Fixing Day 1 of a 2-Day NAC
LSJ
win on day 1 of the NAC, due entirely to the fact that counting the
number of players led to the conclusion that a top-40 finish would be
achieved with only 3 VPs over the three rounds, and might be achieved
with only 2 VPs.
Options to remedy that:
1) Don't make 40 the fixed cutoff line. Take only 25 or 30 or 35,
depending on the participation level.
2) Count GWs on day 1 as additional VPs on day 2 (making every GW
important again). That is, a player with 2GWs and 9VPs on day 1 and 1GW
and 4VPs on day 2 is counted as 1GW 6VPs for purposes of getting into
the finals of day 2.
3) Day 1 is an unsanctioned elimination tournament, but in reverse.
After the first round, all players with game wins qualify for day 2 and
are removed from the remainder of day 1. Continue until 30 players make
the cut, and take an additional 0 to 4 players (the top-scoring
no-GW-getting players) as needed to make day 2 a multiple of five. This
has the daunting problem of determining seating, since seating cannot
be made until a round is entirely over, and would have to be done by
hand.
4) Make a single 5+F tournament, spread over 2 days. Again a bit of a
seating problem creeps in. And the kingmaking aspect of being
eliminated from the finals before round 5 begins. Plus the unfun aspect
of playing the same deck five times in a row.
Thoughts on these? Other ideas?
_angst_
> As has been noted, many players were apparently not inspired to play to
> win on day 1 of the NAC, due entirely to the fact that counting the
> number of players led to the conclusion that a top-40 finish would be
> achieved with only 3 VPs over the three rounds, and might be achieved
> with only 2 VPs.
>
> Options to remedy that:
>
> 1) Don't make 40 the fixed cutoff line. Take only 25 or 30 or 35,
> depending on the participation level.
>
could work. For example, 65 players is potentially 39 GW's, so if
everyone with a GW should qualify then this tournament needs 40 open
qualifier spots. this would lead to no change at all though.
> 2) Count GWs on day 1 as additional VPs on day 2 (making every GW
> important again). That is, a player with 2GWs and 9VPs on day 1 and 1GW
> and 4VPs on day 2 is counted as 1GW 6VPs for purposes of getting into
> the finals of day 2.
>
This is a possible format, but I don't know how much difference it
will make. I still think people will focus on getting to day 2 and not
really care for the extra vps.
> 3) Day 1 is an unsanctioned elimination tournament, but in reverse.
> After the first round, all players with game wins qualify for day 2 and
> are removed from the remainder of day 1. Continue until 30 players make
> the cut, and take an additional 0 to 4 players (the top-scoring
> no-GW-getting players) as needed to make day 2 a multiple of five. This
> has the daunting problem of determining seating, since seating cannot
> be made until a round is entirely over, and would have to be done by
> hand.
>
Err, this sounds abit to advanced imo. I would not like to be the
organizer of this.
> 4) Make a single 5+F tournament, spread over 2 days. Again a bit of a
> seating problem creeps in. And the kingmaking aspect of being
> eliminated from the finals before round 5 begins. Plus the unfun aspect
> of playing the same deck five times in a row.
>
Could work. I think this is possibly the best alternative here. I
really didnt see this dealing for vps problem in day 1 though. I
usually vp deal in most of my games anyway, so I didnt really see the
increase.
//Alex
LSJ
> > LSJ wrote:
> > As has been noted, many players were apparently not inspired to play to
> > win on day 1 of the NAC, due entirely to the fact that counting the
> > number of players led to the conclusion that a top-40 finish would be
> > achieved with only 3 VPs over the three rounds, and might be achieved
> > with only 2 VPs.
> >
> > Options to remedy that:
> >
> > 1) Don't make 40 the fixed cutoff line. Take only 25 or 30 or 35,
> > depending on the participation level.
> >
> Making a precentage qualify depending on the size of the tournament
> could work. For example, 65 players is potentially 39 GW's, so if
> everyone with a GW should qualify then this tournament needs 40 open
> qualifier spots. this would lead to no change at all though.
A) Not everyone with a GW "should qualify" under option 1.
B) Not every table produces a GW.
C) Some players accumulate more than one GW.
For example, there were only 30 players with any GWs after three rounds
of the 65-player day 1 tournament at the NAC.
65 players would certainly not meet the participartion level of a
40-player day-2, under this plan.
65 would likely fall to 25, for example.
witness1
LSJ wrote:
> As has been noted, many players were apparently not inspired to play to
> win on day 1 of the NAC, due entirely to the fact that counting the
> number of players led to the conclusion that a top-40 finish would be
> achieved with only 3 VPs over the three rounds, and might be achieved
> with only 2 VPs.
>
> Options to remedy that:
>
> 1) Don't make 40 the fixed cutoff line. Take only 25 or 30 or 35,
> depending on the participation level.
This could easily solve the particular issue being addressed
(play-to-win and play-to-make-day-2 not being closely aligned), but I
like the next suggestion more.
> 2) Count GWs on day 1 as additional VPs on day 2 (making every GW
> important again). That is, a player with 2GWs and 9VPs on day 1 and 1GW
> and 4VPs on day 2 is counted as 1GW 6VPs for purposes of getting into
> the finals of day 2.
Making day one performance matter more than a binary in-or-out is
something I would definitely welcome. While it's nice to not have to
play decks capable of earning 3 GWs in a row to have a chance at the
finals, doing well both days should count for more than treading water
day 1 and doing well day 2.
> 3) Day 1 is an unsanctioned elimination tournament, but in reverse.
> After the first round, all players with game wins qualify for day 2 and
> are removed from the remainder of day 1. Continue until 30 players make
> the cut, and take an additional 0 to 4 players (the top-scoring
> no-GW-getting players) as needed to make day 2 a multiple of five. This
> has the daunting problem of determining seating, since seating cannot
> be made until a round is entirely over, and would have to be done by
> hand.
Yikes. It would be cool if it were more feasible, but the difficulty
seems excessive. It also seems like running a parallel event for those
"eliminated" wouldn't be easy.
> 4) Make a single 5+F tournament, spread over 2 days. Again a bit of a
> seating problem creeps in. And the kingmaking aspect of being
> eliminated from the finals before round 5 begins. Plus the unfun aspect
> of playing the same deck five times in a row.
Perhaps after the second or third round, players with no VPs could be
eliminated? That still seems to go against the current theory of that 3
GWs shouldn't be necessary to sit at the finals table, and makes
seating harder, but might help the kingmaking aspect.
> Thoughts on these? Other ideas?
Witness1
-believe the lie
Jozxyqk
> Options to remedy that:
> 1) Don't make 40 the fixed cutoff line. Take only 25 or 30 or 35,
> depending on the participation level.
> 2) Count GWs on day 1 as additional VPs on day 2 (making every GW
> important again). That is, a player with 2GWs and 9VPs on day 1 and 1GW
> and 4VPs on day 2 is counted as 1GW 6VPs for purposes of getting into
> the finals of day 2.
> 3) Day 1 is an unsanctioned elimination tournament, but in reverse.
> After the first round, all players with game wins qualify for day 2 and
> are removed from the remainder of day 1. Continue until 30 players make
> the cut, and take an additional 0 to 4 players (the top-scoring
> no-GW-getting players) as needed to make day 2 a multiple of five. This
> has the daunting problem of determining seating, since seating cannot
> be made until a round is entirely over, and would have to be done by
> hand.
> 4) Make a single 5+F tournament, spread over 2 days. Again a bit of a
> seating problem creeps in. And the kingmaking aspect of being
> eliminated from the finals before round 5 begins. Plus the unfun aspect
> of playing the same deck five times in a row.
> Thoughts on these? Other ideas?
5) Strongly enforce play-to-win on Day 1. This is a little bit hard to do
since it's such a gray area. But this could also be accomplished by adding
prestige to the Day 1 Champion, in the form of unique prizes (i.e. bribery)
and/or additional rating points.
6) Move back to a 3-round, one-day format, but have multiple parallel
final-round tables. The top 5 players after the multiple finals are over
then play a "real final".
i.e. for 65 people, the top 10 players are Finalists.
Two "fourth round" tables are played in a mini-tournament.
The top 5 players from those 2 finals tables get to play a Real Final round.
This one may also be overly complex like #3, but just a thought.
Orpheus
> win on day 1 of the NAC, due entirely to the fact that counting the
> number of players led to the conclusion that a top-40 finish would be
> achieved with only 3 VPs over the three rounds, and might be achieved
> with only 2 VPs.
Yes, and it happened before. It is good that this is finally taken to
notice.
If you find a better format, would it be proposed to the organisation of the
European Championship or is it too late for this year's events already ?
> Options to remedy that:
>
> 1) Don't make 40 the fixed cutoff line. Take only 25 or 30 or 35,
> depending on the participation level.
A percentage of the participants has always been the way to go. It works.
> 2) Count GWs on day 1 as additional VPs on day 2 (making every GW
> important again). That is, a player with 2GWs and 9VPs on day 1 and 1GW
> and 4VPs on day 2 is counted as 1GW 6VPs for purposes of getting into
> the finals of day 2.
I think it would counter the interest of making it 2-days : it is and should
stay 2 different events. There is no reason why someone's scores on day 1
should make up for his mistakes on day 2.
> 3) Day 1 is an unsanctioned elimination tournament, but in reverse.
> After the first round, all players with game wins qualify for day 2 and
> are removed from the remainder of day 1. Continue until 30 players make
> the cut, and take an additional 0 to 4 players (the top-scoring
> no-GW-getting players) as needed to make day 2 a multiple of five. This
> has the daunting problem of determining seating, since seating cannot
> be made until a round is entirely over, and would have to be done by
> hand.
Furthermore, it takes some fun from the players : if you're qualified in
round 1 you get to play less games ? I'm not sure players covering a large
distance would be happy with that. I value the pleasure of playing more
games in such an event (it's a game, not just a competition) and wouldn't
like this solution.
> 4) Make a single 5+F tournament, spread over 2 days. Again a bit of a
> seating problem creeps in. And the kingmaking aspect of being
> eliminated from the finals before round 5 begins. Plus the unfun aspect
> of playing the same deck five times in a row.
Nothing to add, you underline pretty well the problems of this format.
> Thoughts on these? Other ideas?
Percentage is the way to go.
--
Duncan O'rpheus, of the O'rpheus clan from the scottish highlands.
LSJ
> If you find a better format, would it be proposed to the organisation of the
> European Championship or is it too late for this year's events already ?
The 2006 EC format will not be changed.
Gregory Stuart Pettigrew
> I think it would counter the interest of making it 2-days : it is and should
> stay 2 different events. There is no reason why someone's scores on day 1
> should make up for his mistakes on day 2.
>
There is no reason why someone's scores on round 1 should make up for
his mistakes on round 2. :)
> > 3) Day 1 is an unsanctioned elimination tournament, but in reverse.
> > After the first round, all players with game wins qualify for day 2 and
> > are removed from the remainder of day 1. Continue until 30 players make
> > the cut, and take an additional 0 to 4 players (the top-scoring
> > no-GW-getting players) as needed to make day 2 a multiple of five. This
> > has the daunting problem of determining seating, since seating cannot
> > be made until a round is entirely over, and would have to be done by
> > hand.
>
> Furthermore, it takes some fun from the players : if you're qualified in
> round 1 you get to play less games ? I'm not sure players covering a large
> distance would be happy with that. I value the pleasure of playing more
> games in such an event (it's a game, not just a competition) and wouldn't
> like this solution.
>
Winners from round 1 get to play in small side tournaments a la Origins
2005.
--
- Gregory Stuart Pettigrew
Orpheus
> > important again). That is, a player with 2GWs and 9VPs on day 1 and 1GW
> > and 4VPs on day 2 is counted as 1GW 6VPs for purposes of getting into
> > the finals of day 2.
>
> Making day one performance matter more than a binary in-or-out is
> something I would definitely welcome. While it's nice to not have to
> play decks capable of earning 3 GWs in a row to have a chance at the
> finals, doing well both days should count for more than treading water
> day 1 and doing well day 2.
If you really want to go that way, I'd suggest going all the way : play
different decks on both days (possibly excluding playing the same vampires
at all) and make the first day a 4-games, no final, and the second a 3-games
+ final ; access to the final table would be given to the players having
cumulated the most points over the 2-days.
Altenatively :
- 1st day = 3 games + finals, all the points including finals VPs (maybe not
GW) count for the following day (not totally sure I dig this, but it could
be nice because it would also encourage play to win no matter if you're
already ranked 1st before finals on day 1.
- first day is a swiss round, 3 games with elimination, so is second day ;
the best 5 of both days are finalists (I don't really like this option
because, as I said before, I want to give all the players the maximum
opportunities at play).
etc...
--
Orpheus
---------------
"When a true genius appears, you can know him by this sign: that all the
dunces are in a confederacy against him."
Jonathan Swift
FC
I think 1) is the best solution.
Frede
Ben Peal
I currently prefer the idea of a 5+F tournament.
Another possible (additional?) idea: Elimination of
the withdrawal rule.
- Ben Peal
tobinator
LSJ wrote:
> As has been noted, many players were apparently not inspired to play to
> win on day 1 of the NAC, due entirely to the fact that counting the
> number of players led to the conclusion that a top-40 finish would be
> achieved with only 3 VPs over the three rounds, and might be achieved
> with only 2 VPs.
>
> Options to remedy that:
>
> 1) Don't make 40 the fixed cutoff line. Take only 25 or 30 or 35,
> depending on the participation level.
>
This is a strong option. Maybe something easy like 33% (rounded to
nearest integer) of participants with a minimum of 25. If 33% > 25 then
additional players qualify to reach a multiple of 5.
> 2) Count GWs on day 1 as additional VPs on day 2 (making every GW
> important again). That is, a player with 2GWs and 9VPs on day 1 and 1GW
> and 4VPs on day 2 is counted as 1GW 6VPs for purposes of getting into
> the finals of day 2.
>
This is probably the best idea. This adds to the robustness of the
championship. If you do well on both days then you'll earn better
position than someone who only scraped in to day two but did well once
there. I believe it would change strategy on that first day from "let
me just get to day two" to "let me position myself to have a good
chance at the final table tommorrow today."
> 3) Day 1 is an unsanctioned elimination tournament, but in reverse.
> After the first round, all players with game wins qualify for day 2 and
> are removed from the remainder of day 1. Continue until 30 players make
> the cut, and take an additional 0 to 4 players (the top-scoring
> no-GW-getting players) as needed to make day 2 a multiple of five. This
> has the daunting problem of determining seating, since seating cannot
> be made until a round is entirely over, and would have to be done by
> hand.
>
Wow. Ugly setup...
> 4) Make a single 5+F tournament, spread over 2 days. Again a bit of a
> seating problem creeps in. And the kingmaking aspect of being
> eliminated from the finals before round 5 begins. Plus the unfun aspect
> of playing the same deck five times in a row.
>
Ugh. Same deck five times blows...
-tpl
Orpheus
> > I think it would counter the interest of making it 2-days : it is and
should
> > stay 2 different events. There is no reason why someone's scores on day
1
> > should make up for his mistakes on day 2.
> >
>
> There is no reason why someone's scores on round 1 should make up for
> his mistakes on round 2. :)
:-) It's totally different, because it will be 2 different decks, different
metagame choices, different events. As I say in another post, if you really
want to link the events : link them. If not : don't.
> > > 3) Day 1 is an unsanctioned elimination tournament, but in reverse.
> > > After the first round, all players with game wins qualify for day 2
and
> > > are removed from the remainder of day 1. Continue until 30 players
make
> > > the cut, and take an additional 0 to 4 players (the top-scoring
> > > no-GW-getting players) as needed to make day 2 a multiple of five.
This
> > > has the daunting problem of determining seating, since seating cannot
> > > be made until a round is entirely over, and would have to be done by
> > > hand.
> >
> > Furthermore, it takes some fun from the players : if you're qualified in
> > round 1 you get to play less games ? I'm not sure players covering a
large
> > distance would be happy with that. I value the pleasure of playing more
> > games in such an event (it's a game, not just a competition) and
wouldn't
> > like this solution.
> >
> Winners from round 1 get to play in small side tournaments a la Origins
> 2005.
You mean, like, 1 or 2 games "tournaments" ? I personnaly would have
absolutely no interest in these. Either I play a tournament (even a "fun"
one, but a whole one) or I play a friendly game or two.
CthuluKitty
I guess my opinion is sort of irrelevent, since I've never attended
these events, but I really don't like that idea. In a 3 round
tournaments it's often the case that as of round 3 (or even round 2)
you know for a fact you can't win the tournament. Knowing that as of
round 3 in a 5 round structure would be horrible. I haven't really
crunched the numbers to figure out how likely it is to be totally
shafted that early and have to keep playing multiple games to win
(which you can't). I'm not sure how adding more rounds fixes any of the
problems with large tournaments.
