Final Table Seating
librarian
the seating selection mechanic for the final table was. Specifically
because it was totally different from any other regular game of VTES. And
because seating has so much influence on the game, shouldn't it be like
every other table?
So my suggestion would be:
Seat everyone randomly. 1st seed gets to pick when they get to go in play
order (1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th). Play.
Comments?
best -
chris
Frederick Scott
news:hm77or$i05$2...@news.eternal-september.org...
>I was talking with someone at LVNAQ, and we were disucssing how annoying
> the seating selection mechanic for the final table was. Specifically
> because it was totally different from any other regular game of VTES. And
> because seating has so much influence on the game, shouldn't it be like
> every other table?
Annoying? I don't find it annoying. (Except when I have last choice and
screw myself. :-P ) I think it's fun - like a traditional ceremony to
open the finals game. And why shouldn't it be different? The finals is
irreparably different than preliminary round games (for instance, in that
game wins lose their special meaning).
Do lots of people actually think this brief, little two-and-a-half-minute
interaction is annoying?
Fred
Kevin M.
> I was talking with someone at LVNAQ, and we were disucssing how
> annoying the seating selection mechanic for the final table was.
> Specifically because it was totally different from any other
> regular game of VTES. And because seating has so much influence
> on the game, shouldn't it be like every other table?
The final round seating method was IIRC taken from the SPTR (the
NRA-based precursor to the official WW rules) and was created
to reward higher finishers for their preliminary round performance.
That seems to be a really good reason it is the way it is.
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 buy my cards! http://shop.ebay.com/kjmergen/m.html
John Whelan
> I was talking with someone at LVNAQ, and we were disucssing how annoying
> the seating selection mechanic for the final table was. Specifically
> because it was totally different from any other regular game of VTES. And
> because seating has so much influence on the game, shouldn't it be like
> every other table?
Indeed. Picking your predator or prey, with knowledge of what decks
they are playing, is totally "cheating". This rule represents an
attempt to increase the odds that the top-seeded player will win. It
also rewards scouting and (since the top-seeded player may have been
too busy playing to do much of this himself) also rewards having a
network of informants. It is contrary to the spirit of the normal
rules. Seating should be determined randomly.
wedge
Indeed,
or based on ranking
1st is 1st; 2nd - 2nd and so on
or
1st is 5th; 2nd - 4th and so on
Matt
Kevin M.
> librarian wrote:
>> I was talking with someone at LVNAQ, and we were disucssing how
>> annoying the seating selection mechanic for the final table was.
>> Specifically because it was totally different from any other regular
>> game of VTES. And because seating has so much influence on the
>> game, shouldn't it be like every other table?
>
> Indeed. Picking your predator or prey, with knowledge of what decks
> they are playing, is totally "cheating".
It isn't necessarily true that the finalists know anyone else's deck.
> This rule represents an attempt to increase the odds that
> the top-seeded player will win.
Yes. This is also true in most sports playoff brackets,
and has been for decades. Seems to work well.
> It also rewards scouting and...also rewards having a network
> of informants.
Everyone is equally free to bring decks and informant networks
that will give them the greatest advantages in winning quickly
and scouting the opposition. No one has an advantage.
> It is contrary to the spirit of the normal rules.
Which rules?
chromeboy
If seating were not to be determined by choice from top to last
player, i would
suggest seating to be 1st,5th,2nd,3rd,4th.
That way the sum of the postions surrounding a player would be:
1st: 4+5=9
2nd: 5+3=8
3rd: 2+4=6
4th: 3+1=4
5th: 1+2=3
That way the supposedly best player from the previous rounds would
have
earned preys and preds weaker (as determined by said previous results)
than the player after him in prerounds standing
John Whelan
> And why shouldn't it be different?
And why should it not be the same? This is, after all, a V:tES
tournament.
> The finals is
> irreparably different than preliminary round games (for instance, in that
> game wins lose their special meaning).
This is entirely a function of the rewards system. It has no bearing
on whether some players should be handicapped in favor of others.
For instance, if one were to grant a substantial "table prize" to the
game winner of the final table, or if one were to not declare a
tournament winner unless there were a winner in the final game, it
would increase the odds that all players would play to win in that
final game.
In any event, the fact that players often fail to "play to win" in the
finals has been (rightly IMHO) regarded as a problem. It was most
recently addressed by changing the tournament rules by having all
runners-up in the finals tie for second place. This, together with
the occasional preference for longer time limits in the final rounds,
helps ensure that, at least for all players BUT the top seeded player,
there will be a game-win or bust mentality.
But this reminds me that top-seeded players already walk into the
final game with a substantial advantage. They are, under current
rules, in a position to tie the final game with a lower-ranked
opponent, and still be declared a tournament winner. Why should they
be granted additionally benefits?
> Do lots of people actually think this brief, little two-and-a-half-minute
> interaction is annoying?
Well. You can add me to the list.
Aaron Clark
an inherently unfair: some players have more and/or better cards than
other players for a variety of reasons, with disposable income and
date of entry into the game being the principal ones.
In choosing final seating, the players with the most metagame
knowledge of other players' decks have an advantage. I recently got
to pick my seating at a storyline final game. I chose my predator not
because I had played against him in the tournament, but because I knew
his deck from our playgroup and someone had said, "Win Henry is
playing his Arika deck." I got about 5 minutes away from winning that
game, so I'm saying that out-of-play knowledge helped me. I had no
knowledge of two other decks at the table other than who was playing
them.
VTES rewards out-of-play factors in several ways, and this is one of
them. Maybe it should be more concretely discussed. Some people
(myself included) have qualms against scouting. Maybe we should all
be saying: "At tournaments, make sure you find out what everyone else
is playing. You must scout." That way everyone is on a similar
playing field - you didn't scout and chose the wrong seating? Well,
we told you to!
Frederick Scott
"John Whelan" <jwjbw...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:6401de11-46b5-428c...@k41g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
> Frederick Scott wrote:
>> And why shouldn't it be different?
>
> And why should it not be the same? This is, after all, a V:tES
> tournament.
Don't interrupt my paragraph. I answer your question in my very
next sentence.
>> The finals is
>> irreparably different than preliminary round games (for instance, in that
>> game wins lose their special meaning).
>
> This is entirely a function of the rewards system. It has no bearing
> on whether some players should be handicapped in favor of others.
Sure it does. The point is, the final game is different, so the
concept that, "it should be the same as preliminary round games"
is a non-starter. It's going to be different. The only question is
how different it should be.
...
> But this reminds me that top-seeded players already walk into the
> final game with a substantial advantage. They are, under current
> rules, in a position to tie the final game with a lower-ranked
> opponent, and still be declared a tournament winner. Why should they
> be granted additionally benefits?
Anyone who presupposes the seeding advantage is sufficient and that
further advantage is excessive would agree with you. I presuppose
neither and thus disagree.
To cut to the chase, how much advantage the top seeds get is a
completely subjective matter. I've observed that:
1) The advantage doesn't seem very substantial.
2) The top seed fails to win quite often. Which is good enough
for me....and...
3) As I said earlier, I think the seating ritual is fun. I had
thought most people found it to be fun. I'm surprised anyone
minds it at all.
Of course, you're not talking about disliking the ritual as much
as having issues with the fairness, which is a different thing than
what I thought Chris was raising. I do sympathize with some of
"hinkyness" around the scouting issue, although I've never noticed
it to skew things that badly. Or to the extent that lack of
knowledge vs. good knowledge makes a difference, I haven't noticed
it to be a terribly unfair thing. I suppose tournament rules could
be written to address any blatant unfairness - like players using
their friends to get information about decks they hadn't seen when
they make the finals. I just haven't seen stuff like that actually
happen.
Fred
John Whelan
> John Whelan wrote:
> > librarian wrote:
> >> I was talking with someone at LVNAQ, and we were disucssing how
> >> annoying the seating selection mechanic for the final table was.
> >> Specifically because it was totally different from any other regular
> >> game of VTES. And because seating has so much influence on the
> >> game, shouldn't it be like every other table?
> >
> > Indeed. Picking your predator or prey, with knowledge of what decks
> > they are playing, is totally "cheating".
>
> It isn't necessarily true that the finalists know anyone else's deck.
Right. Hence, it rewards scouting and having a network of informants.
> Everyone is equally free to bring decks and informant networks
> that will give them the greatest advantages in winning quickly
> and scouting the opposition.
It depends, I suppose, on what sort of behavior you want to reward.
> No one has an advantage.
Except those with a bigger network of informants.
> > It is contrary to the spirit of the normal rules.
>
> Which rules?
The norm, per standard rules, is that deck information is private and
remains private until revealed during play. The option of switching
decks between games helps enforce this.
In tournaments, there are reasons to insist that players keep their
decks throughout the various rounds. But there seems no reason, in
keeping with the spirit or the standard game, that we should go out of
our way to encourage players to take advantage of this fact.
Where players do have some knowledge of the decks eachother are likely
to play, random seating is customary. "Any method the players
choose", while a bit vague, presumably gives a player a right to
insist on random seating where he suspects other players have
knowledge of the contents of his deck, randomness being the normal
solution to such disagreements.
John Whelan
> Don't interrupt my paragraph.
Do not preach that which you have no intention of practicing.
> I answer your question in my very next sentence.
No you did not.
> >> The finals is
> >> irreparably different than preliminary round games (for instance, in that
> >> game wins lose their special meaning).
> >
> > This is entirely a function of the rewards system. It has no bearing
> > on whether some players should be handicapped in favor of others.
>
> Sure it does.
No it does not.
> The point is, the final game is different, so the
> concept that, "it should be the same as preliminary round games"
> is a non-starter. It's going to be different.
The fact that it IS different has no bearing on whether it SHOULD be
different. Especially when different differences are being discussed.
> The only question is how different it should be.
Right. Specifically, the question is whether THIS difference can be
justified. That is the question you failed to address.
> Anyone who presupposes the seeding advantage is sufficient and that
> further advantage is excessive would agree with you.
Sufficient for what? Excessive by what standard?
> I presuppose
> neither and thus disagree.
You sure seem to be presupposing something.
> To cut to the chase, how much advantage the top seeds get is a
> completely subjective matter. I've observed that:
>
> 1) The advantage doesn't seem very substantial.
> 2) The top seed fails to win quite often. Which is good enough
> for me....and...
