scouting because the incentive is
winning, which is binary. It's impossible to measure how much "win"
you're getting for scouting. Where the continuum lies is the amount
of information you get per time actively scouting. Arguably, the more
you scout the better your chances of winning. But you either win or
you don't -- who's going to scout less because they might not be able
to pick their seat? What if choosing one's seat had never been an
option? Isn't increasing one's chances of winning enough?
You might counter that winning in preliminary rounds gives a seating
order advantage, so scouting information in preliminary rounds somehow
multiplies the advantage. Yet the goal of each game is to win -- a
player does not require any more incentive to reach top seed! That's
why I say seating order is a redundant incentive for scouting.
> > The premise of your
> > argument for randomizing finals seating is false.
>
> I'm not sure what "premise" you are referring to, but in any even:
> You fail!
Pretty sure you fail at reading. But maybe you were too busy being
snarky to follow context so I'll post the quote I was originally
responding to:
On Jul 26, 1:54 pm, John Whelan <jwjbwhe...@gmail.com> wrote:
John McGlynn
> But none of this is relevant to my argument, which is merely that
> ideally the crown should go to the best Standard V:tES player. A rule
> that increases the chance such person's crown will be stolen by the
> third-best Standard V:tES player because of a scouting advantage is a
> Bad Thing for this reason alone, regardless of whether changing the
> seating rule would actually alter player behavior.
>
> > Now if you were to argue that choosing final seating created
> > additional benefit to the top seed *above and beyond* what is due the
> > finalist, you might have some sympathetic ears. However I think LSJ's
> > comparison to Short Track competition is a convincing counter
>
> I've already addressed the Short Track example, and need not repeat
> myself. I wish only to add, to what I said before, that the
> "inherent unfairness" distinction I applied earlier is rendered
> minimally relevant in a game where randomness is accepted as part of
> the game. In any game where randomness is accepted as a proper part
> of the game, any "inherent unfairness" in starting positions can be
> equalized by assigning such unfairness randomly. If this solution is
> not deemed acceptable in Short Track, it is no doubt only because
> randomness is not regarded as a proper part of that game.
Randomness in seating is not part of the game. Rulebook, section 2.1:
"Seating position can be determined by whatever method the players
choose." You might respond to that by asserting that random seating
is "accepted" so there is still a distinction. However, randomness is
*accepted* in casual games; it is also *accepted* in the preliminary
rounds of a tournament; but rank-based seating is the *accepted*
method of seating in a tournament final. That much is clear based on
a long history of tournaments being run with the tournament rules. It
might help for you to view the preliminary rounds not as a series of
casual games, but as a way of randomly seeding the tournament in lieu
of any predetermined ranks.
I split this off from my other response because we're talking about
two slightly different things here.
--
John McGlynn
John McGlynn
> Howdy,
>
> On Jul 26, 2:16 pm, John McGlynn <john.mcgl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jul 26, 1:54 pm, John Whelan <jwjbwhe...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Matthew T. Morgan wrote:
> > > > [...] I don't believe your
> > > > fix addresses the observed problem. Scouting remains just as important.
>
> > > Obviously, it becomes at least marginally less important if we remove
> > > a rule that rewards it.
>
> > I think you're at a dead end here. Randomizing the seating of the
> > final round won't diminish the value of scouting. It's binary (even
> > though the amount of information can vary) -- either you actively
> > scout other decks at the tournament or you don't. Since knowledge of
> > opponents' decks is always valuable, there is no (feasible,
> > enforceable) way to eliminate the incentive.
>
> John W's point is that random final seating would reduce the impact of
> scouting, in that the results of scouting would no longer have any
> effect on finals seating. No one is disputing that 'level of
> scouting' impacts finals seating choices, AFAIK. John W. is not
> arguing that random final seating would eliminate scouting, or even
> necessarily reduce it. Your analysis appears to me to miss his
> argument.
I'm responding only to the quoted text. I reject the assertion that
choosing one's seat for the final provides additional incentive.