> Another possible (additional?) idea: Elimination of
> the withdrawal rule.
This actually strikes me as something to seriously consider. It
seriously hampers VP deals, makes Twister slightly less stupid, and
doesn't get in the way of much else. I mean, I have seen people
successfully withdraw when their library was depleted just to salvage a
VP, but I haven't seen it often. Getting rid of the obnoxious table
talk about VP deals would certainly be worth losing the occasional use
of the withdrawal rule as it was intended.
Of course, Brinkmanship becomes a dead card, but does anyone really
care?
Gregory Stuart Pettigrew
Brinksmanship can be reworded to still have a game effect, such as:
During a player's master phase, they gain a Doom Token if their library
is exhausted and they have less than a full handsize. During a player's
untap phase, they are ousted if they have a Doom Token.
Ankur Gupta
> During a player's master phase, they gain a Doom Token if their library
> is exhausted and they have less than a full handsize. During a player's
> untap phase, they are ousted if they have a Doom Token.
doooooooommmmm
Ankur
Play. The. Game.
John Flournoy
Gregory Stuart Pettigrew wrote:
> CthuluKitty wrote:
> > > Another possible (additional?) idea: Elimination of
> > > the withdrawal rule.
> >
> > This actually strikes me as something to seriously consider. It
> > seriously hampers VP deals, makes Twister slightly less stupid, and
> > doesn't get in the way of much else. I mean, I have seen people
> > successfully withdraw when their library was depleted just to salvage a
> > VP, but I haven't seen it often. Getting rid of the obnoxious table
> > talk about VP deals would certainly be worth losing the occasional use
> > of the withdrawal rule as it was intended.
> >
> > Of course, Brinkmanship becomes a dead card, but does anyone really
> > care?
>
> Brinksmanship can be reworded to still have a game effect, such as:
> During a player's master phase, they gain a Doom Token if their library
> is exhausted and they have less than a full handsize. During a player's
> untap phase, they are ousted if they have a Doom Token.
Alternately: Eliminate the VP gained for successfully withdrawing (not
the rule itself.)
That way, Brinksmanship still works as written: if your prey is decked,
he's ousted, and if he withdraws, you're ousted - he just wouldn't gain
any VP for withdrawing.
(Though that could make deck-depleters nastier - if I get through your
deck, you're pretty much doomed to 0 VP no matter what you do.)
> - Gregory Stuart Pettigrew
-John Flournoy
Matthew T. Morgan
> 5) Strongly enforce play-to-win on Day 1. This is a little bit hard to do
> since it's such a gray area. But this could also be accomplished by adding
> prestige to the Day 1 Champion, in the form of unique prizes (i.e. bribery)
> and/or additional rating points.
Yeah, what about just enforcing the rules? Did anyone call a judge in any
of these not-playing-to-win situations? If so, was anything done? If
not, why didn't you and what gives you the right to do nothing then and
complain now?
As far as I know, the day 1 event is already worth more rating points than
the day 2 event because it's a larger tournament. The prizes were quite
generous for both tournaments.
Matt Morgan
John Flournoy
LSJ wrote:
> Thoughts on these? Other ideas?
Another option that was brought up last year:
Play 3 rounds as normal using Archon.
After 3 rounds, the top 25 are seated for a 'semi-final' round. That
seating could be completely random, or even semi-seeded (for instance,
splitting the tables 1-7-13-19-25, 2-8-14-20-22, 3-9-15-16-22,
4-10-11-17-23, 5-6-12-18-24, and then randomizing seating and 1st turn
at each table).
The 5 best results strictly from the semi-final round advance to the
final. This would mean that if each SF table produces a GW, those GWers
would be the finalists. If less than 5 game wins are produced, the seat
would go to the most VP in the semi-final, breaking ties by the overall
standing of round 1-3.
(Example: Semifinal table 1 is split 3-2 between A and B; semifinal 2
is a 2-2-1 split between C D and E. All other tables are 5VP sweeps.
Advancing would be the sweepers, player A for his GW, and whichever
player of B, C, and D was the highest-placed going into the
semi-final.)
This would encourage players to play for a GW in the semi-final, and to
maximize their standing in 1-3 as well - you could play to 'just make
the semi-final' with a mediocre result, but you'd be handicapped by
facing stronger decks and needing a GW in the semi-final round if you
do that.
Downside: The finalists would be playing their decks 5 times, but then
hey, they're getting nice prizes for making the final table already.
-John Flournoy
XZealot
LSJ wrote:
> As has been noted, many players were apparently not inspired to play to
> win on day 1 of the NAC, due entirely to the fact that counting the
> number of players led to the conclusion that a top-40 finish would be
> achieved with only 3 VPs over the three rounds, and might be achieved
> with only 2 VPs.
You were the judge. If it was a problem, why didn't you enforce the
rules.
Changing the tournament structure for a judge that's not doing his job
isn't the solution. ;P
> Options to remedy that:
>
> 1) Don't make 40 the fixed cutoff line. Take only 25 or 30 or 35,
> depending on the participation level.
40 is good or any other fixed number. 40 gives a good spread on Day 2.
> 2) Count GWs on day 1 as additional VPs on day 2 (making every GW
> important again). That is, a player with 2GWs and 9VPs on day 1 and 1GW
> and 4VPs on day 2 is counted as 1GW 6VPs for purposes of getting into
> the finals of day 2.
Boo! You will have alot of drops on day 2 because of the "Day 1
Advantage" creating a disproportionate boost.
> 3) Day 1 is an unsanctioned elimination tournament, but in reverse.
> After the first round, all players with game wins qualify for day 2 and
> are removed from the remainder of day 1. Continue until 30 players make
> the cut, and take an additional 0 to 4 players (the top-scoring
> no-GW-getting players) as needed to make day 2 a multiple of five. This
> has the daunting problem of determining seating, since seating cannot
> be made until a round is entirely over, and would have to be done by
> hand.
This has no real advantage over the method used now. For the most
part, players with GW's made it to day 2 and the top remaining players
that made up the difference went to Day 2. Same exact results.
> 4) Make a single 5+F tournament, spread over 2 days. Again a bit of a
> seating problem creeps in. And the kingmaking aspect of being
> eliminated from the finals before round 5 begins. Plus the unfun aspect
> of playing the same deck five times in a row.
Bad, Bad, Bad idea. This has all the same problems of a one day 3R+F
tournament. Namely, that only certain deckarchtypes which can sweep or
are speed decks are viable due to the high GW threshhold required to
make the Finals.
> Thoughts on these? Other ideas?
Keep it the Same. It works. It creates a championship environment
where any deck archtype is viable. I think it was a great tournament
with a good structure.
Don't you think it is paradoxical that people are complaining that
players aren't playing to win about players trying to get a Victory
Point which is how you win.
Think about that.
Comments Welcome,
Norman S. Brown, Jr
XZealot
Archon of the Swamp
Derek Ray
Hash: SHA1
LSJ wrote:
> As has been noted, many players were apparently not inspired to play to
> win on day 1 of the NAC, due entirely to the fact that counting the
> number of players led to the conclusion that a top-40 finish would be
> achieved with only 3 VPs over the three rounds, and might be achieved
> with only 2 VPs.
>
> Options to remedy that:
>
> 1) Don't make 40 the fixed cutoff line. Take only 25 or 30 or 35,
> depending on the participation level.
The original suggestion intentionally used 25 as the cutoff point
because the current problems were foreseen.
__When VPs matter and GWs don't, table-splitting becomes standard.__
The solution has always been to make VPs mostly meaningless in
comparison to GWs, forcing people to play for the GW and not for the
VPs. The current format is fine, but the cutoff point is too low,
allowing players with no GW to move on to round 2.
If Day 1 had used 25 as the cutoff point, the #25 player had 1GW, 3VP --
which is still sufficiently low that unlucky random seating in a single
round does not completely remove your chances of victory (a major, valid
complaint about earlier championships), and sufficiently high that
simply dealing for some token VP is not going to cut it.
- --
Derek
insert clever quotation here
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFFLS52tQZlu3o7QpERAvmDAKCsyQq26ejn3+Nc1ous8cCUXGIWBwCgmyRf
tB1NjE0V40QgTN9WtdJSwQA=
=buZ/
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
LSJ
> LSJ wrote:
> > As has been noted, many players were apparently not inspired to play to
> > win on day 1 of the NAC, due entirely to the fact that counting the
> > number of players led to the conclusion that a top-40 finish would be
> > achieved with only 3 VPs over the three rounds, and might be achieved
> > with only 2 VPs.
>
> You were the judge. If it was a problem, why didn't you enforce the
> rules.
I did.
> Changing the tournament structure for a judge that's not doing his job
> isn't the solution. ;P
Check your facts.
> > Options to remedy that:
> >
> > 1) Don't make 40 the fixed cutoff line. Take only 25 or 30 or 35,
> > depending on the participation level.
>
> 40 is good or any other fixed number. 40 gives a good spread on Day 2.
Although it is clearly not as good as say 25.
Still more fact checking on someone's part is required.
> > 2) Count GWs on day 1 as additional VPs on day 2 (making every GW
> > important again). That is, a player with 2GWs and 9VPs on day 1 and 1GW
> > and 4VPs on day 2 is counted as 1GW 6VPs for purposes of getting into
> > the finals of day 2.
>
> Boo! You will have alot of drops on day 2 because of the "Day 1
> Advantage" creating a disproportionate boost.
No drops would be incurred, since day 2 GWs are still more important.
Evidence or even supporting logic to the contrary is invited.
> > 3) Day 1 is an unsanctioned elimination tournament, but in reverse.
> > After the first round, all players with game wins qualify for day 2 and
> > are removed from the remainder of day 1. Continue until 30 players make
> > the cut, and take an additional 0 to 4 players (the top-scoring
> > no-GW-getting players) as needed to make day 2 a multiple of five. This
> > has the daunting problem of determining seating, since seating cannot
> > be made until a round is entirely over, and would have to be done by
> > hand.
>
> This has no real advantage over the method used now. For the most
> part, players with GW's made it to day 2 and the top remaining players
> that made up the difference went to Day 2. Same exact results.
>
> > 4) Make a single 5+F tournament, spread over 2 days. Again a bit of a
> > seating problem creeps in. And the kingmaking aspect of being
> > eliminated from the finals before round 5 begins. Plus the unfun aspect
> > of playing the same deck five times in a row.
>
> Bad, Bad, Bad idea. This has all the same problems of a one day 3R+F
> tournament. Namely, that only certain deckarchtypes which can sweep or
> are speed decks are viable due to the high GW threshhold required to
> make the Finals.
No. A one-day high-participation tournament rewards feast-or-famine
decks that get lucky. That was he problem that the 2-day format was
created to address. Increasing the number of rounds decreases the
effect of luck, making consistent decks more competitive to the
feast-or-famine sweeper decks.
> > Thoughts on these? Other ideas?
>
> Keep it the Same. It works. It creates a championship environment
> where any deck archtype is viable. I think it was a great tournament
> with a good structure.
Option one, for example, would not reduce the number of viable
archetypes and would improve the system as a whole by providing
inherent incentive for the players to focus on GWs.
> Don't you think it is paradoxical that people are complaining that
> players aren't playing to win about players trying to get a Victory
> Point which is how you win.
No.
> Think about that.
I have.
Playing for a 2 VP loss or even a 1VP loss because that's all you need
each round to make the cut is quite different than playing for the Game
Win
sutekh_23
LSJ wrote:
> As has been noted, many players were apparently not inspired to play to
> win on day 1 of the NAC, due entirely to the fact that counting the
> number of players led to the conclusion that a top-40 finish would be
> achieved with only 3 VPs over the three rounds, and might be achieved
> with only 2 VPs.
>
OK Chances are I'll never get to play in this event, but I'll throw out
some suggestions for general consumption.
> Options to remedy that:
>
> 1) Don't make 40 the fixed cutoff line. Take only 25 or 30 or 35,
> depending on the participation level.
>
IMHO, participation level should always be reflected in the numbers of
a 2 day event. What happens if in one year you get 120 players and the
next 40? (Highly unlikely I know) Perhaps a baseline of 50% of
attendee's with the option of adding a few more players if the
qualifying number is not divisible by 5? That way at least you
encourage more competition on day one and a GW become more desireable
for everyone
> 2) Count GWs on day 1 as additional VPs on day 2 (making every GW
> important again). That is, a player with 2GWs and 9VPs on day 1 and 1GW
> and 4VPs on day 2 is counted as 1GW 6VPs for purposes of getting into
> the finals of day 2.
>
This sounds very similar to a 5R+Final event, just with a slight
variation (partial re-start on day 2). It would push the competative
level of the first day up as people want to walk into day 2 with a
clear advantage based on their performance on day 1. This idea, IMHO,
would make the best "compromise" in terms of wanting to push day one
competition levels without totally hosing someone who happens to have a
bad day. It also allows for a change of deck at the midpoint if desired
(or enforced), which a 2 day, 5R+Final, event pretty much procludes.
Without instituting major changes, this option is probably your best
bet for increasing pure competition on day one.
> 3) Day 1 is an unsanctioned elimination tournament, but in reverse.
> After the first round, all players with game wins qualify for day 2 and
> are removed from the remainder of day 1. Continue until 30 players make
> the cut, and take an additional 0 to 4 players (the top-scoring
> no-GW-getting players) as needed to make day 2 a multiple of five. This
> has the daunting problem of determining seating, since seating cannot
> be made until a round is entirely over, and would have to be done by
> hand.
This idea I really like :) May I propose a model?
Round 1:
Standard format applies for round 1 of competition
Round 2:
All players who achieve a GW in round 1 are removed from the tournament
as LSJ preposes. You now have "X" players avaliable to do other things.
One option is (and I have no idea if it is viable or not) is that these
X players playtest the up and coming yearly storyline event decks/cards
while round 2 is going on. Not only would this provide some useful
player feedback for WW, but who would not give their left inscisor to
help shape a game that they love to play?
If this option is unavailiable, then the first qualifiers could play
for a "bounty" similar to the ones offered this year at the NAC.
Additionally there could also be a "bonus VP" offered to the player
who wins, added to thier standing for the next days competition. This
way even if a player qualifies there is a real incentive to keep
playing to win rather than resting on thier laurels.
Round 3
Once again the players who achive a GW in round 2 are added to the list
of qualifiers for day 2 and are removed from further competition. This
group of "Y" players is merged with the "X" players to play a "sudden
death" single round event where the winner takes all, all being a
"bounty" and an additional VP to take with them to day 2, once more
pushing the play to win aspect of the game.
Day 2
Day 2 occours as it does now except those that qualifed early have a
potential edge in standings from their previously accrued VP's (much
like option 2)
>
> 4) Make a single 5+F tournament, spread over 2 days. Again a bit of a
> seating problem creeps in. And the kingmaking aspect of being
> eliminated from the finals before round 5 begins. Plus the unfun aspect
> of playing the same deck five times in a row.
5 rounds in one continuous event IMHO only favours the "cheesemonkies"
and the "table dealers", not exactly the PTW theory as I understand it.
In theory it could work, but I can't really trust that theory, too many
time outs, table splits and mutual withdrawals prevail in my Vtes
world. If you want to play in a hardcore tournament, play to win or as
Ankur says:
Play. the. game.
Sutekh_23
Gregory Stuart Pettigrew
> > 1) Don't make 40 the fixed cutoff line. Take only 25 or 30 or 35,
> > depending on the participation level.
>
> The original suggestion intentionally used 25 as the cutoff point
> because the current problems were foreseen.
>
> __When VPs matter and GWs don't, table-splitting becomes standard.__
>
> The solution has always been to make VPs mostly meaningless in
> comparison to GWs, forcing people to play for the GW and not for the
> VPs. The current format is fine, but the cutoff point is too low,
> allowing players with no GW to move on to round 2.
>
> If Day 1 had used 25 as the cutoff point, the #25 player had 1GW, 3VP --
> which is still sufficiently low that unlucky random seating in a single
> round does not completely remove your chances of victory (a major, valid
> complaint about earlier championships), and sufficiently high that
> simply dealing for some token VP is not going to cut it.
Sounds like players/3 (rounded up to a multiple of 5) is a rule worth
pursuing. This also has the advantage of heavily populating the
alternate tournament, making it a much more rewarding tournament to
play (more competetive and worth more tournament points).
LSJ
> On Wed, 11 Oct 2006, Jozxyqk wrote:
>
> > 5) Strongly enforce play-to-win on Day 1. This is a little bit hard to do
> > since it's such a gray area. But this could also be accomplished by adding
> > prestige to the Day 1 Champion, in the form of unique prizes (i.e. bribery)
> > and/or additional rating points.