> 3) As I said earlier, I think the seating ritual is fun. I had
> thought most people found it to be fun. I'm surprised anyone
> minds it at all.
>
> Of course, you're not talking about disliking the ritual as much
> as having issues with the fairness, which is a different thing than
> what I thought Chris was raising. I do sympathize with some of
> "hinkyness" around the scouting issue, although I've never noticed
> it to skew things that badly. Or to the extent that lack of
> knowledge vs. good knowledge makes a difference, I haven't noticed
> it to be a terribly unfair thing. I suppose tournament rules could
> be written to address any blatant unfairness - like players using
> their friends to get information about decks they hadn't seen when
> they make the finals. I just haven't seen stuff like that actually
> happen.
Where do you get to the point where you explain why this SHOULD be
different? Saying that the harm it inflicts is minimal -- that it is
only slightly hinky -- only slightly unfair -- is hardly an answer.
Where is the upside?
Kevin M.
> VTES rewards out-of-play factors in several ways, and this is one
> of them. Maybe it should be more concretely discussed. Some people
> (myself included) have qualms against scouting. Maybe we should
> all be saying: "At tournaments, make sure you find out what everyone
> else is playing. You must scout." That way everyone is on a
> similar playing field - you didn't scout and chose the wrong
> seating? Well, we told you to!
Unless everyone agrees not to scout, the only real choice players
have to make is how "moral" they wish to be for their own personal
code, while understanding that since scouting it isn't against the
rules (for the obvious reasons) they shouldn't be telling other
players not to do it.
John Whelan
> Unless everyone agrees not to scout, the only real choice players
> have to make is how "moral" they wish to be for their own personal
> code, while understanding that since scouting it isn't against the
> rules (for the obvious reasons) they shouldn't be telling other
> players not to do it.
Or, more to the point, maybe we should just get rid of this silly
final-seating method, whose only effect on the game is to reward
scouting.
Kevin M.
> Kevin M. wrote:
>> John Whelan wrote:
>>> librarian wrote:
>>>> I was talking with someone at LVNAQ, and we were disucssing how
>>>> annoying the seating selection mechanic for the final table was.
>>>> Specifically because it was totally different from any other
>>>> regular game of VTES. And because seating has so much influence
>>>> on the game, shouldn't it be like every other table?
>>>
>>> Indeed. Picking your predator or prey, with knowledge of what
>>> decks they are playing, is totally "cheating".
>>
>> It isn't necessarily true that the finalists know anyone else's
>> deck.
>
> Right. Hence, it rewards scouting and having a network of
> informants.
>
>> Everyone is equally free to bring decks and informant networks
>> that will give them the greatest advantages in winning quickly
>> and scouting the opposition.
>
> It depends, I suppose, on what sort of behavior you want to reward.
>
>> No one has an advantage.
>
> Except those with a bigger network of informants.
All this discussion of informant networks -- has this ever been an
issue in your playgroup? I'm asking because it feels like we just
moved from the conceptual into the actual, since I personally have
never been to a tournament where scouting was ever an issue at any
level, so I'm unsure how to discuss it as, G-d forbid, a reality.
>>> It is contrary to the spirit of the normal rules.
>>
>> Which rules?
>
> The norm, per standard rules, is that deck information is private
> and remains private until revealed during play.
Where is this rule? It's illegal to discuss your deck with the guys
you drove up with, or whomever, before you play it? That sounds
unenforceable. It's also a logistical nightmare -- the main reason
why scouting isn't prohibited.
> The option of switching decks between games helps enforce this.
Are we now discussing casual play? :P
> In tournaments, there are reasons to insist that players keep
> their decks throughout the various rounds.
Did you mean keep their decks SECRET? If so, what reasons are those?
I don't see them.
> But there seems no reason, in keeping with the spirit or the
> standard game, that we should go out of our way to encourage
> players to take advantage of this fact.
Scouting isn't banned because it's a logistical nightmare. The spirit
of the game doesn't seem to me to have been seriously affected by
allowing scouting. A few rare players here and there dislike it, but
it hardly seems to be an issue of the community-at-large.
> Where players do have some knowledge of the decks each other
> are likely to play, random seating is customary.
In casual games, random seating is customary everywhere in the world
that I have played. In tournaments, it's the rules, except in the
finals, which are a special case and so given special rules, which
reward play-to-win (even before it was PTW), good deck construction,
good deck play, and a good player. Seems reasonable.
> "Any method the players choose", while a bit vague, presumably
> gives a player a right to insist on random seating where he suspects
> other players have knowledge of the contents of his deck,
> randomness being the normal solution to such disagreements.
This is the case in every casual game and every preliminary
tournament game. It isn't in the finals for the reasons listed above.
Shockwave
And to play your best game in earlier rounds, earning that marked
advantage for the finals.
It's rare to see in any system these days merit being rewarded. Tow
the line, don't over-reach, be as mediocre as everyone else. It's a
good thing that playing as well as possible is rewarded in the finals
of VTES.
Kevin M.
> But this reminds me that top-seeded players already walk into the
> final game with a substantial advantage. They are, under current
> rules, in a position to tie the final game with a lower-ranked
> opponent, and still be declared a tournament winner. Why should
> they be granted additionally benefits?
Because they played-to-win, they had good deck construction,
they played their deck well, and they were a good, solid player?
henrik
Leaving seating up to random chance because it "has so much influence
on the game" sounds like a bad idea to me.
orianice
It is unfair to the 2nd to 4th seed if the only advantage is that the
1st seed decides who starts
It is unfair to the 4th and 5th seed (?) with the current rules.
I rather be unfair to people who entered final last... I don't know
how to explain that. It sounds so balanced to me.
Anthony Coleman
Gah, Terrible, selecting seating is a very VERY big advantage in a
final and is completely deserved by the player with highest score
going into the game imo.
Anthony
alex fnurp
huge problem where he plays. I really dont get people who make up
problems.
John Whelan
> And to play your best game in earlier rounds, earning that marked
> advantage for the finals.
That is adequately rewarded by the fact that one gets into the finals
in the first place. And by the fact that he can win the tournament by
scoring a tie in the finals against a lower-seeded player.
If a further bonus or handicap favoring the top-seeded player WERE
appropriate (which I don' think it is), then I'd much rather let him
start with a couple of extra transfers or pool, rather than give him a
"reward" whose value is variable based on his knowledge of his
opponent's decks.
> It's rare to see in any system these days merit being rewarded.
I'm not sure by what standard a player with 3 game wins and 10 victory
points can be said to deserve so great an advantage over a player with
3 game wins and 9.5 victory points. They have faced a different set
of opponents, and the top-seeded player, for all we know, may have
faced weaker opposition. In such a case, this is the first time in
the tournament their decks have truly been measured against each
other.
I say give them an even playing field and let the best man win.
That's what I call rewarding "merit".
John Whelan
And I have no idea where Alex Fnurp lives, nor is it relevant. I
really don't get people whose only contribution to a discussion is to
try to make it personal.
The only function served by the current finals seating rule is to
reward top-seated players based on their knowledge of the contents of
the decks of the lower-seated players. I do not regard that as a
legitimate function.
Whether it is a "huge problem" or not is, to me, neither here nor
there. I did not start this discussion. Librarian did, and he asked
whether others also consider the rule annoying. I more or less agreed
with him, and gave reasons.
John Whelan
wrote:
> Gah, Terrible, selecting seating is a very VERY big advantage in a
> final and is completely deserved by the player with highest score
> going into the game imo.
Okay. Let's say (for the sake of argument) that he deserves a big
reward. (I don't really agree, but will assume so for the sake of
argument). In that case, why not give him extra pool or extra
transfers? Why provide an "reward" whose value is variable, depending
upon his knowledge of the contents of his opponent's decks.
John Whelan
> Leaving seating up to random chance because it "has so much influence
> on the game" sounds like a bad idea to me.
Why?
If this is a problem for you, then there is plenty about the game that
will have to change. Not only will we have to get rid of random
seating in the preliminary rounds, but we will have to get rid of
randomly shuffled decks.
John Flournoy
Because the assumption is that you cannot prevent players from knowing
the contents of each other's decks - and also, that trying to do so
will have them not want to actually play in that tournament. So the
assumption is that everybody should be able to freely scout each
other's stuff and that they will do so to where everybody is on even
footing.
For instance: I play casually with a group of players on a weekly
basis. Those players, by virtue of their being my playgroup are at
almost every tournament I play at. Unless those players bring brand-
new, unplayed decks to a tournament I play at, I can generally
identify what their deck is within the first couple of turns. If not
by their first discard. And that's an advantage over a player that's
come in from another town for the tournament, unless I find a way to
lobotomize myself (further, har har.)
Also: Players talk between rounds. Constantly. Even if you enforce a
"you must leave the room as soon as you are done" rule - which, by the
way has been done in some groups in the past and still didn't fix this
'problem - you have to find some way to prohibit, monitor and enforce
not letting anyone answer questions like "so, how did your round go?"
Which means (assuming you believe that people will work in networks,
etc, which you clearly do believe) that you have to somehow prevent
people from ever being in a position to talk to one another privately.
So here's one possible solution: Everyone has to leave between rounds,
and go sit in a second room where a judge will be seated to make sure
nobody talks or passes notes about what they saw in a previous round.
Oh, and no two people can go to the bathroom at the same time, because
then they could inform each other.
Does that sound like a tournament you want to spend six to eight hours
at? A tournament that you are supposedly playing because it is
enjoyable and fun?
And that extreme method _still_ isn't 'fair'. Because the people whose
games are in the center of the room have a greater opportunity than
those at the edges to overhear what is being said at the neighboring
tables - and if I hear Rehlow at the neighboring table say "My War
Ghoul rushes you" (for instance) I now have his deck scouted as much
as I need to.
So now it's unfair because I overheard a bunch of people while they
played and you didn't because you were off in a corner. How are you
going to prevent me from scouting by virtue of the fact that I have
pretty sharp hearing?
Oh, whoops - got a phone call. By which I mean a text message from my
buddy telling me what he faced at his table. Going to ban cell phones
too?
And if you're not going to work to prevent people from scouting and
talking etc, then people certainly will discuss things, and the
assumption is that nobody is severely disadvantaged unless they choose
to be - everyone can, if they're going to be in the finals, ask around
beforehand to find out what decks they're facing.
