Re: Final Symptoms and Proposed Remedies
Peter D Bakija
> - I would like to propose the following : the seating at the last table
> is randomised as all the rest (the first are advantaged anyway for final
> counting, and it doesn't advantage the players who saw each other's
> decks, or lurked, or had outside info...).
This is a bad idea. The ability to chose seating in the final is the only
thing that rewards player for doing well in previous rounds, and rewards
player skill at knowing where to sit. Which is a very significant part of
the tournament rules.
> The precise ranking of each
> player is kept secret by the organisation (yes, it requires orga
> integrity, but then what doesn't ?).
Impossible to do, as there will always be a general knowledge of how most
folks are doing.
>And all players must play to win the game, period.
That is already the case. As it stands, there are two ways to win a
tournament:
A) Win the final.
B) Have the final tme out in a 5 way tie (give or take) and be the first
seed going in.
As the only way to win in situation (B) is to be the first seed, the other 4
players have all the incentive in the world to actively try and win--I can't
for the life of me see why so many games time out in ties. Sure, first seed
has incentive for the game to time out as a 5 way tie, but the other 4
players don't, so they should be trying their best to actively win.
Peter D Bakija
pd...@lightlink.com
http://www.lightlink.com/pdb6
"How does this end?"
"In fire."
Emperor Turhan and Kosh
Orpheus
I dunno how it is in the States, but in every big tournie I've seen in
Europe the finals were static for a long time, mostly boring, all for a
very simple reason : people weren't all trying to win the game, just to
optimise their position according to their previous placement. For
example, in this week's tournie (not a big one, but people here now are
serious players) I played to win the game ; had I not, my interest was
just survive and let my grand'prey kill his, this would have put me one
rank above the one I ended up in ; in the finals of the Open de France,
I was first qualified, and had I played to resist and not to win I would
have ended up first instead of dying and ending up fifth.
I see there a flaw in the tournament rules.
So, in no particular order :
- must the finals also be played to win the current game, of can they be
played according to the position of each players in final ranking ?
- I would like to propose the following : the seating at the last table
is randomised as all the rest (the first are advantaged anyway for final
counting, and it doesn't advantage the players who saw each other's
decks, or lurked, or had outside info...). The precise ranking of each
player is kept secret by the organisation (yes, it requires orga
integrity, but then what doesn't ?). And all players must play to win
the game, period. Immediate consequence : more daring, interesting
games, where players actually try to score VPs instead of just sitting
and waiting.
- an alternative solution would be that only the final VPs count, the
rest of the ties being solved as "usual" : with TPs and randomness. Or
just : put everyone equal, like 1st player has 2 Vps, 2 tied 3rd players
with 0,5 and 2 tied 5th player with nothing. It would have the same
positive consequence, and change a little the ranking things, but
nothing too lethal.
Inputs, comments etc are welcome.
Orpheus, pro-active finalist (whenever finalist at all).
Orpheus
> Orpheus wrote:
>
>
>>- I would like to propose the following : the seating at the last table
>>is randomised as all the rest (the first are advantaged anyway for final
>>counting, and it doesn't advantage the players who saw each other's
>>decks, or lurked, or had outside info...).
>
>
> This is a bad idea. The ability to chose seating in the final is the only
> thing that rewards player for doing well in previous rounds, and rewards
> player skill at knowing where to sit. Which is a very significant part of
> the tournament rules.
It rewards the skill if you know who you are facing. When you got to
choose last but have no idea of what anyone else is playing, you
actually have a big disadvantage on anyone who for some reason have that
type of info. Not good IMO.
>>The precise ranking of each
>>player is kept secret by the organisation (yes, it requires orga
>>integrity, but then what doesn't ?).
>
>
> Impossible to do, as there will always be a general knowledge of how most
> folks are doing.
General, for sure. Not precise enough. There are often ties, sometimes
"untied" by TPs (whom no one will ba able to calculate for everyone...).
All in all, you'll get the general idea, but nothing more, and not even
that in a big tournie (where everyone usually has between 9 and 6 VPs).
>>And all players must play to win the game, period.
>
> That is already the case. As it stands, there are two ways to win a
> tournament:
>
> A) Win the final.
Normal game in my book.
> B) Have the final tme out in a 5 way tie (give or take) and be the first
> seed going in.
Ugly but often seen.
> As the only way to win in situation (B) is to be the first seed, the other 4
> players have all the incentive in the world to actively try and win--I can't
> for the life of me see why so many games time out in ties. Sure, first seed
> has incentive for the game to time out as a 5 way tie, but the other 4
> players don't, so they should be trying their best to actively win.
Except that all but the fifth may fear to go down instead of up. WHich
seems to be a factor for many good players, or else there is something I
don't understand either.
Also, do not underestimate the impact on the game of half the table
playing to resist instead of winning. If you must go all-out to hurt
your prey, you become an easy one for your predator. You take undue
risks. So only 1-2 players are more than enough to "kill" a table.
Deadly Yours,
Orpheus
Peter D Bakija
> It rewards the skill if you know who you are facing. When you got to
> choose last but have no idea of what anyone else is playing, you
> actually have a big disadvantage on anyone who for some reason have that
> type of info. Not good IMO.
See, but a lot of the time, you have all the information you need either
through direct contact or word on the street. I think the flaw here is not
"having too much information" but "not having free access to information".
Everyone, going into the finals should, at the very least, have a vague idea
of what decks everyone is playing--we shouldn't be trying to make
information *less* accessible. It should be more.
> Normal game in my book.
Me too.
> Ugly but often seen.
I haven't seen much of that. I was in one final where the game timed out
with 4 players left (and I won, 'cause at the end of the final, I have 1.5
VPs where everyone else had .5 VP), but most of the time in games I've been
in or seen, someone has actually won.
> Except that all but the fifth may fear to go down instead of up. WHich
> seems to be a factor for many good players, or else there is something I
> don't understand either.
Go down where? Either you win, or you don't.
> Also, do not underestimate the impact on the game of half the table
> playing to resist instead of winning. If you must go all-out to hurt
> your prey, you become an easy one for your predator. You take undue
> risks. So only 1-2 players are more than enough to "kill" a table.
What do you mean "resist"? I go into a final round trying to win. If I don't
win, it doesn't matter what place I come in--again, either you win or you
don't. Personally, my additude is either win or die trying. I'd much rather
be ousted trying to win a game and die on a gamble than hang on the whole 2
hours to get a .5 VP. But maybe that is just me.
lehrbuch
> organisation (yes, it requires orga integrity, but then
> what doesn't ?).
Not possible. The formula for calculating rankings is known (and must
be to have any value), therefore anyone who wishes to can work out the
rankings for themselves. Of course, possibly not everybody could be
bothered.
--
* lehrbuch (lehr...@gmail.com)
LSJ
> - must the finals also be played to win the current game, of can they be
> played according to the position of each players in final ranking ?
The players' rankings are part of the final game (unless some alternate
rules are being used), so playing to win naturally accomodates playing
according to those rankings.
--
LSJ (vtesr...@TRAPwhite-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep (remove spam trap to reply)
Links to V:TES news, rules, cards, utilities, and tournament calendar:
http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/
Orpheus
>
>
>>It rewards the skill if you know who you are facing. When you got to
>>choose last but have no idea of what anyone else is playing, you
>>actually have a big disadvantage on anyone who for some reason have that
>>type of info. Not good IMO.
>
>
> See, but a lot of the time, you have all the information you need either
> through direct contact or word on the street. I think the flaw here is not
> "having too much information" but "not having free access to information".
> Everyone, going into the finals should, at the very least, have a vague idea
> of what decks everyone is playing--we shouldn't be trying to make
> information *less* accessible. It should be more.
Interesting idea. So what do you suggest ? Going around and asking
people ? Each player describes his deck ? The easiest way maybe would be
: when you put your vampire on the table for final placement, you also
have to show your whole crypt.
>>Ugly but often seen.
>
> I haven't seen much of that. I was in one final where the game timed out
> with 4 players left (and I won, 'cause at the end of the final, I have 1.5
> VPs where everyone else had .5 VP), but most of the time in games I've been
> in or seen, someone has actually won.
Variant : someone moved and was the only one to die.
>>Except that all but the fifth may fear to go down instead of up. WHich
>>seems to be a factor for many good players, or else there is something I
>>don't understand either.
>
>
> Go down where? Either you win, or you don't.
Quite right. But some people 2 is better than 5 in most player's books.
>>Also, do not underestimate the impact on the game of half the table
>>playing to resist instead of winning. If you must go all-out to hurt
>>your prey, you become an easy one for your predator. You take undue
>>risks. So only 1-2 players are more than enough to "kill" a table.
>
>
> What do you mean "resist"? I go into a final round trying to win. If I don't
> win, it doesn't matter what place I come in--again, either you win or you
> don't. Personally, my additude is either win or die trying. I'd much rather
> be ousted trying to win a game and die on a gamble than hang on the whole 2
> hours to get a .5 VP. But maybe that is just me.
It isn't just you, but I believe it's a minority.
I do like your mentality, though. Hope we get to play together (and
maybe you got some of that Babylon 5 cards left for an initiation ?). ;)
Orpheus
x5m...@gmx.de
Orpheus wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I dunno how it is in the States, but in every big tournie I've seen
in
> Europe the finals were static for a long time, mostly boring,
Yes, in Germany its called "french playing style". Balance the table so
long that everyone is dying of boredom. ;-) But its successful.
Gregory Stuart Pettigrew
> through direct contact or word on the street.
You mean "scouting" and "collusion"?
Gregory Stuart Pettigrew
> > is randomised as all the rest (the first are advantaged anyway for final
> > counting, and it doesn't advantage the players who saw each other's
> > decks, or lurked, or had outside info...).
>
> This is a bad idea. The ability to chose seating in the final is the only
> thing that rewards player for doing well in previous rounds,
other than, you know, getting to the finals in the first place.
> and rewards player skill at knowing where to sit. Which is a very
> significant part of the tournament rules.
which is a skill that can pretty much only be exercised at a final.
reyda
2 weeks ago, i won the Coupe de Paris, in a final that lasted for 1 hour
and 25 minutes. So no, all the french finals are not resulting to boring
timeouts :)
reyda
salem
<ethe...@sidehack.sat.gweep.net> scrawled:
>> See, but a lot of the time, you have all the information you need either
>> through direct contact or word on the street.
>
>You mean "scouting" and "collusion"?
the word 'scout' or 'scouting' does not appear at all in the vekn
tournament rules.
the closest thing to a 'no-scouting' rule in the vekn rules i could
find is in section 2.4:
"Players have the right to request that any person, other than
tournament officials, not observe their game. All such requests must
be made through a judge."
and collusion needs to have some sort of attempt to change a game's
outcome. i am not sure player A telling player B "don't sit next to C,
he's playing stinky weenie dom!" is collusion, before the game has
even started (especially if A isn't even in the final). it's just ....
words. and may well be a complete lie! ;)
salem
http://www.users.tpg.com.au/adsltqna/VtES/index.htm
(replace "hotmail" with "yahoo" to email)
salem
scrawled:
>Except that all but the fifth may fear to go down instead of up. WHich
>seems to be a factor for many good players, or else there is something I
>don't understand either.
only offer prizes for game wins. each GW in prelim rounds gets you a
prize. a GW in the final gets you a bigger prize. 2nd through 5th in
the final round gets you nothing. presumably, if you're in the final
you already got your ranking's worth from the prior rounds you won to
get to the final.
this way, 2nd through 5th place (going into the finals) have big
incentive to go nuts and try and win the final, as if they 'sit' and
try not to do anything, they are definately going to get no more
prizes. only 1st place has incentive to draw or time out the final.
and if only one person is doing it, it's not going to work so well. :)
Kevin M.
I do not think these words mean what you think they mean. Could define
them for us?
Kevin M., Prince of Henderson, NV (USA)
"Know your enemy, and know yourself; in one-thousand battles
you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, *The Art of War*
"Contentment... Complacency... Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier
Kevin M.
> I dunno how it is in the States, but in every big tournie I've seen in
> Europe the finals were static for a long time, mostly boring, all for
> a very simple reason : people weren't all trying to win the game,
> just to optimise their position according to their previous
> placement.
If I understand correctly, in L.A. they have been recently giving all the
prizes to the winner of the tournament, and NOTHING to the other four
people at the final table. I believe this to be an excellent idea and one
worthy of major conventions (hint hint).
When I run tournaments, I personally also give prizes to those players
that achieve a GW.
> Orpheus, pro-active finalist (whenever finalist at all).
Kevin M., Prince of Henderson, NV (USA)
David Cherryholmes
> If I understand correctly, in L.A. they have been recently giving all the
> prizes to the winner of the tournament, and NOTHING to the other four
> people at the final table. I believe this to be an excellent idea and one
> worthy of major conventions (hint hint).
I do the same. I would prefer that no prizes be given to the winner of
the final table unless he also garnered a GW according to the normal
rules (2+ VP, more than anyone else), but I acknowledge it's a can of
worms, and haven't actually gone that far.... yet. It's been a while
since I actually read the V:EKN Rules. IIRC, you have a pretty free
hand in how you dole out the prizes.
--
David Cherryholmes
david.che...@gmail.com
"OK. So be it. It's not my view, but whatever makes you
happy, right? I'm all about making you happy, Dave. :-)"
-- LSJ, V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc.
Damnans
Orpheus wrote:
[...]
> - must the finals also be played to win the current game, of can they be
> played according to the position of each players in final ranking ?
Finals must be played to win the tournament (not just to win the game).
> - I would like to propose the following : the seating at the last table
> is randomised as all the rest (the first are advantaged anyway for final
> counting, and it doesn't advantage the players who saw each other's
> decks, or lurked, or had outside info...). The precise ranking of each
> player is kept secret by the organisation (yes, it requires orga
> integrity, but then what doesn't ?). And all players must play to win
> the game, period. Immediate consequence : more daring, interesting
> games, where players actually try to score VPs instead of just sitting
> and waiting.
I also think this is not a good idea because, among other reasons,
finalists are not prohibited from telling each other their respective
GWs and VPs gotten during the previous rounds.
Besides, having privileges in the final round (such as choosing seating)
depending on your preformante in the previous rounds encourages players
to do their best in those rounds.
However, I agree that static and, therefore, boring finals are a problem.
But that's the result of bad play on some players' part (too speculating
players who sometimes give up to win too soon, thus breaking the play-
to-win rule).
--
Damnans
http://www.almadrava.net/damnans
http://www.vtes.net
http://es.groups.yahoo.com/group/vteshispania/
David Cherryholmes
> Finals must be played to win the tournament (not just to win the game).
This is incorrect. Playing to win that game usually coincides with
winning the tournament. But if they are somehow at odds, you must play
to win that game.
David Cherryholmes
> This is incorrect. Playing to win that game usually coincides with
> winning the tournament. But if they are somehow at odds, you must play
> to win that game.
I have been corrected. LSJ has clearly stated that you do not have to
play to win the final game, if not playing to win will win you the
tournament, citing Jared Strait's 2002 NAC win. This is spectacularly
retarded and inconsistent, but there it is.
pd...@lightlink.com
>You mean "scouting" and "collusion"?
A) "Collusion" is people working together to fix the results of a game
un-naturally. There is no possible way that "collusion" fits into this
particular angle of this discussion.
B) "Scouting" is only illegal if it is illegal (and when it is illegal,
it is a really stupid thing to be illegal). When you play a tournament,
it makes zero sense at all that you know what half the decks in the
game do, 'cause you sat at a table with them, yet don't know what the
other decks do, 'cause you didn't. There is no reasonable way to keep
people from walking through a room full of games and having them look
at tables as they walk by. There is no reasonable way to make people
not watch other games when they are ousted. There is no reasonable way
to make people not ask their freinds what kind of decks they were
playing against.
Basically, there is no reasonable way to prevent people from
"scouting"--anyone who was involved with Babylon 5 back in the day will
remember the insane discussions involving the insane lengths people
were trying to go to to prevent "scouting". And in the end, it was all
futile. And insane.
So when you walk into a final round, it is perfectly reasonable to
expect to know what all the decks are (ya know, barring a "multi deck"
tournament, but that is a completely different animal), 'cause you
probably played against a couple of them, and you probably either saw
or heard about the other ones. Given this, it is really stupid to try
and prevent people from knowing what decks folks are playing, and it is
really stupid to not tell folks what people are playing when they are
choosing a seat, 'cause, say, if 4 people at the table know what every
deck does, and the last guy hasn't seen a few for whatever reason, they
are at a dumb disadvantage.
And I realize that there is no way to formalize making sure everyone
knows what everyone else's deck does. But it is very easy to not
penalize folks for sharing information--when I'm in a final round, if
someone asks me what my deck is, I'll tell them, 'cause it is likely
that most of the other folks already know.
-Peter
LSJ
> David Cherryholmes wrote:
>
> > This is incorrect. Playing to win that game usually coincides with
> > winning the tournament. But if they are somehow at odds, you must play
> > to win that game.
>
> I have been corrected. LSJ has clearly stated that you do not have to
> play to win the final game, if not playing to win will win you the
> tournament, citing Jared Strait's 2002 NAC win. This is spectacularly
> retarded and inconsistent, but there it is.
Incorrect.
You do have to play to win. In the finals, "winning" is determined
by number of VPs, with ties on VPs broken by rank going into the final
(unlike in the preliminary rounds, where ties remain unbroken and are
simply ties).
This is spectacularly logical and consistent.
--
LSJ (vtesr...@TRAPwhite-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep (Remove spam trap to reply).
V:TES homepage: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/
Though effective, appear to be ineffective -- Sun Tzu
David Cherryholmes
> You do have to play to win. In the finals, "winning" is determined
> by number of VPs, with ties on VPs broken by rank going into the final
> (unlike in the preliminary rounds, where ties remain unbroken and are
> simply ties).
It is consistent once you have decided to apply an arbitrary, different
standard for the final game compared to the previous games. That is the
inconsistency to which I was referring.
But in fact, my disagreement is even more profound. There is no logical
necessity for a tie breaking system. It is my opinion that game play
would be enhanced if ties were left simply for what they were, games in
which no one achieved a victory.
LSJ
> LSJ wrote:
>
> > You do have to play to win. In the finals, "winning" is determined
> > by number of VPs, with ties on VPs broken by rank going into the final
> > (unlike in the preliminary rounds, where ties remain unbroken and are
> > simply ties).
>
> It is consistent once you have decided to apply an arbitrary, different
> standard for the final game compared to the previous games. That is the
> inconsistency to which I was referring.
> But in fact, my disagreement is even more profound. There is no logical
> necessity for a tie breaking system. It is my opinion that game play
> would be enhanced if ties were left simply for what they were, games in
> which no one achieved a victory.
You don't feel that ties should be broken. That's fine.
But that would be an issue with the V:EKN tournament rules themselves,
not with the vagaries of "play to win". Casting it as the latter,
especially with the hyperbolic vitriol, clouds the issue, as we've
just discovered.
There are benefits to having tie-breakers, though. You have a
winner, which is beneficial to things like continental championships
were unique (and indivisible) prizes like rings and artwork are
awarded.
Robert Goudie
Kevin M. wrote:
> Orpheus <orphe...@DEADfree.fr> wrote:
> > I dunno how it is in the States, but in every big tournie I've seen
in
> > Europe the finals were static for a long time, mostly boring, all
for
> > a very simple reason : people weren't all trying to win the game,
> > just to optimise their position according to their previous
> > placement.
>
> If I understand correctly, in L.A. they have been recently giving all
the
> prizes to the winner of the tournament, and NOTHING to the other four
> people at the final table. I believe this to be an excellent idea
and one
> worthy of major conventions (hint hint).
Well that's close. We'll give the same token prize for 2nd through 5th
and the great majority of prizes to 1st place. It was intended to not
reward players for quickly selling-out to another player in order to
come in 2nd place. While this prize distribution doesn't prohibit the
practice, it at least doesn't reward it.
-Robert
reyda
> Well that's close. We'll give the same token prize for 2nd through 5th
> and the great majority of prizes to 1st place. It was intended to not
> reward players for quickly selling-out to another player in order to
> come in 2nd place. While this prize distribution doesn't prohibit the
> practice, it at least doesn't reward it.
>
> -Robert
that's quite good !
i remember a tournament in LA.A where i had absolutely nothing for being
5th qualified despite all my efforts to move forward.