>
> Yeah, what about just enforcing the rules? Did anyone call a judge in any
> of these not-playing-to-win situations?
No.
> If so, was anything done?
Moot.
> If
> not, why didn't you and what gives you the right to do nothing then and
> complain now?
I couldn't say, but I suppose that in the vast majority of cases, it
boiled down to a player weighing a 50% GW with 50% 0VP finish against a
80/10/10 split for 2/1/0 VPs or similar. (Standard disclaimer about
numbers not being knowable, &c.)
The proposals on the table are on the table to increase the relative
value of a GW to a VP, in order to make that decision less gray on the
player's side. (That is to make the tournament structure support the
idea that GWs are the most important thing -- the same reason that GWs
started being tracked in the first place).
Powermonger
I strongly support you!!!! Elimate the withdrawals!!!!
This would severely hamper deal-making and promote the play to win rule.
LSJ
> > Another possible (additional?) idea: Elimination of
> > the withdrawal rule.
>
> This actually strikes me as something to seriously consider. It
> seriously hampers VP deals, makes Twister slightly less stupid, and
> doesn't get in the way of much else. I mean, I have seen people
> successfully withdraw when their library was depleted just to salvage a
> VP, but I haven't seen it often. Getting rid of the obnoxious table
> talk about VP deals would certainly be worth losing the occasional use
> of the withdrawal rule as it was intended.
See the thread starting with this post:
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/951e2e333252d691
Matthew T. Morgan
>> Yeah, what about just enforcing the rules? Did anyone call a judge in any
>> of these not-playing-to-win situations?
>
> No.
That's kind of too bad. I really believe there's a polite way to call the
judge and get a ruling on whether or not a table split deal is legal.
There's no reason to just sit and be pissed off about a deal one feels is
not or should not be legal.
>> If so, was anything done?
>
> Moot.
I get the car!
>> If
>> not, why didn't you and what gives you the right to do nothing then and
>> complain now?
>
> I couldn't say, but I suppose that in the vast majority of cases, it
> boiled down to a player weighing a 50% GW with 50% 0VP finish against a
> 80/10/10 split for 2/1/0 VPs or similar. (Standard disclaimer about
> numbers not being knowable, &c.)
So ignoring the disclaimer for the moment, is that legal? I would think
that a player with a 50% chance for a GW should have to take it. Those
sound like good odds to me!
> The proposals on the table are on the table to increase the relative
> value of a GW to a VP, in order to make that decision less gray on the
> player's side. (That is to make the tournament structure support the
> idea that GWs are the most important thing -- the same reason that GWs
> started being tracked in the first place).
Sure, I get that, but if players are going to play not to win under one
set of circumstances, then I figure they'd do so again under another.
Okay, maybe that 1 extra VP I get by handing the table to my prey isn't as
important in 2007 as it was in 2006. It can still make a difference. I
can still play that way if I choose to (unless my play is illegal and a
judge is called).
Maybe I'd feel differently, but I didn't actually experience this problem.
There were VP deals at some of my tables, but I feel like the players on
the losing end of them were truly in lost positions and were maximizing
their VPs. That's what they're supposed to do, right?
Matt Morgan
sta...@hotmail.com
I gotta agree with the idea of eliminating the withdrawal rule. I
suspect that that by itself would solve the problem.
Having a greater number of rounds could also help, as well as the other
suggestion of allowing a certain percentage of people through to day 2,
rather than a set number could also aid the situation. With the
withdrawal rule intact, however, I think that the underlying problem
will remain.
shawn
librarian
Gregory Stuart Pettigrew wrote:
>
> Sounds like players/3 (rounded up to a multiple of 5) is a rule worth
> pursuing. This also has the advantage of heavily populating the
> alternate tournament, making it a much more rewarding tournament to
> play (more competetive and worth more tournament points).
>
Since LSJ is soliciting feedback, I just want to say that this seems
like the most elegant and least invasive of the ideas presented. If
you have 120 players, day 2 is a 40 person tourney, and 80 people are
around to play Shadow Twin or something else. A nice scenario.
It does seem to break down somewhat at lower numbers: If you have 26
players on day one, you get 15 moving onto day 2. In this scenario,
players with very few VPs would move onto day 2, encouraging splitter
deals again.
Or, there could be a stipulation that 2-day tourneys be reserved for
tournaments with 38 (15 players on day 2 representing less than 40% of
the overall) or more people. Or something.
best -
chris
***JediMike***
LSJ wrote:
>
> Options to remedy that:
>
> 1) Don't make 40 the fixed cutoff line. Take only 25 or 30 or 35,
> depending on the participation level.
>
favor of an optimal NAC final. This would make for a lager Shadow Twin
tournament but hey, the 25 best should move on. I tried to take
advantage of the withdraw rule, and was sucessful twice but failed on
my final attempt. I was not the only one taking this road to the next
day and I must say it felt VERY wrong. Let the top 25 go and I think
your problem is solved and a perfect seating enviroment is created for
the final NAC.
***JediMike***
LSJ
> [Of option 1]
> Since LSJ is soliciting feedback, I just want to say that this seems
> like the most elegant and least invasive of the ideas presented. If
> you have 120 players, day 2 is a 40 person tourney, and 80 people are
> around to play Shadow Twin or something else. A nice scenario.
>
> It does seem to break down somewhat at lower numbers: If you have 26
> players on day one, you get 15 moving onto day 2. In this scenario,
> players with very few VPs would move onto day 2, encouraging splitter
> deals again.
>
> Or, there could be a stipulation that 2-day tourneys be reserved for
> tournaments with 38 (15 players on day 2 representing less than 40% of
> the overall) or more people. Or something.
Exactly. The two-day format was implemented because of the size of the
tournament.
So option 1 would break down something like:
1 - 60 players: One day.
61 - 80 players: 25
81 - 100 players: 30
101 - 120 players: 35
and so on.
Or maybe take top 16 for 51-60.
LSJ
Actually, any multiple of 5 from 25 on gives perfect seating. 16 is
also perfect.
Jeroen Rombouts
"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> schreef in bericht
news:1160593223....@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
61 players show up? Or vice versa, you plan a 2 day tournement and less than
60 people show?
LSJ
> >
> > 1 - 60 players: One day.
> > 61 - 80 players: 25
> > 81 - 100 players: 30
> > 101 - 120 players: 35
> >
> > and so on.
> >
> > Or maybe take top 16 for 51-60.
> >
> nice solution, but what to do when you have a one day tournement planned and
> 61 players show up? Or vice versa, you plan a 2 day tournement and less than
> 60 people show?
The NAC would be planned as a two-day event.
As a fallback, if fewer than 51 qualified players show up, the day 1
tournament would be the only tournament. In that case, a normal
tournament (or any other event) could be held on day 2.
Joshua Duffin
"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message
news:1160593223....@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
I like this idea. I think maybe top 50% - perhaps with a 'round down to the
nearest 5' rather than 'round up to the nearest 5' rule - would be more fun?
(Probably keeping the "maximum of 40 for day 2" piece of the current
system... there's a limit to how large day 2 can be while remaining wieldy.)
That'd be:
4-49 players = 1 day
50-59 players = 25 for day 2
60-69 players = 30 for day 2
70-79 players = 35 for day 2
80+ players = 40 for day 2
> Or maybe take top 16 for 51-60.
An interesting idea, but as you may know, the 4-player game is rather
different from the 5-player game. I'd keep it to 5-player tables for day 2
if it were up to me.
Josh
too many players
not enough wins
Joshua Duffin
> Matthew T. Morgan wrote:
>> If
>> not, why didn't you and what gives you the right to do nothing then and
>> complain now?
>
> I couldn't say, but I suppose that in the vast majority of cases, it
> boiled down to a player weighing a 50% GW with 50% 0VP finish against a
> 80/10/10 split for 2/1/0 VPs or similar. (Standard disclaimer about
> numbers not being knowable, &c.)
In my experience, people believing that they *do* know these numbers, or can
at least estimate them with great accuracy, is the main cause of VP deals.
That, and the amazing ability to make predictions of how a game will turn
out, based on the first turn or three.
> The proposals on the table are on the table to increase the relative
> value of a GW to a VP, in order to make that decision less gray on the
> player's side. (That is to make the tournament structure support the
> idea that GWs are the most important thing -- the same reason that GWs
> started being tracked in the first place).
It occurred to me that you could also accomplish something along those lines
by dropping all non-GW tiebreakers altogether for Championship events. If
anything other than a game win has no value, and your standing is going to
be determined randomly among all players with the same number of game wins
as you, there would at least be no incentive to do anything other than win
games. (The downsides, of course, are that (a) your standing is somewhat
more random, and (b) if you can't win a game you're still in, you don't
really care what happens at all. And maybe (c) you're re-incentivized to
play decks that have sharp "win or get nothing" spikes in their performance
curves.)
Josh
play. the. game.
(more rock, less talk)
kut...@gmail.com
> As has been noted, many players were apparently not inspired to play to
> win on day 1 of the NAC, due entirely to the fact that counting the
> number of players led to the conclusion that a top-40 finish would be
> achieved with only 3 VPs over the three rounds, and might be achieved
> with only 2 VPs.
>
>
> 1) Don't make 40 the fixed cutoff line. Take only 25 or 30 or 35,
> depending on the participation level.
>
> important again). That is, a player with 2GWs and 9VPs on day 1 and 1GW
> and 4VPs on day 2 is counted as 1GW 6VPs for purposes of getting into
> the finals of day 2.
>
> After the first round, all players with game wins qualify for day 2 and
> are removed from the remainder of day 1. Continue until 30 players make
> the cut, and take an additional 0 to 4 players (the top-scoring
> no-GW-getting players) as needed to make day 2 a multiple of five. This
> has the daunting problem of determining seating, since seating cannot
> be made until a round is entirely over, and would have to be done by
> hand.
>
> seating problem creeps in. And the kingmaking aspect of being
> eliminated from the finals before round 5 begins. Plus the unfun aspect
> of playing the same deck five times in a row.
>
I thought that seeding players after the first round would work nicely
to give them incentive to play for those GWs. I just now worked out how
to modify the Archon first round (top 25 players) so that this
advantage works. Here ya go, but it's messy.
The first set of three rows are the three rounds of the tournament,
with players numbered from 1 to 25 according to their rank after the
first day of the tournament.
For reference, the second set of three rows are the "strength of
schedule" for each of the players listed above where those are
arithmetic averages of their opponents for every round.
The first seed has a strength of schedule of 16.00 for each of the
three rounds. This means the first seed's average opponent for every
game is 16th seed.
Each successive seed has a more difficult strength of schedule by 0.25,
with the 25th seed having a strength of schedule of 10.00 (average
opponent is 10th seed). It turns out with this particular setup that
each player has the exact same SoS for each of the three games. It also
happens that influence order is preserved and no pairings are
duplicated (identical to the original in the Archon).
I figured this out by brute force here with a spreadsheet, but there
*must* be some elegant algorithm underlying which can allow the Archon
to seed 30, 35, etc size events.
Enjoy.
Jeff
========================
1,7,13,19,25,21,2,8,14,20,16,22,3,9,15,11,17,23,4,10,6,12,18,24,5,,
14,10,1,22,18,19,15,6,2,23,24,20,11,7,3,4,25,16,12,8,9,5,21,17,13,,
12,23,9,20,1,13,24,10,16,2,17,3,14,25,6,7,18,4,15,21,22,8,19,5,11,,
16.00 , 14.50 , 13.00 , 11.50 , 10.00 , 11.00 , 15.75 , 14.25 , 12.75
, 11.25 , 12.25 , 10.75 , 15.50 , 14.00 , 12.50 , 13.50 , 12.00 , 10.50
, 15.25 , 13.75 , 14.75 , 13.25 , 11.75 , 10.25 , 15.00 ,,
12.75 , 13.75 , 16.00 , 10.75 , 11.75 , 11.50 , 12.50 , 14.75 , 15.75
, 10.50 , 10.25 , 11.25 , 13.50 , 14.50 , 15.50 , 15.25 , 10.00 , 12.25
, 13.25 , 14.25 , 14.00 , 15.00 , 11.00 , 12.00 , 13.00 ,,
13.25 , 10.50 , 14.00 , 11.25 , 16.00 , 13.00 , 10.25 , 13.75 , 12.25
, 15.75 , 12.00 , 15.50 , 12.75 , 10.00 , 14.75 , 14.50 , 11.75 , 15.25
, 12.50 , 11.00 , 10.75 , 14.25 , 11.50 , 15.00 , 13.50 ,,
Joshua Duffin
> XZealot wrote:
>> LSJ wrote:
>> > 4) Make a single 5+F tournament, spread over 2 days. Again a bit of a
>> > seating problem creeps in. And the kingmaking aspect of being
>> > eliminated from the finals before round 5 begins. Plus the unfun aspect
>> > of playing the same deck five times in a row.
>>
>> Bad, Bad, Bad idea. This has all the same problems of a one day 3R+F
>> tournament. Namely, that only certain deckarchtypes which can sweep or
>> are speed decks are viable due to the high GW threshhold required to
>> make the Finals.
>
> No. A one-day high-participation tournament rewards feast-or-famine
> decks that get lucky. That was he problem that the 2-day format was
> created to address. Increasing the number of rounds decreases the
> effect of luck, making consistent decks more competitive to the
> feast-or-famine sweeper decks.
The thing about that is, the influence of luck is only reduced in the long
run. Even six or seven trials isn't that much the long run, here. Luck
could still result in plenty of feast-or-famine decks being played and
making finals.
Some form of Swiss seating for a 5+F or 6+F two-day event might be
interesting (at least on paper) - I'm not sure if people would really be
excited by playing the same deck six or seven times in a row, but if you
played against other players with the same number of GWs as you, you could
mostly avoid the problem of facing players with nothing to do but kingmake.
Another alternative for a 6+F two-day event could be making it totally
multi-deck - change to a different deck for every game if you want. That
could (a) eliminate the advantage of scouting and (b) keep the players
interested in playing their various decks. Though it is a problem if we
want to crown a deck as well as a player as the "Continental Champion". And
it might require players to have quite a few strong decks built and
available if they want to take advantage of variety while still playing
winning decks.
Josh
all famined out
hugh.an...@gmail.com
and also easy for players to understand:
e.g.:
Day 1
Play first 3 rounds with 1 constructed legal deck - top 40% of players
go through to day 2
Day 2
You may play the same deck or another deck that is constructed legal as
day 1.
Only points earned on day 2 count towards final standing.
Top 5 players from day 2 go through to final as normal
I'd be quite happy to see any easily udnerstood and easy to implement
system be used for the NAC and other large events.
E.g. 3r each day counting towards total results or 5r &f.
Anything with players dropping between rounds seems foolish and makes a
mockery of the 'removing too much luck aspect' from the game e.g. if
you had a really lucky first table but your deck and your style
probably would have not got you any further in the day 1 ratings than
those points.
I would agree that there was a definate lacklustre affair to some of
the games day 1 and I certianly recall switching off a little as the
day went on (after my first round GW), an environment where every GW
and VP was important on day 1 may encourage more PTW.
Salem
> 2) Count GWs on day 1 as additional VPs on day 2 (making every GW
> important again). That is, a player with 2GWs and 9VPs on day 1 and 1GW
> and 4VPs on day 2 is counted as 1GW 6VPs for purposes of getting into
> the finals of day 2.
I like this, but just need some clarification. Would this be _in
addition_ to only 40 players from day one going to day 2, or would all
players from day 1 also play day 2?
Another idea is to hand out a booster pack for every game win. That
helps give incentive to players that think they have no chance in the
event overall to at least go nutso to try and scrape a GW out of a game.
Eyes on the prize, and all.
--
salem
http://users.tpg.com.au/adsltqna/vtes/
(replace 'hotmail' with 'yahoo' to email)
Rehlow
Derek Ray wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> LSJ wrote:
> > As has been noted, many players were apparently not inspired to play to
> > win on day 1 of the NAC, due entirely to the fact that counting the
> > number of players led to the conclusion that a top-40 finish would be
> > achieved with only 3 VPs over the three rounds, and might be achieved
> > with only 2 VPs.
> >
> > Options to remedy that:
> >
> > 1) Don't make 40 the fixed cutoff line. Take only 25 or 30 or 35,
> > depending on the participation level.
>
> The original suggestion intentionally used 25 as the cutoff point
> because the current problems were foreseen.
>
> __When VPs matter and GWs don't, table-splitting becomes standard.__
>
> The solution has always been to make VPs mostly meaningless in
> comparison to GWs, forcing people to play for the GW and not for the
> VPs. The current format is fine, but the cutoff point is too low,
> allowing players with no GW to move on to round 2.