Note also that scouting only benefits the players in 1st - 3rd as far
as seating goes; the fourth and fifth place finishers don't benefit
from information since they don't pick their seats.
-John Flournoy
John Whelan
> On Feb 26, 9:06 am, John Whelan <jwjbwhe...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 26, 6:27 am, Anthony Coleman <anthony.t.d.cole...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > > Gah, Terrible, selecting seating is a very VERY big advantage in a
> > > final and is completely deserved by the player with highest score
> > > going into the game imo.
>
> > Okay. Let's say (for the sake of argument) that he deserves a big
> > reward. (I don't really agree, but will assume so for the sake of
> > argument). In that case, why not give him extra pool or extra
> > transfers? Why provide an "reward" whose value is variable, depending
> > upon his knowledge of the contents of his opponent's decks.
>
> Because the assumption is that you cannot prevent players from knowing
> the contents of each other's decks - and also, that trying to do so
> will have them not want to actually play in that tournament. So the
> assumption is that everybody should be able to freely scout each
> other's stuff and that they will do so to where everybody is on even
> footing.
Nobody is trying to stop them. And they will be equally free to do so
after this silly seating rule is removed. Your entire post is non-
responsive to the question.
> For instance: I play casually with a group of players on a weekly
> basis. Those players, by virtue of their being my playgroup are at
> almost every tournament I play at. Unless those players bring brand-
> new, unplayed decks to a tournament I play at, I can generally
> identify what their deck is within the first couple of turns. If not
> by their first discard. And that's an advantage over a player that's
> come in from another town for the tournament, unless I find a way to
> lobotomize myself (further, har har.)
Thankfully, you cannot take advantage of this knowledge to pick
seating in preliminary rounds. Which is good. Unfortunately, you can
do so in the finals. And that, to my mind, is what serves no
legitimate purpose.
> Also: Players talk between rounds. Constantly.
Nobody is trying to stop them.
henrik
> On Feb 26, 4:28 am, henrik <www.hen...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Leaving seating up to random chance because it "has so much influence
> > on the game" sounds like a bad idea to me.
>
> Why?
Same reason dice rolling isn't the most fun way to tiebreak when
deciding who gets in the final. Playing for ~6 hours and then getting
shafted by randomness is worse than playing for ~6 hours and getting
shafted because someone played better than you and got to chose a
better seating. In my opinion.
> If this is a problem for you, then there is plenty about the game that
> will have to change. Not only will we have to get rid of random
> seating in the preliminary rounds, but we will have to get rid of
> randomly shuffled decks.
Sure. And if rewarding good players is a problem we have to remove
poolgain for ousting.
John Whelan
> Sure. And if rewarding good players is a problem we have to remove
> poolgain for ousting.
Good players are rewarded. And I think they are rewarded adequately.
But if you think they are not rewarded sufficiently, why not reward
them with extra pool, as your above analogy suggests? Why give them a
reward that depends on the extent of their knowledge of opposing
player's decks.
henrik
> On Feb 26, 11:18 am, henrik <www.hen...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Sure. And if rewarding good players is a problem we have to remove
> > poolgain for ousting.
>
> Good players are rewarded. And I think they are rewarded adequately.
So do I. And since I think that's the case, I see no reason to change
the way seating is decided in finals.
John Whelan
You know what I meant. And you have once more dodged the relevant
question.
Drain
Because it is, in my opinion, a unique and rather interesting feature
of this game. And one that playfield experience has proved not to be
decisively unfair.
It is a system that rewards intelligent play based on semi-limited
knowledge. Remember: even with good knowledge of the opponent's decks
a player can still draw the wrong conclusions, the table dynamics move
on beyond a single player's control and there are at least two other
players who, in most cases, also got to decide who their predators or
preys would be.
It is a deceptively complex phase of tournament play, and one that I
enjoy immensely. And, like Henrik pointed out, complaints about
randomness are usually not applicable.
Drain
John Flournoy
> > Because the assumption is that you cannot prevent players from knowing
> > the contents of each other's decks - and also, that trying to do so
> > will have them not want to actually play in that tournament. So the
> > assumption is that everybody should be able to freely scout each
> > other's stuff and that they will do so to where everybody is on even
> > footing.
>
> Nobody is trying to stop them. And they will be equally free to do so
> after this silly seating rule is removed. Your entire post is non-
> responsive to the question.
Actually, my post was in response to your question: "Why provide an
"reward" whose value is variable, depending upon his knowledge of the
contents of his opponent's decks."
The shortened, more to-the-point answer: Because the assumption is
that it isn't variable; that every player has an opportunity to learn
as much about their opponents decks as they care to.
Because every player _does_ effectively have that opportunity; no one
is prevented from trying to get that information. Heck, players
frequently look at the standings at tournaments partway through, just
to see who else is doing well so that they know who to go scout. Lots
of judges don't stop players from looking at the Archon of a
tournament in progress.
And therefore, the reward isn't variable, but the same reward every
other player gets for finishing in the same standing at other
tournaments, i.e. 'the person who finishes first in the preliminaries
gets this reward which is the same that every other first-place
finisher gets.'
-John Flournoy
John Flournoy
> On Feb 26, 11:18 am, henrik <www.hen...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Sure. And if rewarding good players is a problem we have to remove
> > poolgain for ousting.
>
> Good players are rewarded. And I think they are rewarded adequately.
Okay, I have to ask: What is the 'adequate' reward that you think a
good player gets, i.e. for doing better than everyone else through the
preliminaries, that isn't the seating-choice?
-John Flournoy
John Flournoy
Ah, found it in another part of the thread: You believe that making
the finals (plus potentially winning a tie breaker) is adequate.
Noted.
> -John Flournoy
John Flournoy
> On Feb 26, 4:12 am, Shockwave <d_knowles...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > And to play your best game in earlier rounds, earning that marked
> > advantage for the finals.
>
> That is adequately rewarded by the fact that one gets into the finals
> in the first place. And by the fact that he can win the tournament by
> scoring a tie in the finals against a lower-seeded player.
>
> If a further bonus or handicap favoring the top-seeded player WERE
> appropriate (which I don' think it is), then I'd much rather let him
> start with a couple of extra transfers or pool, rather than give him a
> "reward" whose value is variable based on his knowledge of his
> opponent's decks.
>
> > It's rare to see in any system these days merit being rewarded.
>
> I'm not sure by what standard a player with 3 game wins and 10 victory
> points can be said to deserve so great an advantage over a player with
> 3 game wins and 9.5 victory points. They have faced a different set
> of opponents, and the top-seeded player, for all we know, may have
> faced weaker opposition. In such a case, this is the first time in
> the tournament their decks have truly been measured against each
> other.
That depends on how you measure things: "How you fare against three
rounds of randomly-determined opponents" is to me often a better
measure than "how you performed directly against the other person's
deck" - this is especially true in a game where Deck A trumps Deck B
which trumps Deck C which trumps Deck A....
Being 'better' than another deck is not always a function of 'can
directly beat it in a single game'.
Here's another counter-example: We both play identical weenie-presence
bleed decks with no bounce and no intercept. Identical to the last
card. The other three decks in the final are weenie auspex walls.
If you sit as my predator, you're going to crush me nine times out of
ten; I have no defense against your deck and my deck has the worst
possible opponent sitting as my prey.
How, exactly, does that make your deck "better" than mine? How is that
"measuring against each other?"
One game is too small a sample size to determine which deck is
"better". That's one big reason why VTES uses a multi-round format and
not an elimination-bracket format for its tournaments.
> I say give them an even playing field and let the best man win.
> That's what I call rewarding "merit".
And I will say: There's no such thing as an 'even playing field' in a
single game of VTES; your preferred method is still one that randomly
rewards a player (by virtue of 'did you happen to randomly get seated
in a favorable position for this one game or a terrible one'.)
The current system, at least, rewards a player whose deck has
performed better over the long term by allowing him to better take
advantage of freely-available information, as opposed to a crapshoot
of whether or not you sit next to a deck that trumps yours no matter
how your deck has done against a wide range of opponents in the past.
-John Flournoy
John Flournoy
> Whether it is a "huge problem" or not is, to me, neither here nor
> there. I did not start this discussion. Librarian did, and he asked
> whether others also consider the rule annoying. I more or less agreed
> with him, and gave reasons.
While I don't agree with your rationale or answer to the discussion,
it's definitely worth talking about - personally, I'm fine with the
way things are now, but it's certainly not a waste of time to consider
alternatives.
-John Flournoy
henrik
And you knew, even more I think, that I don't want to remove shuffled
decks from the game.
> And you have once more dodged the relevant
> question.
Why we don't give more pool to top seeded players instead of letting
them pick seating?
I see that as a silly question rather than a relevant one, really. But
I think deciding where to sit is more appropriate than extra pool or
transfers.
I've never really seen seat picking as a problem but rather as a fun
and challenging way to decide how the final table looks. I think the
game would become less fun with random seating in the finals instead
of the way it's done now.
John Bell
>
> > > So do I. And since I think that's the case, I see no reason to change
> > > the way seating is decided in finals.
>
Another interesting point which was briefly touched on at the
beginning of this debate was that the winner (going in first) with his
"advantage" is also as likely to screw himself or make a poor choice.
I've certainly had a lion's share of those... Regardless, my
experience is that most people enjoy this aspect of the finals and I
can see no legitimate reason to change it.
John Bell
wedge
> Comments?
>
> best -
>
> chris
If you had named this thread,
"Do you scout?"
I wonder, if you would have got this response. I have concluded that
yes many people scout.
In the current final seating rules, there is little advantage for
ranking if you do not. I would say that, if you do not scout you are
breaking play to win. Certainly final seating encourages scouting, I
would say, even you down time is part of the tourney. Scout away.
Matt
librarian
>
> In casual games, random seating is customary everywhere in the world
> that I have played. In tournaments, it's the rules, except in the
> finals, which are a special case and so given special rules, which
> reward play-to-win (even before it was PTW), good deck construction,
> good deck play, and a good player. Seems reasonable.
>
>>
Maybe. But it's a different game when you can choose your seating.
Let's posit an idea coming from the other direction:
In each preliminary round after the first (because all players at the
beginning have equal standing), players get to choose their seating based
on their current standings at the time. Tables are still chosen randomly,
but once in a table, seating order is determined by the players as they
currently are in the finals.