But you will always have players who prefer to stand on prelim results
(like being 2nd) rather than trying to take riske and try to get on top :)
pd...@lightlink.com
>which is a skill that can pretty much only be exercised at a final.
Sure. But it makes the final into something special and different. The
current final system of getting to choose your seat based on score
going in might not be the best possible system. But it is a system, and
it is an interesting one, and one of the side effects of it is that it
gives a concrete advantage to being the top seed going in (much like in
a squash ladder type seeding system used in sports and one on one games
generally results in the strongest seed matching against the weakest
seed in the first round). Again, it might not be the best possible
option, but it gives an interesting angle to the game--you can gain
advantage through appropriate seating choice, assuming that you know
what the other decks are.
The flaw is, however, that there is no way to know that any given
player will know what all the decks are, and while it is likely that
you might know what most of the decks do, there is always a possibility
that you won't, and due to a lack of even distribution of information,
people will be at a disadvantage to eachother, possibly. This can be
dealt with in two ways:
A) Outlaw "scouting". This is kind of insane, as it is almost
completely impractical--unless you have folks playing their games in
individual rooms and as soon as someone is ousted they are led to a
private cell to be sequestered until the next game, there is no way at
all to keep people from looking around at other games, other tables, or
asking their friends over lunch "How'd your last round go--what were
folks playing?" On the up side, you strictly control
information--everyone only knows what the decks are that they have
already seen, so in all likelyhood, everyone in the final is going to
be in likely the same boat in terms of total information. On the down
side, again, completely impractical, and completely insane to even
attempt such a thing.
B) Allow free access to information. Let people watch games in progress
(assuming they aren't annoying anyone) to see what decks folks are
playing. Assume folks are going to share information with their
friends. When someone gets to the finals and says "Huh. That is the one
player whose deck I haven't seen--anyone wanna tell me what it does in
one scentence or less?", people can tell him without being accused of
collusion or something. On the up side, it puts everyone on a pretty
much even keel and doesn't take any extra effort. On the down side, it,
um, uhh, yeah, I got nothing.
-Peter
Ankur Gupta
> um, uhh, yeah, I got nothing.
You know, even though you having nothing on the downside is exactly your
point, I find it quite amusing that Peter "spew forth with all gusto, but
not with quite as much ungodly endurance as Fred" Bajika has got
absolutely nothing. I would have expected you to make something up that
relates to pink bunnies or something. Just to take up space.
I mean, come on! People expect things from ya Peter. Satisfy your fans!
:)
Ankur
James Coupe
I feel honoured that someone went to the trouble of cloning me.
Can I claim royalties? Unless I'm the clone...
--
James Coupe "Why do so many talented people turn out to be sexual
PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D deviants? Why can't they just be normal like me and
EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 look at internet pictures of men's cocks all day?"
13D7E668C3695D623D5D -- www.livejournal.com/users/scarletdemon/
Peter D Bakija
> Interesting idea. So what do you suggest ? Going around and asking
> people ? Each player describes his deck ? The easiest way maybe would be
> : when you put your vampire on the table for final placement, you also
> have to show your whole crypt.
As I mentioned elsewhere, I don't think there is a really practical way to
do this formally. But it is really easy to find out what most other folks
are playing simply by walking around and looking at games, which people
already do, and then maybe asking around between rounds. I think the thing
to do is simply to remove any idea that "scouting" is somehow illegal, and
let people ask folks when their opponent's decks do before the finals--like,
yeah, you might not feel like telling me what your deck does, but the guy
standing next to you probably will be willing.
Peter D Bakija
> You know, even though you having nothing on the downside is exactly your
> point, I find it quite amusing that Peter "spew forth with all gusto, but
> not with quite as much ungodly endurance as Fred" Bajika has got
> absolutely nothing. I would have expected you to make something up that
> relates to pink bunnies or something. Just to take up space.
>
> I mean, come on! People expect things from ya Peter. Satisfy your fans!
Yeah, see, well, um, the downside of the "free information" theory is that,
um, it, um, makes, um, the game work better? Uhh, it really upsets people
who have bizzare control issues? There are bunnies?
Ankur Gupta
>
> Yeah, see, well, um, the downside of the "free information" theory is
> that, um, it, um, makes, um, the game work better? Uhh, it really upsets
> people who have bizzare control issues? There are bunnies?
Sorry to say this man, but. . . it needs work. :)
Ankur
David Cherryholmes
> But that would be an issue with the V:EKN tournament rules themselves,
> not with the vagaries of "play to win". Casting it as the latter,
> especially with the hyperbolic vitriol, clouds the issue, as we've
> just discovered.
Yeah, well, my apologies for the vitriol. Posted in a moment of
irritation at other things, FWIW. But I don't think it could have been
hyperbolic, because I don't understand hyperbole. ;)
Orpheus
Very interesting solution, Salem. I'm proposing it or a variant to my
playgroup.
Orpheus
Orpheus
> necessity for a tie breaking system. It is my opinion that game play
> would be enhanced if ties were left simply for what they were, games in
> which no one achieved a victory.
Totally agreed with that, even though LSJ has a point concerning the
first player. Solutions like : "same prize for all players but the
first" or "Prize only for GWs" appeal to me, and don't change the rules,
only the way prize are handled, which has nothing to do with VEKN rules
and is only an organisational decision. Fine with me.
Orpheus
Frederick Scott
"Kevin M." <you...@imaspammer.org> wrote in message
news:rhe0e.60896$xt.56863@fed1read07...
> Gregory Stuart Pettigrew <ethe...@sidehack.sat.gweep.net> wrote:
>> Peter D Bakija <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote:
>>> See, but a lot of the time, you have all the information you
>>> need either through direct contact or word on the street.
>>
>> You mean "scouting" and "collusion"?
>
> I do not think these words mean what you think they mean. Could define
> them for us?
Bah. It's one thing to take a quick cheap shot and watch others react to
defend their positions against imagined attacks. It's quite another to
actually propose a thoughtful objection to what someone else is saying
and then stick around to defend that objection.
Do not concern yourselves.
Fred
Emmit Svenson
pd...@lightlink.com wrote:
> ...due to a lack of even distribution of information,
> people will be at a disadvantage to eachother, possibly. This can be
> dealt with in two ways:
>
>
> B) Allow free access to information.
Or C) Allow people to play a different deck in the final round. Or even
a different deck every round.
I'm fine with the existing system. Just pointing out an option.
Peter D Bakija
> Or C) Allow people to play a different deck in the final round. Or even
> a different deck every round.
As I pointed out elsewhere, multi-deck tournaments are a whole other animal.
Allowing folks to play different decks every round is already a possibility,
and a completely different discussion than the one that is going on here.
Frederick Scott
"reyda" <true_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:42419e1d$0$3354$79c1...@nan-newsreader-05.noos.net...
> But you will always have players who prefer to stand on prelim results (like being 2nd) rather than trying to take riske and try
> to get on top :)
Here is where I see a general problem with the game: that it should seem
like such a risk to most good players to try to get an oust that they
choose to play conservatively.
My take on Orpheus's original problem, which seems to be more true in
some areas and less true in others, is that the game encourages conservatism
and reactionary play in general - not pro-active work at winning. Thus,
the reason he identifies these issues in the finals and not in the
preliminary rounds is that the finals are where five competant players
are. It's the INcompetant players (or more diplomatically, the "less
competant players" - like me) who tend to make the game more dynamic
and interesting by doing incompetant things and making targets of
themselves. The competant ones, unless they see good opportunity, tend
to turtle-up, bloat, build up defenses, or do whatever it is they do to
get ready for an oust opportunity, and break out when the opportunity
does present itself.
I'm not saying a good offense isn't a helpful tool, even to this form
of play. I'm just saying the 'defense-first-keep-a-low-profile'
philosophy seems to pay off in the long run and the proof of that is in
tournament finals: where you see the five most successful players gather
together instead of random groupings of just any five in the tournament.
And it's interesting that when they don't have their usual means of
winning at hand, they're not as adept at devising a secondary strategy.
Hence you often see them negotiating frenetically trying to create one.
If so, the overall game balance needs a shift. I'm not sure how to
shift it, as I wouldn't want to go back to the days of stealth-bleed-
bounce being the king of everything. But I'd sure like to see ways of
pushing actions through that could ignore or frustrate intercept
sometimes. I see far too much intercept in the metagames I play in,
at least for my subjective tastes. I'd like to see more stuff like
Crocadile's Tongue and Dominion or something that would make it
somewhat less comfortable to just load up on intercept and expect that
nothing bad will happen to you. (Of course, lots of intercept is not
the only reason for this what-I-see-as-a-problem, but discouraging it
to some extent couldn't hurt in my book.)
My 0.02.
Fred
Frederick Scott
"Damnans" <damna...@ono.comNOSPAM> wrote in message
news:Bvf0e.25137$dr.1...@news.ono.com...
> However, I agree that static and, therefore, boring finals are a problem.
> But that's the result of bad play on some players' part (too speculating
> players who sometimes give up to win too soon, thus breaking the play-
> to-win rule).
Considering where Orpheus observes this problem - in the finals - that
seems like a very questionable theory. The five best players in the
tournament didn't get to the final by giving up on games too soon. I
think the game win rule, as currently implement, works very well and it
does a good job of rewarding players who do the 'right' thing. I think
the tournament final works as well as possible, too. Thus I don't think
the static-n-boring finals problem has to do with bad play. It makes
a lot more sense to me to conclude that it has to do with too much
_good_ play in a single game!
Fred
Frederick Scott
> LSJ wrote:
>> You do have to play to win. In the finals, "winning" is determined
>> by number of VPs, with ties on VPs broken by rank going into the final
>> (unlike in the preliminary rounds, where ties remain unbroken and are
>> simply ties).
>
> It is consistent once you have decided to apply an arbitrary, different
> standard for the final game compared to the previous games. That is the
> inconsistency to which I was referring.
>
> But in fact, my disagreement is even more profound. There is no logical
> necessity for a tie breaking system. It is my opinion that game play
> would be enhanced if ties were left simply for what they were, games in
> which no one achieved a victory.
I absoultely don't see the problem with the current tournament system. If
you understand and like the game rule, you should like the finals rule
the way it is. And it is the tie-break mechanism that makes it as perfect
AS POSSIBLE. As it stands, at least four players have a strong incentive
to make sure the game DOESN'T wind up stultifying into a big standoff.
The fact that this doesn't look exactly like a preliminary round game is
beside the point. It does exactly the job it needs to do.
The fact that all this doesn't seem to prevent stultification near as often
as it should ought to tell us that we need to be looking elsewhere to find
the problem and the solution.
Fred
Orpheus
> pd...@lightlink.com wrote:
>
>>...due to a lack of even distribution of information,
>>people will be at a disadvantage to eachother, possibly. This can be
>>dealt with in two ways:
>>
>>A) Outlaw "scouting". ...
>>
>>B) Allow free access to information.
B' : every player in the finals reveals his crypt (it leaves part for
some surprises, but if you see some Eurobrujahs, lots of Beast, all
!Malkies or big Lasombras with Pre you might have an idea what you're up
against...) ; variant : the players reveal their crypt after they have
chosen their table position.
C : random positions in the finals.
This subject ("about finals placement and information"), and the one
about how to discourage insipid, boring finals seem to spring
simultaneously in various forums or threads (not all on my instigation)
and might warrant a close look from the authorities up-on-high.
--------------
Orpheus
Orpheus
>>to get on top :)
>
>
> Here is where I see a general problem with the game: that it should seem
> like such a risk to most good players to try to get an oust that they
> choose to play conservatively.
>
> My take on Orpheus's original problem, which seems to be more true in
> some areas and less true in others, is that the game encourages conservatism
> and reactionary play in general - not pro-active work at winning. Thus,
> the reason he identifies these issues in the finals and not in the
> preliminary rounds is that the finals are where five competant players
> are. It's the INcompetant players (or more diplomatically, the "less
> competant players" - like me) who tend to make the game more dynamic
> and interesting by doing incompetant things and making targets of
> themselves. The competant ones, unless they see good opportunity, tend
> to turtle-up, bloat, build up defenses, or do whatever it is they do to
> get ready for an oust opportunity, and break out when the opportunity
> does present itself.
It is an interesting analysis, and I must agree with it to some degree.
Yes, at a very good table the first to make a bad move is the dead one,
and bold move often equals bad move. On the other hand, as you mention
in your next post, the guys sitting there have made their GW before, so
they must have acted at some point or another before the time limit. So
I'd rather think that the incentive to go forward is much stronger in
the prelims than in the finals, even if the better game level is a
factor (if only because no one will open the way with bad play).
> I'm not saying a good offense isn't a helpful tool, even to this form
> of play. I'm just saying the 'defense-first-keep-a-low-profile'
> philosophy seems to pay off in the long run and the proof of that is in
> tournament finals: where you see the five most successful players gather
> together instead of random groupings of just any five in the tournament.
Sure, but as already mentionned even a low profile has to blow sometime
in the game if you wanna win.
> And it's interesting that when they don't have their usual means of
> winning at hand, they're not as adept at devising a secondary strategy.
> Hence you often see them negotiating frenetically trying to create one.
This would mean that being a good player is only possible when you have
bad players at the table you can use. While it may be true for me ;) as
I'm not "that" good, I'd hate to think it is the case for most good
players, or the best of them.
> If so, the overall game balance needs a shift.
It has shifted a lot frequently and certainly will with each coming
extension (ok, combat is balanced now, no more please) and player
trends, wherever these come from.
I'm not sure how to
> shift it, as I wouldn't want to go back to the days of stealth-bleed-
> bounce being the king of everything. But I'd sure like to see ways of
> pushing actions through that could ignore or frustrate intercept
> sometimes. I see far too much intercept in the metagames I play in,
> at least for my subjective tastes.
I might agree on a personnal level, but then why would a trend be more
despicable than another ? Because it makes the game too static ?
If you despise intercept abuse (as I do, although well used it can be
quite a sight, as any other strategy of the game if well-played) you
have a few counter strategies available :
- full rush : intercept will certainly have less fight than you and die
painfully (just pack something against Rötshit)
- bruise'n'bleed : see how these blue cards stack in your opponent's hand...
- swarm with no stealth
- it is well known that stealth always over-ride intercept, especially
if all your base actions are at +1 stealth : just pack more stealth,
some perms, and a way to cycle a lot !
And of course :
I'd like to see more stuff like
> Crocadile's Tongue and Dominion or something that would make it
> somewhat less comfortable to just load up on intercept and expect that
> nothing bad will happen to you. (Of course, lots of intercept is not
> the only reason for this what-I-see-as-a-problem, but discouraging it
> to some extent couldn't hurt in my book.)
PLAY NECROMANCY !!!! :)
---------------
Orpheus
Frederick Scott
"Orpheus" <orphe...@DEADfree.fr> wrote in message
news:42433b09$0$5101$626a...@news.free.fr...
> It is an interesting analysis, and I must agree with it to some degree.
> Yes, at a very good table the first to make a bad move is the dead one,
> and bold move often equals bad move. On the other hand, as you mention
> in your next post, the guys sitting there have made their GW before, so
> they must have acted at some point or another before the time limit. So
> I'd rather think that the incentive to go forward is much stronger in
> the prelims than in the finals, even if the better game level is a
> factor (if only because no one will open the way with bad play).
I'm sorry, you'll have to restate this for me. You don't justify your
statement here. (WHY does this make you think there's more incentive to
go forward in the preliminary rounds?)
My point is that in the preliminary rounds, it works well to "turtle-up",
bide your time, and wait for a sucker to expose himself. The difference
in play level is *huge* - or so it seems to me, in the larger tournaments
I attend. (The smallish ones don't seem to have this problem.)
>> And it's interesting that when they don't have their usual means of
>> winning at hand, they're not as adept at devising a secondary strategy.
>> Hence you often see them negotiating frenetically trying to create one.
>
> This would mean that being a good player is only possible when you have
> bad players at the table you can use.
Huh?!? No, it means no such thing. It just means that good players get
more game wins when they have bad players at the table they can use -
which is why they DO get more games in the preliminary rounds than in
the final. This is exactly the problem you started out complaining
about, as I interpret it. The only tweak I'd throw into your original
desciption is that the finalists aren't acting any different in the
finals than they act in the preliminary rounds - they're just not
getting as good result from it.
>> If so, the overall game balance needs a shift.
>
> It has shifted a lot frequently and certainly will with each coming
> extension (ok, combat is balanced now, no more please) and player
> trends, wherever these come from.
But (lately), it hasn't shifted in a way which will help avoid
this stagnation-in-the-finals problem.
>> I'm not sure how to
>> shift it, as I wouldn't want to go back to the days of stealth-bleed-
>> bounce being the king of everything. But I'd sure like to see ways of
>> pushing actions through that could ignore or frustrate intercept
>> sometimes. I see far too much intercept in the metagames I play in,
>> at least for my subjective tastes.
>
> I might agree on a personnal level, but then why would a trend be more
> despicable than another ? Because it makes the game too static?
Well, you started this whole huge thread for a reason, I assume.
For me, I'll openly confess, there's also personal preferences. I
don't care much for reactionary play. It's too boring. I'd rather
force play myself and make others react to me if I can. But I see
this kind of play as not working well in the current metagame.
(It's also quite possible that I suck at what I'm trying to do and
I wouldn't dispute that. Still, I'd feel better if I saw OTHER,
BETTER players doing what I wanted to do successfully. I don't.
I tend to see the better players playing more reactively in most
cases.)
> If you despise intercept abuse (as I do, although well used it can be
> quite a sight, as any other strategy of the game if well-played) you
> have a few counter strategies available :
Bleh. No, thank you. I don't want to get sucked into a "strategy-by-
strategy" debate over how to beat intercept. You missed the point:
it's not "How does Fred beat intercept?" It's that more and more
usable intercept-beating things should exist so that people the world
over wind up choosing to use less intercept. That, in my humble
opinion, would be a good thing.
Fred
Peter D Bakija
> B' : every player in the finals reveals his crypt (it leaves part for
> some surprises, but if you see some Eurobrujahs, lots of Beast, all
> !Malkies or big Lasombras with Pre you might have an idea what you're up
> against...) ; variant : the players reveal their crypt after they have
> chosen their table position.
Meh. Doesn't necessarily provide any worthwhile information. And really,
most players have already seen most decks in action, which provides much
more information. Having someone tell me "Ben is playing !Toreador tap -N-
bleed" is going to give me far more information than looking at his crypt.
The problem is that when you get to the finals, there is a good chance that
someone will have zero idea of what one player is playing, when most other
players probably know. The solution is to not make it a problem to look at
games in progress after you are ousted (assuming you aren't annoying) and
not a problem to ask folks what other people are playing.
> C : random positions in the finals.
This is certainly a possibility. But then, for one, I *like* that the finals
have a unique, interesting element to them that specifically rewards doing
well in the preliminary rounds. As most folks already know, a lot of this
game often comes down to what decks you randomly sit next to, which has an
unsatisfying element to it, especially in a "finals" round. I like that the
finals minimize randomness and have an increased deterministic element to
them, and that is the current seating system.
Again, the only flaw is the uneven distribution of information going in--if
I know what all 4 of the other decks in the finals are, and you only know 3
of them, I have a very distinct advantage, especially if we are, like, top
and second seed. The solution, really, is to let people watch games in
progress and let people discuss what decks people are playing (which people
already do, but there is some mostly unfounded idea that "scouting" is
illegal, which makes people cranky).
> This subject ("about finals placement and information"), and the one
> about how to discourage insipid, boring finals seem to spring
> simultaneously in various forums or threads (not all on my instigation)
> and might warrant a close look from the authorities up-on-high.
I don't know what to do about insipid finals. But making all the prizes go
to 1st place certainly would help (like, say, give 1st place the bulk of the
prizes, and give 2-5th place identical token prizes, like a couple boosters
or something). I suspect that this would go a long way towards encouraging
people trying to actually win--if there was no measurable difference between
2nd and 5th place, then there would be no incentive to try and get 2nd
place.
salem
<pd...@lightlink.com> scrawled:
>Orpheus wrote:
>
>> B' : every player in the finals reveals his crypt (it leaves part for
>> some surprises, but if you see some Eurobrujahs, lots of Beast, all
>> !Malkies or big Lasombras with Pre you might have an idea what you're up
>> against...) ; variant : the players reveal their crypt after they have
>> chosen their table position.