>
> If Day 1 had used 25 as the cutoff point, the #25 player had 1GW, 3VP --
> which is still sufficiently low that unlucky random seating in a single
> round does not completely remove your chances of victory (a major, valid
> complaint about earlier championships), and sufficiently high that
> simply dealing for some token VP is not going to cut it.
>
Woot, player #25, that was me.
Instead of trying to figure out the magic number to let in to Day 2
based on Day 1 attendence, let anyone with at least 1 GW advance. What
happens if that is not a multiple of 5? Well, a few (1-4 players) with
0 GWs can get lucky and be let in to make even tables. I don't know if
this will work for Europe though. Would it let in too many players
because Day 1 creates too large of a number of players with 1 GW? Also
if Day 1 attendence is very low, less than say 40, it becomes a one day
event instead.
During Day 1, I was somewhat depressed after getting 0 VPs in round 1
and 2. I sat down to round 3 and looking at the table after the first
couple of turns, a GW for me looked very difficult. I let the table
develop and I built up. When the time was right, I started to move and
was able to get my VPs and GW. I like the possibilty of being able to
get to Day 2 as late as round 3. I wasn't playing to make the finals at
that point, but I wanted my GW to make Day 2.
Later,
~Rehlow
ira...@gmail.com
> judge and get a ruling on whether or not a table split deal is legal.
> There's no reason to just sit and be pissed off about a deal one feels is
> not or should not be legal.
I think the main point is that players were more willing to give up on
the idea of a GW, and just take the safer course of 1 or 2 VPs.
> > I couldn't say, but I suppose that in the vast majority of cases, it
> > boiled down to a player weighing a 50% GW with 50% 0VP finish against a
> > 80/10/10 split for 2/1/0 VPs or similar. (Standard disclaimer about
> > numbers not being knowable, &c.)
>
> So ignoring the disclaimer for the moment, is that legal? I would think
> that a player with a 50% chance for a GW should have to take it. Those
> sound like good odds to me!
Yes, it's legal. It's not just your pure chances of winning, it's the
consequences of failure. "Reasonable chance of winning" includes risk
analysis. I know there are many previous threads on play-to-win, but
the following thread is one of the best:
> Sure, I get that, but if players are going to play not to win under one
> set of circumstances, then I figure they'd do so again under another.
Players are playing to win in all cases. Playing to win can include
taking 2 VPs with high probability, depending on the risk analysis.
The day 1 risk analysis makes 2 VPs very appealing, which is the issue
we're trying to address.
Ira
ira...@gmail.com
our head tournament organizer to solicit feedback from the playerbase.
I do not take this for granted, and it's one of the major things that
makes this game as fun as it is. Thank you, LSJ!
> 1) Don't make 40 the fixed cutoff line. Take only 25 or 30 or 35,
> depending on the participation level.
As discussed elsewhere in this thread, I think this option is best. It
creates a greater incentive to go for the GW, because a higher
threshold is required. Once players realize they need at least a GW to
make it to the next day, players will be going for the GW.
> 2) Count GWs on day 1 as additional VPs on day 2 (making every GW
> important again). That is, a player with 2GWs and 9VPs on day 1 and 1GW
> and 4VPs on day 2 is counted as 1GW 6VPs for purposes of getting into
> the finals of day 2.
I like the idea that I start with a clean slate on day 2, but I also
like the idea that day 1 makes a difference. :) I think we should
first try raising the bar to make it to day 2 per suggestion #1, and if
that's not enough, then also add this.
> 3) Day 1 is an unsanctioned elimination tournament, but in reverse.
> After the first round, all players with game wins qualify for day 2 and
> are removed from the remainder of day 1. Continue until 30 players make
> the cut, and take an additional 0 to 4 players (the top-scoring
> no-GW-getting players) as needed to make day 2 a multiple of five. This
> has the daunting problem of determining seating, since seating cannot
> be made until a round is entirely over, and would have to be done by
> hand.
I definitely don't like this one, because it's very complicated,
significantly different from different tournament structures, and is
less fun for people who win early.
> 4) Make a single 5+F tournament, spread over 2 days. Again a bit of a
> seating problem creeps in. And the kingmaking aspect of being
> eliminated from the finals before round 5 begins. Plus the unfun aspect
> of playing the same deck five times in a row.
You could get around the problem of the same deck by letting people
vary decks, but even so I don't like this one for the reasons you
mentioned. It's no fun to be in round 5 without any hope of making the
finals.
Thanks again for listening. I think the subtle change of raising the
bar for day 2 will make enough of a difference to encourage a greater
desire for GWs.
Ira
_angst_
>
> A) Not everyone with a GW "should qualify" under option 1.
> B) Not every table produces a GW.
> C) Some players accumulate more than one GW.
>
this is all true. But I think you have to decide a limit on how good
you have to be to play in day 2. Then one should make a system where
atleast all that reach the threashold qualify. If that limit would be
set to 1 gw, then you would need 39 spots open in a 65 player to
guarantee that it happends.
I'm not against tougher limits though.
> For example, there were only 30 players with any GWs after three rounds
> of the 65-player day 1 tournament at the NAC.
>
> 65 players would certainly not meet the participartion level of a
> 40-player day-2, under this plan.
> 65 would likely fall to 25, for example.
>
Yes, I agree that it would be a nice limit to a 65. it would recuire
the best of you to qualify.
//Alex
XZealot
LSJ wrote:
> XZealot wrote:
> > LSJ wrote:
> > > As has been noted, many players were apparently not inspired to play to
> > > win on day 1 of the NAC, due entirely to the fact that counting the
> > > number of players led to the conclusion that a top-40 finish would be
> > > achieved with only 3 VPs over the three rounds, and might be achieved
> > > with only 2 VPs.
> >
> > You were the judge. If it was a problem, why didn't you enforce the
> > rules.
>
> I did.
How did you do so?
> > Changing the tournament structure for a judge that's not doing his job
> > isn't the solution. ;P
>
> Check your facts.
Obviously, that was a joke, but since you ask. Where are the facts?
> > > Options to remedy that:
> > >
> > > 1) Don't make 40 the fixed cutoff line. Take only 25 or 30 or 35,
> > > depending on the participation level.
> >
> > 40 is good or any other fixed number. 40 gives a good spread on Day 2.
>
> Although it is clearly not as good as say 25.
25, 40, 55 It is entirely arbitrary. The end result is the same.
People are playing to make the second day. That's the means to win the
prize of the NAC. You are just creating a sliding scale of
performance.
Players are going to figure out what is required and that becomes their
target.
If you use a percentage then the players, who choose to act this way,
figure out what spot that is and shoot for it.
If you use a GW as the breakeven point, then early GW players can play
kingmaker to get their buddies to day 2.
Regardless of your metric, that metric is what the players, who act
this way, are going to shoot for. If you want to set a high metric,
such as top 5 (1 day tournament), then you will find that only decks
that are viable are the ones that suck up alot of GWS. If you set a
low metric, 1 VPs, then only decks that can't score a VP are
eliminated. If you set it somewhere in between then players, who
choose to act this way, are going to figure out the performance
required and then shoot for that.
The problem isn't the tournament. It's the players.
When you build a better mousetrap, then you breed smarter mice.
> Still more fact checking on someone's part is required.
Only if you think the facts actually support changing the format.
> > > 2) Count GWs on day 1 as additional VPs on day 2 (making every GW
> > > important again). That is, a player with 2GWs and 9VPs on day 1 and 1GW
> > > and 4VPs on day 2 is counted as 1GW 6VPs for purposes of getting into
> > > the finals of day 2.
> >
> > Boo! You will have alot of drops on day 2 because of the "Day 1
> > Advantage" creating a disproportionate boost.
>
> No drops would be incurred, since day 2 GWs are still more important.
> Evidence or even supporting logic to the contrary is invited.
How important were GW's this year? The answer is very important as
they are the primary determiner of performance.
How important were VP's this year? The answer is second only in
performance to GW's. Some of the finalists only had 1 GW and VP
tiebreakers were involved. Okay, you may be right about people
dropping, but wait the sour grapes you are going to hear when people
get knocked out of the finals because of Advanced Placement points.
You aren't going to stop people from complaining.
> > > 3) Day 1 is an unsanctioned elimination tournament, but in reverse.
> > > After the first round, all players with game wins qualify for day 2 and
> > > are removed from the remainder of day 1. Continue until 30 players make
> > > the cut, and take an additional 0 to 4 players (the top-scoring
> > > no-GW-getting players) as needed to make day 2 a multiple of five. This
> > > has the daunting problem of determining seating, since seating cannot
> > > be made until a round is entirely over, and would have to be done by
> > > hand.
> >
> > This has no real advantage over the method used now. For the most
> > part, players with GW's made it to day 2 and the top remaining players
> > that made up the difference went to Day 2. Same exact results.
> >
> > > 4) Make a single 5+F tournament, spread over 2 days. Again a bit of a
> > > seating problem creeps in. And the kingmaking aspect of being
> > > eliminated from the finals before round 5 begins. Plus the unfun aspect
> > > of playing the same deck five times in a row.
> >
> > Bad, Bad, Bad idea. This has all the same problems of a one day 3R+F
> > tournament. Namely, that only certain deckarchtypes which can sweep or
> > are speed decks are viable due to the high GW threshhold required to
> > make the Finals.
>
> No. A one-day high-participation tournament rewards feast-or-famine
> decks that get lucky. That was he problem that the 2-day format was
> created to address. Increasing the number of rounds decreases the
> effect of luck, making consistent decks more competitive to the
> feast-or-famine sweeper decks.
6 one-way or a half-dozen another. Increasing the number of rounds
still heavily favors the decks that can keep a track record of alot of
GW's while more marginal decks become more marginalized as luck becomes
less of a factor.
> > > Thoughts on these? Other ideas?
> >
> > Keep it the Same. It works. It creates a championship environment
> > where any deck archtype is viable. I think it was a great tournament
> > with a good structure.
>
> Option one, for example, would not reduce the number of viable
> archetypes and would improve the system as a whole by providing
> inherent incentive for the players to focus on GWs.
As I said before, you can set the bar high or low. It doesn't change
individual behavior, but rather it can change the outcome.
> > Don't you think it is paradoxical that people are complaining that
> > players aren't playing to win about players trying to get a Victory
> > Point which is how you win.
>
> No.
Paradoxical must not exist in your vocabulary then.
> > Think about that.
>
> I have.
>
> Playing for a 2 VP loss or even a 1VP loss because that's all you need
> each round to make the cut is quite different than playing for the Game
> Win
You were the judge. Why didn't you stop that kind of behavior. That
is what judges are for.
If you didn't get called duing the round when it happened, then it is
the players own damn fault. They shouldn't be trying to backdoor the
finals table by an after the fact bitch session to the judge as there
is nothing the judge can do once the game is over.
I didn't hear alot of bitching, but I wasn't the judge.
Comments Welcome,
Norman S. Brown, Jr
XZealot
Archon of the Swamp
Pat
news:1160619076.4...@c28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>> Playing for a 2 VP loss or even a 1VP loss because that's all you need
>> each round to make the cut is quite different than playing for the Game
>> Win
>
> You were the judge. Why didn't you stop that kind of behavior. That
> is what judges are for.
>
> If you didn't get called duing the round when it happened, then it is
> the players own damn fault. They shouldn't be trying to backdoor the
> finals table by an after the fact bitch session to the judge as there
> is nothing the judge can do once the game is over.
>
> I didn't hear alot of bitching, but I wasn't the judge.
>
In defense of LSJ, and of the players in general, I saw a lot of dealing for
2 VP in day 1, but I think that most of it was reasonable under the rules.
Even when I was on the short end of the deal, I never felt it was necessary
to call for a ruling from Scott. I would rather there were more looking
left, as opposed to looking cross-table, but I don't think the x-table
looking that occurred was illegal.
I had a nice talk with Christian Chenard during the late-night pick-up
session after day 2, and he felt that it was more of a stylistic difference
with certain playgroups. I'm clearly paraphrasing his comments, so any
misunderstanding is on me, but it seems that his playgroup is quicker to
accept the 3-2 split, if they feel it is highly likely to shake out that
way, even if it is early in the game. E.g., if Player A feels his chances of
earning 2 VP in a deal to give Player B 3 VP are about 50 or 60%, vs a 5 or
10% chance of getting the GW himself, then he'll deal for the 2 as soon as
possible. (The example is mine, but I think it gets the point across.)
This tendency in his playgroup may explain why he was willing to accept a
3-2 (his GW) split from me in day 2, round 3, even though he suspected I
would break the deal. (Since neither Norm nor Adam was willing to deal with
him at all.) As it turned out, he couldn't quite close out Adam by himself,
and I did break the deal and make my way into the final thanks to those 4
VP.
- Pat
P.S. On an unrelated note, since I haven't gotten around to posting a WoN
report, I would like to say that it was a huge pleasure to game with so many
new players during the Week... Christian, TX gang, LA crew, Seattlites, Euro
visitors, plus many of the usual suspects that I've met before. Thanks for a
great event, everyone.
P.P.S. I had not definitely decided to break the deal until the turn before
I ousted... but when Christian was on 2 pool with no Tupdog in play, I had
to go for it.
XZealot
Althought this may seem like a anti-LSJ rant. It is not. I don't think
things need to change for the reasons I have heard.
I had a great time with everyone.
Salem
> P.P.S. I had not definitely decided to break the deal until the turn before
> I ousted... but when Christian was on 2 pool with no Tupdog in play, I had
> to go for it.
totally justified!
Which brings me to my question:
Was there much deal-breaking at the NAC?
It's always been a theory I ascribe to that the more prevalent
deal-breaking is, the less prevalent VP-splits become.
So I am not really trying to dig up the old debate of whether you should
or should not break deals (but you should, if it'll get you a GW ;) but
I am curious to know how many people got screwed out of the VPs they
'deserved' by people backstabbing in deals at the NAC (on either day)?
Ankur Gupta
> based on Day 1 attendence, let anyone with at least 1 GW advance. What
I'm not sure that I like that idea. Seems to me that if I got a GW on
round 1, I can blindly make losing deals and sacrifice GWs to friends,
family, horrible decks that are going to get crushed, or David
Cherryholmes :) so as to improve my odds in the coming rounds.
A guarantee of placement seems to be a bad idea. Usually, I don't allow
players to see their own standing in a tournament until they're completely
finished playing. . . it helps avoid the "speculation" game.
What we really need are people who
Play. The. Game.
Ankur
Frederick Scott
> 4) Make a single 5+F tournament, spread over 2 days. Again a bit of a
> seating problem creeps in. And the kingmaking aspect of being
> eliminated from the finals before round 5 begins. Plus the unfun aspect
> of playing the same deck five times in a row.
As a slight modification of this option, would it be so terrible if
players were allowed to change decks between day 1 and day 2? That
is, one deck for rounds 1-3 and another for rounds 4, 5, and the final.
Just a thought.
(I have no answer right off hand for the kingmaking issue. I don't know
if it really needs one.)
Fred
Frederick Scott
"Jozxyqk" <jfeu...@eecs.tufts.edu> wrote in message news:7eudnQVWYfSSYLHY...@comcast.com...
> LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
> 6) Move back to a 3-round, one-day format, but have multiple parallel
> final-round tables. The top 5 players after the multiple finals are over
> then play a "real final".
> i.e. for 65 people, the top 10 players are Finalists.
> Two "fourth round" tables are played in a mini-tournament.
> The top 5 players from those 2 finals tables get to play a Real Final round.
> This one may also be overly complex like #3, but just a thought.
Actually, the real issue may be that it would just shift the problem to the
semi-finals. If there are 10 players in the semi-finals and 5 of them
will make the finals, then wouldn't there be a suspiciously distinct
incentive to just go for victory points in the semi-finals?
(Ah, at least you could monitor two games for play-to-win a lot better
than you could monitor all the preliminary round games at all the
tables.)
Fred
Jozxyqk
Well, the idea was that all "semi-finalists" would get Finalist credit, as
far as ratings go, and some minimal additional prize support, as well. Bribery,
pure and simple.
And my only concern is with the preliminary rounds.
If you get *this* far, you've already proven that you could get this far on your
own merits. If you want to table talk from here, it's not as much of a big deal.
Mike Perlman
> 1) Don't make 40 the fixed cutoff line. Take only 25 or 30 or 35,
> depending on the participation level.
Sure. The narrower the aperture of advancement gets, the more
aggressive the play becomes.
> 2) Count GWs on day 1 as additional VPs on day 2 (making every GW
> important again). That is, a player with 2GWs and 9VPs on day 1 and 1GW
> and 4VPs on day 2 is counted as 1GW 6VPs for purposes of getting into
> the finals of day 2.