How does that sound?
best -
chris
librarian
Huh? You need to expand on this, since at least 66% of tournament games
the seating is left to random chance.
How about a different idea. What table you are on is still chosen
randomly. But seating is determined by standing after the first round
(first round would be random), just like it is done in finals now.
That would answer your point that random chance "sounds like a bad idea".
best -
chris
librarian
Orian, I would posit that in the current system, 2nd and 3rd seed
(definitely 2nd seed) has almost as much advantage if not more than 1st seed.
You still don't answer the key question - why are the finals a different game?
best -
chris
librarian
> On Feb 26, 9:06 am, John Whelan <jwjbwhe...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Feb 26, 6:27 am, Anthony Coleman <anthony.t.d.cole...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Gah, Terrible, selecting seating is a very VERY big advantage in a
>>> final and is completely deserved by the player with highest score
>>> going into the game imo.
>> Okay. Let's say (for the sake of argument) that he deserves a big
>> reward. (I don't really agree, but will assume so for the sake of
>> argument). In that case, why not give him extra pool or extra
>> transfers? Why provide an "reward" whose value is variable, depending
>> upon his knowledge of the contents of his opponent's decks.
>
> Because the assumption is that you cannot prevent players from knowing
> the contents of each other's decks - and also, that trying to do so
> will have them not want to actually play in that tournament. So the
> assumption is that everybody should be able to freely scout each
> other's stuff and that they will do so to where everybody is on even
> footing.
>
>
Fair. But should that skill at scouting other's decks be a skill we want
to reward in the final? It sounds like most people posting on this thread
think it should be rewarded. I don't think so.
But that's not actually my point.
I just think it's strange that the final of a game is played under
different rules than the preliminary rounds. And the rule that is changed
is *SIGNIFICANT* in determining the winner of the match.
Super Bowl is not played with 8 players. World Series is not played with
no pitcher. World Cup Final is not played with players blindfolded.
Insert other nonsensical analogies. I hope you see my point.
I posted elsewhere my idea of extending the "choose your seat" to
preliminary games as well. What's your take on that idea?
best -
chris
Frederick Scott
"John Whelan" <jwjbw...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1730825e-c824-4572...@b30g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
> Frederick Scott wrote:
>> Don't interrupt my paragraph.
>
> Do not preach that which you have no intention of practicing.
False inference. I do try to read people's entire thought and
not try to pick at a portion of it when I respond to them. It's
possible I don't aways succeed but I certainly try to practice it.
The habit you have of separating off pieces of peoples' paragraph
in order to interject denials or to lodge objections that, if you
simply considered their entire argument, are ultimately answered is
not helpful to communication. I think it would be better if you
responded to the entire thrust of their argument instead of
obsessively needing to throw something in every sentence or so.
OK, you really, REALLY disagree with me. Everybody gets that...
>> I answered your question in my very next sentence. The finals is
>> irreparably different than preliminary round games (for instance, in that
>> game wins lose their special meaning).
>>
>> > This is entirely a function of the rewards system. It has no bearing
>> > on whether some players should be handicapped in favor of others.
>>
>> Sure it does. The point is, the final game is different, so the
>> concept that, "it should be the same as preliminary round games"
>> is a non-starter. It's going to be different.
>
> The fact that it IS different has no bearing on whether it SHOULD be
> different. Especially when different differences are being discussed.
Irrelevent point. The idea is being advanced that the final should be
"just like preliminary round games". But quite a few more modifications
would be necessary to acheive that. Since it isn't a realistic goal to
make the finals play just like a priliminary round game, I see no point
in prefering individual aspects of the finals to be more simlilar to
preliminary round games than something else. If you happen to like how
they work better to do it one way than the other, fine. But I reject
'because that's how it's done in the preliminary rounds' as an
argument in and of itself.
>> The only question is how different it should be.
>
> Right. Specifically, the question is whether THIS difference can be
> justified. That is the question you failed to address.
>
>> Anyone who presupposes the seeding advantage is sufficient and that
>> further advantage is excessive would agree with you.
>
> Sufficient for what? Excessive by what standard?
Indeed, that's my point. There's is no standard other than subjective
preference. The way you reasoned in the previous post, you seemed to
assume some standard had been met and the current method was found
wanting. I was pointing that there exists no standard of 'how much
advantage is too much?'.
>> To cut to the chase, how much advantage the top seeds get is a
>> completely subjective matter. I've observed that:
>>
>> 1) The advantage doesn't seem very substantial.
>> 2) The top seed fails to win quite often. Which is good enough
>> for me....and...
>> 3) As I said earlier, I think the seating ritual is fun. I had
>> thought most people found it to be fun. I'm surprised anyone
>> minds it at all.
>>
>> Of course, you're not talking about disliking the ritual as much
>> as having issues with the fairness, which is a different thing than
>> what I thought Chris was raising. I do sympathize with some of
>> "hinkyness" around the scouting issue, although I've never noticed
>> it to skew things that badly. Or to the extent that lack of
>> knowledge vs. good knowledge makes a difference, I haven't noticed
>> it to be a terribly unfair thing. I suppose tournament rules could
>> be written to address any blatant unfairness - like players using
>> their friends to get information about decks they hadn't seen when
>> they make the finals. I just haven't seen stuff like that actually
>> happen.
>
> Where do you get to the point where you explain why this SHOULD be
> different? Saying that the harm it inflicts is minimal -- that it is
> only slightly hinky -- only slightly unfair -- is hardly an answer.
> Where is the upside?
To answer your first question: never. Since no one has demonstrated any
reason why it should _NOT_ be different, I see no need.
To answer your second question: I certainly did. You removed the text.
To reinsert that text:
>> 3) As I said earlier, I think the seating ritual is fun. I had
>> thought most people found it to be fun. I'm surprised anyone
>> minds it at all.
In addition, the answer is that subjective judgment requires no
reason other than, "I like it better that way." At some point, someone
has to make a determination which is the better way, but I see no
reason to assume that we can resolve the issue objectively.
Fred
librarian
>> Comments?
>>
>> best -
>>
>> chris
>
> If you had named this thread,
>
> "Do you scout?"
>
> I wonder, if you would have got this response.
Yeah, I guess my OP wasn't well-worded. It's not the fact of the rule
itself that bugs me; it's the fact that it's different from all the
preliminary rounds that bugs me.
Agreed, under current rules, not scouting is not PTW, unless you really
have no chance.
best -
chris
Frederick Scott
> Kevin M. wrote:
>> Unless everyone agrees not to scout, the only real choice players
>> have to make is how "moral" they wish to be for their own personal
>> code, while understanding that since scouting it isn't against the
>> rules (for the obvious reasons) they shouldn't be telling other
>> players not to do it.
>
> Or, more to the point, maybe we should just get rid of this silly
> final-seating method, whose only effect on the game is to reward
> scouting.
It's clearly not the _ONLY_ effect. It also rewards the highest
level of performance in the early round games. Nor is scouting the
only source of information which can be used to convert the preliminary
round finish position into advantage at the finals table. In fact, in
my experience, it isn't even a very good source. Information from my
personal play experience during the games itself is far more reliable
and useful than any amount of scouting I've ever done.
Fred
librarian
> players as they currently are in the finals.
Gah, that last word should be *standings*.
best -
chris
Frederick Scott
news:f832ffcc-54bb-40d7...@y7g2000prc.googlegroups.com...
> If you had named this thread,
>
> "Do you scout?"
>
> I wonder, if you would have got this response. I have concluded that
> yes many people scout.
It's possible they do. I have done a bit of it when I was aware that
I had a good chance to make the finals with some lattitude of decision
over where I sit. But I've typically found that scouting information
in games I haven't watched from start to finish tends to actually be
quite poor. So the more relavent question is, "How much real advantage
do folks get from scouting?"
> In the current final seating rules, there is little advantage for
> ranking if you do not.
This is actually wrong - at least to some extent and depending on the
size of the tournament and how many rounds you play. If the tournament
is huge and you're unlikely to have played any of the people who will
be in the finals with you, you may be correct. But in most tournaments,
you've played against some of the people who you'll run into during the
finals. And those experiences are very useful for making choices in
the seating ritual. _Much_ more useful than scouting information, IMHO.
> I would say that, if you do not scout you are breaking play to win.
I absolutely disagree with that, too. There's nothing about the play-
to-win rule which dictates to what lengths each player must go to win
a tournament. Otherwise, entering a tournament without your most
effective deck would be considered failing to "play-to-win". I don't
think we want to go there.
> Certainly final seating encourages scouting, I
> would say, even you down time is part of the tourney. Scout away.
Sure.
Fred
Frederick Scott
news:hm94oq$uo0$3...@news.eternal-september.org...
> You still don't answer the key question - why are the finals a different game?
Because we can't prevent it. Unless you know of a way of including the concept
of a "game win" in the finals and giving it the same significance as it has in
the preliminary rounds.
Fred
Frederick Scott
> henrik wrote:
>> Leaving seating up to random chance because it "has so much influence
>> on the game" sounds like a bad idea to me.
>
> Huh? You need to expand on this, since at least 66% of tournament games
> the seating is left to random chance.
I'll do expand on it. (Of course, I can't speak for Henrik but I suspect I
know where's he going because it's where I'd be going...)
I don't want to go through two or three preliminary round games having done
fantastically well and possibly much better than any other finalist just to
draw the fuck seat behind the combat wall and in front of the bleed cannon
based on random chance. If I'm dumb enough to _choose_ that seat, OK. But
seating can make a huge difference.
Fred
John Whelan
> "librarian" <aucti...@superfuncards.com> wrote in message
>
> news:hm94oq$uo0$3...@news.eternal-september.org...
>
> > You still don't answer the key question - why are the finals a different game?
>
> Because we can't prevent it.
We most certainly can prevent it. We can determine seating randomly,
or by a method that is effectively random from the player's
perspective (like seating the players in order of preliminary
standings).
If you mean more than that, then your argument proves too much. It is
like arguing that we cannot prevent the finals from being absolutely
the same in all respects, therefore we might as well have the
finalists play Monopoly.
> Unless you know of a way of including the concept
> of a "game win" in the finals and giving it the same significance as it has in
> the preliminary rounds.