Scouting helps one win, and winning is the way to become top seed,
which was the goal anyway. There's nothing "marginal" about it
because you want to win and the more you know about the other decks
the greater your chances of winning, no matter the seat.
> For the record, I agree both 1) that it is strange that the finals are
> seated differently than every other round, and in a manner that
> strongly rewards good individual (or team) scouting, and 2) that while
> I love observing other players' games, I'm really uncomfortable with
> deliberately scouting with an eye towards giving someone else an
> advantage (either myself or a 'friend'). It doesn't seem sporting.
To be honest, I wonder why the finals were seeded in the first place.
But I think after reading the other thread and the Short Track
comparison there's no urgent need to change tournament rules because
they're not broken.
--
John McGlynn
pretty sure I understood what he was saying, does he?
Kevin M.
> That is a cool trick, cutting my paragraph in half to insert snark.
John, the guy you are responding to has demonstrated that he is
uninterested in discussion. He's a troll and you're his tool.
Stop responding to him and he'll go away again.
Hopefully for a good, long time.
Kevin M., Prince of Las Vegas
"Know your enemy and know yourself; in one-thousand battles
you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, *The Art of War*
"Contentment...Complacency...Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier
Please visit VTESville daily! http://vtesville.myminicity.com/
wumpus
On Jul 26, 3:56 pm, John McGlynn <john.mcgl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jul 26, 4:06 pm, wumpus <wump...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > On Jul 26, 2:16 pm, John McGlynn <john.mcgl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Jul 26, 1:54 pm, John Whelan <jwjbwhe...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > Matthew T. Morgan wrote:
> > > > > [...] I don't believe your
> > > > > fix addresses the observed problem. Scouting remains just as important.
>
> > > > Obviously, it becomes at least marginally less important if we remove
> > > > a rule that rewards it.
>
> > > I think you're at a dead end here. Randomizing the seating of the
> > > final round won't diminish the value of scouting. It's binary (even
> > > though the amount of information can vary) -- either you actively
> > > scout other decks at the tournament or you don't. Since knowledge of
> > > opponents' decks is always valuable, there is no (feasible,
> > > enforceable) way to eliminate the incentive.
>
> > John W's point is that random final seating would reduce the impact of
> > scouting, in that the results of scouting would no longer have any
> > effect on finals seating. No one is disputing that 'level of
> > scouting' impacts finals seating choices, AFAIK. John W. is not
> > arguing that random final seating would eliminate scouting, or even
> > necessarily reduce it. Your analysis appears to me to miss his
> > argument.
>
> I'm responding only to the quoted text. I reject the assertion that
> choosing one's seat for the final provides additional incentive.
It seems foolish to argue that it _doesn't_ provide additional
incentive (to anyone), as it clearly does to some people. (For
example: John W. & me) You can certainly argue that it _shouldn't_
provide additional incentive, and perhaps it shouldn't, if everyone is
equally motivated to win and gains as much advantage from scouting.
> Scouting helps one win, and winning is the way to become top seed,
> which was the goal anyway. There's nothing "marginal" about it
> because you want to win and the more you know about the other decks
> the greater your chances of winning, no matter the seat.
>
> > For the record, I agree both 1) that it is strange that the finals are
> > seated differently than every other round, and in a manner that
> > strongly rewards good individual (or team) scouting, and 2) that while
> > I love observing other players' games, I'm really uncomfortable with
> > deliberately scouting with an eye towards giving someone else an
> > advantage (either myself or a 'friend'). It doesn't seem sporting.
>
> To be honest, I wonder why the finals were seeded in the first place.
> But I think after reading the other thread and the Short Track
> comparison there's no urgent need to change tournament rules because
> they're not broken.
>
> --
> John McGlynn
> pretty sure I understood what he was saying, does he?
I don't think you did, but I guess I'll stop trying to present John
W's arguments for him and just give you my take:
I'm not really concerned with the impact of finals seating on
scouting; I'm interested in the impact of scouting on finals seating.