How about marking game wins for additional pool on day 2? Grant
increases (value to be determined later) to each player's starting pool
amount, as a multiple of game wins in the prior rounds.
The bounty approach could apply to any other game aspect(s) and
rewards; pool for GW is the most straightforward combination I can
think of. Some other fanciful examples of bounties applied to day 2
rounds, based on day 1's play :
--an extra transfer.for the top 10%
--an extra discard phase action.for the top 10%
--an extra master phase action.for the top 10%
--start with a permanent (e.g., Army of Rats, Embrace, Momentum's
Edge, Storage Annex) in play for each GW. Permanent would be
pre-selected by the judge, or chosen by player from a set of
pre-selected cards).
> 3) Day 1 is an unsanctioned elimination tournament, but in reverse.
> After the first round, all players with game wins qualify for day 2 and
> are removed from the remainder of day 1. Continue until 30 players make
> the cut, and take an additional 0 to 4 players (the top-scoring
> no-GW-getting players) as needed to make day 2 a multiple of five.
For this option, I'd remove the cap, and take anyone who recieved a
game win in the first three rounds. If you end up with 10 players (or
less), pad to 12 and play 4-tops in the second day.
> This has the daunting problem of determining seating, since seating cannot
> be made until a round is entirely over, and would have to be done by
> hand.
Where there's a will, there's a hack. :)
LSJ
> LSJ wrote:
> > XZealot wrote:
> > > LSJ wrote:
> > > > As has been noted, many players were apparently not inspired to play to
> > > > win on day 1 of the NAC, due entirely to the fact that counting the
> > > > number of players led to the conclusion that a top-40 finish would be
> > > > achieved with only 3 VPs over the three rounds, and might be achieved
> > > > with only 2 VPs.
> > >
> > > You were the judge. If it was a problem, why didn't you enforce the
> > > rules.
> >
> > I did.
>
> How did you do so?
By resolving all activity or interest brougt to my attention in
accordance with the rules.
> > > Changing the tournament structure for a judge that's not doing his job
> > > isn't the solution. ;P
> >
> > Check your facts.
>
> Obviously, that was a joke, but since you ask. Where are the facts?
"Where"?
That's odd.
Facts are most often untethered to locations.
Anyway, it seems that gathering facts should precede accusations of
dereliction of judging duties, not come as an afterthought.
Robert Goudie
Salem wrote:
> Pat wrote:
>
> > P.P.S. I had not definitely decided to break the deal until the turn before
> > I ousted... but when Christian was on 2 pool with no Tupdog in play, I had
> > to go for it.
>
> totally justified!
>
> Which brings me to my question:
>
> Was there much deal-breaking at the NAC?
What? Deal-breaking? Unheard of. No way. That's wrong!
Okay, maybe there was a little...
-Robert
Joshua Duffin
"Ankur Gupta" <agu...@cs.duke.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.63.06...@fiordland.cs.duke.edu...
>> Instead of trying to figure out the magic number to let in to Day 2 based
>> on Day 1 attendence, let anyone with at least 1 GW advance. What
>
> I'm not sure that I like that idea. Seems to me that if I got a GW on
> round 1, I can blindly make losing deals and sacrifice GWs to friends,
> family, horrible decks that are going to get crushed, or David
> Cherryholmes :) so as to improve my odds in the coming rounds.
While you're right about that, it was already the de facto case this year,
and would pretty much remain the case in any system that allows any high
percentage of the players (certainly 50% and up, maybe even 33% and up) to
advance from day 1 to day 2. From my own experience, I had a 2 VP game win
in round 1 this year (good old 2-1-1-1... nothing beats 2-1-1-1...) and made
mistakes in the second and third rounds that I might not have made if I had
been more 'hungry' for additional VPs. I wasn't *intentionally* playing
less well, of course, but I might have played better if I hadn't already
known I had enough to advance to day 2. There's no way around that, as Norm
has been arguing, if you're going to have a complete Day 1 tournament whose
only purpose is to advance players to day 2. Though reducing the number of
slots sufficiently *may* get people to play more for the win in all rounds.
> A guarantee of placement seems to be a bad idea. Usually, I don't allow
> players to see their own standing in a tournament until they're completely
> finished playing. . . it helps avoid the "speculation" game.
Yeah. Although again, if you know there are 40 spots (or 25 or whatever)
for advancing to day 2, you can count the number of possible GWs just based
on knowing the number of participants in day 1. (This year, there were just
13 tables, so 39 maximum possible GWs for day 1 at the NAC.)
> What we really need are people who
>
> Play. The. Game.
So. True.
I know this is a non sequitur to a lot of VTES players, but I really don't
like deal-making anymore and wish people would stop spending so much time
making deals. The game is a lot more fun, I think, when it (a) doesn't
involve so much discussion and thus (b) is less likely to time out, plus (c)
therefore has increased focus on the elements specific to VTES rather than
those elements common to all multi-player games (ie kingmaking, cooperation,
"table balancing", and all that nonsense).
Josh
playing. the. game.
witness1
Joshua Duffin wrote:
> "Ankur Gupta" <agu...@cs.duke.edu> wrote in message
> news:Pine.LNX.4.63.06...@fiordland.cs.duke.edu...
> >> Instead of trying to figure out the magic number to let in to Day 2 based
> >> on Day 1 attendence, let anyone with at least 1 GW advance. What
> >
> > I'm not sure that I like that idea. Seems to me that if I got a GW on
> > round 1, I can blindly make losing deals and sacrifice GWs to friends,
> > family, horrible decks that are going to get crushed, or David
> > Cherryholmes :) so as to improve my odds in the coming rounds.
>
> While you're right about that, it was already the de facto case this year,
> and would pretty much remain the case in any system that allows any high
> percentage of the players (certainly 50% and up, maybe even 33% and up) to
> advance from day 1 to day 2. From my own experience, I had a 2 VP game win
> in round 1 this year (good old 2-1-1-1... nothing beats 2-1-1-1...) and made
> mistakes in the second and third rounds that I might not have made if I had
> been more 'hungry' for additional VPs. I wasn't *intentionally* playing
> less well, of course, but I might have played better if I hadn't already
> known I had enough to advance to day 2. There's no way around that, as Norm
> has been arguing, if you're going to have a complete Day 1 tournament whose
> only purpose is to advance players to day 2.
I think the only way to really solve the issue of players
"prequalifying" by getting one (or even 2) game wins early and then
being able to shrug off round two or three is by making Game Wins on
day 1 count for something besides just moving on to day 2.
The reward shouldn't be so great that it overly rewards feast-or-famine
play, but gaining the bonus VP, bonus pool/transfers, or even
strength-of-schedule rewards mentioned in this thread would be worth
considering.
Alternatively, every player that makes it to the finals of day 2 starts
with an extra pool for each game win on day 1 and 2 combined. This
makes the day 1 GWs only especially meaningful if you also do well on
day 2, but doesn't doubly-reward feast-or-famine decks (i.e., they have
to get lucky both days in order to gain a larger advantage over any
other deck type, whereas under the other proposals getting lucky day 1
gives you an advantage in all your games day 2, making it easier to get
"lucky" again).
> Though reducing the number of
> slots sufficiently *may* get people to play more for the win in all rounds.
To a point, but you can still end up with the guy who got GWs in rounds
1 and 2 being pretty certain of making it to day 2. But if a third day
1 GW were meaningful besides finals seating, he'd play for it for his
own sake.
> > A guarantee of placement seems to be a bad idea. Usually, I don't allow
> > players to see their own standing in a tournament until they're completely
> > finished playing. . . it helps avoid the "speculation" game.
>
> Yeah. Although again, if you know there are 40 spots (or 25 or whatever)
> for advancing to day 2, you can count the number of possible GWs just based
> on knowing the number of participants in day 1. (This year, there were just
> 13 tables, so 39 maximum possible GWs for day 1 at the NAC.)
Sure. And people can always do that math. The only thing to do about it
is to make a better standing on day 1 translate into some advantage on
day 2.
> > What we really need are people who
> >
> > Play. The. Game.
>
> So. True.
>
> I know this is a non sequitur to a lot of VTES players, but I really don't
> like deal-making anymore and wish people would stop spending so much time
> making deals. The game is a lot more fun, I think, when it (a) doesn't
> involve so much discussion and thus (b) is less likely to time out, plus (c)
> therefore has increased focus on the elements specific to VTES rather than
> those elements common to all multi-player games (ie kingmaking, cooperation,
> "table balancing", and all that nonsense).
Actually, I feel less strongly about dealing after the NAC. Twice in
day 2 I was able to credibly threaten to throw off the table deal by
self-ousting, forcing people to rethink their strategies and play
around it. In both games, it nearly got me a VP. It's the first time
I've really had a chance to strategize like that and I found it kinda
fun.
I still don't much like the deals themselves, but I just found them to
be a lot less problematic than I thought they'd be.
> Josh
>
> playing. the. game.
Witness1
-believe the lie
Shade
Joshua Duffin wrote:
> Yeah. Although again, if you know there are 40 spots (or 25 or whatever)
> for advancing to day 2, you can count the number of possible GWs just based
> on knowing the number of participants in day 1. (This year, there were just
> 13 tables, so 39 maximum possible GWs for day 1 at the NAC.)
Well I wasn't there but it sounds a lot to me like you just had an
inbetween number of players so to speak, either more or less would have
been better. Another say 3 or 4 tables worth of players each round
would have taken the number of possible game wins high enough that you
would likely need one to progress, 3 or 4 tables a round less would
have still been an OK one day event (although not ideal).
> I know this is a non sequitur to a lot of VTES players, but I really don't
> like deal-making anymore and wish people would stop spending so much time
> making deals. The game is a lot more fun, I think, when it (a) doesn't
> involve so much discussion and thus (b) is less likely to time out, plus (c)
> therefore has increased focus on the elements specific to VTES rather than
> those elements common to all multi-player games (ie kingmaking, cooperation,
> "table balancing", and all that nonsense).
A different topic there but 100% agree with you, especially point (c).
Ankur Gupta
>>
>> Play. The. Game.
>
> So. True.
>
> I know this is a non sequitur to a lot of VTES players, but I really
> don't like deal-making anymore and wish people would stop spending so
> much time making deals. The game is a lot more fun, I think, when it
> (a) doesn't involve so much discussion and thus (b) is less likely to
> time out, plus (c) therefore has increased focus on the elements
> specific to VTES rather than those elements common to all multi-player
> games (ie kingmaking, cooperation, "table balancing", and all that
> nonsense).
I think limited scope dealmaking ("I'll rescue your guy if you rescue
mine|, "I'll pass your vote if you give me a pool", etc.) are acceptable
and a fine way to encourage the interactive nature of VTES. It's also fun
to determine how to offer the absolute minimum that someone will accept to
accomplish your goals.
But, the table-carving mechanism of VTES is truly abhorrent, especially
when it happens on turn 2. My response to such shennanigans is usually to
try to tip the table in such an awkward position that it's virtually a
*crime* not to swat the offending players off the damned table. Another
method I employ is to sarcastically repeat the consequence of the deal
being discussed, to the point that any person with half a brain will
immediately begin the swatting phase. If there exists a person who does
not have half a brain, then I'll exploit that person to win the game.
I'm on the SWAT team.
And SWAT believes in "Play. The. Game."
Ankur
Frederick Scott
news:1160667936....@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> I think the only way to really solve the issue of players
> "prequalifying" by getting one (or even 2) game wins early and then
> being able to shrug off round two or three is by making Game Wins on
> day 1 count for something besides just moving on to day 2.
>
> The reward shouldn't be so great that it overly rewards feast-or-famine
> play, but gaining the bonus VP, bonus pool/transfers, or even
> strength-of-schedule rewards mentioned in this thread would be worth
> considering.
I don't think it would be a good idea to give in-game rewards ("bonus
pool/transfers"). That has the affect of punishing the people who
happen to play against them, as opposed to those who don't. It might
also tend to favor certain types of decks over others. (Er, more so
than tournament structures already favor certain types of decks over
others, that is.)
> Alternatively, every player that makes it to the finals of day 2 starts
> with an extra pool for each game win on day 1 and 2 combined.
That also warps the game too much, IMHO.
Fred
LSJ
> "witness1" <jwnew...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> news:1160667936....@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > I think the only way to really solve the issue of players
> > "prequalifying" by getting one (or even 2) game wins early and then
> > being able to shrug off round two or three is by making Game Wins on
> > day 1 count for something besides just moving on to day 2.
> >
> > The reward shouldn't be so great that it overly rewards feast-or-famine
> > play, but gaining the bonus VP, bonus pool/transfers, or even
> > strength-of-schedule rewards mentioned in this thread would be worth
> > considering.
>
> I don't think it would be a good idea to give in-game rewards ("bonus
> pool/transfers"). That has the affect of punishing the people who
> happen to play against them, as opposed to those who don't.
Good call.
Changing the tournament structure without modifying the game itself is
the idea.
Having the tournament structure properly reward/weight the game goals
is the ideal.
atomweaver
news:4p74s4F...@individual.net:
> don't like deal-making anymore and wish people would stop spending so
> much time making deals. The game is a lot more fun, I think, when it
> (a) doesn't involve so much discussion and thus (b) is less likely to
> time out, plus (c) therefore has increased focus on the elements
> specific to VTES rather than those elements common to all multi-player
> games (ie kingmaking, cooperation, "table balancing", and all that
> nonsense).
>
Yeah, I can recognize the ideal. To elaborate on the problem, though; once
a table starts to deal to split the table, if you remain apart from those
conversations, you are putting yourself in a position that is likely to
lose. Since this is an international event, groups more prone towards
table deals, and who don't take issue with it, can alter the table dynamic
significantly, even in small numbers. Our (Josh D. and My) table one had
its table splitting negotaitions started by Andreas. It didn't reach the
conclusion he'd hoped for, but that's beside the point. My table three was
first negotiated to a split by Christian Chenard. Had I not finally moved
away at that point from a prior position of choosing to not participate in
negotiations, I would not have gotten even the 2 VP from that table.
This is not a negative commentary on either Andreas or Christian, of
course. For them, negotiating a table they cannot hope to win by
themselves _is_ playing. the. game. Once two people at a table head down
that road, the rest invariably must participate (even if only to ally
themselves against the dealmakers). Entreating people to Play The Game
doesn't address this issue _nearly_ sufficiently enough.
DaveZ
Atom Weaver
Gregory Stuart Pettigrew
> > I couldn't say, but I suppose that in the vast majority of cases, it
> > boiled down to a player weighing a 50% GW with 50% 0VP finish against a
> > 80/10/10 split for 2/1/0 VPs or similar. (Standard disclaimer about
> > numbers not being knowable, &c.)
>
> at least estimate them with great accuracy, is the main cause of VP deals.
>
Yes, but people are disobeying the tournament rules if they perceive a
50% chance of GW and going instead for VPs. I'd call people crazy if
they went for VPs if they had a10% chance of GW.
> That, and the amazing ability to make predictions of how a game will turn
> out, based on the first turn or three.
>
Maybe I'm still pretty inexperienced, but I only find myself capable of
successfully predicting the outcome based on the first turn or three if
Ben Peal is sitting at the table.
--
- Gregory Stuart Pettigrew
witness1
Point conceded.
Here's another idea: leave everything the same with one exception: Once
the five day 2 finalists have been determined, add in their GWs and VPs
from day 1 before determining their initial placement at the final
table. People have then some incentive besides making the finals of day
1 to improve their standing even after they've secured their day 2
slot.
This could be combined with other ideas like limiting the number of day
2 participants.
Witness1
-believe the lie.
***JediMike***
LSJ wrote:
> Actually, any multiple of 5 from 25 on gives perfect seating. 16 is
> also perfect.
True. But lets just pick "25" because I like it :)
Point being, this seems like a fix that would adress a problem that
need adressing.
Remember, if you have any Caylus questions drop me a line ;)
***JediMike***
XZealot
Except in the case where the crux of an arguement, in this case players
failing to strive for GW's, can be directly attributed to players
notifying a judge of that activity, and the judge enforcing the
appropriate measures to dissuade said activity from continuing.
Either the players did not notify the judge, in which case the
tournament structure should not be subject to scrutiny due to the
acceptance of the behavior of suspected players misbehavior, or the
players notified the judge which leads the judge to enact specific
individual cases of judgement to solve this supposed problem.
Rehlow
Salem wrote:
> Pat wrote:
>
> > P.P.S. I had not definitely decided to break the deal until the turn before
> > I ousted... but when Christian was on 2 pool with no Tupdog in play, I had
> > to go for it.
>
> totally justified!
>
> Which brings me to my question:
>
> Was there much deal-breaking at the NAC?