The rules have been modified for precisely this purpose. The
"everyone ties for second place" rule encourages everyone except the
leader to go for a game win. The option of a longer time limit also
helps ensure that the game winner and the tournament winner will be
one and the same.
Kushiel
> I just think it's strange that the final of a game is played under
> different rules than the preliminary rounds.
As has been pointed out elsewhere in this thread, it's already true
that the final table is played under different rules than the previous
rounds, regardless if seating is determined by random chance, seeding,
roshambo, or any other method. Does the change to the game win rules
in the final also strike you as strange?
John Eno
John Whelan
> As has been pointed out elsewhere in this thread, it's already true
> that the final table is played under different rules than the previous
> rounds, regardless if seating is determined by random chance, seeding,
> roshambo, or any other method. Does the change to the game win rules
> in the final also strike you as strange?
I really don't understand the point of this argument. Are you trying
to prove that the finalists might as well play Monopoly?
wedge
There really is no choice in that, since the game can end 2; 2; and 1.
Daneel
wrote:
> I was talking with someone at LVNAQ, and we were disucssing how annoying
> the seating selection mechanic for the final table was. Specifically
> because it was totally different from any other regular game of VTES.
> And because seating has so much influence on the game, shouldn't it be
> like every other table?
>
> So my suggestion would be:
>
> Seat everyone randomly. 1st seed gets to pick when they get to go in
> play order (1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th). Play.
>
> Comments?
Awesome idea. Especially the "play" part. I really like this. Can we make
this the official rule (or minimum, an official option) for sanctioned
tournaments?
I really hate the part where 1) you are only supposed to observe the
table you are playing at (or leave the play area), yet 2) you are
significantly rewarded for breaking this rule.
This is an elegant solution to eliminate "scouting" (which players feel
like they have a right to for whatever reason, even though it's just
cheating in the end).
--
Regards,
Daneel
Kushiel
> I really don't understand the point of this argument. Are you trying
> to prove that the finalists might as well play Monopoly?
It's not an argument. I just wonder why the one rules change sticks in
Chris's craw but the other doesn't.
But to answer your question: Clearly, no, or I would have written
something about Monopoly, rather than what I actually wrote.
John Eno
Kushiel
> There really is no choice in that, since the game can end 2; 2; and 1.
I'm sure that there are any number of ways that the GW rules could
have been modified to avoid causing issues regarding who wins the
final round. I don't care enough to actually think any up, but I'm
sure they're out there. So why isn't Chris bothered by the potential
existence of those, but is bothered by the potential existence of
other seating determination rules?
Or maybe he is - I dunno, which is why I asked. I wasn't asking as a
rhetorical device, as I totally don't have a horse in this race, but
because I'm curious about the answer.
John Eno
wedge
ok, no time limit
ties (2; 2; 1) broken by ranking
that is all I got.
Robert Goudie
> On Thu, 25 Feb 2010 17:22:28 -0800, librarian <aucti...@superfuncards.com>
Or the pre-arranged finals seating makes scouting more important since
you know exactly where the other players will sit depending on the
standings after the preliminary rounds. Players near the top of the
seeding may alter their play in the last round(s) to arrange for
favorable finals seating.
Likewise, random finals seating gives a player who has already secured
a seat in the finals before the last preliminary round is played, no
incentive to play to win. This opens the door to helping friends get
in the finals or to cross-table attacks on players on the bubble, etc.
This current version of the finals seeding was meant to address the
problem of some players not playing to win in all of the preliminary
rounds. It was a real problem we witnessed and addressed. Chris
rightly states that the finals seating has "so much influence on the
game". This is why it is such a great motivator for players to do
their best in all of the preliminary rounds.
-Robert
librarian
Strange yes, but not as strange. Not as critically different.
But that said, you could remove the highest seed resolves ties criterion,
and only someone with GW wins tournament. Allowing for tournaments with no
winner. Now that would be interesting (bad, maybe, but interesting).
best -
chris
librarian
> On Thu, 25 Feb 2010 17:22:28 -0800, librarian
> <auct...@superfuncards.com> wrote:
>
>> I was talking with someone at LVNAQ, and we were disucssing how
>> annoying the seating selection mechanic for the final table was.
>> Specifically because it was totally different from any other regular
>> game of VTES. And because seating has so much influence on the game,
>> shouldn't it be like every other table?
>>
>> So my suggestion would be:
>>
>> Seat everyone randomly. 1st seed gets to pick when they get to go in
>> play order (1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th). Play.
>>
>> Comments?
>
> Awesome idea. Especially the "play" part. I really like this. Can we make
> this the official rule (or minimum, an official option) for sanctioned
> tournaments?
>
> I really hate the part where 1) you are only supposed to observe the
> table you are playing at (or leave the play area), yet 2) you are
> significantly rewarded for breaking this rule.
>
>
I don't think this is a tournament rule anymore. I'm sort of getting a
tingle in my sarcasto-sense though in regards to your post...
best -
chris
Kushiel
> I really hate the part where 1) you are only supposed to observe the
> table you are playing at (or leave the play area),
Is this a rule that your tournament organizers have come up with? It's
not actually an official VEKN rule - in fact, it's the opposite of the
official VEKN rule.
> This is an elegant solution to eliminate "scouting" (which players feel
> like they have a right to for whatever reason, even though it's just
> cheating in the end).
I'm pretty sure that they feel like they have a right to it
specifically because it's officially not cheating.
John Eno
Peter D Bakija
> table you are playing at (or leave the play area), yet 2) you are
> significantly rewarded for breaking this rule.
>
> This is an elegant solution to eliminate "scouting" (which players feel
> like they have a right to for whatever reason, even though it's just
> cheating in the end).
Yeah, I don't so much know if it is cheating, so much as just seeing
what is going on in the room.
I like the current finals seating system, but do realize that it gives
an advantage to people who have seen all the other finalist's decks as
opposed to the people who, for whatever reason, haven't. As whether or
not you know what all the other decks in the final do is (without
taking scouting into account) essentially random (it is perfectly
possible to have seen all the other decks that are in the final by
virtue of playing against them), rather than trying to prevent
scouting, just assume that everyone is going to scout as much as they
possibly can, and go with it.
Trying to prevent scouting is insanely difficult. And simply not worth
the effort (anyone who played tournament B5 all those years ago might
remember the hurdles they went through in an attempt to legislate
against scouting). So rather than try to prevent it (as some folks are
going to know what the other finalist decks do anyway by virtue of
seeing them in play), just say "scout all you want". If people are
feeling like they are going to make the finals, and they want to
wander from table to table after their games are done and see what
everyone else is playing? More power to them. As long as they aren't
disruptive, how is this problematic?
-Peter
Robert Goudie
With the rules as they exist now, players already have a motivation to
do the best they can in each preliminary round. There is no need to
add this extra rule for the preliminary rounds (after the first).
Removing the current finals seating rule it is less likely that all
players will be motivated to play to win in all preliminary rounds.
-Robert
John Whelan
> The habit you have of separating off pieces of peoples' paragraph
> in order to interject denials or to lodge objections that, if you
> simply considered their entire argument, are ultimately answered is
> not helpful to communication. I think it would be better if you
> responded to the entire thrust of their argument instead of
> obsessively needing to throw something in every sentence or so.
I'm sorry to have annoyed you. But, for the record, I do not agree
that the rest of your post provided a logical answer to my question.
> The idea is being advanced that the final should be
> "just like preliminary round games".
That was not the idea as I understood it. The idea, as I understood
it, is that Tournament V:tES should be the same as standard V:tES. As
Librarian put it, "a regular game of V:tES", and that is how I
understood his meaning.
I understand that Tournament V:tES has been changed from standard
V:tES in specific ways for specific reasons. However, it is my view
that all such changes require justification.
> > Sufficient for what? Excessive by what standard?
>
> Indeed, that's my point. There's is no standard other than subjective
> preference. The way you reasoned in the previous post, you seemed to
> assume some standard had been met and the current method was found
> wanting. I was pointing that there exists no standard of 'how much
> advantage is too much?'.
I never said that there were no standards. I merely pointed that you
had none. Your only argument is that the rule requires no
justification, because there exist no values by which the rule may be
judged.
It may well be that you and I have nothing to discuss, because we
cannot agree on certain common basic propositions.
But I merely assume that the purpose of a V:tES tournament is to
measure skill at V:tES, by which is meant the standard game, except to
the extent that specific changes can be justified for specific
reasons.
Frederick Scott
> On Feb 26, 2:24 pm, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote:
> > "librarian" <aucti...@superfuncards.com> wrote in message
> >
> > news:hm94oq$uo0$3...@news.eternal-september.org...
> >
> > > You still don't answer the key question - why are the finals a different game?
> >
> > Because we can't prevent it.
>
> We most certainly can prevent it. We can determine seating randomly,
> or by a method that is effectively random from the player's
> perspective (like seating the players in order of preliminary
> standings).
But that is insufficient to demonstrate that "the finals are the same
as preliminary games".
> If you mean more than that, then your argument proves too much. It is
> like arguing that we cannot prevent the finals from being absolutely
> the same in all respects, therefore we might as well have the
> finalists play Monopoly.
Sorry, this does not logically follow. We cannot prevent the finals
from being absolutely the same in all respects, therefore it's not
reasonable to suggest "being the same..." is some sort of default
preference. But it does not, as you claim, mean that one throws out
all reasonable judgement about what makes a good final.
Fred
Kevin M.
> I would say that, if you do not scout you are breaking play to win.
Play To Win only applies when a game is being played, not after
a game is over, when you are chatting with other players, getting
some food, taking a dump in the restroom, etc.
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 buy my cards! http://shop.ebay.com/kjmergen/m.html
Kevin M.
> I really hate the part where 1) you are only supposed to observe
> the table you are playing at (or leave the play area), yet 2) you are
> significantly rewarded for breaking this rule.
Which rule would this be? I'm unaware of it.
Frederick Scott
> On Feb 26, 3:28 pm, Kushiel <invisibleking...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > As has been pointed out elsewhere in this thread, it's already true
> > that the final table is played under different rules than the previous
> > rounds, regardless if seating is determined by random chance, seeding,
> > roshambo, or any other method. Does the change to the game win rules
> > in the final also strike you as strange?
>
> I really don't understand the point of this argument.