>
>Meh. Doesn't necessarily provide any worthwhile information.
especially if they do this after they choose their table position, as
orph suggested. defeats the purpose, no?
>And really,
>most players have already seen most decks in action, which provides much
>more information. Having someone tell me "Ben is playing !Toreador tap -N-
>bleed" is going to give me far more information than looking at his crypt.
not, however, if Ben is playing pot/dom bruise and bleed, and this
random person just lied.
>The problem is that when you get to the finals, there is a good chance that
>someone will have zero idea of what one player is playing, when most other
>players probably know. The solution is to not make it a problem to look at
>games in progress after you are ousted (assuming you aren't annoying) and
>not a problem to ask folks what other people are playing.
not really a solution, rather than how it works now. but the problem
with this is, the people getting GWs, and thus being the ones to
choose seating in a final, tend not to be the ones who have time
'after they are ousted' to go look at other games.
i kind of like the crypt idea as an addition to the current was things
run. while it won't fix the information disparity, it could go some
way towards contracting the gap between the most informed and least
informed players.
>> C : random positions in the finals.
>
>This is certainly a possibility. But then, for one, I *like* that the finals
>have a unique, interesting element to them that specifically rewards doing
>well in the preliminary rounds.
me too. it encourages 'play to do the best you can' rather than 'play
to do just good enough'. although the tie breakers on prior positions
for the final round also helps this somewhat.
> As most folks already know, a lot of this
>game often comes down to what decks you randomly sit next to, which has an
>unsatisfying element to it, especially in a "finals" round. I like that the
>finals minimize randomness and have an increased deterministic element to
>them, and that is the current seating system.
yay current system! i just wish i didn't suck at choosing positions.
;)
>Again, the only flaw is the uneven distribution of information going in--if
>I know what all 4 of the other decks in the finals are, and you only know 3
>of them, I have a very distinct advantage, especially if we are, like, top
>and second seed. The solution, really, is to let people watch games in
>progress and let people discuss what decks people are playing (which people
>already do, but there is some mostly unfounded idea that "scouting" is
>illegal, which makes people cranky).
it might possibly be interesting to compile a list of 'assumed rules
that really aren't' to distribute to tourney attendees, to fix some of
these continued fallacies ('you have to break the deal! play to win
rule!')
salem
http://www.users.tpg.com.au/adsltqna/VtES/index.htm
(replace "hotmail" with "yahoo" to email)
Orpheus
>>
>>
>>>B' : every player in the finals reveals his crypt (it leaves part for
>>>some surprises, but if you see some Eurobrujahs, lots of Beast, all
>>>!Malkies or big Lasombras with Pre you might have an idea what you're up
>>>against...) ; variant : the players reveal their crypt after they have
>>>chosen their table position.
>>
>>Meh. Doesn't necessarily provide any worthwhile information.
>
>
> especially if they do this after they choose their table position, as
> orph suggested. defeats the purpose, no?
You misunderstood. I meant : first players puts his card on the table,
reveals his crypt, so player 2 knows what he's up against ; player 2
does the same, Player 3 chooses position, etc.
And part of the skill of this game also is knowing what a crypt can do.
Sure, if you see lots of midcap !Tores, you'll wonder if it's a Palla
embrace, a gun deck, a voter, or an Art of Pain deck, but really there
are chances that without Miller, any titled vamp, and with lots of Jost
Werner it's only a Palla...
Orpheus
Orpheus
>>Yes, at a very good table the first to make a bad move is the dead one,
>>and bold move often equals bad move. On the other hand, as you mention
>>in your next post, the guys sitting there have made their GW before, so
>>they must have acted at some point or another before the time limit. So
>>I'd rather think that the incentive to go forward is much stronger in
>>the prelims than in the finals, even if the better game level is a
>>factor (if only because no one will open the way with bad play).
>
>
> I'm sorry, you'll have to restate this for me.
Do I ? Nah, I'll assume I'm free of doing whatever. But I may if you ask
nicely. ;)
You don't justify your
> statement here.
Didn't think I'd have to. It seems pretty obvious to me.
(WHY does this make you think there's more incentive to
> go forward in the preliminary rounds?)
Uh, let me think... Because if you don't actually WIN the prelims you
don't even get near the fucking finals ?
> My point is that in the preliminary rounds, it works well to "turtle-up",
> bide your time, and wait for a sucker to expose himself. The difference
> in play level is *huge* - or so it seems to me, in the larger tournaments
> I attend. (The smallish ones don't seem to have this problem.)
It is only part of the whole. Don't let "your point" blind you to other
elements. I've seen enough finalists play in prelims before, and I can
assure you that not only do they, effectively, benefit from lesser
players' mistakes, but also they are more eager to do as many VPs as
they can, logically, while in the finals 0,5 could be quite enough.
>>>And it's interesting that when they don't have their usual means of
>>>winning at hand, they're not as adept at devising a secondary strategy.
>>>Hence you often see them negotiating frenetically trying to create one.
>>
>>This would mean that being a good player is only possible when you have
>>bad players at the table you can use.
>
> Huh?!? No, it means no such thing. It just means that good players get
> more game wins when they have bad players at the table they can use -
> which is why they DO get more games in the preliminary rounds than in
> the final.
ALso, the finals is just ONE game so they couldn't get as many GWs as in
the prelims, right ? ;) But I get what you really meant. And again, it's
only part of the reason.
This is exactly the problem you started out complaining
> about, as I interpret it.
Please let me judge of what I started talking about. The "problem", to
me, is the "nothing happens" finals, and has nothing to do with the
general tendency of the game.
The only tweak I'd throw into your original
> desciption is that the finalists aren't acting any different in the
> finals than they act in the preliminary rounds - they're just not
> getting as good result from it.
On this we do disagree. I repeat, if the finalists had been as
attentists in the prelims, they wouldn't have gotten any games. Fighting
lesser players of course makes it easier to win tables, but this is also
true if you play very forward : a good table will know how to fight a
stealth bleeder, or will gang up on a dangerous deck, while a lesser
table will wait too long for that and give him the game. Not every good
player is a waiting player (although I agree that there is part of that).
>>>If so, the overall game balance needs a shift.
>>
>>It has shifted a lot frequently and certainly will with each coming
>>extension (ok, combat is balanced now, no more please) and player
>>trends, wherever these come from.
>
> But (lately), it hasn't shifted in a way which will help avoid
> this stagnation-in-the-finals problem.
True. The opposite if anything.
>>>I'm not sure how to
>>>shift it, as I wouldn't want to go back to the days of stealth-bleed-
>>>bounce being the king of everything. But I'd sure like to see ways of
>>>pushing actions through that could ignore or frustrate intercept
>>>sometimes. I see far too much intercept in the metagames I play in,
>>>at least for my subjective tastes.
>>
>>I might agree on a personnal level, but then why would a trend be more
>>despicable than another ? Because it makes the game too static?
>
>
> Well, you started this whole huge thread for a reason, I assume.
I didn't start this (not so) huge thread because of a general tendency
in the game, or any "I hate intercept" reason. Some players despise
bleed, stealth, vote, fight, whatever, and it proves the game is mostly
balanced (I'd never have thought intercept could actually win anything
before the Barcelona EC). I did start this thread because the finals
were attentist, even when players play all but intercept. It is YOUR
proposition that centers around the EYE thing, not mine.
> For me, I'll openly confess, there's also personal preferences.
That's a welcome confession. Ego te absolvo. ;)
> I
> don't care much for reactionary play. It's too boring. I'd rather
> force play myself and make others react to me if I can. But I see
> this kind of play as not working well in the current metagame.
Personnaly, I play very proactive, and it does bring me to a final or
two. Of course, if you act dangerous and look dangerous, you probably
will get ganged up by the whole table. Doing your bit without raising
alarm is also a big part of the skill in this game, as you must know.
> (It's also quite possible that I suck at what I'm trying to do and
> I wouldn't dispute that. Still, I'd feel better if I saw OTHER,
> BETTER players doing what I wanted to do successfully. I don't.
> I tend to see the better players playing more reactively in most
> cases.)
I don't. Good players don't act reactively. They install, wait for their
moment, and then move forward so fast you can't do a thing. Or maybe it
began turns ago but you didn't see it because they *were* good. Many
winning decks use very few defense (I don't count the frigging Direct
Intervention as direct defense, although it counters so many things it's
despicable).
>>If you despise intercept abuse (as I do,
I'll underline "abuse" for you here. As I said, any strategy is valid in
itself. Everyone playing it, including playing it bad, I dislike.
Intercept, like fight, will ruin your games without winning them if in
the hands of bad players (while a bad stealth bleeder will usually kill
at least his first prey).
although well used it can be
>>quite a sight, as any other strategy of the game if well-played) you
>>have a few counter strategies available :
>
> Bleh. No, thank you. I don't want to get sucked into a "strategy-by-
> strategy" debate over how to beat intercept. You missed the point:
> it's not "How does Fred beat intercept?"
I don't care what Fred does. I just say that there are existing
strategies still valid against intercept, and that if your metagame is
very intercepty you have the choice between adapting (which as I showed
is possible no matter what type of deck you're playing) or stopping
complaining.
> It's that more and more
> usable intercept-beating things should exist
You mean, more than big stealth bleed or vote, bruise and bleed, bruise
and vote, rush, Toreador Grand Ball vote, necro or !Ventrue "don't
block" and milling ?!?!
so that people the world
> over wind up choosing to use less intercept.
If people play counter strategies to intercept on a regular basis,
people will stop playing intercept so much and your metagame will get
closer to what you like.
That, in my humble
> opinion, would be a good thing.
In many people's opinions, it wouldn't. In mine, intercept or any such
"anti" strategy (as is backrush) is fine if well-played ; if there is a
problem on that side, it's that since Ferenci and Kristoff proved in
Barcelona that it could win, many bad players play intercept and just
block the games without any results.
I had a tournie with many attentist decks, and it WAS very shitty ; but
the waiting guys mostly didn't make any GWs, so for me these are two
very different problems (and I repeat : Intercept isn't the only type of
deck which wan be played in an attentist way).
Deadly Yours,
Orpheus
Frederick Scott
>>>It is an interesting analysis, and I must agree with it to some degree.
>>>Yes, at a very good table the first to make a bad move is the dead one,
>>>and bold move often equals bad move. On the other hand, as you mention
>>>in your next post, the guys sitting there have made their GW before, so
>>>they must have acted at some point or another before the time limit. So
>>>I'd rather think that the incentive to go forward is much stronger in
>>>the prelims than in the finals, even if the better game level is a
>>>factor (if only because no one will open the way with bad play).
>>
>> statement here. (WHY does this make you think there's more incentive to
>> go forward in the preliminary rounds?)
>
> Uh, let me think... Because if you don't actually WIN the prelims you
> don't even get near the fucking finals ?
Nope. Not obvious. Nor even correct, IMHO. I mean, I understand: "If
I do nothing, I don't make the finals". Yes, that's incentive. I just
can't figure out how, "Now that I'm in the finals, if I do nothing, I'll
lose." is not ALSO incentive on pretty much the same level.
From that comment, I take it you think players lack incentive to
improve their standing or even defend it once they're in the finals.
If they're guranteed fifth place, why do anything?
All right, I'll give you that it's slightly correct in this sense: at
least the finals is a zero-sum game. What one player wins (a higher
position going out than coming in), another loses. By contrast, in the
preliminaries, the fact that a game win may not be awarded throws some
additional incentive in to be aggressive. But I don't think that's
nearly enough to explain the attitude of conservatism you suggest. The
fifth place player has NOTHING TO LOSE. Why should he ever hold anything
back?
>> My point is that in the preliminary rounds, it works well to "turtle-up",
>> bide your time, and wait for a sucker to expose himself. The difference
>> in play level is *huge* - or so it seems to me, in the larger tournaments
>> I attend. (The smallish ones don't seem to have this problem.)
>
> It is only part of the whole. Don't let "your point" blind you to other
> elements. I've seen enough finalists play in prelims before, and I can
> assure you that not only do they, effectively, benefit from lesser
> players' mistakes, but also they are more eager to do as many VPs as
> they can, logically, while in the finals 0,5 could be quite enough.
Huh? One-half a victory point in the finals is *ONLY* ever worth anything
to one guy - and then only if everyone else is held to one-half a victory
point.
I sympathize with your comment about my point blinding me to other elements.
There might be others, I agree. But here, you don't have a point. You're
wrong: players have every incentive by the structure of the tournament to
move forward. Yet they don't.
>> This is exactly the problem you started out complaining
>> about, as I interpret it.
>
> Please let me judge of what I started talking about. The "problem", to
> me, is the "nothing happens" finals, and has nothing to do with the
> general tendency of the game.
Ah, but it does. That's the whole point of all my comments in this
thread. I keep hearing people complain about the structure of the
tournaments. But there is not a thing wrong with the tournament
structure. It's as close to perfect as I can imagine it. The problem
is NOT the tournament structure - it's that the finals is the only
game which consists of five very competant players.
Or if it isn't, who'd notice? The only game that causes people to
take note of trends is the final game. To test my theory with
preliminary round games, you'd have to do something like: notice
whenever a preliminary round game occurs which includes five players
who all have a high minimum past success rate at getting game wins
and see how often such a table tends to stagnate.
>> The only tweak I'd throw into your original
>> desciption is that the finalists aren't acting any different in the
>> finals than they act in the preliminary rounds - they're just not
>> getting as good result from it.
>
> On this we do disagree. I repeat, if the finalists had been as
> attentists in the prelims, they wouldn't have gotten any games. Fighting
> lesser players of course makes it easier to win tables, but this is also
> true if you play very forward : a good table will know how to fight a
> stealth bleeder, or will gang up on a dangerous deck, while a lesser
> table will wait too long for that and give him the game.
Now you're making my argument. This is precisely my point. Why be a
stealth bleeder or look dangerous if the entire table will gang up on
you for your effort? And it will in the final.
The problem here is just that: a good table CAN know how to gang up on
a player who plays very forward. It's too hard for a single player to
force play and be rewarded for being aggressive, unless the other players
are incompetant.
>>>I might agree on a personnal level, but then why would a trend be more
>>>despicable than another ? Because it makes the game too static?
>>
>> Well, you started this whole huge thread for a reason, I assume.
>
> I didn't start this (not so) huge thread because of a general tendency
> in the game, or any "I hate intercept" reason.
I know that. But that is where it has to go if you really want to get
at the real problem behind what you're complaining about.
As for, "I hate intercept.", I think making intercept too useful has been
one of the factors in creating the incentive for competant players to play
stagnant games. But I'd agree, that's kind of more my pet theory.
(And the fact that I hate intercept. :-) )
> Personnaly, I play very proactive, and it does bring me to a final or
> two. Of course, if you act dangerous and look dangerous, you probably
> will get ganged up by the whole table. Doing your bit without raising
> alarm is also a big part of the skill in this game, as you must know.
I don't know what you mean by "proactive" if you're not trying to get
an oust. And if you are, you MUST "act dangerous and look dangerous".
Otherwise, I wouldn't call it proactive.
>> (It's also quite possible that I suck at what I'm trying to do and
>> I wouldn't dispute that. Still, I'd feel better if I saw OTHER,
>> BETTER players doing what I wanted to do successfully. I don't.
>> I tend to see the better players playing more reactively in most
>> cases.)
>
> I don't. Good players don't act reactively. They install, wait for their
> moment, and then move forward so fast you can't do a thing.
"Wait(ing) for their moment" <<============>> REACTIVE
I don't know what YOUR definition of "reactive" is.
Now go back and think about the finals: everyone is *SO* "waiting for
their moment" that nobody's moment ever comes. THAT'S your problem!
>> Bleh. No, thank you. I don't want to get sucked into a "strategy-by-
>> strategy" debate over how to beat intercept. You missed the point:
>> it's not "How does Fred beat intercept?"
>
> I don't care what Fred does. I just say that there are existing
> strategies still valid against intercept,
Yes, but they don't prevent reactive play from having dominance,
which is my complaint.
Fred
James Coupe
<nos...@no.spam.dot.com> writes:
>Huh? One-half a victory point in the finals is *ONLY* ever worth anything
>to one guy - and then only if everyone else is held to one-half a victory
>point.
In situations where substantial prizes are offered for 1st through 5th
place, one half a VP can shift you up above several other people. If
someone else gets two VP, and you're just walling up and the remaining
three of you get 0.5VP, you've come third at least - depending on how
you and the other guy ranked going into the final.
Hence the discussion about removing most of the prize incentives for
other placings.
I've never found that reasonably small amounts of boosters are that big
a problem, however. If the first place person is getting 20 boosters
and 2nd through 5th are getting some but less (say, 16, 12, 8, 4 - these
are just random numbers), it doesn't seem to be a big problem. When
prizes are unique or hard to get or unusual, it can be a bigger problem.
That might be solvable by using, say, "First place gets to pick first",
rather than specific prizes for specific positions (e.g. "First place
gets this artwork, second place gets this signed copy of Darkness
Unveiled, etc.")
>Now you're making my argument. This is precisely my point. Why be a
>stealth bleeder or look dangerous if the entire table will gang up on
>you for your effort? And it will in the final.
Stealth bleeders don't have to look inherently dangerous. People being
very aggressive can. It depends a lot on what other options you've
given yourself. If you don't have much (say) combat defence, being
aggressive may be better - less time for the combat deck to eat you. On
the flip-side, if you have a fair arsenal of defence, you can still
stealth-bleed but you don't need to do it so viciously. e.g. the
difference between an aggressive Malk obf/dom stealth bleed deck, and a
Lasombra obt/dom stealth bleed deck with a fair chunk of Arms of the
Abyss, Torn Signpost, Disarm and the like as a sideline.
It's also worth remembering that in any sizeable tournament, quite a few
of the people at the table will have looked dangerous. IME, it's only
when a deck has REALLY stuck its head above the parapet (e.g. Turbo-
Arika) that the table starts thinking "Urr..."
When that happened at a tournament I was judging, it was only two decks
on the final table which decided to deal with Turbo Arika anyway.
Perhaps the other two would've done had those two not done so, but it
wasn't a 4 against 1 OHMYGODWE'REALLGOINGTODIE moment. (Though that is
what many spectators were thinking.)
And the main reason for that action was that if Turbo-Arika got to take
an action, it could plausibly give them no further opportunity to
intervene.
Certainly, I've seen a lot of scary, scary decks make final tables
without everyone throwing themselves at it to balance the table.
The upshot of this? I'm not sure. Some of this may be social factors.
Some cultures may put a lot more emphasis on coming first. Others might
think that second is just fine, as it's still better than third, fourth
or fifth.
>The problem here is just that: a good table CAN know how to gang up on
>a player who plays very forward. It's too hard for a single player to
>force play and be rewarded for being aggressive, unless the other players
>are incompetant.
It depends on the forward, IMO. Is it a forward that will keep giving
it more and more momentum, or is it a forward that you can do something
about when it gets to you? Maybe you have a lot of bounce, or intercept
combat, or backwards rush, and have no need to go near the deck even
though it's an aggressive stealth bleeder.
That a deck is aggressive isn't, IME, enough to cause people to gang up
on it. When it's aggressive and that aggression would cause other decks
significant problems, yes.
Damnans
Frederick Scott wrote:
> "Damnans" <damna...@ono.comNOSPAM> wrote in message
> news:Bvf0e.25137$dr.1...@news.ono.com...
>
>>However, I agree that static and, therefore, boring finals are a problem.
>>But that's the result of bad play on some players' part (too speculating
>>players who sometimes give up to win too soon, thus breaking the play-
>>to-win rule).
>
>
> Considering where Orpheus observes this problem - in the finals - that
> seems like a very questionable theory. The five best players in the
> tournament didn't get to the final by giving up on games too soon.
Right.
> I think the game win rule, as currently implement, works very well and it
> does a good job of rewarding players who do the 'right' thing. I think
> the tournament final works as well as possible, too.
Agreed.
> Thus I don't think the static-n-boring finals problem has to do with
> bad play. It makes a lot more sense to me to conclude that it has to
> do with too much _good_ play in a single game!
Wasting time in a final is bad play. I agree that finalists may need
more time to think their moves (which can be solved by adding 30 minutes
to the usual 2 hour time limit). But they must not forget that time
is another factor of the game, and that, as such, it must be managed
wisely.