If randomized finals seating were to decrease scouting, I'd be fine
with that, and see it as positive. But what seems much more important
to me is restricting the impact of scouting to the in-game portion of
the finals, i.e. keeping it from impacting the pre-game (seating),
which, to me, is where the impact of scouting can be truly
disproportionate, and where it creates the widest divergence from the
'usual' V:tES game experience.
And to that extent I appear to agree with John W., who has argued for
making the rounds and final of a tournament as similar as reasonable
to a 'standard' game. In a an isolated game, with people who are
unfamiliar with each other and each other's decks, scouting has no
impact. Clearly any tournament in real life will quickly deviate from
this ideal, and I'm arguing neither that scouting can or should be
prevented, that it isn't a useful a skill, nor that it can't have a
big impact. I'm just advocating for trying to contain its impact to
the in-game portion of the game.
I probably shouldn't add, but will, that I'm kind of appalled at some
of the arguments being trotted out in favor of the current system.
Peter's suggestion that differences in scouting ability or network are
all taken care of by other finalists just volunteering information?
Really? House rules and or an equivalent of 'social pressure' (in
reverse) _solving_ a problem? Matt's (and others') 'if it was good
enough for our ancestors its good enough for us' and/or the equivalent
'if it ain't broke (enough), don't fix it' traditionalism? Sure, the
advantages and disadvantages of the current system and any fixes do
need to be weighed against each other, as does any change, but denying
there is any problem or that there could be a better way to do things
out of hand? Lame. Of course, I'm afraid John W's, errr...,
'prickliness' is not helping him advance his arguments either, but I
do think that he has some points.
Hope that helps,
Alex
John McGlynn
It might seem foolish, but I believe the perceived incentive is
irrational. Like I said before, scouting is already a way to help you
win. It would be cool to see some scientific studies because as I'm
sure you realized, we can't take you or Mr. Whelan's word for it as
we're all quite biased (and how do you measure it? Time spent
scouting? Number of informants? /headexplode). I'm happy to agree
to disagree here because obviously people don't always act rationally,
but in the context of trying to win the tournament, come on, you want
to know what everyone is playing!
(snorp)
> I'm not really concerned with the impact of finals seating on
> scouting; I'm interested in the impact of scouting on finals seating.
>
> If randomized finals seating were to decrease scouting, I'd be fine
> with that, and see it as positive. But what seems much more important
> to me is restricting the impact of scouting to the in-game portion of
> the finals, i.e. keeping it from impacting the pre-game (seating),
> which, to me, is where the impact of scouting can be truly
> disproportionate, and where it creates the widest divergence from the
> 'usual' V:tES game experience.
>
> And to that extent I appear to agree with John W., who has argued for
> making the rounds and final of a tournament as similar as reasonable
> to a 'standard' game. In a an isolated game, with people who are
> unfamiliar with each other and each other's decks, scouting has no
> impact. Clearly any tournament in real life will quickly deviate from
> this ideal, and I'm arguing neither that scouting can or should be
> prevented, that it isn't a useful a skill, nor that it can't have a
> big impact. I'm just advocating for trying to contain its impact to
> the in-game portion of the game.
(snep)
I think you have a point here. For what it's worth, I think there is
a benefit to scrapping final round seating. But I also believe the
Short Track comparison was fair, and balances out the pros of both
types of seating. Given there's a small cost in changing the
tournament rules and communicating to all event organizers from now
on, the cons of both types of seating balance out. In that light,
Morgan's inertia argument doesn't seem all *that* out of whack.
--
John McGlynn
hahaha I said "out of whack"
Matthew T. Morgan
> I probably shouldn't add, but will, that I'm kind of appalled at some
> of the arguments being trotted out in favor of the current system.
> Peter's suggestion that differences in scouting ability or network are
> all taken care of by other finalists just volunteering information?
> Really? House rules and or an equivalent of 'social pressure' (in
> reverse) _solving_ a problem?
Peter wasn't offering that as a solution that should be written in to the
v:ekn rules. He was just saying that he's happy to volunteer information
to level the playing field and was encouraging others to do that. What's
wrong with that? I'm appalled that you're appalled. He's just trying to
help out.