>
> It's always been a theory I ascribe to that the more prevalent
> deal-breaking is, the less prevalent VP-splits become.
>
> So I am not really trying to dig up the old debate of whether you should
> or should not break deals (but you should, if it'll get you a GW ;) but
> I am curious to know how many people got screwed out of the VPs they
> 'deserved' by people backstabbing in deals at the NAC (on either day)?
Depends on how you define dealbreaking. Day 1 Round 3, my prey had
ousted his prey and by that time I had built up quiet a large Ravnos
Laibon army and was starting to go after my prey. My grandprey had the
option to block my prey (his predator) and really mess him up in
combat. He was concerned about how easy a free ride I would get out of
it. We agreed that if he did, I would let him get his prey before I
would oust him. I was able to make short work of my prey, since this
deal let me put Week of Nightmares into play with one less player that
would move Week counters (wasn't part of the deal, but we were buddies
now) and that also helped him because he was playing Anarch Ravnos.
After getting my prey, I saw back a couple turns, waiting for him to
oust his prey. His prey was able to bounce his bleeds, I think had a
Blood Doll for some pool gain, and got rid of his Army of Rats. Time
was starting to tick down, so I decided that my new prey was unable to
keep his end of the deal (ousting his prey), so I decided to oust him.
Did I break my deal? Probably, but maybe not. Depends on how you view
deals. Either way, I ended with my GW and made it to Day 2, so I'd do
it again.
Later,
~Rehlow
LSJ
> Either the players did not notify the judge, in which case the
> tournament structure should not be subject to scrutiny due to the
> acceptance of the behavior of suspected players misbehavior, or the
> players notified the judge which leads the judge to enact specific
> individual cases of judgement to solve this supposed problem.
Or the deals involved risk analysis and were technically legal and
encouraged by the tournament structure.
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/a8b09375d0d8ea39
XZealot
LSJ wrote:
> XZealot wrote:
> > Either the players did not notify the judge, in which case the
> > tournament structure should not be subject to scrutiny due to the
> > acceptance of the behavior of suspected players misbehavior, or the
> > players notified the judge which leads the judge to enact specific
> > individual cases of judgement to solve this supposed problem.
>
> Or the deals involved risk analysis and were technically legal and
> encouraged by the tournament structure.
So what's the problem?
Rehlow
There is always a point where you can pretty much know you made Day 2
and then do what you want in your remaining rounds. If the cutoff is
not 1 GW, but Top 25, given tournament size X if you sweep round 1, you
can be fairly certain you already made Day 2 and then do what you want.
I guess if the number of players that make Day 2 is somewhat small,
like 25 (since that is the ideal size for table seatings) there is not
all that many points between Top 5 (making the finals) and the Top 25
that players likely to make the Top 25 will be inclined to play for
more GWs to try and make the finals of Day 1.
Later,
~Rehlow
Frederick Scott
"XZealot" <xze...@cox.net> wrote in message news:1160683136.3...@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
> LSJ wrote:
>> XZealot wrote:
>> > Either the players did not notify the judge, in which case the
>> > tournament structure should not be subject to scrutiny due to the
>> > acceptance of the behavior of suspected players misbehavior, or the
>> > players notified the judge which leads the judge to enact specific
>> > individual cases of judgement to solve this supposed problem.
>>
>> Or the deals involved risk analysis and were technically legal and
>> encouraged by the tournament structure.
>
> So what's the problem?
"Technically legal" != "Good/Desirable"
XZealot
> > So what's the problem?
>
> "Technically legal" != "Good/Desirable"
Totally subjective.
The rules set the baseline for behavior at the NAC. The rules are
agreed upon by all the participants.
I have not heard of one person who had a "Bad" time at the NAC. I have
heard of a bunch of players, who from impressions gathered are not in
"Dealmaking" playgroups. When they get to the NAC and see the players
from "Dealmaking" playgroup make a bunch of deals on the table while
they are caught flatfooted, then they complain that a multi-player game
isn't supposed to have dealmaking, which is ludicrous on its face.
Salem
> Did I break my deal? Probably, but maybe not. Depends on how you view
> deals. Either way, I ended with my GW and made it to Day 2, so I'd do
> it again.
I'd say you did break the deal. I'd also say it was the correct play!
Backstabbers FTW!
Salem
> Here's another idea: leave everything the same with one exception: Once
> the five day 2 finalists have been determined, add in their GWs and VPs
> from day 1 before determining their initial placement at the final
> table. People have then some incentive besides making the finals of day
> 1 to improve their standing even after they've secured their day 2
> slot.
>
> This could be combined with other ideas like limiting the number of day
> 2 participants.
Not bad.
something else similar might be that for determining day 2 finalists,
you rank them by their day 2 GWs first, and then their day 1 GWs, then
their day 2 vps, etc.
witness1
XZealot wrote:
> > > So what's the problem?
> >
> > "Technically legal" != "Good/Desirable"
>
> Totally subjective.
>
> The rules set the baseline for behavior at the NAC. The rules are
> agreed upon by all the participants.
How about another reason: quality of play in later rounds suffered
because those who knew they had an in to day 2 were less focused on
winning (because they knew they didn't need to).
Increasing the value of additional game wins (and VPs) could easily
have sharpened the edge of some of the later games in day 1.
> I have not heard of one person who had a "Bad" time at the NAC.
Agreed. But they did have suggestions for improvement and listed things
which detracted from their enjoyment.
> I have
> heard of a bunch of players, who from impressions gathered are not in
> "Dealmaking" playgroups. When they get to the NAC and see the players
> from "Dealmaking" playgroup make a bunch of deals on the table while
> they are caught flatfooted, then they complain that a multi-player game
> isn't supposed to have dealmaking, which is ludicrous on its face.
To some degree this is true, and I think that pretty much all of the
deals that were actually made at my tables were reasonable.
> Comments Welcome,
> Norman S. Brown, Jr
> XZealot
> Archon of the Swamp
Witness1
-believe the lie
Frederick Scott
>> > So what's the problem?
>>
>> "Technically legal" != "Good/Desirable"
>
> Totally subjective.
>
> The rules set the baseline for behavior at the NAC. The rules are
> agreed upon by all the participants.
Huh? The rules are what participants have to agree to in order to
participate. They do not constitute agreement by participants that
they were the best rules which could have been used.
> I have not heard of one person who had a "Bad" time at the NAC.
WRT this issue - as opposed to having a good or bad time in general
at the NAC, which is not the issue at hand - you could try reading
this newsgroup. This thread, even.
> I have
> heard of a bunch of players, who from impressions gathered are not in
> "Dealmaking" playgroups. When they get to the NAC and see the players
> from "Dealmaking" playgroup make a bunch of deals on the table while
> they are caught flatfooted, then they complain that a multi-player game
> isn't supposed to have dealmaking, which is ludicrous on its face.
The issue of victory-point splitting and why it's generally considered
a bad thing and why game win rule fixes it have pretty much been resolved
to the satisfaction of most people, as far as I can see. Again, not
having seen the scores and the cutoff line I can't say for sure (although
LSJ's posts sure seem to confirm it), but the first day format would appear
to emphasize the need to rack up victory points rather than game wins.
Under those circumstances, your explanation for those complaints is
pretty dubious.
Fred
XZealot
Frederick Scott wrote:
> "XZealot" <xze...@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:1160687576.4...@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> >> > So what's the problem?
> >>
> >> "Technically legal" != "Good/Desirable"
> >
> > Totally subjective.
> >
> > The rules set the baseline for behavior at the NAC. The rules are
> > agreed upon by all the participants.
>
> Huh? The rules are what participants have to agree to in order to
> participate. They do not constitute agreement by participants that
> they were the best rules which could have been used.
Nor did I say that. The "best" is even more subjective than
"Good/Desirable".
> > I have not heard of one person who had a "Bad" time at the NAC.
>
> WRT this issue - as opposed to having a good or bad time in general
> at the NAC, which is not the issue at hand - you could try reading
> this newsgroup. This thread, even.
I have read it. I was there at the NAC as well, Fred. I don't think
any of the reasons for changing the metric for making the second day
are any more valid than the metric that we have now.
> > I have
> > heard of a bunch of players, who from impressions gathered are not in
> > "Dealmaking" playgroups. When they get to the NAC and see the players
> > from "Dealmaking" playgroup make a bunch of deals on the table while
> > they are caught flatfooted, then they complain that a multi-player game
> > isn't supposed to have dealmaking, which is ludicrous on its face.
>
> The issue of victory-point splitting and why it's generally considered
> a bad thing and why game win rule fixes it have pretty much been resolved
> to the satisfaction of most people, as far as I can see. Again, not
> having seen the scores and the cutoff line I can't say for sure (although
> LSJ's posts sure seem to confirm it), but the first day format would appear
> to emphasize the need to rack up victory points rather than game wins.
> Under those circumstances, your explanation for those complaints is
> pretty dubious.
The need was to make it to the second day. 2 VPs got you to the second
day, as there were a huge amount of tables timing out. You figure out
the rest.
XZealot
witness1 wrote:
> XZealot wrote:
> > > > So what's the problem?
> > >
> > > "Technically legal" != "Good/Desirable"
> >
> > Totally subjective.
> >
> > The rules set the baseline for behavior at the NAC. The rules are
> > agreed upon by all the participants.
>
> How about another reason: quality of play in later rounds suffered
> because those who knew they had an in to day 2 were less focused on
> winning (because they knew they didn't need to).
I saw alot of time-out, but I never saw that. My first round Hugh
Bertrand swept the table 5VPs. My second round I pancaked my prey for a
VP and then was mangled by a Warghoul deck who won it by the skin of
his teeth after ousting Goudie's Potence weenie deck then ousting me.
The third round timed out as no-one could get any traction (I was a
rush wall going into someone with 20 Majesties)and we all agreed to a
mutual withdrawl for 1 VP.
> Increasing the value of additional game wins (and VPs) could easily
> have sharpened the edge of some of the later games in day 1.
>
> > I have not heard of one person who had a "Bad" time at the NAC.
>
> Agreed. But they did have suggestions for improvement and listed things
> which detracted from their enjoyment.
I didn't like getting run over by Hugh Bertrand's Weenie Dementation
S&B, and those (Dementation S&B) consisted of like 25% of the decks
that I saw. That ruined my enjoyment for that round. Ban Dementation!
It ruined the NAC! WAH!!!
Seriously, people were playing to win on every table I was at. The
only player who I heard say, "I just want 1 VP" was Hugh Bertrand about
30 seconds before he ousted me and then went on to sweep the table.
Playing to win is what Hugh is good at. He may distract you by saying
things but he won the table by every single standard that I know of.
> > I have
> > heard of a bunch of players, who from impressions gathered are not in
> > "Dealmaking" playgroups. When they get to the NAC and see the players
> > from "Dealmaking" playgroup make a bunch of deals on the table while
> > they are caught flatfooted, then they complain that a multi-player game
> > isn't supposed to have dealmaking, which is ludicrous on its face.
>
> To some degree this is true, and I think that pretty much all of the
> deals that were actually made at my tables were reasonable.
I never got pinched on a deal, but I saw lots of great deals made.
Rob Grau
>
> 3) Day 1 is an unsanctioned elimination tournament, but in reverse.
> After the first round, all players with game wins qualify for day 2 and
> are removed from the remainder of day 1. Continue until 30 players make
> the cut, and take an additional 0 to 4 players (the top-scoring
> no-GW-getting players) as needed to make day 2 a multiple of five. This
> has the daunting problem of determining seating, since seating cannot
> be made until a round is entirely over, and would have to be done by
> hand.
This option makes a GW worth the most relative to a VP. In fact, if
you were to skip taking the addition 0 to 4 players with no GWs, it
would make VPs completely worthless. Making VPs worthless would be a
surefire way to eliminate the gray area between playing for GWs and
playing for VPs.
The seating problem could be overcome through the use of a spreadsheet
or a webpage/webapp that was created specifically to handle the issue.
Rob Grau
rfg...@eos.ncsu.edu
Frederick Scott
"XZealot" <xze...@cox.net> wrote in message news:1160699649.2...@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Frederick Scott wrote:
>> "XZealot" <xze...@cox.net> wrote in message
>> news:1160687576.4...@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>> >> > So what's the problem?
>> >>
>> >> "Technically legal" != "Good/Desirable"
>> >
>> > Totally subjective.
> The "best" is even more subjective than "Good/Desirable".
It's all subjective, sure. I'm missing where you're making an
argument, here. Subjectiveness is status-quo neutral - the point
won't enhance the reasons to change the rules but it likewise doesn't
inhibit them, either. What most people like the best is probably
the way go, subjective or not.
>> > I have not heard of one person who had a "Bad" time at the NAC.
>>
>> WRT this issue - as opposed to having a good or bad time in general
>> at the NAC, which is not the issue at hand - you could try reading
>> this newsgroup. This thread, even.
>
> I have read it. I was there at the NAC as well, Fred.
OK. But you're reporting facts that don't match what everyone else is
reporting. Though whether your experience is simply at odds with other
posters or you're just skewing things by conflating this issue in
particular vs. peoples' overall experience of the NAC isn't clear to me.
> I don't think
> any of the reasons for changing the metric for making the second day
> are any more valid than the metric that we have now.
OK. Fair enough for one man's opinion.
>> > I have
>> > heard of a bunch of players, who from impressions gathered are not in
>> > "Dealmaking" playgroups. When they get to the NAC and see the players
>> > from "Dealmaking" playgroup make a bunch of deals on the table while
>> > they are caught flatfooted, then they complain that a multi-player game
>> > isn't supposed to have dealmaking, which is ludicrous on its face.
>>
>> The issue of victory-point splitting and why it's generally considered
>> a bad thing and why game win rule fixes it have pretty much been resolved
>> to the satisfaction of most people, as far as I can see. Again, not
>> having seen the scores and the cutoff line I can't say for sure (although
>> LSJ's posts sure seem to confirm it), but the first day format would appear
>> to emphasize the need to rack up victory points rather than game wins.
>> Under those circumstances, your explanation for those complaints is
>> pretty dubious.
>
> The need was to make it to the second day. 2 VPs got you to the second
> day, as there were a huge amount of tables timing out. You figure out
> the rest.
Cool. What I figure is that this is exactly the same issue which brought
us the game win rule.
Fred
XZealot
> > The "best" is even more subjective than "Good/Desirable".
>
> It's all subjective, sure. I'm missing where you're making an
> argument, here. Subjectiveness is status-quo neutral - the point
> won't enhance the reasons to change the rules but it likewise doesn't
> inhibit them, either. What most people like the best is probably
> the way go, subjective or not.
The problem with "What most people like the best" is that a consensus
must be reached on what "the best" is. I haven't heard enough of what
the "bad" stuff was to make me reconsider that the set up at the NAC
wasn't "the best". Nor have I heard a consensus being formed in this
thread to suggest that the majority of the populace at the NAC feels
that it wasn't "the best" as of the people who have posted in this
thread there are only 24 players who could have possibly attended, as I
don't know everyone's internet identity, who posted in this thread so
far. When you say "most" then you would have to mean more than 50%. 24
posters out of 67 participants is not a clear majority.
> >> > I have not heard of one person who had a "Bad" time at the NAC.
> >>
> >> WRT this issue - as opposed to having a good or bad time in general
> >> at the NAC, which is not the issue at hand - you could try reading
> >> this newsgroup. This thread, even.
> >
> > I have read it. I was there at the NAC as well, Fred.
>
> OK. But you're reporting facts that don't match what everyone else is
> reporting. Though whether your experience is simply at odds with other
> posters or you're just skewing things by conflating this issue in
> particular vs. peoples' overall experience of the NAC isn't clear to me.
Right, because no one else is giving a play by play. I did. My
experience was either normal or atypical of the NAC. There are not
enough posters posting their experience to support the thinking that a
"majority" of the participants thinking that this format wasn't "the
best".
> > I don't think
> > any of the reasons for changing the metric for making the second day
> > are any more valid than the metric that we have now.
>
> OK. Fair enough for one man's opinion.
Exactly, this thread on it's premise could almost be considered
trollbait as it presupposes a problem that no facts have been shown to
indicate. That is why I am taking such a hardline stance against it.
It has not been proven to me that Day 1 of the NAC needs to be "fixed".
> >> > I have
> >> > heard of a bunch of players, who from impressions gathered are not in
> >> > "Dealmaking" playgroups. When they get to the NAC and see the players
> >> > from "Dealmaking" playgroup make a bunch of deals on the table while
> >> > they are caught flatfooted, then they complain that a multi-player game
> >> > isn't supposed to have dealmaking, which is ludicrous on its face.