How many finalists have ever thought that they could have won the
tournament if the final round had lasted for several more minutes?
What happens is that some finalists act too conservatively (and I am
not just referring to the top seeded ones, who obviously tend to be
conservative), and therefore afraid of making the first aggressive
move, because they do not want to draw too much attention.
A 2 hour or 2 hour and a half time limit for final rounds is more
than enough for them not to time out (if players do not waste time
being too conservative, which rarely leads to victory and is, therefore,
bad play).
--
Damnans
http://www.almadrava.net/damnans
http://www.vtes.net
http://es.groups.yahoo.com/group/vteshispania/
Frederick Scott
"Damnans" <damna...@ono.comNOSPAM> wrote in message
>> Thus I don't think the static-n-boring finals problem has to do with bad play. It makes a lot more sense to me to conclude that
>> it has to
> > do with too much _good_ play in a single game!
>
> Wasting time in a final is bad play.
I'm not sure how you define "wasting time", but if many, MANY good
players do it, it's highly unlikely to be "bad play".
Again, maybe it's just me, but I tend to go by the theory that
smart players don't suddenly turn dumb because they're put in a
particular situation.
> How many finalists have ever thought that they could have won the
> tournament if the final round had lasted for several more minutes?
But they were probably wrong. Had the clocks been so construed from
the start, the series of events that led them to feel that way would
have just taken place...several minutes laters. In almost all of
these cases, I'm pretty sure things time themselves from the end of
the game all the players know is coming up - NOT from the beginning
of the game.
> What happens is that some finalists act too conservatively (and I am
> not just referring to the top seeded ones, who obviously tend to be
> conservative), and therefore afraid of making the first aggressive
> move, because they do not want to draw too much attention.
I know - but that's my whole point. If you watch them play, you'll
notice that it was how the got to the finals in the first place.
Why does it suddenly become bad play IN the finals?
Fred
Robert Goudie
> "Damnans" <damna...@ono.comNOSPAM> wrote in message
> news:kmT0e.27804$US.1...@news.ono.com...
> >> Thus I don't think the static-n-boring finals problem has to do
with bad play. It makes a lot more sense to me to conclude that
> >> it has to
> > > do with too much _good_ play in a single game!
> >
> > Wasting time in a final is bad play.
>
> I'm not sure how you define "wasting time", but if many, MANY good
> players do it, it's highly unlikely to be "bad play".
>
> Again, maybe it's just me, but I tend to go by the theory that
> smart players don't suddenly turn dumb because they're put in a
> particular situation.
>
> > How many finalists have ever thought that they could have won the
> > tournament if the final round had lasted for several more minutes?
>
> But they were probably wrong. Had the clocks been so construed from
> the start, the series of events that led them to feel that way would
> have just taken place...several minutes laters. In almost all of
> these cases, I'm pretty sure things time themselves from the end of
> the game all the players know is coming up - NOT from the beginning
> of the game.
Very true. For example, at the end of the GenCon NA Championships,
Stephane Lavrut made his big push but ran out of time before ousting
his prey. An observer could have seen that as a case where he'd have
been able to win if there was more time on the clock. However, he
intentionally made his lunge at the point where there'd be no time
remaining if he was successful.
It is akin to an NBA game where the clock winds down and the team with
the ball holds for the final shot in an attempt to leave no time on the
clock afterwards. The length of the game is irrelevant--only the time
remaining matters. If anything, a 3-hour final just may create more
"dead time" before the late-game action begins.
> > What happens is that some finalists act too conservatively (and I
am
> > not just referring to the top seeded ones, who obviously tend to be
> > conservative), and therefore afraid of making the first aggressive
> > move, because they do not want to draw too much attention.
>
> I know - but that's my whole point. If you watch them play, you'll
> notice that it was how the got to the finals in the first place.
> Why does it suddenly become bad play IN the finals?
Hey, some of my favorite games have been ones in which very little
happened from a spectator's viewpoint. Those are the finals where
there's a lot of intensity and subtle manueverings which is all a big
setup for someone to make their push for the win. The finalists come
away talking about how great the game was while the spectators see it
as a big yawnfest.
To some degree I think the GW rule has spawned a playstyle that seeks
to win the table but doesn't do well at acquiring lots of VPs. The old
VP-sweeping decks that were the mainstay of finalist's decks were more
fun for spectators probably. There's certainly a growing group of
players that have adopted this style and build that decks start slowly
and build build build until they reach critical mass and then just
sweep over a prey or two and then hang on till time expires. Palla
Grande and Week of Nightmares-based decks are two of the more obvious
ways to go about this.
-Robert
Peter D Bakija
> not, however, if Ben is playing pot/dom bruise and bleed, and this
> random person just lied.
Sure--there is always the possibility that folks could lie. But it really
isn't that likely.
> not really a solution, rather than how it works now. but the problem
> with this is, the people getting GWs, and thus being the ones to
> choose seating in a final, tend not to be the ones who have time
> 'after they are ousted' to go look at other games.
Eh. There is time between rounds to talk with people and see what folks are
playing. And again, right before you pick your seat, you can always say
"Hey--what is this guy playing?" if you don't know. In all likelyhood,
you'll be able to get enough information in a scentence or less.
Robert Goudie
pd...@lightlink.com wrote:
> Gregory wrote:
> >which is a skill that can pretty much only be exercised at a final.
>
> Sure. But it makes the final into something special and different.
The
> current final system of getting to choose your seat based on score
> going in might not be the best possible system. But it is a system,
and
> it is an interesting one, and one of the side effects of it is that
it
> gives a concrete advantage to being the top seed going in (much like
in
> a squash ladder type seeding system used in sports and one on one
games
> generally results in the strongest seed matching against the weakest
> seed in the first round). Again, it might not be the best possible
> option, but it gives an interesting angle to the game--you can gain
> advantage through appropriate seating choice, assuming that you know
> what the other decks are.
>
> The flaw is, however, that there is no way to know that any given
> player will know what all the decks are, and while it is likely that
> you might know what most of the decks do, there is always a
possibility
> that you won't, and due to a lack of even distribution of
information,
> people will be at a disadvantage to eachother, possibly. This can be
> dealt with in two ways:
When you are choosing seating in the finals of a very large event,
there's always at least one bit of public information available--even
if you know nothing about your opponents' decks.
What you know is their seeding in the finals. If you are the top seed,
you can intentionally sit as the predator or prey or the lowest seeded
player or wherever else you'd like. Maybe you prefer to make the
lowest seeded finalist your predator. Maybe you'd prefer to make the
2nd seeded finalist your prey and try to get rid of them quickly. This
of course presumes some correlation between seeding and player and/or
deck strengths.
Additionally, even when you don't know what deck is being played, you
may know something about the player and their tendencies. If you Peter
are at the finals with me, I might assume you are playing combat and
I'd avoid setting as your predator or prey. If I'm playing combat I
might team with you to beat-down the table and so I might put you as my
grand predator.
In the GenCon 2000 NA Championships, I was 2nd seed and Ben Peal 1st
seed. I chose Steve Fazio as my prey because he'd done well with a
Princely vote deck in the last chance qualifier and I took a stab that
he might play it again--perfect fodder for my weenie pot rush deck.
Ben Peal took a stab that I might be playing weenie pot rush since I'd
done well with it at the last chance qualifier. He chose his seat
accordingly. As well, I had downloaded and brought with me a copy of
Ben Peal's decklist that he qualified with and I had a feeling that he
would play that deck again. If I'd have been top seed, I would have
chosen Ben as my first prey. So, in this case, there were at least 3
correct assumptions made based on observation and player history that
had nothing to do with knowledge of decks or even knowledge gained
within that event.
-Robert
Frederick Scott
news:1111770723.7...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>> > What happens is that some finalists act too conservatively (and I am
>> > not just referring to the top seeded ones, who obviously tend to be
>> > conservative), and therefore afraid of making the first aggressive
>> > move, because they do not want to draw too much attention.
>>
>> I know - but that's my whole point. If you watch them play, you'll
>> notice that it was how the got to the finals in the first place.
>> Why does it suddenly become bad play IN the finals?
>
> Hey, some of my favorite games have been ones in which very little
> happened from a spectator's viewpoint. Those are the finals where
> there's a lot of intensity and subtle manueverings which is all a big
> setup for someone to make their push for the win. The finalists come
> away talking about how great the game was while the spectators see it
> as a big yawnfest.
I guess I don't mind so much if the specatators don't feel they got
their money's worth. (Though I suspect in truth most players who will
sit and watch a final are NOT yawing through something like that.
They may not understand everything that's going on in the minds of the
players, but they're probably just as fascinated.) The trouble I have
with the sort of play I see in this kind of final is that it seems to
give little incentive to do anything except jockey and maneuver for
that moment 10 minutes before the game ends when guys are finally going
to try to do something because time's running out and the pecking order
hasn't moved.
It's doesn't have to be that way. People can jockey and maneuver with
all the same intensity and subtly toward a result that's approaching
because of the play of the cards, not the tick of the clock. Or at
least, I speculate it could be if the game could be rebalanced a bit more
towards pro-active rather than reactive elements.
It's hard for me to tell, though. I know there's always going to be a
self-balancing aspect to a multiplayer games like this. I'm not sure
whether the tendency to try to "outwait fate" by the better players
can be defeated by adjusting game elements or not.
> To some degree I think the GW rule has spawned a playstyle that seeks
> to win the table but doesn't do well at acquiring lots of VPs. The old
> VP-sweeping decks that were the mainstay of finalist's decks were more
> fun for spectators probably. There's certainly a growing group of
> players that have adopted this style and build that decks start slowly
> and build build build until they reach critical mass and then just
> sweep over a prey or two and then hang on till time expires. Palla
> Grande and Week of Nightmares-based decks are two of the more obvious
> ways to go about this.
It's interesting you would see it that way. Agreed, a deck that's built
for a VP sweep may well be more proactive in the finals, as well.
Unfortunately, the GW rule works too well for othre purposes to adjust
it for this.
Fred
Robert Goudie
> "Robert Goudie" <rob...@vtesinla.org> wrote in message
> > To some degree I think the GW rule has spawned a playstyle that
seeks
> > to win the table but doesn't do well at acquiring lots of VPs. The
old
> > VP-sweeping decks that were the mainstay of finalist's decks were
more
> > fun for spectators probably. There's certainly a growing group of
> > players that have adopted this style and build that decks start
slowly
> > and build build build until they reach critical mass and then just
> > sweep over a prey or two and then hang on till time expires. Palla
> > Grande and Week of Nightmares-based decks are two of the more
obvious
> > ways to go about this.
>
> It's interesting you would see it that way. Agreed, a deck that's
built
> for a VP sweep may well be more proactive in the finals, as well.
> Unfortunately, the GW rule works too well for othre purposes to
adjust
> it for this.
Agreed. I'm certainly not proposing that we change the GW rule just
because some players are jockeying for GWs at the expense of massive VP
accumulation. For me personally, I still prefer the hyper-aggressive
decks and they continue to serve me well but I've also got my fair
share of low-VP but GW gathering decks as well.
-Robert
Frederick Scott
message news:I4b4O7Cy...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk...
> In message <Y0R0e.4955$TZ.3866@okepread06>, Frederick Scott
> <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> writes:
>>Huh? One-half a victory point in the finals is *ONLY* ever worth anything
>>to one guy - and then only if everyone else is held to one-half a victory
>>point.
>
> In situations where substantial prizes are offered for 1st through 5th
> place, one half a VP can shift you up above several other people.
Sure. That's the nature of the finals in general. But my comment was
about the suggestion that just finishing with 1/2 a VP was worth anything
to anyone. It's not - unless you were the preliminary round leader and
no one else got an oust. I suppose if there's one oust in the game, the
guy who didn't get the 1/2 VP may slip (in the worst case) from first to
fifth but I still think as a general statement, what Orpheus said was silly.
There's plenty of incentive to aspire to more than 1/2 VP in the finals.
The incentive isn't the issue.
...
> Hence the discussion about removing most of the prize incentives for
> other placings.
>
> I've never found that reasonably small amounts of boosters are that big
> a problem, however.
I really don't think so either. But, for what it's worth, I suppose it's
not a bad idea to flatten out the awards in the larger tournaments so
2nd place doesn't get much more than 5th. For what it's worth, I agree
that only 1st place should stick out noticably above the others.
>>Now you're making my argument. This is precisely my point. Why be a
>>stealth bleeder or look dangerous if the entire table will gang up on
>>you for your effort? And it will in the final.
>
> Stealth bleeders don't have to look inherently dangerous. People being
> very aggressive can. It depends a lot on what other options you've
> given yourself. If you don't have much (say) combat defence, being
> aggressive may be better - less time for the combat deck to eat you. On
> the flip-side, if you have a fair arsenal of defence, you can still
> stealth-bleed but you don't need to do it so viciously. e.g. the
> difference between an aggressive Malk obf/dom stealth bleed deck, and a
> Lasombra obt/dom stealth bleed deck with a fair chunk of Arms of the
> Abyss, Torn Signpost, Disarm and the like as a sideline.
The trouble is, the better players you run into in the finals tend to have
defense as well. I agree with what you say about not needing to look
dangerous, but trying to sneak up on a prey like that will often fail
due to well-managed pool. Thus, a lot of finals turn into these kinds
of marathons.
> It's also worth remembering that in any sizeable tournament, quite a few
> of the people at the table will have looked dangerous. IME, it's only
> when a deck has REALLY stuck its head above the parapet (e.g. Turbo-
> Arika) that the table starts thinking "Urr..."
Well, yea. But a lot of times in the finals, or in the preliminary
rounds, for that matter, just making irresitable headway towards an oust
makes you "look dangerous". And - as noted above - it's hard to actually
get an oust against a prey who knows what he's doing without revealing
some might in order make irresistable headway.
> The upshot of this? I'm not sure. Some of this may be social factors.
>
> Some cultures may put a lot more emphasis on coming first. Others might
> think that second is just fine, as it's still better than third, fourth
> or fifth.
Agreed. That may have something to do with it. It's not an easy thing
to pick apart.
Fred
Orpheus
>>>statement here. (WHY does this make you think there's more incentive to
>>>go forward in the preliminary rounds?)
>>
>>Uh, let me think... Because if you don't actually WIN the prelims you
>>don't even get near the fucking finals ?
>
>
> Nope. Not obvious. Nor even correct, IMHO. I mean, I understand: "If
> I do nothing, I don't make the finals". Yes, that's incentive. I just
> can't figure out how, "Now that I'm in the finals, if I do nothing, I'll
> lose." is not ALSO incentive on pretty much the same level.
Because players think they have already "won" something, illusionary or
not, and that they will prefer not to risk going down rather than
chancing going up (all but the fifth obviously).
> From that comment, I take it you think players lack incentive to
> improve their standing or even defend it once they're in the finals.
> If they're guranteed fifth place, why do anything?
The fifth may go up or nothing, he's the most likely to tempt anything.
> All right, I'll give you that it's slightly correct in this sense: at
> least the finals is a zero-sum game. What one player wins (a higher
> position going out than coming in), another loses. By contrast, in the
> preliminaries, the fact that a game win may not be awarded throws some
> additional incentive in to be aggressive. But I don't think that's
> nearly enough to explain the attitude of conservatism you suggest. The
> fifth place player has NOTHING TO LOSE. Why should he ever hold anything
> back?
He shouldn't. But if he moves too fast, the others will gang up on him,
as you know.
>>>My point is that in the preliminary rounds, it works well to "turtle-up",
>>>bide your time, and wait for a sucker to expose himself. The difference
>>>in play level is *huge* - or so it seems to me, in the larger tournaments
>>>I attend. (The smallish ones don't seem to have this problem.)
>>
>>It is only part of the whole. Don't let "your point" blind you to other
>>elements. I've seen enough finalists play in prelims before, and I can
>>assure you that not only do they, effectively, benefit from lesser
>>players' mistakes, but also they are more eager to do as many VPs as
>>they can, logically, while in the finals 0,5 could be quite enough.
>
> Huh? One-half a victory point in the finals is *ONLY* ever worth anything
> to one guy - and then only if everyone else is held to one-half a victory
> point.
Cf James' comments on that.
> I sympathize with your comment about my point blinding me to other elements.
> There might be others, I agree. But here, you don't have a point. You're
> wrong: players have every incentive by the structure of the tournament to
> move forward. Yet they don't.
Are you talking about the finals ? If so, I think I have stated various
elements to that effect.
One that I didn't mention yet : knowing all the players at the table
were good (or lucky, or both) enough to make it to the finals, all the
other players will be much more weary than at a table with a "weak
link". So they will wait and look each other in the eye, before the
duel, as any samuraď or Sergio Leone character would do. B)
>>>This is exactly the problem you started out complaining
>>>about, as I interpret it.
>>
>>Please let me judge of what I started talking about. The "problem", to
>>me, is the "nothing happens" finals, and has nothing to do with the
>>general tendency of the game.
>
>
> Ah, but it does. That's the whole point of all my comments in this
> thread. I keep hearing people complain about the structure of the
> tournaments. But there is not a thing wrong with the tournament
> structure. It's as close to perfect as I can imagine it. The problem
> is NOT the tournament structure - it's that the finals is the only
> game which consists of five very competant players.
>
> Or if it isn't, who'd notice? The only game that causes people to
> take note of trends is the final game. To test my theory with
> preliminary round games, you'd have to do something like: notice
> whenever a preliminary round game occurs which includes five players
> who all have a high minimum past success rate at getting game wins
> and see how often such a table tends to stagnate.
Well, then it is your pet theory. I don't agree with it, from personnal
experience and poitn of view, but none of us has any way of proving
anything, so let's just keep it to that : a theory, certainly valid, but
remaining unproven.
>>>The only tweak I'd throw into your original
>>>desciption is that the finalists aren't acting any different in the
>>>finals than they act in the preliminary rounds - they're just not
>>>getting as good result from it.
>>
>>On this we do disagree. I repeat, if the finalists had been as
>>attentists in the prelims, they wouldn't have gotten any games. Fighting
>>lesser players of course makes it easier to win tables, but this is also
>>true if you play very forward : a good table will know how to fight a
>>stealth bleeder, or will gang up on a dangerous deck, while a lesser
>>table will wait too long for that and give him the game.
>
>
> Now you're making my argument. This is precisely my point. Why be a
> stealth bleeder or look dangerous if the entire table will gang up on
> you for your effort? And it will in the final.
- looking dangerous and being dangerous are two different things entirely
- if you act dangerously at the right moment it will be too late for
anyone to do anything but also act to the best of their ability
- as in a gunfight or a poker game, keeping your calm until the moment
really has come is a great part of winning a game at such a level ; so
the first one to "crack" offers himself for the sacrifice, yes. But you
can begin a momentum of sorts. Then all the rest is timing, and there is
a point where everyone will realize that they have better things to do
than act to "balance the table". The way each player views this timing
is a great part of the essence of such a game.
> The problem here is just that: a good table CAN know how to gang up on
> a player who plays very forward. It's too hard for a single player to
> force play and be rewarded for being aggressive, unless the other players
> are incompetant.
Yes. But as James said all the decks have proven their worth by being in
the finals. They are all dangerous. It's just they musn't act
dangerously right away.
Let's put it like this. You have a loaded gun. Close to you are two guys
closing in to get your hide for some reason. One is coming in slowly
but surely. The other one is coming running and screaming and looking
hysterical. You know you have the time to shoot just one of them. Who
will it be ? Probably the hysterical guy. Well, the other one is a black
belt karateka, a calm and very dangerous fighter. It just doesn't show.
This has apparently nothing to do with jyhad, but you may find the
analogy interesting if you give it a thought.
>>>>I might agree on a personnal level, but then why would a trend be more
>>>>despicable than another ? Because it makes the game too static?
>>>
>>>Well, you started this whole huge thread for a reason, I assume.
>>
>>I didn't start this (not so) huge thread because of a general tendency
>>in the game, or any "I hate intercept" reason.
>
>
> I know that. But that is where it has to go if you really want to get
> at the real problem behind what you're complaining about.
Your opinion only. Allow me to disagree.
> As for, "I hate intercept.", I think making intercept too useful has been
> one of the factors in creating the incentive for competant players to play
> stagnant games. But I'd agree, that's kind of more my pet theory.
> (And the fact that I hate intercept. :-) )
LOL.