> Matt's (and others') 'if it was good
> enough for our ancestors its good enough for us' and/or the equivalent
> 'if it ain't broke (enough), don't fix it' traditionalism?
Oh please. I never said that at all. I have maintained that I don't
think the propose fix addresses the perceived problem. I even offered an
alternate solution, so don't paint me as someone who is afraid of change.
> Sure, the
> advantages and disadvantages of the current system and any fixes do
> need to be weighed against each other, as does any change, but denying
> there is any problem or that there could be a better way to do things
> out of hand? Lame.
I didn't deny there was any problem or that there could be a better way.
I just don't like this one. I don't see it as having the effect you're
after. I don't see it as doing anything other than reducing the rewards
for good performance.
Lame right back at you. I'm not really sure why you think it's helpful to
John for you to come along and offer up these straw men.
wumpus
On Jul 27, 8:41 am, "Matthew T. Morgan" <farq...@io.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Jul 2010, wumpus wrote:
> > I probably shouldn't add, but will, that I'm kind of appalled at some
> > of the arguments being trotted out in favor of the current system.
> > Peter's suggestion that differences in scouting ability or network are
> > all taken care of by other finalists just volunteering information?
> > Really? House rules and or an equivalent of 'social pressure' (in
> > reverse) _solving_ a problem?
>
> Peter wasn't offering that as a solution that should be written in to the
> v:ekn rules. He was just saying that he's happy to volunteer information
> to level the playing field and was encouraging others to do that. What's
> wrong with that? I'm appalled that you're appalled. He's just trying to
> help out.
I understand that Peter was just trying to be helpful. I understand
that he wasn't trying to amend the rules. I'm pointing out that
normally, if/when someone notes a problem with the game, we (the
newsgroup in general) tend to frown on house rules or social pressure
as a solution to that problem. Fixing the rules or the card, or the
person's understanding of the same, sure. But creating optional/
customary variants? Yech.
> > Matt's (and others') 'if it was good
> > enough for our ancestors its good enough for us' and/or the equivalent
> > 'if it ain't broke (enough), don't fix it' traditionalism?
>
> Oh please. I never said that at all. I have maintained that I don't
> think the propose fix addresses the perceived problem. I even offered an
> alternate solution, so don't paint me as someone who is afraid of change.
Perhaps I have mischaracterized your position. It seemed to me that
at base your argument was that nothing was broken enough to need
fixing. There was a long stretch, though, where people were refusing
to restate or clarify their arguments, so I may have gotten you
wrong. If so, I'm sorry. There certainly have been people in the 'it
ain't broke, so don't fix it' camp.
> > Sure, the
> > advantages and disadvantages of the current system and any fixes do
> > need to be weighed against each other, as does any change, but denying
> > there is any problem or that there could be a better way to do things
> > out of hand? Lame.
>
> I didn't deny there was any problem or that there could be a better way.
OK. I misunderstood you.
> I just don't like this one. I don't see it as having the effect you're
> after. I don't see it as doing anything other than reducing the rewards
> for good performance.
What effect is it that you think I'm after? I'm after precisely
taking scouting out of finals seating. Full stop. Which, yes,
reduces the rewards for good performance, which I think are
excessive. And possibly reduces the incentive to scout, which, as
noted, I would consider positive as well. I don't see how making
finals seating random would not remove the impact of scouting on
finals seating.
> Lame right back at you. I'm not really sure why you think it's helpful to
> John for you to come along and offer up these straw men.
As I noted, I've given up trying to clarify John W's positions and am
now stating my own. If you could point out the straw men - other than
my perhaps accidentally misrepresenting your position, which I have
already acknowledged - I will gladly withdraw them, as I had no
intention to erect them. I hate formal 'debate' and find that debate
tactics generally simply obfuscate matters; I'm not trying to 'win'
this 'debate'. I favor an engineering approach where we try to
enumerate advantages and disadvantages and then make an informed
choice among options.
Hope that helps,
Alex