> >>
> >> The issue of victory-point splitting and why it's generally considered
> >> a bad thing and why game win rule fixes it have pretty much been resolved
> >> to the satisfaction of most people, as far as I can see. Again, not
> >> having seen the scores and the cutoff line I can't say for sure (although
> >> LSJ's posts sure seem to confirm it), but the first day format would appear
> >> to emphasize the need to rack up victory points rather than game wins.
> >> Under those circumstances, your explanation for those complaints is
> >> pretty dubious.
> >
> > The need was to make it to the second day. 2 VPs got you to the second
> > day, as there were a huge amount of tables timing out. You figure out
> > the rest.
>
> Cool. What I figure is that this is exactly the same issue which brought
> us the game win rule.
Which is a great fix. I haven't seen any suggestions that override the
elegance of that fix.
XZealot
LSJ wrote:
> As has been noted, many players were apparently not inspired to play to
> win on day 1 of the NAC, due entirely to the fact that counting the
> number of players led to the conclusion that a top-40 finish would be
> achieved with only 3 VPs over the three rounds, and might be achieved
> with only 2 VPs.
Where would I find these facts that you presuppose above that would
help someone like myself understand why all of this is necessary in the
first place.
Some good examples of facts would be
1) a list of players who will openly admit to not playing to win.
2) a list of reported players not playing to win
3) first-hand stories of those who witnessed players not playing to
win.
Thanks in advance for your help.
James Coupe
XZealot <xze...@cox.net> writes:
>LSJ wrote:
>> As has been noted, many players were apparently not inspired to play to
>> win on day 1 of the NAC, due entirely to the fact that counting the
>> number of players led to the conclusion that a top-40 finish would be
>> achieved with only 3 VPs over the three rounds, and might be achieved
>> with only 2 VPs.
>
>Where would I find these facts that you presuppose above that would
>help someone like myself understand why all of this is necessary in the
>first place.
>
>Some good examples of facts would be
>
>1) a list of players who will openly admit to not playing to win.
>2) a list of reported players not playing to win
>3) first-hand stories of those who witnessed players not playing to
>win.
In the same way that a judge exercises judgement whether or not a player
has confessed to not playing to win, why do you believe that an
internationally respected judge such as LSJ cannot present their own
judgements to the world at large for discussion and debate?
It may be worth noting that his concerns appear to chime with the
concerns of many players, which strikes me as a fairly significant fact.
You appear to be overlooking the value of having a tournament structure
in which players can have robust confidence, whether people were
actively undermining the previous structure or not. That the concerns
expressed clearly, demonstrably chime with those of an apparently large
number of players suggests that the previous structure does not have
everyone's confidence.
--
James Coupe
PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D YOU ARE IN ERROR.
EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 NO-ONE IS SCREAMING.
13D7E668C3695D623D5D THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.
James Coupe
XZealot <xze...@cox.net> writes:
>> > So what's the problem?
>>
>> "Technically legal" != "Good/Desirable"
>
>Totally subjective.
True, but not especially enlightening.
Compare with the V:EKN-wide rules change that was initiated when VPs
were made secondary to Game Wins/Table Wins. That the previous
structure, with the difference between 3VP and 2VP being so minimal that
table splits were extremely easy to convince people to take and a number
of consistent problems with (for example) annoying intercept decks that
*only* played for last-man standing to get 6VP over the course of a
tournament (quite possibly enough to reach the finals in a small
tournament), was unacceptable to many people was also a matter that was
totally subjective:
>The rules set the baseline for behavior at the NAC. The rules are
>agreed upon by all the participants.
And those were the rules that everyone was playing to. You couldn't
blame the people making the many, many table-slicing deals because they
were playing to the best advantage given the table at the time, and the
rules structure at the time. That was precisely the point. They were
doing things that were good for them (at least as they understood it -
but a judge cannot step in to correct bad play, or improve play based on
a fuller knowledge of game state). You can't get a judge to step in and
say "This play is distasteful and so you cannot do it." That way,
madness lies.
And in the situation of people not playing to win, it is extremely hard
to intervene because it's not necessarily an open and obvious thing.
They want to qualify, more than anything else, so they play to qualify.
This can involve many subtle and non-obvious, and even non-conscious,
decisions by a player. Do they go for broke and sweep-or-bust, or do
they play for a more subtle 2VPs on this table, because it will solidify
their rank and put them solidly inside the top 40? Will you be able to
tell after 10 goes round the table whether or not a potential oust on
turn 5 was or wasn't taken because they didn't have the cards in hand,
or because they were worried about other considerations? Enforcing play
to win is fine when there's a deal to be made - it's much harder when a
player has changed their own perception of what's important, based on
the rules.
Thus, change the targets that are important to them, meaning that they
have to play-to-win in order to reliably progress - rather than play to
draw, or play to come a respectable second giving them an outcome
they're happy with.
Changing the tournament rules from VPs to GWs absolutely, fundamentally
altered the targets players needed to aim for. First and foremost, they
need GWs. 2VP is not anywhere near as good as 3VP on a table split
(except on a 2-1-1-1-0 split). This changed player behaviour. There
are a lot fewer poor intercept decks that don't intend to go forward,
because 0GWs and 6 VP is a *much* poorer performance than even 1GW and
3VP.
Subjectively, those creating the rules - and those discussing the rules
at the time - didn't like some of the behaviour that the existing rules
structure encouraged. That people at the time were playing to the rules
was not the point - all power to the people who do well under whatever
set of rules. However, if the rules lead to some subjective problems
that are subjectively disliked by players, it is worth considering a
change.
The best form of change is change that leads to players enforcing the
new standards for themselves, because it is in their interests to do so.
Want players to play for table wins? Then make them important. Want
players to play for sweeps? Then rank sweeps above all else.
>I have not heard of one person who had a "Bad" time at the NAC. I have
>heard of a bunch of players, who from impressions gathered are not in
>"Dealmaking" playgroups. When they get to the NAC and see the players
>from "Dealmaking" playgroup make a bunch of deals on the table while
>they are caught flatfooted, then they complain that a multi-player game
>isn't supposed to have dealmaking, which is ludicrous on its face.
I didn't hear many people telling me how bad a time they'd had at a
tournament I was at under the VP-only system, whether I was playing or
judging. Lots of people enjoyed playing V:TES in a friendly but
competitive environment with people they didn't see that often, come
what may. They may have found a particular table annoying, but they
didn't go away telling everyone how bad a time they'd had.
If, then, we need a non-subjective change, players must have been
playing under some other rules structure that wasn't agreed to by them,
and we need players to be openly telling us how bad a time they have at
tournaments before a rules change can be made... when will you be
campaigning to a return to the VP only system?
That was a subjective change made to a system that all players had
agreed to play under, and some people found the effects annoying but
weren't telling everyone how bad a time they had at major tournaments,
so it is clearly an entirely illegitimate rules change. By the
standards you are expressing here, that is.
If the GW rules are fine, however, what's the difference here? Players
play under the rules, some players don't like some of the effects (but
enjoy the tournaments nevertheless), players discuss rules change.
Which is, in fact, exactly the same procedure as for pretty much every
other rules change that's ever been made by V:EKN and every card
banning:
1) People happy to play but would prefer a change that they believe
would make games more open, competitive and fun (e.g. tweaks to the
multi-action rules so that some decks are much less affected, or the
banning of Succubus Club)
->
2) idea considered by appropriate people (V:EKN, Rules Team, rules-
writers/Design Team, or whoever is appropriate for that particular
change)
->
3) idea implemented or rejected, based on the subjective merits of the
arguments put forward, and the subjective evaluation of player behaviour
seen by the relevant people.
You appear to be arguing that this rules change suggestion must pass a
whole mountain of criteria that have never been applied in the past,
before even being discussed.
Why?
XZealot
James Coupe wrote:
> In message <1160707588.6...@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> XZealot <xze...@cox.net> writes:
> >LSJ wrote:
> >> As has been noted, many players were apparently not inspired to play to
> >> win on day 1 of the NAC, due entirely to the fact that counting the
> >> number of players led to the conclusion that a top-40 finish would be
> >> achieved with only 3 VPs over the three rounds, and might be achieved
> >> with only 2 VPs.
> >
> >Where would I find these facts that you presuppose above that would
> >help someone like myself understand why all of this is necessary in the
> >first place.
> >
> >Some good examples of facts would be
> >
> >1) a list of players who will openly admit to not playing to win.
> >2) a list of reported players not playing to win
> >3) first-hand stories of those who witnessed players not playing to
> >win.
>
> In the same way that a judge exercises judgement whether or not a player
> has confessed to not playing to win, why do you believe that an
> internationally respected judge such as LSJ cannot present their own
> judgements to the world at large for discussion and debate?
I think LSJ is a great judge.
Hell, I know Scott. I consider him my friend. I've known him for
years. It isn't going to stop me from questioning his decision to
alter the NAC tournament structure that has worked well for us here in
the USA. So don't try and turn this around and say I am trying to tear
him down. I am not. I want to know what he is basing this decision
on.
> It may be worth noting that his concerns appear to chime with the
> concerns of many players, which strikes me as a fairly significant fact.
Please list those players that were actually at the NAC. Don't list the
players who are jumping on the bandwagon who weren't at the NAC.
> You appear to be overlooking the value of having a tournament structure
> in which players can have robust confidence, whether people were
> actively undermining the previous structure or not. That the concerns
> expressed clearly, demonstrably chime with those of an apparently large
> number of players suggests that the previous structure does not have
> everyone's confidence.
No, I was there. I saw what happened because I was there. I didn't
see alot of players not trying to win. I saw alot of deals. I saw
deals get broken. This is normal for the NAC, and I am pretty sure it
is normal for the EC. I see no reason for that to change the
tournament structure because of that.
XZealot
James Coupe wrote:
> In message <1160687576.4...@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
> XZealot <xze...@cox.net> writes:
> >> > So what's the problem?
> >>
> >> "Technically legal" != "Good/Desirable"
> >
> >Totally subjective.
>
> True, but not especially enlightening.
>
But that is not what we are talking about here. We are talking about
changing the NAC's structure next year in Los Angeles because of some
dealmaking.
> >The rules set the baseline for behavior at the NAC. The rules are
> >agreed upon by all the participants.
>
> And those were the rules that everyone was playing to. You couldn't
> blame the people making the many, many table-slicing deals because they
> were playing to the best advantage given the table at the time, and the
> rules structure at the time. That was precisely the point. They were
> doing things that were good for them (at least as they understood it -
> but a judge cannot step in to correct bad play, or improve play based on
> a fuller knowledge of game state).
Players carve up tables in every single NAC and most qualifiers I have
every been to. It is trying to create an advantage. I don't have a
problem with that.
Your rhetoric is wasted on me. I know all of this already. It does
not justify changing the NAC. No matter how many times you say it.
> >I have not heard of one person who had a "Bad" time at the NAC. I have
> >heard of a bunch of players, who from impressions gathered are not in
> >"Dealmaking" playgroups. When they get to the NAC and see the players
> >from "Dealmaking" playgroup make a bunch of deals on the table while
> >they are caught flatfooted, then they complain that a multi-player game
> >isn't supposed to have dealmaking, which is ludicrous on its face.
>
> I didn't hear many people telling me how bad a time they'd had at a
> tournament I was at under the VP-only system, whether I was playing or
> judging. Lots of people enjoyed playing V:TES in a friendly but
> competitive environment with people they didn't see that often, come
> what may. They may have found a particular table annoying, but they
> didn't go away telling everyone how bad a time they'd had.
I heard all the bitching then. It was overwhelming. I remember that
well.
> If, then, we need a non-subjective change, players must have been
> playing under some other rules structure that wasn't agreed to by them,
> and we need players to be openly telling us how bad a time they have at
> tournaments before a rules change can be made... when will you be
> campaigning to a return to the VP only system?
So now you postulate a "strawman" that I am trying to get rid of the GW
system. I am not and I have never said so. Try again.
> If the GW rules are fine, however, what's the difference here?
I saw the reason for the GW rules. It was really a great solution to a
bad problem. To deal away a table then meant you could score the
minority of the VP's in every game and depending on tournament size you
could still make the finals, but now it means all you are playing for
is tiebreaker points which is not nearly as good as GWs which actually
determine if a tiebreaker is even necessary in the first place.
I didn't see anything like that at the NAC. That's why I keep asking
for some facts. Why do they want to change the structure of the NAC
because players were allegedly not playing to win?
> You appear to be arguing that this rules change suggestion must pass a
> whole mountain of criteria that have never been applied in the past,
> before even being discussed.
I want to know why this assumption that "Day 1 needs to be Fixed" is
already set into stone .
Jozxyqk
> As has been noted, many players were apparently not inspired to play to
> win on day 1 of the NAC, due entirely to the fact that counting the
> number of players led to the conclusion that a top-40 finish would be
> achieved with only 3 VPs over the three rounds, and might be achieved
> with only 2 VPs.
> Options to remedy that:
Here's another idea:
Following suit with the US Championship, what if Day 1 were a Draft format
event, and Day 2 were Constructed?
Cooper
LSJ wrote:
> 4) Make a single 5+F tournament, spread over 2 days. Again a bit of a
> seating problem creeps in. And the kingmaking aspect of being
> eliminated from the finals before round 5 begins. Plus the unfun aspect
> of playing the same deck five times in a row.
>
Would it be so bad to be able to change decks between days, but still
count it as one tournament?
I didnt have time to read through the whole thread, so if it is
mentioned somewhere else, sorry,
W
LSJ
> LSJ wrote:
> > As has been noted, many players were apparently not inspired to play to
> > win on day 1 of the NAC, due entirely to the fact that counting the
> > number of players led to the conclusion that a top-40 finish would be
> > achieved with only 3 VPs over the three rounds, and might be achieved
> > with only 2 VPs.
>
> Where would I find these facts that you presuppose above that would
> help someone like myself understand why all of this is necessary in the
> first place.
>
> Some good examples of facts would be
>
> 1) a list of players who will openly admit to not playing to win.
> 2) a list of reported players not playing to win
> 3) first-hand stories of those who witnessed players not playing to
> win.
I heard from several players directly that they had built decks based
on the format (i.e., decks designed to get 1 or 2 VPs with high
probability at the expense of the probability of getting GWs). And I
heard from still more players that players at their tables were much
more willing to take a 1 or 2 VP split (based on risk analysis,
perhaps) over a GW than in "normal" tournaments.
Not confusing anecdotes with statistics, and not having statistics with
which to work, I instead examined the tournament structure itself to
see if there would be any basis or reason for the change in behavoir
that was expressed and/or perceived (such examination as suggested,
implied, andor detailed by some of the players who voiced concerns in
the first place).
The result of the examination was that, yes indeed, a 40-of-65 cut is
low enough to influence, if not outright undermine, players' weighting
of the need to devote resources and/or risk additional loss for the
goal of achieving a GW over merely a few VPs.
witness1
Exactly. The point isn't necessarily that the current structure is
terrible, or that the players did or did not do something. But changing
the format so that the goal "Win the NAC" lines up more closely with
the goal "Win all my games on day 1" basically can't hurt day 1 games,
so long as the rules of any individual game aren't changed (The
pool/transfer bonus was definitely a bad idea on that count).
Similarly, it seems like in previous years people were somewhat
dissatisfied with the ratio of "feast-or-famine" decks which made it to
the final table. Everyone was still playing by the same rules, and
everyone was playing to win, but the format encouraged certain types of
play over others, and left enough people dissatisfied that it got
changed to the current format.
To some degree this is an intractable problem. Not everyone will ever
agree on what makes the perfect environment for a Championship. But it
seems pretty easy to determine that the ideal is somewhere in between
day 1 performance mattering not at all (past breaking the top 40) and
counting for as much as day 2 GWs (and rewarding feast-or-famine).
Witness1
-believe the lie
Frederick Scott
"XZealot" <xze...@cox.net> wrote in message news:1160706887.5...@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
> The problem with "What most people like the best" is that a consensus
> must be reached on what "the best" is. I haven't heard enough of what
> the "bad" stuff was to make me reconsider that the set up at the NAC
> wasn't "the best". Nor have I heard a consensus being formed in this
> thread to suggest that the majority of the populace at the NAC feels
> that it wasn't "the best" as of the people who have posted in this
> thread there are only 24 players who could have possibly attended, as I
> don't know everyone's internet identity, who posted in this thread so
> far. When you say "most" then you would have to mean more than 50%. 24
> posters out of 67 participants is not a clear majority.
Questioning the accuracy of the perception that the population of
players dislikes the existing format is reasonable enough. But I'm not
sure what the emphasis on players who were actually present in 2006 has
to do with anything nor your concern with the concept of a majority.