The point of this argument is that it's not possible to make the final
play very much like a preliminary round game at all. The difference in
the pursuit of the goal of "game win (secondarily as many victory
points as you can get)" vs. "overall tournament win" is far more different
than the minor aspect of "randomly chosen order" vs. "player-chosen
order". The only gain from pursuing the goal of having the two be
alike is to allow there to be consistency in terms of play styles and
deck construction from the one level of play to the other. Since we'll
never have that, I'll say *I* really don't understand the point of
insisting that there's anything to be gained by worrying about the
divergence between the two different styles of setup.
Fred
adam....@gmail.com
can blame slow Fridays).
Look, everyone is making this all more complicated then it is.
Seating in rounds is first determined randomly, then in subsequent
rounds it is determined to avoid
a) same pred and prey matchups
b) some other things like making sure that a player doesn't always
play on a 4 person (as opposed to 5) table.
c) That there table position is not always the same.
etc
All of this is thrown out the window when you reach the finals.
Now in the finals the previous score only counts if there is a tie.
So if you are playing better then everyone else (better deck, better
play, better luck, whatever) what advantage have you earned for the
final?
-you can either get seating (who goes first)
-or you can get placement
placement allows players who got 2nd and 3rd place a minor "advantage"
as well (which they also earned)
The only other option would be to make the seating random and allow
the first place to choose what position to start in (1 transfer, 4
transfers, whatever). But this only gives a minor advantage to the
highest scoring person, not the 1-3 high scores.
placement this is what the tournament designers decided
So throughout the randomness of the seating during the rounds, those
with the best score get to (for once) TRY and get an advantage in
seating. I say TRY cause the only one who can't be stopped is the 1st
place player. For those in 2nd and 3rd, their placement can be
countered by the placement of the next higher scoring player.
And for scouting - it makes sense! How else is a player supposed to
choose placement?
Because John Eno looks at me funny so I want to be his predator so he
always "looks to the left"??? C'mon!
Oye!
I'm all for new ideas from the vtes community (I think the best
example of that is the famous "Duffin Draft"), but to argue about
something when there is not a viable solution seems... frustrating.
And John Whelan is in my community and comes up with some very
interesting ideas. He has a tendency to not listen to me (still think
I was wrong about the group 6 vamps john? :-) ) when he should but
he's a good chap nevertheless.
Okay that's my 2 cents, but I'm taking back a penny for my thoughts.
You do with the 1 cent as you choose.
Adam Hulse
Baron of New York
John Whelan
> But that is insufficient to demonstrate that "the finals are the same
> as preliminary games".
I am not trying to demonstrate that "the finals are the same as
preliminary games". And where did you get that "quote" from?
> > If you mean more than that, then your argument proves too much. It is
> > like arguing that we cannot prevent the finals from being absolutely
> > the same in all respects, therefore we might as well have the
> > finalists play Monopoly.
>
> Sorry, this does not logically follow.
It follows logically from your claim that there exist no standards by
which such things can be judged. If your intent was to kill any
possible discussion, you succeeded.
Robert Goudie
> orianice wrote:
> > It is unfair to the 1st seed if you give no advantage in the finals
> > It is unfair to the 2nd to 4th seed if the only advantage is that the
> > 1st seed decides who starts
> > It is unfair to the 4th and 5th seed (?) with the current rules.
>
> > I rather be unfair to people who entered final last... I don't know
> > how to explain that. It sounds so balanced to me.
>
> Orian, I would posit that in the current system, 2nd and 3rd seed
> (definitely 2nd seed) has almost as much advantage if not more than 1st seed.
I don't see it. The 2nd seed can choose his or her predator and prey
but knows that the 1st seed may overrule their decision. The 1st
seeded player is choosing their prey and pred with 100% certainty
> You still don't answer the key question - why are the finals a different game?
Because there are no games after it. Or to put it another way, the
preliminary rounds require a carrot to promote the best effort by all
players in each round. The finals has its own motivation for best play
and needs nothing further.
-Robert
Frederick Scott
"librarian" <auct...@superfuncards.com> wrote in message news:hm9enj$2ir$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> Kushiel wrote:
>> On Feb 26, 1:50 pm, librarian <aucti...@superfuncards.com> wrote:
>>> I just think it's strange that the final of a game is played under
>>> different rules than the preliminary rounds.
>>
>> As has been pointed out elsewhere in this thread, it's already true
>> that the final table is played under different rules than the previous
>> rounds, regardless if seating is determined by random chance, seeding,
>> roshambo, or any other method. Does the change to the game win rules
>> in the final also strike you as strange?
>>
>
> Strange yes, but not as strange. Not as critically different.
OMFG!!! They're completely different!
I dunno Chris. To me, this appears to be flipped around. The game win
thing is much different. Player-chosen setup doesn't make the game
itself seem that much different to me.
> But that said, you could remove the highest seed resolves ties criterion, and only someone with GW wins tournament. Allowing for
> tournaments with no winner. Now that would be interesting (bad, maybe, but interesting).
Well, OK, just to throw something out there, you could say, "The winner of
the tournament is the player who gets a game win in the finals. If no
player gets a game win in the finals, then the leader after the preliminary
rounds wins the tournament." That would be _sort_ of like making players (or
four of them, anyway) go for a game win. It would be kind of weird in that
if the two players got ousts and one of the ousted players was the preliminary
round leader, he would root for no game win to be declared champion even
though he clearly did not do as well in the final as any of the three non-
ousted players. So I don't think that would be a good rule. But it would
sort of, kind of give the go-for-a-game-win motivation to the final game.
The truth is, you just can't make the finals be like the preliminary
rounds. So I don't see why the hew and cry over it. If you don't like
the seating ritual because you don't like the seating ritual, that's fine.
Your opinion's as valuable as mine. I just don't see the "because-it's-
different-from-the-early-rounds-random-setup" thing as a legitimate
argument.
Fred
wedge
> wedge wrote:
> > I would say that, if you do not scout you are breaking play to win.
>
> Play To Win only applies when a game is being played, not after
> a game is over, when you are chatting with other players, getting
> some food, taking a dump in the restroom, etc.
I guess I have to say I was half kidding. That there is a PTW rule is
silly.
I play ever game to win. In a Tourney I will look at the remaining
games, too see what people are playing.
If one of those games looks tense, I may stay to watch it play out,
over scouting the rest of the room. I love a well contested game of
vtes. It is good to see what people bring to the table, no matter of
standing just the meta. Which I believe will be shifting soon. NO, I
will not say. Come to L.A. in May. You will see, if you don't already.
Matt
Frederick Scott
news:14b20edb-5e18-4ceb...@t41g2000yqt.googlegroups.com...
> And for scouting - it makes sense! How else is a player supposed to
> choose placement?
I keep answering this question. I don't know why people miss the *MORE*
*IMPORTANT* source of information for choosing placement: you've played
in preliminary round games against one or more decks in the finals. In
smaller tournaments, often most or all of them.
OK? Folks, I think the importance of scouting is being blown way
out of proportion!
Fred
wedge
> <adam.hu...@gmail.com> wrote in message
As you say it depends on the size of the tourney. To small and you
will have played against all but two. To big and you just can see them
all or remember if you did.
I think the point was to talk about it. Not that it needed to change,
but to see if it could be better and how, if at all.
Matt
wedge
> On Feb 26, 2:33 pm, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > <adam.hu...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:14b20edb-5e18-4ceb...@t41g2000yqt.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > And for scouting - it makes sense! How else is a player supposed to
> > > choose placement?
>
> > I keep answering this question. I don't know why people miss the *MORE*
> > *IMPORTANT* source of information for choosing placement: you've played
> > in preliminary round games against one or more decks in the finals. In
> > smaller tournaments, often most or all of them.
>
> > OK? Folks, I think the importance of scouting is being blown way
> > out of proportion!
>
> > Fred
>
> As you say it depends on the size of the tourney. To small and you
> all or remember if you did.
>
> I think the point was to talk about it. Not that it needed to change,
> but to see if it could be better and how, if at all.
>
> Matt
oops
Aaron Clark
final rounds.
My only problem with the rule is that sometimes people are forced to
make decisions with NO KNOWLEDGE of some or all of the other decks in
question. On the other hand, others have a lot of knowledge, gained
either through game play, "scouting", or out-of-tournament
experience.
This suggests an uneven playing field, that some people, including
myself, are uncomfortable with.
Maybe a simple answer to the ethics of scouting is to have all
finalists go to the table at once, introduce themselves, and give a
short description of their decks, something like in the Ralf Lammert's
tournament reports on extrala.blogspot.
Example:
1. Mark Loughman -- Tremere antitribu G4/5 Wall
2. Brandon Haas -- Dom/For Tap&Bleed
2. Preston Poulter -- Akunanse Wall
2. Robyn Tatu -- Toreador antitribu Bleed w/ Palla Grande
2. Ian Lee -- City Gangrel Dominate S&B
I'm not saying the descriptions can't be deceptive. Of course, if all
the finalists are standing there, someone might call somebody else out
for being innacurate.
The thing is, it is very hard to effectively choose your seating if
you have NO IDEA what one or more other decks do. It also doesn't
help when you don't even know what a finalist looks like. Maybe you
know the finalist's deck through scouting, but you didn't learn their
name and they aren't at the table when you have to choose your
seating. I think that happens. It is also not always possible to
scout the other finalists' decks, for any number of reasons.
With my idea, people who scout would still have an advantage. But at
least no one would be at a COMPLETE disadvantage when given the
opportunity to choose seating.
John Whelan
wrote:
> -you can either get seating (who goes first)
> -or you can get placement
I have no problem with top-seeded players getting to decide whether
they go first, second, third, etc. I do have an issue with their
choosing who their predator or prey are, even though they may (or may
not) have considerable knowledge of those persons decks. It imports
too many out-of-game considerations.
> And for scouting - it makes sense! How else is a player supposed to
> choose placement?
Nobody is trying to stop scouting. I just don't see the point of a
rule that seems to deliberately invite or reward out of game
considerations.
> I'm all for new ideas from the vtes community (I think the best
> example of that is the famous "Duffin Draft"), but to argue about
> something when there is not a viable solution seems... frustrating.
A different seating method, that does not permit a player to choose
the identify of his predator or prey, is indeed viable.
> And John Whelan is in my community and comes up with some very
> interesting ideas. He has a tendency to not listen to me (still think
> I was wrong about the group 6 vamps john? :-) ) [...]