>>Personnaly, I play very proactive, and it does bring me to a final or
>>two. Of course, if you act dangerous and look dangerous, you probably
>>will get ganged up by the whole table. Doing your bit without raising
>>alarm is also a big part of the skill in this game, as you must know.
>
>
> I don't know what you mean by "proactive" if you're not trying to get
> an oust. And if you are, you MUST "act dangerous and look dangerous".
> Otherwise, I wouldn't call it proactive.
No. I must look efficient and make others look more dangerous than me.
Dangerous-looking decks make me win. Dangerous decks, including mine,
just do their job. This is why some stealth bleeders, or weenie, or
whatever, make it to finals and some don't.
>>>(It's also quite possible that I suck at what I'm trying to do and
>>>I wouldn't dispute that. Still, I'd feel better if I saw OTHER,
>>>BETTER players doing what I wanted to do successfully. I don't.
>>>I tend to see the better players playing more reactively in most
>>>cases.)
>>
>>I don't. Good players don't act reactively. They install, wait for their
>>moment, and then move forward so fast you can't do a thing.
>
>
> "Wait(ing) for their moment" <<============>> REACTIVE
>
> I don't know what YOUR definition of "reactive" is.
Decks that pack a lots of reactions, and spend more time blocking other
people than acting (or pooling). So they block whole tables, and some
good players win that way ; others just lead the table to painful
stalemates.
> Now go back and think about the finals: everyone is *SO* "waiting for
> their moment" that nobody's moment ever comes. THAT'S your problem!
>
>>>Bleh. No, thank you. I don't want to get sucked into a "strategy-by-
>>>strategy" debate over how to beat intercept. You missed the point:
>>>it's not "How does Fred beat intercept?"
>>
>>I don't care what Fred does. I just say that there are existing
>>strategies still valid against intercept,
>
> Yes, but they don't prevent reactive play from having dominance,
> which is my complaint.
As I said : kick the ass of reactive play, and it will stop having
dominance. To some people, or in some places, the "dominant" decks might
be swarm, bleed, rush, whatever. YMMV.
Cheers from the Tomb,
Orpheus
Frederick Scott
"Orpheus" <orphe...@DEADfree.fr> wrote in message
>>>>I tend to see the better players playing more reactively in most
>>>>cases.)
>>>
>>>I don't. Good players don't act reactively. They install, wait for their
>>>moment, and then move forward so fast you can't do a thing.
>>
>> "Wait(ing) for their moment" <<============>> REACTIVE
>>
>> I don't know what YOUR definition of "reactive" is.
>
> Decks that pack a lots of reactions, and spend more time blocking other
> people than acting (or pooling). So they block whole tables, and some
> good players win that way ; others just lead the table to painful
> stalemates.
Well, here's a whole big part of the problem. You and I do not agree
on "pro-active" vs. reactive. A Pro-active player is one who is pushing
the action by himself. BY DEFINITION, he is *NOT* "waiting for his
moment". Waiting is REACTIVE, not pro-active.
Since you did not seem to understand this distinction, I think you're
misinterpreting a lot of what I've said in the past.
If you like people just building up their stuff and then kind of
waiting around for someone to appear exposed, then you shouldn't have
a problem with the current game. But this is what you're seeing in
in your finals.
Or as I said in the previous post:
>> Now go back and think about the finals: everyone is *SO* "waiting for
>> their moment" that nobody's moment ever comes. THAT'S your problem!
Fred
Peter D Bakija
> So, in this case, there were at least 3
> correct assumptions made based on observation and player history that
> had nothing to do with knowledge of decks or even knowledge gained
> within that event.
Sure--all very valid points. I guess where I am coming from is that, again,
while I don't think there is any reasonable way to formalize letting folks
what deck you are playing, I think it would make sense to formalize the idea
that people are going to want to know what decks people are playing. And as
they are going to try and find out anyway by watching games in progress and
by comparing games during breaks, it would make sense to remove any sort of
stigma from trying to find out what other people are playing.
I mean, yeah, like, there isn't any rule stopping you from trying, but
apparently, some folks still think that looking at games in progress and
comparing games with your freinds during breaks somehow fall under the
rubric of "scouting" and "collusion" somehow.
jeff...@pacbell.net
> "David Cherryholmes" <david.che...@duke.edu> wrote in message
news:3adhbdF...@individual.net...
> > LSJ wrote:
> >
> > > You do have to play to win. In the finals, "winning" is
determined
> > > by number of VPs, with ties on VPs broken by rank going into the
final
> > > (unlike in the preliminary rounds, where ties remain unbroken and
are
> > > simply ties).
> >
> > It is consistent once you have decided to apply an arbitrary,
different
> > standard for the final game compared to the previous games. That
is the
> > inconsistency to which I was referring.
> > But in fact, my disagreement is even more profound. There is no
logical
> > necessity for a tie breaking system. It is my opinion that game
play
> > would be enhanced if ties were left simply for what they were,
games in
> > which no one achieved a victory.
>
>
> But that would be an issue with the V:EKN tournament rules
themselves,
> not with the vagaries of "play to win". Casting it as the latter,
> especially with the hyperbolic vitriol, clouds the issue, as we've
> just discovered.
>
> There are benefits to having tie-breakers, though. You have a
> winner, which is beneficial to things like continental championships
> were unique (and indivisible) prizes like rings and artwork are
> awarded.
The final still has a very different dynamic to it because the top seed
will win by virtue of not losing.
Just get rid of time limits for finals and you will see everyone play
to win. The seedings can be useful as tie-breakers only when Meths
score the same number of VPs. Yes, that's how it is now, but an
extended or non-existent time limit can counterbalance against the
different table dynamic (play slow, don't lose, still win).
Jeff
LSJ
> Just get rid of time limits
Untenable.
--
LSJ (vtesr...@TRAPwhite-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep (remove spam trap to reply)
Links to V:TES news, rules, cards, utilities, and tournament calendar:
http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/
Frederick Scott
"LSJ" <vtesr...@TRAPwhite-wolf.com> wrote in message
news:Xg01e.3868$z.1...@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
NOBODY GOES TO THE BATHROOM UNTIL FOUR PLAYERS ARE OUSTED!
;-)
Orpheus
> "Orpheus" <orphe...@DEADfree.fr> wrote in message
> news:42446c96$0$11591$626a...@news.free.fr...
>
>>>>>I tend to see the better players playing more reactively in most
>>>>>cases.)
>>>>
>>>>I don't. Good players don't act reactively. They install, wait for their
>>>>moment, and then move forward so fast you can't do a thing.
>>>
>>>"Wait(ing) for their moment" <<============>> REACTIVE
>>>
>>>I don't know what YOUR definition of "reactive" is.
>>
>>Decks that pack a lots of reactions, and spend more time blocking other
>>people than acting (or pooling). So they block whole tables, and some
>>good players win that way ; others just lead the table to painful
>>stalemates.
>
>
> Well, here's a whole big part of the problem. You and I do not agree
> on "pro-active" vs. reactive. A Pro-active player is one who is pushing
> the action by himself. BY DEFINITION, he is *NOT* "waiting for his
> moment". Waiting is REACTIVE, not pro-active.
And so do you not understant me. LOL
I never said waiting was proactive !!!
I make the distinction between :
- reactive (blocking, playing intercept etc, what you're complaining about)
- waiting (cas be made with mostly any deck, what I'm complaining about)
- acting, being pro-active : what I usually do.
Is my POV clearer to you now
> Since you did not seem to understand this distinction, I think you're
> misinterpreting a lot of what I've said in the past.
>
> If you like people just building up their stuff and then kind of
> waiting around for someone to appear exposed, then you shouldn't have
> a problem with the current game. But this is what you're seeing in
> in your finals.
Read above.
> Or as I said in the previous post:
>
>>>Now go back and think about the finals: everyone is *SO* "waiting for
>>>their moment" that nobody's moment ever comes. THAT'S your problem!
Agreed. A timing problem. Either because people are too afraid of the
others to move at the right moment, or because people are willing to
keep their place rather than go down.
Orpheus
Orpheus
We used to do it, of sorts (or fix such a big Time Limit that it
amounted to none at all). Mostly in 2-rounds tournies of course. Yes, it
means not going home in early evening, but other than that the games
were a lot better.
Orpheus
Frederick Scott
"Orpheus" <orphe...@DEADfree.fr> wrote in message
>> Well, here's a whole big part of the problem. You and I do not agree
>> on "pro-active" vs. reactive. A Pro-active player is one who is pushing
>> the action by himself. BY DEFINITION, he is *NOT* "waiting for his
>> moment". Waiting is REACTIVE, not pro-active.
>
> And so do you not understant me. LOL
>
> I never said waiting was proactive !!!
You did indeed:
"Good players don't act reactively. They install, wait for their
moment,..."
You inferred that what "good players (did)" was not reactive, hence
must be proactive. But waiting was one of the things they did.
> I make the distinction between :
>
> - reactive (blocking, playing intercept etc, what you're complaining about)
> - waiting (cas be made with mostly any deck, what I'm complaining about)
> - acting, being pro-active : what I usually do.
Well, I don't. A triadic division like that is just silly. "Waiting" -
in the absense of reacting - would be just playing dead, I guess. (Waiting
and then - doing nothing.) It's no strategy for winning in any case.
In any event, I'm not here to engage in semantic discussions about
whether waiting is a sign of reactive play or not. To me, it plainly is
and I am basing my comments squarely on that fact. Since I was merely
responding to an issue you raised with some of my earlier comments, it's
not your definition I care about. It's my own. If your only issue with
those comments is based on a misunderstanding of what I meant, then I
don't need to care.
Fred
Orpheus
>>>on "pro-active" vs. reactive. A Pro-active player is one who is pushing
>>>the action by himself. BY DEFINITION, he is *NOT* "waiting for his
>>>moment". Waiting is REACTIVE, not pro-active.
>>
>>And so do you not understant me. LOL
>>
>>I never said waiting was proactive !!!
>
>
> You did indeed:
> "Good players don't act reactively. They install, wait for their
> moment,..."
>
> You inferred that what "good players (did)" was not reactive, hence
> must be proactive.
Not at all. Fred, let's be serious. Can't you just read the typed
characters and not imagine any in between the lines ???
> But waiting was one of the things they did.
This I did say, yes. It doesn't mean that waiting is proactive !!!
>>I make the distinction between :
>>
>>- reactive (blocking, playing intercept etc, what you're complaining about)
>>- waiting (cas be made with mostly any deck, what I'm complaining about)
>>- acting, being pro-active : what I usually do.
>
> Well, I don't. A triadic division like that is just silly.
"Silly" is exactly the word I was looking for to describe your attitude
in this thread. Can't you just admit that not everyone in the world
shares your opinions or definitions ? I disagree with you and yet admit
your PoV, but please do not consider that just because you think
something you are the righteous and everyone else is insane. That would
be quite, well... insane ?!
> "Waiting" -
> in the absense of reacting - would be just playing dead, I guess. (Waiting
> and then - doing nothing.) It's no strategy for winning in any case.
Waiting may mean pooling, playing a minimum of reactions (as opposed to
intercepting everything on the table) or just leaving your minions
untapped to block. Did you ever play this game we're talking about ?
> In any event, I'm not here to engage in semantic discussions about
> whether waiting is a sign of reactive play or not.
Well, that's what you've been doing for quite some time now. If you
finally want to drop the semantics, it's fine with me, I've lost enough
time here ; I'f rather build and play some decks.
To me, it plainly is
> and I am basing my comments squarely on that fact. Since I was merely
> responding to an issue you raised with some of my earlier comments, it's
> not your definition I care about. It's my own. If your only issue with
> those comments is based on a misunderstanding of what I meant, then I
> don't need to care.
Great. That's how understanding will pass on better among the human race.
Seriously, I just think you should drop some of your self-justified
ideas, and maybe try to get into some finals or more serious games with
serious players. I can tell you that playing with my betters certainly
changed my vision of the game, although I still play very active games
even when it means my doom.
Deadly Yours,
Orpheus
cur...@aol.commetal
>B) Allow free access to information. Let people watch games in progress
>(assuming they aren't annoying anyone) to see what decks folks are
>playing. Assume folks are going to share information with their
>friends. When someone gets to the finals and says "Huh. That is the one
>player whose deck I haven't seen--anyone wanna tell me what it does in
>one scentence or less?", people can tell him without being accused of
>collusion or something. On the up side, it puts everyone on a pretty
>much even keel and doesn't take any extra effort. On the down side, it,
>um, uhh, yeah, I got nothing.
>
>-Peter
Downsides of allowing people to watch games or the like: punishes
anyone trying to do anything tricky or having any sort of
unpredictable cards in decks; rewards players who finish earlier;
rewards players who have more friends at the tournament. Also, it's
possible to gauge someone's play style better by watching the player
play for a long period of time.
But, as you say, preventing scouting is usually impractical.
cur...@aol.commetal
>Orpheus wrote:
>
>> B' : every player in the finals reveals his crypt (it leaves part for
>> some surprises, but if you see some Eurobrujahs, lots of Beast, all
>> !Malkies or big Lasombras with Pre you might have an idea what you're up
>> against...) ; variant : the players reveal their crypt after they have
>> chosen their table position.
>
>Meh. Doesn't necessarily provide any worthwhile information. And really,
>most players have already seen most decks in action, which provides much
>more information.
Giving an advantage to someone trying to do something surprising seems
like a good idea since, oh, I don't know, surprises in CCGs are kind
of fun. Scouting eliminates the advantage of surprising deck
construction.
>I don't know what to do about insipid finals. But making all the prizes go
>to 1st place certainly would help (like, say, give 1st place the bulk of the
>prizes, and give 2-5th place identical token prizes, like a couple boosters
>or something). I suspect that this would go a long way towards encouraging
>people trying to actually win--if there was no measurable difference between
>2nd and 5th place, then there would be no incentive to try and get 2nd
>place.
My preference is to give the bulk of the prizes to everyone - have
something for game wins and for the overall winner but spread the
wealth. Reasons: the players who do the worst tend to have the most
use for prizes like boosters; feels less like gambling when you have
to put money in for the prize support; winning is its own reward*.
* Some people play for their rating, some people play to get in the
TWDA (the latter making a lot more sense to me than the former, but
whatever), some people play for being able to say they won a
tournament even if it goes unnoticed in the TWDA. At least for the
events I've played in, the physical prizes have paled in comparison to
the intangible benefits of winning. Therefore, I see little that's
gained from large relative rewards to a tournament victor. Even for
bigger events with bigger prizes, being able to say "... - 2004
National Champion" seems a tad better than artwork, several boxes of
cards, and a lot of other stuff.
Peter D Bakija
> Downsides of allowing people to watch games or the like: punishes
> anyone trying to do anything tricky or having any sort of
> unpredictable cards in decks;
Sure. But there is no way to prevent playing people a second time (so
they'll already be wise to your deck) in subsequent rounds or the finals and
no way to prevent folks from discussing your deck over lunch ("Man! Did you
see Ian's deck! It was this fantastic trick deck that..."), and no practical
way to prevent people from looking at tables when they are ousted. I mean,
like, yeah, other people knowing what your deck does reduces the surprise of
trickiness, but the only time you can *guarantee* your deck being a surprise
is the first round, and after that, it is likely that people will know what
your deck does. Especially if it is a cool surprise :-)
> rewards players who finish earlier;
And don't we want people to have more incentive to play more pro-actively?
:-)
> rewards players who have more friends at the tournament.
True. But again, this is already the case--if I go to an event with 3 pals
and we eat lunch together between the first and second round, we are all
going to compare games and decks we saw. There is no reasonable way to
prevent this already.
> Also, it's
> possible to gauge someone's play style better by watching the player
> play for a long period of time.
Oh, sure. But that isn't that likely to happen--it is reasonable to expect
that any number of people will get to spy on a game in progress for about 5
minutes. You really only get a long period of time to watch by being in a
game.
> But, as you say, preventing scouting is usually impractical.
Unless you have sequestering chambers, people are going to look at games in
progress. And compare notes with friends over lunch. This already happens.
It strikes me as just a better plan all together to simply embrace it,
rather than try and prevent it.
Peter D Bakija
> Giving an advantage to someone trying to do something surprising seems
> like a good idea since, oh, I don't know, surprises in CCGs are kind
> of fun. Scouting eliminates the advantage of surprising deck
> construction.
Sure. But as I mentioned in the other post, there is no way to prevent folks
from knowing what your deck does after the first round, even if you put a
lot of effort into preventing scouting, which is wildly impractical.
In the first round, 4 other people will see your deck in action. Likely,
they will share what your deck does during the break, especially if it is
cool and surprising, as folks like to share this sort of thing, mostly
'cause it is cool. And maybe a few people will see the deck in action by
spying on the game. By the time second round starts, half the people in the
tournament (assuimng an average size tournament) are reasonably likely to
have an idea what it does. After the second round, the same thing happens.
Daneel
>> There are benefits to having tie-breakers, though. You have a
>> winner, which is beneficial to things like continental championships
>> were unique (and indivisible) prizes like rings and artwork are
>> awarded.
>
> The final still has a very different dynamic to it because the top seed
> will win by virtue of not losing.
>
> Just get rid of time limits for finals and you will see everyone play
> to win. The seedings can be useful as tie-breakers only when Meths
> score the same number of VPs. Yes, that's how it is now, but an
> extended or non-existent time limit can counterbalance against the
> different table dynamic (play slow, don't lose, still win).
I agree. Some folks don't, though... Having no time limit means the
finals can go on for eternity. That is rather impractical when renting
a hall for the game event, or needing to catch a return flight (or the
buddies who share the same car, etc.).
There are perhaps even players who would try to use the fatigue of their
adversaries, and basically turtle up and not do anything until someone
just gives up.
IMHO sportsmanship (in the undefined-by-tournament-rules sense) has long
died out from the VTES community. I know players who are very
sportsmanlike, but there are folks who just seem to care about winning
and doing whatever it takes to win, as long as they can get away with
it. Boring and disillusioning...
--
Bye,
Daneel
Daneel
<nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote:
> I really don't think so either. But, for what it's worth, I suppose it's
> not a bad idea to flatten out the awards in the larger tournaments so
> 2nd place doesn't get much more than 5th. For what it's worth, I agree
> that only 1st place should stick out noticably above the others.
While it could indeed encourage more proactive play in the finals,
it would take away much of the incentive to attend larger events.
Making top 5 is easier out of 20 people than 60 or 100. Winning
the tournament is about 5× as hard. So while I agree that more
proactive finals might be desirable, rewarding only the winner
seems somewhat unfair on another level.
Maybe giving serious thought to a hybrid reward system that was
mentioned earlier would make sense (that is, rewarding GWs and
1st place or something).
--
Bye,
Daneel
Daneel
<nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote:
>> I make the distinction between :
>>
>> - reactive (blocking, playing intercept etc, what you're complaining
>> about)
>> - waiting (cas be made with mostly any deck, what I'm complaining about)
>> - acting, being pro-active : what I usually do.
>
> Well, I don't. A triadic division like that is just silly. "Waiting" -
> in the absense of reacting - would be just playing dead, I guess.
> (Waiting
> and then - doing nothing.) It's no strategy for winning in any case.
While your statement is somewhat rectified, it does seem mostly true to
me. However, Orpheus might be right on a different level (as far as the
big picture is concerned).
Let's define the terms. Say, as: "Proactive": doing your stuff mostly
irrespective of the game environment. "Reactive": doing your stuff
mostly depending on the game environment. In this sense proactive play
is stronger from a strategic POV, whereas reactive play is stronger
from a tactical POV.
What tips the scales, IMHO, towards reactive play is that in a
massively multiplayer game strategic deficiencies (or strengths)
can be overcome through good tactical play. Focusing on the tactical
aspect of the game works wonders in the preliminary rounds, where
you can often win despite the odds by using the less experienced
players.
--
Bye,
Daneel
Frederick Scott
news:opsodbch...@news.chello.hu...
> On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 22:04:15 -0700, Frederick Scott Let's define the terms. Say, as: "Proactive": doing your stuff mostly
> irrespective of the game environment. "Reactive": doing your stuff
> mostly depending on the game environment. In this sense proactive play
> is stronger from a strategic POV, whereas reactive play is stronger
> from a tactical POV.