The former misses point in that the question is about what the rules
will be in the future, and it doesn't require someone to have been
present in Atlanta to form the opinion that a format qualifying 50+%
of the players causes a problem. People can see that without having
been there. And the latter is silly given that more than two ways of
running the NAC are possible so it's quite likely that no choice would
garner a technical definition of a "majority". The question is simply
one of choosing whatever best satisfies the largest portion of people.
>> >> The issue of victory-point splitting and why it's generally considered
>> >> a bad thing and why game win rule fixes it have pretty much been resolved
>> >> to the satisfaction of most people, as far as I can see. Again, not
>> >> having seen the scores and the cutoff line I can't say for sure (although
>> >> LSJ's posts sure seem to confirm it), but the first day format would appear
>> >> to emphasize the need to rack up victory points rather than game wins.
>> >> Under those circumstances, your explanation for those complaints is
>> >> pretty dubious.
>> >
>> > The need was to make it to the second day. 2 VPs got you to the second
>> > day, as there were a huge amount of tables timing out. You figure out
>> > the rest.
>>
>> Cool. What I figure is that this is exactly the same issue which brought
>> us the game win rule.
>
> Which is a great fix. I haven't seen any suggestions that override the
> elegance of that fix.
I will repeat: the first day format would appear to emphasize the need to
rack up victory points rather than game wins. Therefore, the "elegance of
that (the game win) fix" in the current first day has been bypassed. All
of LSJ's suggestion are geared towards addressing that point.
Fred
Matthew T. Morgan
> I heard from several players directly that they had built decks based
> on the format (i.e., decks designed to get 1 or 2 VPs with high
> probability at the expense of the probability of getting GWs). And I
> heard from still more players that players at their tables were much
> more willing to take a 1 or 2 VP split (based on risk analysis,
> perhaps) over a GW than in "normal" tournaments.
That's really pathetic. I don't know who these players were, but they
need to wake up and learn how to play this game. Any player who needs to
resort to such measures to get to day 2 isn't going to be the NAC champ.
No way. Not with all the luck in the world.
Matt Morgan
witness1
The thing of it is, at least some of those players probably *didn't*
need to resort to those measures to get to day 2. But the format
rewarded that behavior, and they saw that it did, and they took
advantage of it, for whatever reason.
> Matt Morgan
Witness1
-believe the lie
LSJ
Indeed.
One can expect that any player competent enough to reasonably entertain
the notion that he or she could win the NAC should be competent enough
to figure out the tournament structure and build decks and/or ajust his
or her play accordingly (in accordance with the rules).
Similar to predicting the metagame. Only this time, there's less
guesswork involved.
James Coupe
XZealot <xze...@cox.net> writes:
>Please list those players that were actually at the NAC. Don't list the
>players who are jumping on the bandwagon who weren't at the NAC.
In what way does that have any relevance at all? "You weren't at a
tournament I was at so you don't get to have an opinion, na-na-na-na-
na"? Grow up.
The point is to fix it for the *next* NAC. You know, not the one that
just happened. The *next* one.
Please list all the players who will be at the *next* NAC, and who will
be affected by the rules change.
Please also consider that it is not just the NAC that uses a two-day
tournament structure. It is quite possible that a discussion for a
rules change of the NAC will impact other major tournaments - perhaps
next year's US National Championship might choose to do it, or next
year's EC, or a major tournament in (say) France or Spain with 100
players at it might choose to do exactly the same.
Please list all the people who would be affected by a rules change being
adopted at a different tournament. Because they're the ones who'll have
to live with the consequences.
Your position of "You weren't there so shut up" is completely
nonsensical. It doesn't matter about this particular NAC. People can
discuss two day tournaments in general. If LSJ had only wanted input
from people who were at the NAC, I think he's: a) perfectly capable of
saying so himself with you appointing yourself in charge of who's
allowed to take part in the discussion, and b) wouldn't do it in a
public newsgroup where people from the entire planet take part.
XZealot
James Coupe wrote:
> In message <1160728928....@f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
> XZealot <xze...@cox.net> writes:
> >Please list those players that were actually at the NAC. Don't list the
> >players who are jumping on the bandwagon who weren't at the NAC.
>
> In what way does that have any relevance at all? "You weren't at a
> tournament I was at so you don't get to have an opinion, na-na-na-na-
> na"? Grow up.
I am trying to get to the root of the problem, not obfuscating it with
your childish banter.
> The point is to fix it for the *next* NAC. You know, not the one that
> just happened. The *next* one.
Only if a fix is needed.
> Please also consider that it is not just the NAC that uses a two-day
> tournament structure. It is quite possible that a discussion for a
> rules change of the NAC will impact other major tournaments - perhaps
> next year's US National Championship might choose to do it, or next
> year's EC, or a major tournament in (say) France or Spain with 100
> players at it might choose to do exactly the same.
It is the only current model to base any changes on. There are no
other 2 day tournaments of similar size, structure and importance.
> Your position of "You weren't there so shut up" is completely
> nonsensical. It doesn't matter about this particular NAC.
It makes lots of sense. I didn't see any problems existing at the
tournament, and this thread's basis is the assumption that one exists.
> People can
> discuss two day tournaments in general. If LSJ had only wanted input
> from people who were at the NAC, I think he's: a) perfectly capable of
> saying so himself with you appointing yourself in charge of who's
> allowed to take part in the discussion, and b) wouldn't do it in a
> public newsgroup where people from the entire planet take part.
I don't think there was a problem with the NAC that needs changing.
XZealot
Frederick Scott wrote:
> "XZealot" <xze...@cox.net> wrote in message news:1160706887.5...@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
> > The problem with "What most people like the best" is that a consensus
> > must be reached on what "the best" is. I haven't heard enough of what
> > the "bad" stuff was to make me reconsider that the set up at the NAC
> > wasn't "the best". Nor have I heard a consensus being formed in this
> > thread to suggest that the majority of the populace at the NAC feels
> > that it wasn't "the best" as of the people who have posted in this
> > thread there are only 24 players who could have possibly attended, as I
> > don't know everyone's internet identity, who posted in this thread so
> > far. When you say "most" then you would have to mean more than 50%. 24
> > posters out of 67 participants is not a clear majority.
>
> Questioning the accuracy of the perception that the population of
> players dislikes the existing format is reasonable enough.
Thanks for acknowledging my main point.
> But I'm not
> sure what the emphasis on players who were actually present in 2006 has
> to do with anything nor your concern with the concept of a majority.
> The former misses point in that the question is about what the rules
> will be in the future, and it doesn't require someone to have been
> present in Atlanta to form the opinion that a format qualifying 50+%
> of the players causes a problem. People can see that without having
> been there. And the latter is silly given that more than two ways of
> running the NAC are possible so it's quite likely that no choice would
> garner a technical definition of a "majority". The question is simply
> one of choosing whatever best satisfies the largest portion of people.
Nice counterpoint, but the main point of switching to a 2 Day process
is to make all decktypes viable not just decktypes that can get 2-3
GWs. At least that was how I understood the sales pitch to switch to a
2 day tournament. The current model satifies that goal. Now we have a
new goal which is to keep players from trying to take advantage of that
model. In the next year or two it will change to restructure it again.
> >> >> The issue of victory-point splitting and why it's generally considered
> >> >> a bad thing and why game win rule fixes it have pretty much been resolved
> >> >> to the satisfaction of most people, as far as I can see. Again, not
> >> >> having seen the scores and the cutoff line I can't say for sure (although
> >> >> LSJ's posts sure seem to confirm it), but the first day format would appear
> >> >> to emphasize the need to rack up victory points rather than game wins.
> >> >> Under those circumstances, your explanation for those complaints is
> >> >> pretty dubious.
> >> >
> >> > The need was to make it to the second day. 2 VPs got you to the second
> >> > day, as there were a huge amount of tables timing out. You figure out
> >> > the rest.
> >>
> >> Cool. What I figure is that this is exactly the same issue which brought
> >> us the game win rule.
> >
> > Which is a great fix. I haven't seen any suggestions that override the
> > elegance of that fix.
>
> I will repeat: the first day format would appear to emphasize the need to
> rack up victory points rather than game wins. Therefore, the "elegance of
> that (the game win) fix" in the current first day has been bypassed. All
> of LSJ's suggestion are geared towards addressing that point.
The first day format emphasises getting to the second day. With 65
players, that gives us an availible pool of 39 Game Wins which is
almost exactly the number of second day spots So why were there so few
game wins? The answer is because players won't "Shut Up and Play the
Game".
The problem isn't the number of spots in the second day. The problem
is the players.
Don't change the format of the tournament; just make the rounds longer.
Frederick Scott
> Frederick Scott wrote:
>> But I'm not
>> sure what the emphasis on players who were actually present in 2006 has
>> to do with anything nor your concern with the concept of a majority.
>> The former misses point in that the question is about what the rules
>> will be in the future, and it doesn't require someone to have been
>> present in Atlanta to form the opinion that a format qualifying 50+%
>> of the players causes a problem. People can see that without having
>> been there. And the latter is silly given that more than two ways of
>> running the NAC are possible so it's quite likely that no choice would
>> garner a technical definition of a "majority". The question is simply
>> one of choosing whatever best satisfies the largest portion of people.
>
> Nice counterpoint, but the main point of switching to a 2 Day process
> is to make all decktypes viable not just decktypes that can get 2-3
> GWs. At least that was how I understood the sales pitch to switch to a
> 2 day tournament.
Agreed; that was my understanding as well, albeit with the caveat that
we're talking about "not just decktypes that can get 2-3 GWs" in three
preliminary round games - as opposed to five or six preliminary round
games. (So, for instance, LSJ's option #4 still satisfies this point,
as do all of his options IMHO.) The point, I believe, has to do with not
biasing the tournament towards high-risk, high-reward type decks and thus
having a tournament whose character was at odds with what people are used
to in, say, a CQ tournament. Or at least, I'm assuming this last part
but I think it's fairly accurate description of the reasoning.
> The current model satifies that goal. Now we have a
> new goal which is to keep players from trying to take advantage of that
> model. In the next year or two it will change to restructure it again.
Agreed the current model satisfies that goal. But it has another problem.
If we satisfy one goal with a tournament structure change, must we ignore
all other new issues that we discover along the way?
Yes, if we solve this new problem and find yet a third distinct problem
in our next choice, then I suppose you would be right: we would restructure
it yet again in a year or two. I don't see how that's a given, however.
And if it happens, I don't really see it as bad problem. Sometimes things
like this take a while to get right. But you'll never get a thing right
if you ignore the problems.
>> I will repeat: the first day format would appear to emphasize the need to
>> rack up victory points rather than game wins. Therefore, the "elegance of
>> that (the game win) fix" in the current first day has been bypassed. All
>> of LSJ's suggestion are geared towards addressing that point.
>
> The first day format emphasises getting to the second day. With 65
> players, that gives us an availible pool of 39 Game Wins which is
> almost exactly the number of second day spots So why were there so few
> game wins? The answer is because players won't "Shut Up and Play the
> Game".
And the reason people won't "shut up and play the game"? Isn't is possible
that the perceived need to just score a high number of victory points,
rather than get game wins, is exactly _why_ all the negotiation? It
seems logical to me that people planning decks to take victory points and
split tables is, in part, a self-fulfilling prophesy. I also think
expecting 39 tables to provide 39 game wins to 39 separate players in a
tournament is outrageously naive. Under the best of circumstances there
probably wouldn't be more than 30 and I suspect more than 25 is probably
a better estimate.
Whatever the reason, some people apparently perceived game wins were
unnecessary on the first day and: 1) that perception proved to be accurate;
and also 2) that perception automatically causes the same problem which
is why the game win was invented. The answer is the same: fix the
tournament structure so you don't need to run your judges around to all
the tables to MAKE PEOPLE "shut up and play the game" - nor (worse!) have
to make lots of hairy judgements about when they should give that order.
> The problem isn't the number of spots in the second day. The problem
> is the players.
Since the problem can be solved by altering the format, it seems much
better to do that. Solving it by injecting copious amounts of judicial
fiat is not going to be most peoples' choice, IME. And, again - this
is the exact same thinking that was why we went to the game win in the
first place: giving players the right incentive to play to win is better
than making judges render subjective determinations about when they are
or are not doing that.
I kind of get the impression we haven't really heard your real reason
for resisting a change. I don't think it's just that another change to
the format is too soon. OK, you like the existing format. But what
is it about the existing format that you would miss under all the
proposals to change it?
Fred
XZealot
The funny thing is that I saw only one high risk high reward deck on
Day 1, Hugh Betrand's Turbo Dem that ousted me in like 8 minutes. From
what I understood there were a bunch of control/intercept decks in play
that caused alot of timeouts.
> > The current model satifies that goal. Now we have a
> > new goal which is to keep players from trying to take advantage of that
> > model. In the next year or two it will change to restructure it again.
>
> Agreed the current model satisfies that goal. But it has another problem.
> If we satisfy one goal with a tournament structure change, must we ignore
> all other new issues that we discover along the way?
There is always going to be a problem that you can't solve (Why can't
it be sunny today?). I don't think that shrinking the Day 2
participation level solves any more problems than it creates.
> Yes, if we solve this new problem and find yet a third distinct problem
> in our next choice, then I suppose you would be right: we would restructure
> it yet again in a year or two. I don't see how that's a given, however.
> And if it happens, I don't really see it as bad problem. Sometimes things
> like this take a while to get right. But you'll never get a thing right
> if you ignore the problems.
That's a good arguement for change in general, but I don't think that
change is warrented in this situation.
> >> I will repeat: the first day format would appear to emphasize the need to
> >> rack up victory points rather than game wins. Therefore, the "elegance of
> >> that (the game win) fix" in the current first day has been bypassed. All
> >> of LSJ's suggestion are geared towards addressing that point.
> >
> > The first day format emphasises getting to the second day. With 65
> > players, that gives us an availible pool of 39 Game Wins which is
> > almost exactly the number of second day spots So why were there so few
> > game wins? The answer is because players won't "Shut Up and Play the
> > Game".
>
> And the reason people won't "shut up and play the game"? Isn't is possible
> that the perceived need to just score a high number of victory points,
> rather than get game wins, is exactly _why_ all the negotiation? It
> seems logical to me that people planning decks to take victory points and
> split tables is, in part, a self-fulfilling prophesy. I also think
> expecting 39 tables to provide 39 game wins to 39 separate players in a
> tournament is outrageously naive. Under the best of circumstances there
> probably wouldn't be more than 30 and I suspect more than 25 is probably
> a better estimate.
Then the problem isn't the tournament structure, the problem is the
time limit. Get rid of tables timing out by lengthening or eliminating
the time limit.
> Whatever the reason, some people apparently perceived game wins were
> unnecessary on the first day and: 1) that perception proved to be accurate;
> and also 2) that perception automatically causes the same problem which
> is why the game win was invented. The answer is the same: fix the
> tournament structure so you don't need to run your judges around to all
> the tables to MAKE PEOPLE "shut up and play the game" - nor (worse!) have
> to make lots of hairy judgements about when they should give that order.
Yet, those players don't win NACs. It is the kind of half-playing that
is the deathknell for competitive play. I didn't see anyone play that
way. I think this whole thing is boxing at shadows. I didn't see the
problem as it was enumerated. I think there was a bunch of whining
about the finals timing out. I think there was a bunch of whining
about table deals. I didn't see any one though not try to win his
table.
> > The problem isn't the number of spots in the second day. The problem
> > is the players.
>
> Since the problem can be solved by altering the format, it seems much
> better to do that. Solving it by injecting copious amounts of judicial
> fiat is not going to be most peoples' choice, IME. And, again - this
> is the exact same thinking that was why we went to the game win in the
> first place: giving players the right incentive to play to win is better
> than making judges render subjective determinations about when they are
> or are not doing that.
>
> I kind of get the impression we haven't really heard your real reason
> for resisting a change.
Pick one of the below.
a) I was the 40th player.
b) I killed the butler with the candlestick in the living room.
c) I was traumatized by spiders with clowns as a child.
Which of the above is true? Which of the above have any impact on the
arguement for changing the rules.
>I don't think it's just that another change to
> the format is too soon. OK, you like the existing format. But what
> is it about the existing format that you would miss under all the
> proposals to change it?
I would miss the following
a) The format itself.
which I think is fine, and enjoyable.
b) The emphasis on the player rather than the deck.
which will happen as players feel the need to play faster and more
vicious decks (i.e. more of the OBF DEM stealth bleed that already
populates 25% of the NAC)
c) The slower pace of most of the play that I saw (the exception being
my round 1 speed oust)
which will disappear as players must win tables to make the next round,
although I guess maybe that the point.
d) Los Angeles
which will seem somewhat contrived to me as players are trying to
calculate which deck to play based upon an ever more shifting set of
nuances that the organizers place in the players way to try to change
the way players behave which really isnt Los Angeles fault (trying...
to... dodge... pun....).