I am convinced they are all misprints.
But seriously, that did surprise me.
Rehlow
> wedge wrote:
> > I would say that, if you do not scout you are breaking play to win.
>
> Play To Win only applies when a game is being played, not after
> a game is over, when you are chatting with other players, getting
> some food, taking a dump in the restroom, etc.
>
I always PTW when taking a dump.
Later,
~Rehlow
wedge
Just as long as you're not playing for keeps...
Matt
John Whelan
Ahhh ... the sweet smell of victory.
tigernat1
But Robert, your argument falsely assumes the player is gaining an
advantage from choosing seating in the final table. The only
motivator for the final table seating choice is knowing the contents
of all the other decks in the tournament...specifically the other 4
finalists!!!!
I was the one discussing this with Chris at the LVNAQ. My comment was
based on the fact that the #1 seed chose a poor position in the
final. I knew this based on the other decks in the final that I
personally faced.
The top seeded player became the top seed through random player
seating...why is it different in the finals?
Vegas gNat
John Whelan
> Why we don't give more pool to top seeded players instead of letting
> them pick seating? I see that as a silly question rather than a relevant one, really.
I cannot strongly disagree, since I am in fact opposed to doing it.
But it is a relevant question. If we seriously believe that top-
seeded players deserve some kind of reward that handicaps the outcome
of the final game, why is a reward that does not import out-of-game
considerations (like the pool bonus) sillier than a reward that does
do so (the opportunity to choose your predator and prey, which may or
may not be of value, depending on how much you happen to know about
the decks your opponents are playing).
> But
> I think deciding where to sit is more appropriate than extra pool or
> transfers.
I'm still waiting for a reason.
> I've never really seen seat picking as a problem but rather as a fun
> and challenging way to decide how the final table looks.
Fun is subjective. "Challenging" is for me the annoying part, because
of what it seems to be "challenging" me to do. It is telling me I
should have spent more time scouting and finding out about other
player's decks. And this annoys me -- not because I think scouting
should be forbidden, but merely because I do not think the rules
should actively encourage it.
Frederick Scott
On Feb 26, 1:52 pm, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote:
> I'm sorry to have annoyed you. But, for the record, I do not agree
> that the rest of your post provided a logical answer to my question.
Understood.
> > The idea is being advanced that the final should be
> > "just like preliminary round games".
>
> That was not the idea as I understood it. The idea, as I understood
> it, is that Tournament V:tES should be the same as standard V:tES. As
> Librarian put it, "a regular game of V:tES", and that is how I
> understood his meaning.
That strikes me as being even less attainable as an overall goal (and
therefore even less worthwhile to discuss attaining to a partial
degree). I think we've disputed this before. Clearly, preliminary
round games are not like "a regular game of V:TES" in the sense of
having a time limit and emphasizing the game win.
Also, I am aware Chris plays most of his (non-virtual) games in Los
Angeles, where I believe the usual practice is to play casual games
by tournament rules. So I'd question if there's a distinction for
Chris's purposes. I'll leave it to him to speak for himself but I'm
not sure if you did understand him correctly.
> I understand that Tournament V:tES has been changed from standard
> V:tES in specific ways for specific reasons. However, it is my view
> that all such changes require justification.
Well, clearly we're not going to agree about that. I see no point
to just a demand.
> > > Sufficient for what? Excessive by what standard?
> >
> > Indeed, that's my point. There's is no standard other than subjective
> > preference. The way you reasoned in the previous post, you seemed to
> > assume some standard had been met and the current method was found
> > wanting. I was pointing that there exists no standard of 'how much
> > advantage is too much?'.
>
> I never said that there were no standards. I merely pointed that you
> had none. Your only argument is that the rule requires no
> justification, because there exist no values by which the rule may be
> judged.
I never said I had _no_ standards. I merely pointed out that the
standards were discussing are entirely subjective. This is hardly
the same thing as having none at all.
> It may well be that you and I have nothing to discuss, because we
> cannot agree on certain common basic propositions.
>
> But I merely assume that the purpose of a V:tES tournament is to
> measure skill at V:tES, by which is meant the standard game, except to
> the extent that specific changes can be justified for specific
> reasons.
Yep, it looks like we'll have to agree to disagree. But three things
are clear to me, at least:
1) You can _not_ come tolerably close to measuring the skill of a non-
tournament "original rulebook rules" game of VtES in a tournament.
Interjecting game wins, timeouts, and 1/2 victory points makes the
game play distinctly different.
2) Neither can you come tolerably close to measuring the skill of a
preliminary round tournament game in the finals. The distinction
between the game-win-and-maximize-victory-points goal in the
preliminary rounds enforced by the play-to-win rule is too different
from the finals game play-to-win-the-whole-tournament style.
and...
3) Given (1) and (2), it's better to just choose things you like in
terms of tournament rules rather than bothering to worry about how
close any style of game is to any other style.
As an allegory about number (3), I'd offer the situation of trying to
transport myself from the rim of the Grand Canyon down to the bottom.
I've heard that there's no roads that are open to any except the park
rangers. But you can use mules to get down there in some places.
It's not ideal using a mule instead of an automobile to get down
there but I've heard that it works well enough. I would desire
to make the trip as close as possible to an automobile trip, it's
true - but that doesn't mean I want the mule filled up with gas
first. Sometimes it just doesn't make any sense to say, "If we
can't have 'X', let's make it as close 'X' as possible."
Fred
Frederick Scott
Nonsense. Again, this is a false dichotomy by means of interpreting what
I said in an overly broad way. I never claimed there existed no standards
by which such things can be judged.
Fred
Robert Goudie
Yes, my argument assumes this. I believe it is still true most of the
time.
> The only
> motivator for the final table seating choice is knowing the contents
> of all the other decks in the tournament...specifically the other 4
> finalists!!!!
In the absence of knowledge gained by playing against other players'
decks in prior rounds (or scouting I suppose), I personally choose my
seating based on the knowledge of the seeding of the other players.
(Maybe I choose to stay far away from the 2nd seed or choose the 5th
seed as my prey, etc.)
> I was the one discussing this with Chris at the LVNAQ. My comment was
> based on the fact that the #1 seed chose a poor position in the
> final. I knew this based on the other decks in the final that I
> personally faced.
>
> The top seeded player became the top seed through random player
> seating...why is it different in the finals?
I think most players agree that it is an advantage to choose your pred
and prey in the finals. My impression is that we saw a decrease in
preliminary round shenanigans after creating this carrot. If a
suitable substitute for the preliminary rounds carrot could be found
(one that didn't reward scouting or the luck of prior round seating) I
would be in favor of replacing this element. Eliminating it without
filling that void does not seem smart to me.
-Robert
John Whelan
> I think we've disputed this before. Clearly, preliminary
> round games are not like "a regular game of V:TES" in the sense of
> having a time limit and emphasizing the game win.
I disagree. They are very much "like" each other. The time limit was
a regrettable necessity, whose purpose and function I do not need to
defend. This, however, ended up sabotaging one of the essential
features of un-timed games -- that ties are unlikely, and the game is
essentially a little-or-much eat-or-be-eaten battle. Surviving to
time out is simply not an option per standard rules.
To compensate for the ease with which tables are split in un-timed
games, merely by surviving to time out, various risk incentives were
added to encourage players to finish games and actually try to win.
The purpose of such further changes was not to make preliminary rounds
LESS like regular V:tES but to RESTORE its resemblance to regular
V:tES.
The result was imperfect, but the "spirit" of regular V:tES was the
standard by which success was judged.
Frederick Scott
On Feb 26, 7:44 pm, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote:
> > I think we've disputed this before. Clearly, preliminary
> > round games are not like "a regular game of V:TES" in the sense of
> > having a time limit and emphasizing the game win.
>
> I disagree. They are very much "like" each other. The time limit was
> a regrettable necessity, whose purpose and function I do not need to
> defend.
Certainly not. In fact, IIRC, when we disputed this, I was the one
in favor of maintaining it as is and you were in favor of tinkering
with it. Obviously, I don't think anyone's criticizing it here. Just
disputing what it means, given that we now have it.
...
> The result was imperfect, but the "spirit" of regular V:tES was the
> standard by which success was judged.
Sure. But perhaps I misrepresented myself. I don't mean to suggest
the game win has been any kind of a failure in terms of simulating
the original game - as best as it can be simulated in a tournament.
How good that is, exactly, is another thing which can't be measured
objectively. But I'd say I'm pretty happy with the result overall.
That said, however, perhaps it would be more accurate for me to opine
that given how different the regular rulebook rules game of VtES is
from the preliminary round tournament game - let alone the final game -
I don't see any point at all in quibbling about the differences in
player order selection.
Fred
librarian
> This suggests an uneven playing field, that some people, including
> myself, are uncomfortable with.
>
> Maybe a simple answer to the ethics of scouting is to have all
> finalists go to the table at once, introduce themselves, and give a
> short description of their decks, something like in the Ralf Lammert's
> tournament reports on extrala.blogspot.
>
> Example:
> 1. Mark Loughman -- Tremere antitribu G4/5 Wall
> 2. Brandon Haas -- Dom/For Tap&Bleed
> 2. Preston Poulter -- Akunanse Wall
> 2. Robyn Tatu -- Toreador antitribu Bleed w/ Palla Grande
> 2. Ian Lee -- City Gangrel Dominate S&B
>
> I'm not saying the descriptions can't be deceptive. Of course, if all
> the finalists are standing there, someone might call somebody else out
> for being innacurate.
>
If we stay with this system, which I assume we will, this sounds
reasonable, and good sportsmanship.
best -
chris
John Whelan
> "John Whelan" <jwjbw...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:dca3b6a7-f545-432f...@g19g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 26, 7:44 pm, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote:
> > > I think we've disputed this before. Clearly, preliminary
> > > round games are not like "a regular game of V:TES" in the sense of
> > > having a time limit and emphasizing the game win.
> >
> > I disagree. They are very much "like" each other. The time limit was
> > a regrettable necessity, whose purpose and function I do not need to
> > defend.
>
> Certainly not. In fact, IIRC, when we disputed this, I was the one
> in favor of maintaining it as is and you were in favor of tinkering
> with it.
IIRC we never disputed this. We were always in agreement that the
time limit was a necessity.
> > The result was imperfect, but the "spirit" of regular V:tES was the
> > standard by which success was judged.