I think with this last sentence, you wind up also giving your definitions
of what "strategy" and "tactics" in this game mean to you. But OK, it
makes a certain kind of sense to say this.
> What tips the scales, IMHO, towards reactive play is that in a
> massively multiplayer game strategic deficiencies (or strengths)
> can be overcome through good tactical play.
I wouldn't agree with such a general statement, myself. I think, rather,
in *THIS* multiplayer game, strategic deficiencies can be overcome through
good tactical play. I don't think that's a necessary state of affairs in
a multiplayer game, though.
I think you also put your finger on the potential problem with allowing
players to become proactive without remedy in some given metagame
matchup: a game might "plays itself" out without reference to what the
players actually do (assuming all are basically trying to win). Players
usually profess not to like a game that doesn't give them the chance to
play.
And therein lies the crux of the matter: you want to give players the
opportunity to make decisions and affect the game durng the actual
game. But if you do, four competant players normally can and should be
able to prevent one competant player from winning - and so they generally
choose to. Thus, games with five competant players tend to stalemate an
inordinate amount of the time.
Fred
Daneel
<nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote:
> "Daneel" <dan...@eposta.hu> wrote in message
> news:opsodbch...@news.chello.hu...
>> On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 22:04:15 -0700, Frederick Scott Let's define the
>> terms. Say, as: "Proactive": doing your stuff mostly
>> irrespective of the game environment. "Reactive": doing your stuff
>> mostly depending on the game environment. In this sense proactive play
>> is stronger from a strategic POV, whereas reactive play is stronger
>> from a tactical POV.
>
> I think with this last sentence, you wind up also giving your definitions
> of what "strategy" and "tactics" in this game mean to you. But OK, it
> makes a certain kind of sense to say this.
Yeah, well, it's just the words. I do have loose definitions for strategy
and tactics for VTES, but the point is, there is a difference between
selecting the tools you wish to have available, and using those tools. I
like "strategy" and "tactics", but the former primarily refers to deck
design, and the latter basically refers to playing the game.
>> What tips the scales, IMHO, towards reactive play is that in a
>> massively multiplayer game strategic deficiencies (or strengths)
>> can be overcome through good tactical play.
>
> I wouldn't agree with such a general statement, myself. I think, rather,
> in *THIS* multiplayer game, strategic deficiencies can be overcome
> through good tactical play.
Right, let's not get into overgeneralizations, because they NEVER serve
any puspose whatsoever and are ALWAYS pointless. ;)
> I don't think that's a necessary state of affairs in a multiplayer
> game, though.
You're probably right in this, though.
> I think you also put your finger on the potential problem with allowing
> players to become proactive without remedy in some given metagame
> matchup: a game might "plays itself" out without reference to what the
> players actually do (assuming all are basically trying to win). Players
> usually profess not to like a game that doesn't give them the chance to
> play.
Are you referring to a possibility that non-interactive strategies might
take away from the fun of the game by turning the game into basically a
Rock/Paper/Scissors game where player presence is almost unnecessary?
> And therein lies the crux of the matter: you want to give players the
> opportunity to make decisions and affect the game durng the actual
> game. But if you do, four competant players normally can and should be
> able to prevent one competant player from winning - and so they generally
> choose to. Thus, games with five competant players tend to stalemate an
> inordinate amount of the time.
I would say that the game (especially in the preliminary rounds) rewards
reactive play more than proactive play (I think that this is true since
the GW rule got introduced). So in the finals you probably end up with
players who play decks that allow them more tactical freedom. Meaning,
basically, that in such a case your above paragraph kicks in, and the
more reactive strategies result in a stalemate of sorts.
--
Bye,
Daneel
Frederick Scott
"Daneel" <dan...@eposta.hu> wrote:
> On Mon, 28 Mar 2005 18:46:19 -0700, Frederick Scott wrote:
>> I think you also put your finger on the potential problem with allowing
>> players to become proactive without remedy in some given metagame
>> matchup: a game might "plays itself" out without reference to what the
>> players actually do (assuming all are basically trying to win). Players
>> usually profess not to like a game that doesn't give them the chance to
>> play.
>
> Are you referring to a possibility that non-interactive strategies might
> take away from the fun of the game by turning the game into basically a
> Rock/Paper/Scissors game where player presence is almost unnecessary?
Something like that. In trying to think what would tend to discourage
statemates in a tournament final, I'm just musing that it would have to
come from the inability of other players to effectively react to what one
player was doing proactively. The point being, if you go to the other
extreme, then players aren't able to react to the overall game situation as
they play so you've got, like, five games of solitaire going on at once.
Someone will win and others will lose and the result (yes, indeed) would
seem like Rock/Paper/Sissors.
Still, it seems like some happy medium between the two could be arranged.
A place where players would risk being marginalized if they didn't
make _some_ effort at actually ousting their prey.
> I would say that the game (especially in the preliminary rounds) rewards
> reactive play more than proactive play (I think that this is true since
> the GW rule got introduced). So in the finals you probably end up with
> players who play decks that allow them more tactical freedom. Meaning,
> basically, that in such a case your above paragraph kicks in, and the
> more reactive strategies result in a stalemate of sorts.
Right; agreed.
Fred
Daneel
<nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote:
>> Are you referring to a possibility that non-interactive strategies might
>> take away from the fun of the game by turning the game into basically a
>> Rock/Paper/Scissors game where player presence is almost unnecessary?
>
> Something like that. In trying to think what would tend to discourage
> statemates in a tournament final, I'm just musing that it would have to
> come from the inability of other players to effectively react to what one
> player was doing proactively. The point being, if you go to the other
> extreme, then players aren't able to react to the overall game situation
> as
> they play so you've got, like, five games of solitaire going on at once.
> Someone will win and others will lose and the result (yes, indeed) would
> seem like Rock/Paper/Sissors.
>
> Still, it seems like some happy medium between the two could be arranged.
> A place where players would risk being marginalized if they didn't
> make _some_ effort at actually ousting their prey.
Some random points that come into mind:
1. The ready availability of numerous counter cards, even general counter
cards, pushes bold or highly conditional plays over the line of
unfeasibility. Without general interference cards like Direct
Intervention,
Delaying Tactics and Eagle's Sight we'd possibly see more proactive decks.
2. Game Wins were invented to give players a better chance by making ultra-
aggressive, one-sure-VP decks impractical. I'm not sure that after a
healthy
dose of cards like Aranthebes, Retribution and Nightmares upon Nightmares
we still need the GW rule. Because it basically forces people to think
tables instead of preys, which shifts the game towards a more reactive
play.
3. Perhaps VPs could be scaled. I am thinking along the lines of, say,
making
the first oust worth an additional VP or something.
--
Bye,
Daneel
salem
>3. Perhaps VPs could be scaled. I am thinking along the lines of, say,
>making
> the first oust worth an additional VP or something.
this is very interesting. i quite like the idea, at least as something
to think about, and maybe trial.
if the first 'oust' was worth an additional vp, then you'd need rules
for wherre multiple meths were ousted simultaneously (split the
additional vp among all the preds, i guess, or perhaps only allocate
it for a 'clean' first oust, where only one meth is ousted) and
no-oust time outs (again spread the vp....or maybe not allocate it at
all? we already have disparity in possible vps in 4 or 5 player
tables..). hmmm....
possibly make combat decks again a nudge up the power curve (the
oft-mentioned ploy of kill your first prey, try not to let anyone else
get more than one vp, and then work backwards round the table becomes
even more valuable...although i guess that depends on the speed at
which you can get your first oust compared to other players...).
although, this could just make games MORE stagnant as people try even
harder to cross-table 'balance' things and prevent anyone else getting
an oust...
salem
http://www.users.tpg.com.au/adsltqna/VtES/index.htm
(replace "hotmail" with "yahoo" to email)
James Coupe
writes:
>1. The ready availability of numerous counter cards, even general counter
> cards, pushes bold or highly conditional plays over the line of
> unfeasibility. Without general interference cards like Direct
>Intervention,
> Delaying Tactics and Eagle's Sight we'd possibly see more proactive decks.
Depends a lot on the player. Not everyone thinks "Oh my god, I might
get cancelled" and shifts into a reactive play. Indeed, this is one of
the reasons that some players go focused on specific strategies in the
extreme - to screw up the (now useless) defence that their prey has
(e.g. Delaying Tactics vs a combat deck) and to make sure they always
have the right cards in hand. So, even if you D.I. my rush, I have
another one. If you D.I. my Grapple, I have another one. And so on.
>2. Game Wins were invented to give players a better chance by making ultra-
>aggressive, one-sure-VP decks impractical.
Not really.
When the GW was invented, there were two problematic situations:
- two combat decks agreeing to table-split rather than mutual
annihilation (particularly if sat next to each other). Here,
two VPs (for the loser) was very close to three VPs (for the
winner), and better than both getting zero. These days, 2 is
better than 0, but 3 and a GW is significantly better.
- intercept decks, but much less so than the combat deck situation. Sit
down, wait, wait, wait, wait, oust final prey and get 1 VP for
last man standing. Gets 2 VP. But never gets any more. But
the player perceives 2 VP as being a good base to work on,
rather than looking at the deck more significantly. These days,
they know they have to get three which often makes them more
aggressive (and thus in general better for a relatively speedy
game).
One-sure-VP decks were always impractical, pretty much, since across
three rounds, you'd get 3 VP and lots of other players would be amassing
6-8 VPs (two to three each round). Of course, some people would still
view it as "Cool, a VP!" but that's not quite the same thing - the rules
were pretty clear that such wouldn't be rewarded in a tournament.
>I'm not sure that after a healthy
> dose of cards like Aranthebes, Retribution and Nightmares upon Nightmares
> we still need the GW rule. Because it basically forces people to think
> tables instead of preys, which shifts the game towards a more reactive
>play.
In that they need to get at least two, and preferably three, VP, yes.
But they needed at least two per table before really. Now, of course,
pre-GW, a 5VP sweep and a 1VP grab were as good as two 3VPs (which would
be GWs, in the current system). In the new system, not so.
What this does encourage is consistency.
I would say that the decks people choose to play now seem to be slightly
less willing to take the risk of "What if I get completely creamed on
one table?" And so they provide themselves with more options. Whereas
previously, since on the two tables they did sweep they'd make up for
the one table they got creamed, they'd be happier to take that risk.
Is that a bad thing? Well, it does prevent (in part) Jyhad turning into
rock/paper/scissors. I bring my rock weenie vote deck, you bring your
paper weenie rush deck and accidentally flatten me. Of course, these
decks can still happen and do still happen, but possibly less so?
Here, however, I'm not sure if this is a good thing, a bad thing, or
just a thing. I think there's a lot to be said for encouraging decks
which can do well repeatedly, rather than decks which are spectacular
victors or spectacular flops.
>3. Perhaps VPs could be scaled. I am thinking along the lines of, say,
>making
> the first oust worth an additional VP or something.
This has a number of potential downsides.
First of all, this encourages speed. This is not, in and of itself, a
bad thing. However, the sort of speedy oust that is most easily and
most reliably found is the weenie deck - and the game has steadily
shifted away from gifting the weenie decks that power, for a variety of
reasons. I'm not sure we want to give that power back to the weenie
decks.
Secondly, the "guaranteed 1VP decks" you mention above can fall into
this category. Get 1VP *which is now 2VP* then wall up. 2VP is the
sort of number at which players start thinking "Wow, I have a good base
for a deck here!" even when it's pants - see the intercept/wall decks of
old which *only* get 2VP for ousting the final other player.
Thirdly, I'm not sure that a deck which takes a little time to start
(e.g. to pass a few votes, play a few actions etc.) but which is then
extremely aggressive should have this sort of downside to it. Typical
examples might include an aggressive, forward moving intercept/combat
deck - which takes a little while to get out a decent vampire, an
intercept location/equipment or two, maybe Smiling Jack, maybe Talons of
the Dead on Omaya or somesuch sort of setup - which just needs a little
effort before it can move forward, but then can. Or similarly, a deck
which needs to pass a few votes (title granters, Rumors, etc.) before it
moves forward.
These decks aren't part of the problem, and I'm not sure that action
which discourages them in favour of moving towards "speed oust OR defend
against speed oust" (which an early grab VP rule does) is sensible, as a
result.
--
James Coupe "Why do so many talented people turn out to be sexual
PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D deviants? Why can't they just be normal like me and
EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 look at internet pictures of men's cocks all day?"
13D7E668C3695D623D5D -- www.livejournal.com/users/scarletdemon/
salem
scrawled:
>another one. If you D.I. my Grapple, I have another one. And so on.
...to play next round...
Daneel
> In message <opsof7kk...@news.chello.hu>, Daneel <dan...@eposta.hu>
> writes:
>> 1. The ready availability of numerous counter cards, even general
>> counter
>> cards, pushes bold or highly conditional plays over the line of
>> unfeasibility. Without general interference cards like Direct
>> Intervention,
>> Delaying Tactics and Eagle's Sight we'd possibly see more proactive
>> decks.
>
> Depends a lot on the player. Not everyone thinks "Oh my god, I might
> get cancelled" and shifts into a reactive play.
Yeah, but players may think "Oh my god, I have 6 DIs and 6 DTs in my
deck, I might cancel what I want" and shift into reactive play.
> Indeed, this is one of
> the reasons that some players go focused on specific strategies in the
> extreme - to screw up the (now useless) defence that their prey has
> (e.g. Delaying Tactics vs a combat deck) and to make sure they always
> have the right cards in hand. So, even if you D.I. my rush, I have
> another one. If you D.I. my Grapple, I have another one. And so on.
Well, having another Grapple might not be too significant if we are
talking about Immortal Grapples. DIing the one means you are free
to S:CE. Sometimes that's all you need. Granted, if you can readily
enter combat, you won't mind it that much.
>> 2. Game Wins were invented to give players a better chance by making
>> ultra-
>> aggressive, one-sure-VP decks impractical.
>
> Not really.
>
> When the GW was invented, there were two problematic situations:
>
> - two combat decks agreeing to table-split rather than mutual
> annihilation (particularly if sat next to each other). Here,
> two VPs (for the loser) was very close to three VPs (for the
> winner), and better than both getting zero. These days, 2 is
> better than 0, but 3 and a GW is significantly better.
This is completely unaddressed by the GW rule. The two combat decks still
have it in their best interests to split the table. Yes, 3 VP and a GW
is more than 2 VP and no GW, but both are more than 0 VP and 0 GW.
> - intercept decks, but much less so than the combat deck situation. Sit
> down, wait, wait, wait, wait, oust final prey and get 1 VP for
> last man standing. Gets 2 VP. But never gets any more. But
> the player perceives 2 VP as being a good base to work on,
> rather than looking at the deck more significantly. These days,
> they know they have to get three which often makes them more
> aggressive (and thus in general better for a relatively speedy
> game).
???
Dunno where are you from, but I never really saw the prevalence of
intercept
decks before the GW rule. The fact that getting 3 VPs reliably is enough
to
get the GW is creating a niche for those decks that can get 3 VPs reliably
but have no significant chance to score more.
> One-sure-VP decks were always impractical, pretty much, since across
> three rounds, you'd get 3 VP and lots of other players would be amassing
> 6-8 VPs (two to three each round). Of course, some people would still
> view it as "Cool, a VP!" but that's not quite the same thing - the rules
> were pretty clear that such wouldn't be rewarded in a tournament.
One-sure-VP decks are those that are so aggressive that they are almost
certainly guaranteed at least 1 VP each round, but have drastically
diminishing hopes to achieve significantly more. One-sure-VP decks
probably get about 2 VPs on the average each table. That is 6 VPs and
0 GWs on the average.
Such decks often sacrafice mid-game staying power and end-game tactical
resources for the sake of maximising early ousting power. Meaning, an
average deck will be powerless against them when seated as their prey.
By discouraging these highly aggressive decks, more interaction is
supported as players are encouraged to make a shot at 3 VPs in any game.
>> I'm not sure that after a healthy
>> dose of cards like Aranthebes, Retribution and Nightmares upon
>> Nightmares
>> we still need the GW rule. Because it basically forces people to think
>> tables instead of preys, which shifts the game towards a more reactive
>> play.
>
> In that they need to get at least two, and preferably three, VP, yes.
> But they needed at least two per table before really. Now, of course,
Which is easier to do with a super aggressive deck.
> pre-GW, a 5VP sweep and a 1VP grab were as good as two 3VPs (which would
> be GWs, in the current system). In the new system, not so.
Yeah, that's obvious.
> What this does encourage is consistency.
In a card game where cards are randomly drawn, and seating is determined
randomly. I'm not sure.
> I would say that the decks people choose to play now seem to be slightly
> less willing to take the risk of "What if I get completely creamed on
> one table?" And so they provide themselves with more options. Whereas
> previously, since on the two tables they did sweep they'd make up for
> the one table they got creamed, they'd be happier to take that risk.
If you sweep two tables you are likely standing at 2/10, which is pretty
much enough for even the largest tournament finals.
> Is that a bad thing? Well, it does prevent (in part) Jyhad turning into
> rock/paper/scissors. I bring my rock weenie vote deck, you bring your
> paper weenie rush deck and accidentally flatten me. Of course, these
> decks can still happen and do still happen, but possibly less so?
Well, there is a significant Rock/Paper/Scissors aspect to the game no
matter what you do. But yes, I agree that the game win rule discourages
super-aggressive, one-sure-VP decks.
> Here, however, I'm not sure if this is a good thing, a bad thing, or
> just a thing. I think there's a lot to be said for encouraging decks
> which can do well repeatedly, rather than decks which are spectacular
> victors or spectacular flops.
Yeah, but this is still just a card game. You can jam, you can get the
paper to your rock as your predator (or prey, or both), or you can be
busted by any other unfortunate event. Play skill is important, but so
is chance. Consistency, in that aspect, could be nothing more than just
repetitious good fortune.
>> 3. Perhaps VPs could be scaled. I am thinking along the lines of, say,
>> making
>> the first oust worth an additional VP or something.
>
> This has a number of potential downsides.
Yeah, I know. I don't think this is the way to go; only that I think
there may be a desire in some people to find a way to go. For pondering,
this is as good as any other idea.
> First of all, this encourages speed. This is not, in and of itself, a
> bad thing. However, the sort of speedy oust that is most easily and
> most reliably found is the weenie deck - and the game has steadily
> shifted away from gifting the weenie decks that power, for a variety of
> reasons. I'm not sure we want to give that power back to the weenie
> decks.
Yeah, that's probably true.
> Secondly, the "guaranteed 1VP decks" you mention above can fall into
> this category. Get 1VP *which is now 2VP* then wall up. 2VP is the
> sort of number at which players start thinking "Wow, I have a good base
> for a deck here!" even when it's pants - see the intercept/wall decks of
> old which *only* get 2VP for ousting the final other player.
Okay, I'm not sure where you are getting at here. Unless this is just a
restatement of your first point. Because if a deck can (under the
current system) score the first VP and than be the last man standing, he
or she already has the GW.
> Thirdly, I'm not sure that a deck which takes a little time to start
> (e.g. to pass a few votes, play a few actions etc.) but which is then
> extremely aggressive should have this sort of downside to it. Typical
> examples might include an aggressive, forward moving intercept/combat
> deck - which takes a little while to get out a decent vampire, an
> intercept location/equipment or two, maybe Smiling Jack, maybe Talons of
> the Dead on Omaya or somesuch sort of setup - which just needs a little
> effort before it can move forward, but then can. Or similarly, a deck
> which needs to pass a few votes (title granters, Rumors, etc.) before it
> moves forward.
I don't really see the point. Almost every deck intends to apply forward
pressure. This sounds like just another restatement of your point #1.
Giving more power to weenies takes away from every other deck type, even
those that should be strengthened, not weakened.
> These decks aren't part of the problem, and I'm not sure that action
> which discourages them in favour of moving towards "speed oust OR defend
> against speed oust" (which an early grab VP rule does) is sensible, as a
> result.
But the other problem is that we are having a time limit. I see tables
timing out as a big problem. I see the prevalence of reactive play as a
poor alternative to the perceived mindlessness of weenie computer hacking
(or somesuch). The balance should, IMHO, be found and encouraged, with
neither super-aggressive, nor highly reactive plays being rewarded too
much.
I'm somewhat beginning to doubt the necesity of the Game Win rule.
--
Bye,
Daneel
Damnans
Frederick Scott wrote:
> "Damnans" <damna...@ono.comNOSPAM> wrote in message
> news:kmT0e.27804$US.1...@news.ono.com...
>
>>>Thus I don't think the static-n-boring finals problem has to do with bad play. It makes a lot more sense to me to conclude that
>>>it has to
>>>do with too much _good_ play in a single game!
>>
>>Wasting time in a final is bad play.
>
> I'm not sure how you define "wasting time", but if many, MANY good
> players do it, it's highly unlikely to be "bad play".
For me, "wasting time" means taking more time than usual to do
your turn (not counting the fact that, in a final, players tend
to take longer to think about their moves), either by talking too
much about irrelevant things, or by reiterating their points
ad nauseam in endless discussions (once they are clear to everyone
else), or by taking a century to think of a futile or insignificant
move, or by checking your hand over and over again to see of you
can find a given card it is not actually there, etc.
> Again, maybe it's just me, but I tend to go by the theory that
> smart players don't suddenly turn dumb because they're put in a
> particular situation.
Define "smart players", please ;-)
>>How many finalists have ever thought that they could have won the
>>tournament if the final round had lasted for several more minutes?
>
> But they were probably wrong. Had the clocks been so construed from
> the start, the series of events that led them to feel that way would
> have just taken place...several minutes laters. In almost all of
> these cases, I'm pretty sure things time themselves from the end of
> the game all the players know is coming up - NOT from the beginning
> of the game.
You are right about that, but that was not what I was talking about.
I was referring to finals where time is wasted.
>>What happens is that some finalists act too conservatively (and I am
>>not just referring to the top seeded ones, who obviously tend to be
>>conservative), and therefore afraid of making the first aggressive
>>move, because they do not want to draw too much attention.
>
> I know - but that's my whole point. If you watch them play, you'll
> notice that it was how the got to the finals in the first place.
> Why does it suddenly become bad play IN the finals?
Players do not take that long to think about their moves in the
preliminary rounds as they do in the final (which is understandable),
but wasting time is bad play anyway, as long as it is not considered
by a judge as stalling.
And, in my experience, some "smart players" waste time during final
rounds.
--
Damnans
http://www.almadrava.net/damnans
http://www.vtes.net
http://es.groups.yahoo.com/group/vteshispania/
Frederick Scott
"Damnans" <damna...@ono.comNOSPAM> wrote in message
> Define "smart players", please ;-)
Well, playing in a finals is a pretty good clue.
>>>How many finalists have ever thought that they could have won the
>>>tournament if the final round had lasted for several more minutes?
>>
>> But they were probably wrong. Had the clocks been so construed from
>> the start, the series of events that led them to feel that way would
>> have just taken place...several minutes laters. In almost all of
>> these cases, I'm pretty sure things time themselves from the end of
>> the game all the players know is coming up - NOT from the beginning
>> of the game.
>
> You are right about that, but that was not what I was talking about.
>
> I was referring to finals where time is wasted.
I guess I don't perceive that "wasting time" is usually the issue with
finals timing out. I guess at this point, I'd write our differences down
to that.
Fred
Robert Goudie
> wrote:
>
> > When the GW was invented, there were two problematic situations:
> >
> > - two combat decks agreeing to table-split rather than mutual
> > annihilation (particularly if sat next to each other).
Here,
> > two VPs (for the loser) was very close to three VPs (for
the
> > winner), and better than both getting zero. These days, 2
is
> > better than 0, but 3 and a GW is significantly better.
>
> This is completely unaddressed by the GW rule. The two combat decks
still
> have it in their best interests to split the table. Yes, 3 VP and a
GW
> is more than 2 VP and no GW, but both are more than 0 VP and 0 GW.
It wasn't specifically combat decks that necessitated the change. It
was that it was almost always in everyone's best interest to split the
table. Tables were being split 3/2 or 2/3 too quickly after the rounds
began. As James noted, the "losing side" of that split still get's 2
VPs. Many players would reach the finals on the strength of sitting
down and accepting 3 deals at 2 VPs each.
Essentially we were rewarding 2 VP losses almost as much as we were
rewarding wins and the choice of finalists based on VPs gave incentive
for players to choose to lose.
> I'm somewhat beginning to doubt the necesity of the Game Win rule.
Daneel, were you involved in tournaments pre-GW? Just curious. I don't
imagine very many tournament players from that era would agree with
you.
-Robert
jeff...@pacbell.net
I think there is significant "wasting time" in many finals. It's also
not so cut-and-dried to assert there are 4 people against the top seed.
The second seed has nearly as much incentive to protect their position
against the third, fourth and fifth seeded players too. Likewise 3 over
4 & 5, and 4 over 5 with diminishing returns.
Finalists are also much more subtle about how they waste time. They are
generally better players to get there, and they know how the time game
is played. Games are 120 minutes. Suppose the average turn takes 2
minutes, 10 minutes around the table. That gives you roughly 12
complete turns of the table. Now suppose the two top seeds draw out
their turns, averaging 3 minutes per turn compared to the others. This
is reasonable considering careful deliberations, extra table talk,
meaningless deal-making, referendum discussions, etc. You're now up to
12 minutes per rotation and down to 10 turns of the table. Granted,
this isn't perfect considering ousts, etc, but one or two players can
have a significant impact on the game in slow, yet "legitimate" ways
and not appear to be stalling.
Jeff
James Coupe
writes:
>> get cancelled" and shifts into a reactive play.
>
>Yeah, but players may think "Oh my god, I have 6 DIs and 6 DTs in my
> deck, I might cancel what I want" and shift into reactive play.
That a player has 6 DIs and 6 DTs (or whatever similar cards - Sudden
Reversals are an obvious other one) doesn't make the deck reactive, any
more than including Wakes and Bleed Bounce makes the deck "reactive".
Including flexible defence is good play, in many, many decks. (Insert
standard "Obviously, some decks..." to taste.) That doesn't make the
deck reactive - it's just acknowledging that many decks need some
staying power against an aggressive predator, a wily prey or whatever.
If throwing down D.I. stops my prey playing a Govern the Unaligned to
gain pool, that's surely not "reactive" in any meaningful sense. It's
simply stopping him undoing the work I've done. If throwing down
Delaying Tactics stops my predator Banishing my copy of Tariq, that's
good sense and a sensible precaution, surely? My deck is still doing
its thing, it's just standing up to problems. Similarly, throwing a
Sudden Reversal to stop a Minion Tap - good sense.
And so on, and so on, and so on. There are lots of flexible defensive
cards that many highly active decks can and do pack.
>> When the GW was invented, there were two problematic situations:
>>
>> - two combat decks agreeing to table-split rather than mutual
>> annihilation (particularly if sat next to each other). Here,
>> two VPs (for the loser) was very close to three VPs (for the
>> winner), and better than both getting zero. These days, 2 is
>> better than 0, but 3 and a GW is significantly better.
>
>This is completely unaddressed by the GW rule. The two combat decks still
> have it in their best interests to split the table. Yes, 3 VP and a GW
> is more than 2 VP and no GW, but both are more than 0 VP and 0 GW.
Not true. Certainly not true if the rapid decline of cries of despair
about this happening is anything to go by.
Yes, 2VP is better than 0VP. Yes, there is still some incentive to do
this.
What you are missing is that in a 3VP vs 2VP situation, the difference
is marginal. 1VP. Yes, that could be the difference between a final
place and no final place. However, it's not a *huge* difference. You
could be getting up to 15 VP, so 1 isn't a big difference.
This means that either deck is likely to take the deal, and roll over if
it decides to go through with the deal. And either deck can stop and
think "Oh, go on then, it's only 1 VP difference."
When there are only three GW to be had (for you), the loss of one is
huge. Many players of such decks are *much* less inclined to take this
deal, because they need the GW, not the VP.
>Dunno where are you from, but I never really saw the prevalence of
>intercept
> decks before the GW rule. The fact that getting 3 VPs reliably is
>enough to
> get the GW is creating a niche for those decks that can get 3 VPs reliably
> but have no significant chance to score more.
I wasn't talking about the "prevalence of intercept decks". I was
talking about the deck style, and the problem it had, and how the GW
rule was perceived as addressing this.
However, it would be worth bearing in my that "Dunno where you are from"
is rarely a useful comment when bearing in mind that different groups do
different things at different times for different reasons. Lots of
people never saw RtoI being abused, but that was addressed in 7/7, for
instance.
>> One-sure-VP decks were always impractical, pretty much, since across
>> three rounds, you'd get 3 VP and lots of other players would be amassing
>> 6-8 VPs (two to three each round). Of course, some people would still
>> view it as "Cool, a VP!" but that's not quite the same thing - the rules
>> were pretty clear that such wouldn't be rewarded in a tournament.
>
>One-sure-VP decks are those that are so aggressive that they are almost
> certainly guaranteed at least 1 VP each round, but have drastically
> diminishing hopes to achieve significantly more. One-sure-VP decks
> probably get about 2 VPs on the average each table. That is 6 VPs and
> 0 GWs on the average.
If it's 2VP, that doesn't strike me as "drastically diminishing".
>> In that they need to get at least two, and preferably three, VP, yes.
>> But they needed at least two per table before really. Now, of course,
>
>Which is easier to do with a super aggressive deck.
In part. In any reasonably sized tournament, "at least" 2VP isn't true,
but not that helpful - you needed to go for three, four or sweeps,
though (say) 2, 4, 5 could easily be a good result.
In smaller tournaments, of course, those 2VP were 2VP out of 8 or 10
available that round, so it could work out better.
If you could go beyond 2VP to get the 3s, 4s and 5s you really needed,
then the same deck could do just as well now, since the 2s it got could
(at least in theory) be a GW - though you wouldn't rely on it - and the
3s, 4s and 5s it got would clearly be a GW.
>> What this does encourage is consistency.
>
>In a card game where cards are randomly drawn, and seating is determined
> randomly. I'm not sure.
That's why some people spend so much time dealing with probabilities, or
pseudo-probability:
- the White Wolf forums have a thread on possible maths for "Master Jam"
right now
- "Happy Families" is a whole theory of deck building based around
having the probabilities of cards in a reasonable ratio, so that
you don't have three Potence-endowed vampires and a clutch of
unusable cards
- a LOT of arguments have been had over exactly how to "guarantee" a
vampire without screwing your deck. In the right decks, I've
seen people head for three, four or five of the same vampire to
get the right balance of crypt vampires. This isn't just about
(say) multi-rush - though that's certainly a powerful deck type
that benefits from this - but also, say, heavy master decks
needing copies of Anson, back in the day.
- a number of the arguments in favour of short-chain combat revolve
around requiring far fewer cards in hand at once, or just out of
hand. If you only need two cards at once (and have some choice
there), that's a lot more reliable than 5 cards out of 8 or 9.
- ditto, search for threads with Derek Ray doing the maths for High
Ground and Collapse the Arches.
Lots of people put a LOT of effort into fighting probability.
Yes, your deck can still come out in alphabetical order. That doesn't
mean people make it easy.
>> I would say that the decks people choose to play now seem to be slightly
>> less willing to take the risk of "What if I get completely creamed on
>> one table?" And so they provide themselves with more options. Whereas
>> previously, since on the two tables they did sweep they'd make up for
>> the one table they got creamed, they'd be happier to take that risk.
>
>If you sweep two tables you are likely standing at 2/10, which is pretty
> much enough for even the largest tournament finals.
Hmmm? That can depend a lot. In a fairly large tournament, you can
find quite a few people with 3 VPs, and if you didn't get any VPs when
you exploded, you can find yourself edged out by someone with a deck
that got (say) 2 GW with a score of 4, 4, 2 since they'll have better
tournament points due to coming at least second on the 2 VP table
(possibly joint first).
And if you stop to wonder just how big the tournament is, if you are
going for 10 players, you may well see that counter again, and suddenly
find yourself in a very different situation.
In situations like that, decks that either do very well or very badly
start looking less attractive.
>> Is that a bad thing? Well, it does prevent (in part) Jyhad turning into
>> rock/paper/scissors. I bring my rock weenie vote deck, you bring your
>> paper weenie rush deck and accidentally flatten me. Of course, these
>> decks can still happen and do still happen, but possibly less so?
>
>Well, there is a significant Rock/Paper/Scissors aspect to the game no
> matter what you do. But yes, I agree that the game win rule discourages
> super-aggressive, one-sure-VP decks.
The R/P/S can be mitigated an awful, awful lot, whilst still being an
active deck. Giving yourself the right tools for survival can make a
huge amount of difference. Making the right deals can make a huge
amount of difference.
Having a deck which *survives* these days, and is aggressive when it can
be, can be quite useful these days. Witness the rise of combat that
many people are experiencing. Winning then is not about being
"reactive", just about survival - and then having your Fames, or
Computer Hackings, or whatever in the gaps.
>> Here, however, I'm not sure if this is a good thing, a bad thing, or
>> just a thing. I think there's a lot to be said for encouraging decks
>> which can do well repeatedly, rather than decks which are spectacular
>> victors or spectacular flops.
>
>Yeah, but this is still just a card game. You can jam, you can get the
> paper to your rock as your predator (or prey, or both), or you can be
> busted by any other unfortunate event. Play skill is important, but so
> is chance. Consistency, in that aspect, could be nothing more than just
> repetitious good fortune.
First of all, this is the same whether you have GW or no GW. It's a
non-issue as far as that's concerned.
And, yes, there's chance. But people build decks which mitigate that in
all manner of ways. If I am 10% more likely to get a "good" crypt than
you, that's good for me. Sure, probability says that you might get it
all three rounds and I might not. But people play the odds as they see
fit.
Additionally, there are some decks which are particularly fragile and
require good hand cycling and "good luck" a lot more than other decks -
that is simple probability. However, when they work, they can work
well. When they fail, they can fail extremely badly. Yer pays yer
money, yer takes yer choice.
>> Secondly, the "guaranteed 1VP decks" you mention above can fall into
>> this category. Get 1VP *which is now 2VP* then wall up. 2VP is the
>> sort of number at which players start thinking "Wow, I have a good base
>> for a deck here!" even when it's pants - see the intercept/wall decks of
>> old which *only* get 2VP for ousting the final other player.
>
>Okay, I'm not sure where you are getting at here. Unless this is just a
> restatement of your first point. Because if a deck can (under the
> current system) score the first VP and than be the last man standing, he
> or she already has the GW.
It was explained further up the post. The bit you went "????" at.
Lots of decks and players see 2VP as a good result - even when it means
they don't get any further VP.
Providing incentives for speed decks which lack longevity (because that
sort of thing jams their hand on the speed oust!) repeats that problem.
>> Thirdly, I'm not sure that a deck which takes a little time to start
>> (e.g. to pass a few votes, play a few actions etc.) but which is then
>> extremely aggressive should have this sort of downside to it. Typical
>> examples might include an aggressive, forward moving intercept/combat
>> deck - which takes a little while to get out a decent vampire, an
>> intercept location/equipment or two, maybe Smiling Jack, maybe Talons of
>> the Dead on Omaya or somesuch sort of setup - which just needs a little
>> effort before it can move forward, but then can. Or similarly, a deck
>> which needs to pass a few votes (title granters, Rumors, etc.) before it
>> moves forward.
>
>I don't really see the point. Almost every deck intends to apply forward
> pressure. This sounds like just another restatement of your point #1.
> Giving more power to weenies takes away from every other deck type, even
> those that should be strengthened, not weakened.
I'm talking about providing disincentives to many potentially useful
deck-styles which are not the problem.
Perhaps exploring the full implications for many deck-styles is
"restatement of the point" - that the original proposition is flawed.
For me, however, it's providing an informed basis for an opinion and a
number of inter-related points which would need to be addressed.
>> These decks aren't part of the problem, and I'm not sure that action
>> which discourages them in favour of moving towards "speed oust OR defend
>> against speed oust" (which an early grab VP rule does) is sensible, as a
>> result.
>
>But the other problem is that we are having a time limit.
You don't need to have one - certainly not in the finals.
Of course, these can be limited by practical considerations, but if you
don't want a time limit, don't have one. The finals can have a
different time limit, and setting it at (for all practical purposes)
untimed is quite possible.
This is only a problem as much as "people playing for the second place
prizes" is a problem - it's one that doesn't need any changes to the
rules or the game. As can be seen from the newsgroup, many people have
creative options around this - having the final in a different place
and/or different time, for instance, with secret decklists.
>I see tables
> timing out as a big problem. I see the prevalence of reactive play as a
> poor alternative to the perceived mindlessness of weenie computer hacking
> (or somesuch). The balance should, IMHO, be found and encouraged, with
> neither super-aggressive, nor highly reactive plays being rewarded too
>much.
Highly reactive plays are hardly rewarded too much as it is. Unless a
deck can repeatedly apply forward pressure, it can't win - the GW rule
tells it that. Half a VP won't let it win.
However, if by highly reactive play you mean things like 6 DIs and 6 DT,
that's hardly an issue. A deck being aware of its flaws and providing
flexible defence to suit those flaws is something that absolutely should
be in the game, or you end up with multi-player solitaire, just waiting
until the first person does it right.
Frederick Scott
news:mIzzCdteAFTCFw$z...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk...
> Including flexible defence is good play, in many, many decks. (Insert
> standard "Obviously, some decks..." to taste.) That doesn't make the
> deck reactive - it's just acknowledging that many decks need some
> staying power against an aggressive predator, a wily prey or whatever.
Er, including a flexible defense makes the deck reactive. Unless you
planned not to use it??? (Sorry, I just can't imagine how you're reasoning
that a flexible defense is not reactive in nature.)
It may indeed ALSO acknowledge those other things and be a good,
intelligent thing to do given the state of the game and all. In fact,
it's the juxtaposition of those two points that I suspect causes long,
time-outy finals frequently.
> Highly reactive plays are hardly rewarded too much as it is. Unless a
> deck can repeatedly apply forward pressure, it can't win - the GW rule
> tells it that. Half a VP won't let it win.
No, but the problem at the moment is that finals players frequently seem
unwilling to apply a lot of forward pressure for fear of leaving their
predators an opening to oust them. 1/2 VP in the finals won't move you
up the ladder any but you don't lose ground, either. In too many finals,
all five of the players seem to be waiting for one of their opponents to
push play and don't feel comfortable doing it themselves. Under these
circumstances, I have to disagree with you: highly reactive play _is_
rewarded too highly - as opposed to proactive play.
Fred
Frederick Scott
<jeff...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:1112297273....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> Frederick Scott wrote:
>> "Damnans" <damna...@ono.comNOSPAM> wrote in message
>> news:RXT2e.28496$US....@news.ono.com...
>> > Define "smart players", please ;-)
>>
>> Well, playing in a finals is a pretty good clue.
>>
>> >>>How many finalists have ever thought that they could have won the
>> >>>tournament if the final round had lasted for several more minutes?
>> >>
>> >> But they were probably wrong. Had the clocks been so construed
>> >> from the start, the series of events that led them to feel that way
>> >> would have just taken place...several minutes laters. In almost all
>> >> of these cases, I'm pretty sure things time themselves from the end
>> >> of the game all the players know is coming up - NOT from the
>> >> beginning of the game.
>> >
>> > You are right about that, but that was not what I was talking
>> > about.
>> >
>> > I was referring to finals where time is wasted.
>>
>> I guess I don't perceive that "wasting time" is usually the issue
>> with finals timing out. I guess at this point, I'd write our differences
>> down to that.
>
> I think there is significant "wasting time" in many finals.
> Finalists are also much more subtle about how they waste time. They are
> generally better players to get there, and they know how the time game
> is played. Games are 120 minutes. Suppose the average turn takes 2
> minutes, 10 minutes around the table. That gives you roughly 12
> complete turns of the table. Now suppose the two top seeds draw out
> their turns, averaging 3 minutes per turn compared to the others. This
> is reasonable considering careful deliberations, extra table talk,
> meaningless deal-making, referendum discussions, etc. You're now up to
> 12 minutes per rotation and down to 10 turns of the table. Granted,
> this isn't perfect considering ousts, etc, but one or two players can
> have a significant impact on the game in slow, yet "legitimate" ways
> and not appear to be stalling.
OK, I've seen that stuff, too. In this case, I think I'm being
semantically whip-sawed between alterntative definitions of "wasting
time". If there's a point to it - even if that point doesn't advance the
cause of maximizing the chances of having the game end before time - then
it's not bad play, IMHO. At least, not from the perspective of the
individual player's best interests. I'm not sure if I just disagree with
Damnans about this point or if he has some other type of play or situation
he's thinking of when he talks about "wasting time".