>
> Sure. But perhaps I misrepresented myself. I don't mean to suggest
> the game win has been any kind of a failure in terms of simulating
> the original game - as best as it can be simulated in a tournament.
> How good that is, exactly, is another thing which can't be measured
> objectively. But I'd say I'm pretty happy with the result overall.
Our difference, IIRC, has always been that I regard the tournament
rules as intended to approximate, as closely as feasible, the spirit
and intent of the standard rules. Whereas you have no particular
loyalty to the standard rules, and seem to regard the tournament rules
as independent and self-justifying traditions.
Salem
> Daneel wrote:
>> I really hate the part where 1) you are only supposed to observe
>> the table you are playing at (or leave the play area), yet 2) you are
>> significantly rewarded for breaking this rule.
>
> Which rule would this be? I'm unaware of it.
http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/index.php?line=veknRules
2.4. Spectator Responsibilities
A spectator of a game is defined as any person other than a judge or an
organizer who is not playing in that game. **A player who is ousted from
a game is considered a spectator for the remainder of the round**. All
spectators are expected to remain silent during the course of a game and
are not permitted to communicate with players in any way while a game is
in progress. Spectators who believe that they have observed rules
violations should inform a judge, but they must not interfere with the
game. Players have the right to request that any spectator not observe
their game. All such requests must be made through a judge, who may
grant or deny the request as he or she sees fit. **The judge or
organizer may choose to prohibit all specatators at any table(s) or
round(s) of the tournament.**
The two emphasised parts could be what led to Daneel's experiences.
Also worth noting, in the rules they spelled it 'specatators' in that
last sentence (I only noticed thanks to Thunderbird's auto-spell-check).
Regards,
--
salem
Kevin M.
> Kevin M. wrote:
>> Daneel wrote:
>>> I really hate the part where 1) you are only supposed to observe
>>> the table you are playing at (or leave the play area), yet 2) you
>>> are significantly rewarded for breaking this rule.
>>
>> Which rule would this be? I'm unaware of it.
>
> http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/index.php?line=veknRules
>
> 2.4. Spectator Responsibilities
>
> A spectator of a game is defined as any person other than a judge or
> an organizer who is not playing in that game. **A player who is
> ousted from a game is considered a spectator for the remainder of the
> round**. All spectators are expected to remain silent during the
> course of a game and are not permitted to communicate with players in
> any way while a game is in progress. Spectators who believe that they
> have observed rules violations should inform a judge, but they must
> not interfere with the game. Players have the right to request that
> any spectator not observe their game. All such requests must be made
> through a judge, who may grant or deny the request as he or she sees
> fit. **The judge or organizer may choose to prohibit all specatators
> at any table(s) or round(s) of the tournament.**
>
> The two emphasised parts could be what led to Daneel's experiences.
Perhaps. But his 1) assertion infers something that doesn't exist,
unless the judge chooses to enforce it, since you are neither only
supposed to observe your table and no others (inferred), nor are
you supposed to leave the play area (inferred).
His 2) is correct, as has been discussed elsewhere in this thread.
Daneel
<robertt...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 26, 12:36ï¿œpm, Daneel <dan...@eposta.hu> wrote:
>> On Thu, 25 Feb 2010 17:22:28 -0800, librarian
>> <aucti...@superfuncards.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > I was talking with someone at LVNAQ, and we were disucssing how
>> annoying
>> > the seating selection mechanic for the final table was. ï¿œSpecifically
>> > because it was totally different from any other regular game of VTES.
>> ￜ
>> > And because seating has so much influence on the game, shouldn't it be
>> > like every other table?
>>
>> > So my suggestion would be:
>>
>> > Seat everyone randomly. ￜ1st seed gets to pick when they get to go in
>> > play order (1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th). ï¿œPlay.
>>
>> > Comments?
>>
>> Awesome idea. Especially the "play" part. I really like this. Can we
>> make
>> ￜ this the official rule (or minimum, an official option) for sanctioned
>> ￜ tournaments?
>>
>> I really hate the part where 1) you are only supposed to observe the
>> ￜ table you are playing at (or leave the play area), yet 2) you are
>> ￜ significantly rewarded for breaking this rule.
>>
>> This is an elegant solution to eliminate "scouting" (which players feel
>> ￜ like they have a right to for whatever reason, even though it's just
>> ￜ cheating in the end).
>
> Or the pre-arranged finals seating makes scouting more important since
> you know exactly where the other players will sit depending on the
> standings after the preliminary rounds. Players near the top of the
> seeding may alter their play in the last round(s) to arrange for
> favorable finals seating.
>
> Likewise, random finals seating gives a player who has already secured
> a seat in the finals before the last preliminary round is played, no
> incentive to play to win. This opens the door to helping friends get
> in the finals or to cross-table attacks on players on the bubble, etc.
>
> This current version of the finals seeding was meant to address the
> problem of some players not playing to win in all of the preliminary
> rounds. It was a real problem we witnessed and addressed. Chris
> rightly states that the finals seating has "so much influence on the
> game". This is why it is such a great motivator for players to do
> their best in all of the preliminary rounds.
>
> -Robert
The OP proposed to make seating random in the finals. There was another
thread started by another poster suggesting a pre-arranged final (to
which I commented more or less the same thing).
However, staying with the idea of random seating in the finals - you are
still best off if you play-to-win. You gain nothing by going into the
finals with a lower score - except for losing a potential tie-breaker
if final scores are the same. So if the seating in the finals is
random, you still gain a lot by having a higher score, and gain nothing
by having a lower one -> hence the incentive for playing to win stays.
--
Regards,
Daneel
John Whelan
You wrote: "Indeed, that's my point. There's is no standard other
than subjective
preference." You also wrote that since the final is a different game,
there is no point in arguing that it should be the same game.
I am merely carrying your words to their logical conclusion. If I say
"After 7 hours of V:tES, I get tired of the game. I would much prefer
we determine the tournament winner by playing a nice relaxing game of
Monopoly. It's fun and unique," then, by the (non-)standards you have
advocated, you have no possible counter-argument.
You could, presumably, outvote me. But you would have no counter-
argument.
John Whelan
> >>> It is contrary to the spirit of the normal rules.
> >>
> >> Which rules?
> >
> > The norm, per standard rules, is that deck information is private
> > and remains private until revealed during play.
>
> Where is this rule? It's illegal to discuss your deck with the guys
> you drove up with, or whomever, before you play it?
No. Why are you pretending not to understand? You know as well as I
do that in casual play, in normal games per standard rules, players
will either not reveal what deck they will play, or they will insist
that seating be determined randomly. The reason this is done is
obvious. To permit another player to pick seating, with knowledge of
the other player's decks is to give him an unfair advantage.
> That sounds
> unenforceable. It's also a logistical nightmare -- the main reason
> why scouting isn't prohibited.
Nobody is trying to prohibit scouting. Why this constant attempt to
set up a straw man?
> > The option of switching decks between games helps enforce this.
>
> Are we now discussing casual play? :P
We are discussing the standard game.
> > In tournaments, there are reasons to insist that players keep
> > their decks throughout the various rounds.
>
> Did you mean keep their decks SECRET?
No. I mean keep the same deck.
> > But there seems no reason, in keeping with the spirit or the
> > standard game, that we should go out of our way to encourage
> > players to take advantage of this fact.
>
> Scouting isn't banned because it's a logistical nightmare.
STRAW MAN ALERT -- STRAW MAN ALERT.
Again. Nobody is trying to ban scouting.
> In casual games, random seating is customary everywhere in the world
> that I have played.
Per standard rules, players may arrange seating by any method they
choose. "Lets just sit where we are" is sometimes acceptable to all
players, when no player knows anything about the decks his opponents
are playing. Otherwise, it is done randomly, for the obvious reason
that nobody wants to give an unfair advantage to a player who
determines seating with knowledge of his opponents decks.
> In tournaments, it's the rules, except in the
> finals, which are a special case [...]
The finals are a "special case" because the intent in the finals is to
give the top-seeded player or players an "unfair" advantage over their
lower-seeded opponents. This is contrary to the spirit and intent of
the standard rules, which are designed to ensure that all players
start out on an even keel.
The idea that first seed "deserves" such a huge advantage over the
second seed is questionable. Odds are that this is the first time
these two players have been measured against each-other in the
tournament. Otherwise, they would hardly have two game wins apiece
(as is often the case).
The value of the advantage is also hugely variable, and dependent upon
out-of -game considerations. An example offered in this thread:
Someone says "so-and-so is playing his Arika deck", and the finalist
who is the recipient of this comment remembers and is able to take
advantage of this because of past personal experience with so-and-so
and his "Arika deck."
Helping the top seed to win, because he supposedly deserves it because
of his preliminary standings, is an exercise in question begging.
Seems to me it would be more honest simply to declare the top seed the
winner and go home without a final. Why have a final where we help
the top seed to "cheat"? Seems a silly charade to me.
But there are reasons why we have finals after the preliminary
rounds. There are reasons why it is illogical to regard preliminary
standings as a reliable indicator of the best player. A mediocre
player can sweep tables if he meets weak opposition, but what happens
when an unstoppable force meets an immovable object?
Kevin M.
> Kevin M. wrote:
[lots of stuff snipped, relevant part below]
>> In tournaments, it's the rules, except in the
>> finals, which are a special case [...]
>
> The idea that first seed "deserves" such a huge advantage
> over the second seed is questionable.
I see. Since we are discussing some other ccg, and not VTES,
I don't really have any interest anymore. Sorry.
_angst_
> I was talking with someone at LVNAQ, and we were disucssing how annoying
> because it was totally different from any other regular game of VTES. And
> because seating has so much influence on the game, shouldn't it be like
> every other table?
>
> So my suggestion would be:
>
> order (1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th). Play.
>
> Comments?
>
> best -
>
> chris
Howdy Chris!
I don't agree that it's annoying. It is however a bit different which
I think it should be considering it's a finals. I also think that the
players choosing seating based on their tournament performance is an
awesome way to make the preliminary rounds count in the final
standings.
So, I must say I agree Henrik, Orian and Anthony here (haven't read
the entire thread but I read these posts). Chaning the seating rules
for the finals would currently be a bad idea and it would make playing
the finals less fun, less challenging and more random.
Regards
Alex Ek
Swedish NC