Fred
James Coupe
<nos...@no.spam.dot.com> writes:
>"James Coupe" <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote in message
>news:mIzzCdteAFTCFw$z...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk...
>> Including flexible defence is good play, in many, many decks. (Insert
>> standard "Obviously, some decks..." to taste.) That doesn't make the
>> deck reactive - it's just acknowledging that many decks need some
>> staying power against an aggressive predator, a wily prey or whatever.
>
>Er, including a flexible defense makes the deck reactive. Unless you
>planned not to use it??? (Sorry, I just can't imagine how you're reasoning
>that a flexible defense is not reactive in nature.)
Then almost all decks are reactive and the conversation about proactive
and reactive is highly pointless, if any pro-active deck that also
includes 12 defensive cards is now a reactive deck. (Sorry, I just
can't imagine how you're reasoning that a pro-active deck, with some
flexible defence as well, is reactive in nature.)
Are pro-active decks now only decks that include no defence? That's
really quite... extreme. Sufficiently extreme to not be useful. A
Malky stealth-bleed deck that includes some DT and DI is now not the
pro-active deck that reality shows it to be? Errr...
If the problem is "reactive decks" and the definition of "reactive
decks" is "practically any deck in the game", you probably haven't
thought about your definition hard enough.
Frederick Scott
"James Coupe" <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote in message news:jPsCzi4i...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk...
> In message <Y_Z2e.13841$TZ.11731@okepread06>, Frederick Scott
>>planned not to use it??? (Sorry, I just can't imagine how you're reasoning
>>that a flexible defense is not reactive in nature.)
>
> Then almost all decks are reactive and the conversation about proactive
> and reactive is highly pointless,
Nonsense. It may be true that most all current viable tournament decks have
some flexible defense, but there's still a such thing as degree. Some decks
have more, some have less. Thus, conversation about same is far from "highly
pointless".
And flexible defense is clearly reactive in nature.
> Are pro-active decks now only decks that include no defence? That's
> really quite... extreme.
They could have *less* defense.
> If the problem is "reactive decks" and the definition of "reactive
> decks" is "practically any deck in the game", you probably haven't
> thought about your definition hard enough.
No - the problem is that you're being too inflexible about how you want
to look at the issue. If you reduce all decks to, "Has flexible defense/
doesn't have *ANY* flexible defense.", then sure: it becomes pointless to
complain about the fact that most all good tournament decks have lots of
flexible defense and are hence mostly reactive decks. The only thing you
could do to fix the problem is to go to the other extreme, which would be
bad also.
Fortunately, reality doesn't reduce simply to those two extremes. There
is hope.
Fred
James Coupe
<nos...@no.spam.dot.com> writes:
>> Are pro-active decks now only decks that include no defence? That's
>> really quite... extreme.
>
>They could have *less* defense.
Fred, if 12 flexible defensive cards make a pro-active deck into a
reactive deck, put down the crack pipe and step away from the computer.
Frederick Scott
> In message <rO_2e.13848$TZ.937@okepread06>, Frederick Scott
> <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> writes:
>>> Are pro-active decks now only decks that include no defence? That's
>>> really quite... extreme.
>>
>>They could have *less* defense.
>
> Fred, if 12 flexible defensive cards make a pro-active deck into a
> reactive deck, put down the crack pipe and step away from the computer.
Of course 12 flexible defensive cards make a deck *MORE* reactive than it
was without then. If you don't think so, put down the crack pipe you're
smoking.
Trying to make points by pigeon-holing definions of entire decks into
"reactive" and (presumedly) "not reactive" will get you nowhere.
Fred
James Coupe
<nos...@no.spam.dot.com> writes:
>Of course 12 flexible defensive cards make a deck *MORE* reactive than it
>was without then. If you don't think so, put down the crack pipe you're
>smoking.
Certainly.
That is now, however, quite a different position from the one you were
espousing about pro-active decks being the ones with less defence.
Certainly, any measure of defence (that isn't taking out the resources
to start with, a la weenie rush and not that many other archetypes) is
"reactive" in nature. But that's a highly foolish basis on which to
define "reactive". Remember, you claimed:
>> Are pro-active decks now only decks that include no defence? That's
>> really quite... extreme.
>
>They could have *less* defense.
But a deck with, say, 3 DIs and 3 DTs is "*MORE* reactive" than the deck
without. And that has less defence, and by your own words is a pro-
active deck. But it has "*MORE* reactive" cards, and is therefore
reactive, by the same logic you're exhibiting above.
Why is 6 DIs and 6 DTs "reactive" but 5 DIs and 6 DTs (that would be
"*less* defense") not reactive? You weren't talking about more reactive
or less reactive - because that is obvious to even a five minute newbie
- you were talking about the criteria for a deck to be "pro-active".
That's what I asked, that's what your answer was.
Now you are saying that 12 cards makes it simply "*MORE* reactive" -
that's fine as it's not crack-induced foolishness. Your previous claim,
however, is.
Having the ability to defend yourself doesn't stop your pro-active deck
being pro-active any more than having a scattering of bleed cards (of
which even fewer are seen and played during a game) would stop a naive
intercept wall being reactive.
Daneel
> It wasn't specifically combat decks that necessitated the change. It
> was that it was almost always in everyone's best interest to split the
> table. Tables were being split 3/2 or 2/3 too quickly after the rounds
> began. As James noted, the "losing side" of that split still get's 2
> VPs. Many players would reach the finals on the strength of sitting
> down and accepting 3 deals at 2 VPs each.
>
> Essentially we were rewarding 2 VP losses almost as much as we were
> rewarding wins and the choice of finalists based on VPs gave incentive
> for players to choose to lose.
I agree with this. Introducing the GW rule is a good alternative to
posting a judge beside every table who can watch whether players
play fair. But doing so alters the game in other ways as well.
>> I'm somewhat beginning to doubt the necesity of the Game Win rule.
>
> Daneel, were you involved in tournaments pre-GW? Just curious. I don't
> imagine very many tournament players from that era would agree with
> you.
Yeah, though we did not see too much sanctioning. Most early tournaments
I attended were using 4CL, for example, like the DCI tournaments.
Interesting to note, I actually started to notice splits after the GW
rule got introduced (as the meth aspiring for 3 VP could now "throw
away" 2 VPs, because those VPs were not needed to gain the GW). Under
the GW rule most folks will agree to a winning split, meaning you can
usually get 2 VP off a table if you lay down. Worth much less than the
GW, true, but does wonders if you already have a GW and the break point
is governed by VPs.
--
Bye,
Daneel
James Coupe
writes:<table splitting>
>> Essentially we were rewarding 2 VP losses almost as much as we were
>> rewarding wins and the choice of finalists based on VPs gave incentive
>> for players to choose to lose.
>
>I agree with this. Introducing the GW rule is a good alternative to
> posting a judge beside every table who can watch whether players
> play fair. But doing so alters the game in other ways as well.
Having a judge positioned by every table to ensure fair play wouldn't
stop the particularly nasty gang-up/roll-over table-splits, though.
Table-splitting is playing fair.
Daneel
wrote:
> In message <opsoh9k7...@news.chello.hu>, Daneel <dan...@eposta.hu>
> writes:
>> On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 09:19:27 +0100, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk>
>> wrote:
>>> Depends a lot on the player. Not everyone thinks "Oh my god, I might
>>> get cancelled" and shifts into a reactive play.
>>
>> Yeah, but players may think "Oh my god, I have 6 DIs and 6 DTs in my
>> deck, I might cancel what I want" and shift into reactive play.
>
> That a player has 6 DIs and 6 DTs (or whatever similar cards - Sudden
> Reversals are an obvious other one) doesn't make the deck reactive, any
> more than including Wakes and Bleed Bounce makes the deck "reactive".
Wow, talk about escalating argument. After having read a couple posts on
this from you and Fred, I see that you might be a bit off track here.
The question is not whether including a total of 12 denial cards in a
general deck necessarily makes that deck reactive. Those 12 slots are
reactive slots, but you might have another 78 proactive slots beside
them to make the deck more proactive than reactive.
The question is rather different. It is whether the abundance of
available denial tech contributes to reactive play being feasible.
Also, another question might be whether the Game Win rule contributes
to reactive play being desirable. These questions are IMHO both valid
(and can only be answered in the affirmative).
>> This is completely unaddressed by the GW rule. The two combat decks
>> still
>> have it in their best interests to split the table. Yes, 3 VP and a GW
>> is more than 2 VP and no GW, but both are more than 0 VP and 0 GW.
>
> Not true. Certainly not true if the rapid decline of cries of despair
> about this happening is anything to go by.
Not really an argument, mind you. I'm certainly oblivious to such an
existing or perceived decline. But even if such a decline would indeed
exist, it would still not be any more indicative than the formerly
undeclined cries of despair - probably even less so. Meaning very little.
> Yes, 2VP is better than 0VP. Yes, there is still some incentive to do
> this.
>
> What you are missing is that in a 3VP vs 2VP situation, the difference
> is marginal. 1VP. Yes, that could be the difference between a final
> place and no final place. However, it's not a *huge* difference. You
> could be getting up to 15 VP, so 1 isn't a big difference.
>
> This means that either deck is likely to take the deal, and roll over if
> it decides to go through with the deal. And either deck can stop and
> think "Oh, go on then, it's only 1 VP difference."
>
> When there are only three GW to be had (for you), the loss of one is
> huge. Many players of such decks are *much* less inclined to take this
> deal, because they need the GW, not the VP.
I kind of think we drifted away from the two combat decks issue. Rest is
probably governed by fair play, though.
>> One-sure-VP decks are those that are so aggressive that they are almost
>> certainly guaranteed at least 1 VP each round, but have drastically
>> diminishing hopes to achieve significantly more. One-sure-VP decks
>> probably get about 2 VPs on the average each table. That is 6 VPs and
>> 0 GWs on the average.
>
> If it's 2VP, that doesn't strike me as "drastically diminishing".
Hypothetical example:
Regular deck vs. hyper-aggressive deck:
0 VP: 25% vs. 0%
1 VP: 15% vs. 50%
2 VP: 15% vs. 20%
3 VP: 30% vs. 15%
4 VP: 10% vs. 10%
5 VP: 5% vs. 5%
Now these are admittedly just arbitrary numbers. The idea is that
Deck A is a slower, more toolboxy deck that builds up, and as such
has a good chance to get the GW if it gets rolling. Deck B is very
aggressive, and concentrates on the short term gain. While both
decks do 2 VPs on the average (yeah, I know, they are very good
decks), Deck A has 45% to score a GW, while Deck B only has 30%.
If we assume that you need 2 GWs to make the finals, and for
simplicity's sake assume you need 3 VPs for a GW, we can see that
Deck A can deliver that 2 GW almost twice as likely as Deck B can
(42.525 vs. 21.6).
Whereas, the amount of VPs attained is equal on the average.
>>> In that they need to get at least two, and preferably three, VP, yes.
>>> But they needed at least two per table before really. Now, of course,
>>
>> Which is easier to do with a super aggressive deck.
>
> In part. In any reasonably sized tournament, "at least" 2VP isn't true,
> but not that helpful - you needed to go for three, four or sweeps,
> though (say) 2, 4, 5 could easily be a good result.
I thought we were primarily arguing distribution here. A deck that gets
3+ VPs on the average is probably going to be better than another deck
that gets 2 VPs on the average.
> In smaller tournaments, of course, those 2VP were 2VP out of 8 or 10
> available that round, so it could work out better.
>
> If you could go beyond 2VP to get the 3s, 4s and 5s you really needed,
> then the same deck could do just as well now, since the 2s it got could
> (at least in theory) be a GW - though you wouldn't rely on it - and the
> 3s, 4s and 5s it got would clearly be a GW.
You always have a slim chance to take the table or sweep. Being
super-aggreassive takes away from your prospects at doing so,
while almost guaranteeing 1 or 2 VP. Of course, super-aggressive
is an undefined concept (but I think a 1-cap computer hacking
deck is a pretty good starting point to visualize it).
I really like numbers. Chances are great. I frequently engage in this sort
of "mathsturbation" and calculate the odds for drawing a given card, combo
or one of n similar cards. Great mental excercise. However, when you
actually play, you actually need a certain card in your hand at a given
time. Play will selectively deplete your resources, you will cycle some
cards but will be at least temporarily stuck on others, etc.
The point being: this is still a card game where you randomly draw your
cards. Also, seating is still random (and you have no way to address that,
especially in larger playgroups, where the metagame is inconsistent enough
to make any metagame guesses more than arbitrary).
>>> I would say that the decks people choose to play now seem to be
>>> slightly
>>> less willing to take the risk of "What if I get completely creamed on
>>> one table?" And so they provide themselves with more options. Whereas
>>> previously, since on the two tables they did sweep they'd make up for
>>> the one table they got creamed, they'd be happier to take that risk.
>>
>> If you sweep two tables you are likely standing at 2/10, which is pretty
>> much enough for even the largest tournament finals.
>
> Hmmm? That can depend a lot. In a fairly large tournament, you can
> find quite a few people with 3 VPs, and if you didn't get any VPs when
> you exploded, you can find yourself edged out by someone with a deck
> that got (say) 2 GW with a score of 4, 4, 2 since they'll have better
> tournament points due to coming at least second on the 2 VP table
> (possibly joint first).
>
> And if you stop to wonder just how big the tournament is, if you are
> going for 10 players, you may well see that counter again, and suddenly
> find yourself in a very different situation.
>
> In situations like that, decks that either do very well or very badly
> start looking less attractive.
Okay, the point stands. I'd choose a deck that will reliably get me 2/10
and no more any day over a deck that might get me more (but most likely
will just get me way less). Admit, that was a poor example. ;)
>>> Is that a bad thing? Well, it does prevent (in part) Jyhad turning
>>> into
>>> rock/paper/scissors. I bring my rock weenie vote deck, you bring your
>>> paper weenie rush deck and accidentally flatten me. Of course, these
>>> decks can still happen and do still happen, but possibly less so?
>>
>> Well, there is a significant Rock/Paper/Scissors aspect to the game no
>> matter what you do. But yes, I agree that the game win rule discourages
>> super-aggressive, one-sure-VP decks.
>
> The R/P/S can be mitigated an awful, awful lot, whilst still being an
> active deck. Giving yourself the right tools for survival can make a
> huge amount of difference. Making the right deals can make a huge
> amount of difference.
>
> Having a deck which *survives* these days, and is aggressive when it can
> be, can be quite useful these days. Witness the rise of combat that
> many people are experiencing. Winning then is not about being
> "reactive", just about survival - and then having your Fames, or
> Computer Hackings, or whatever in the gaps.
Interesting point. Survival is, perhaps, separable from being reactive
if you proactively bloat, for example. However, in practice I think
survival is mostly a reactive thing. You survive against whatever
pressure is applied to you, with multipurpose tools (including a fair
share of denial effects) whose applications depend largely on what
you face.
Assuming you are doing a proactive survival deck - you use weenies,
say Panders, to vote you lots of pool. You are more or less protected
against most decks, your minions have sheer numbers on their side,
and you can gain a lot from the Boons and Persecutions. Still, you
will probably look strong and get dealt with.
Surviving without looking strong is IMHO a very reactive thing.
>>> Here, however, I'm not sure if this is a good thing, a bad thing, or
>>> just a thing. I think there's a lot to be said for encouraging decks
>>> which can do well repeatedly, rather than decks which are spectacular
>>> victors or spectacular flops.
>>
>> Yeah, but this is still just a card game. You can jam, you can get the
>> paper to your rock as your predator (or prey, or both), or you can be
>> busted by any other unfortunate event. Play skill is important, but so
>> is chance. Consistency, in that aspect, could be nothing more than just
>> repetitious good fortune.
>
> First of all, this is the same whether you have GW or no GW. It's a
> non-issue as far as that's concerned.
Well, your point was that the GW rule supports consistency. To which I
replied that consistency is highly non-existent in a card game because
of certain reasons (randomness being the most significant). Nobody plays
a deck that has little chance to win under normal circumstances (well,
maybe some do, but I'm assuming players try to win and for the sake of
argument, are not incompetent in doing so). Meaning, you have some decks
that will perform somehow based on a lot of factors (a good deal of
which are random).
> And, yes, there's chance. But people build decks which mitigate that in
> all manner of ways. If I am 10% more likely to get a "good" crypt than
> you, that's good for me. Sure, probability says that you might get it
> all three rounds and I might not. But people play the odds as they see
> fit.
>
> Additionally, there are some decks which are particularly fragile and
> require good hand cycling and "good luck" a lot more than other decks -
> that is simple probability. However, when they work, they can work
> well. When they fail, they can fail extremely badly. Yer pays yer
> money, yer takes yer choice.
Yes, I agree.
> Perhaps exploring the full implications for many deck-styles is
> "restatement of the point" - that the original proposition is flawed.
>
> For me, however, it's providing an informed basis for an opinion and a
> number of inter-related points which would need to be addressed.
Fair enough, point taken.
>>> These decks aren't part of the problem, and I'm not sure that action
>>> which discourages them in favour of moving towards "speed oust OR
>>> defend
>>> against speed oust" (which an early grab VP rule does) is sensible, as
>>> a
>>> result.
>>
>> But the other problem is that we are having a time limit.
>
> You don't need to have one - certainly not in the finals.
[snip argument]
No can do. Untimed finals are impossible. Or rather, they are only
possible in theory. There are practical reasons that prevent an
untimed final from being feasible. Especially if some people
travelled to the event.
>> I see tables
>> timing out as a big problem. I see the prevalence of reactive play as a
>> poor alternative to the perceived mindlessness of weenie computer
>> hacking
>> (or somesuch). The balance should, IMHO, be found and encouraged, with
>> neither super-aggressive, nor highly reactive plays being rewarded too
>> much.
>
> Highly reactive plays are hardly rewarded too much as it is. Unless a
> deck can repeatedly apply forward pressure, it can't win - the GW rule
> tells it that. Half a VP won't let it win.
>
> However, if by highly reactive play you mean things like 6 DIs and 6 DT,
> that's hardly an issue. A deck being aware of its flaws and providing
> flexible defence to suit those flaws is something that absolutely should
> be in the game, or you end up with multi-player solitaire, just waiting
> until the first person does it right.
I think we are approaching the same thing from different sides. You are
saying that having flexible denial-type defences in a deck do not condemn
that deck to passivity. I completely agree. But I'm not arguing that. I'm
arguing that decks need to shoot at the Game Wins, and that purpose is
served better by navigating the table, and trying to play in a way that
leads to victory by virtue of preventing anyone from winning until the
opportune moment comes to strike and take it all. This play style is
quite capable of contributing to a time out.
--
Bye,
Daneel
Daneel
<nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote:
> OK, I've seen that stuff, too. In this case, I think I'm being
> semantically whip-sawed between alterntative definitions of "wasting
> time". If there's a point to it - even if that point doesn't advance the
> cause of maximizing the chances of having the game end before time - then
> it's not bad play, IMHO. At least, not from the perspective of the
> individual player's best interests. I'm not sure if I just disagree with
> Damnans about this point or if he has some other type of play or
> situation
> he's thinking of when he talks about "wasting time".
I'm pretty sure the question is not whether "wasting time" is good for
the person doing it. The question is rather along the lines of whether
doing so is "fair", "in the spirit of sportsmanship", "nice", etc.
--
Bye,
Daneel
Daneel
> In message <opsokjkc...@news.chello.hu>, Daneel <dan...@eposta.hu>
> writes:
>> On 31 Mar 2005 11:18:39 -0800, Robert Goudie <rob...@vtesinla.org>
>> wrote:
> <table splitting>
>>> Essentially we were rewarding 2 VP losses almost as much as we were
>>> rewarding wins and the choice of finalists based on VPs gave incentive
>>> for players to choose to lose.
>>
>> I agree with this. Introducing the GW rule is a good alternative to
>> posting a judge beside every table who can watch whether players
>> play fair. But doing so alters the game in other ways as well.
>
> Having a judge positioned by every table to ensure fair play wouldn't
> stop the particularly nasty gang-up/roll-over table-splits, though.
> Table-splitting is playing fair.
Not necessariy. Table-splitting can be fair. It can also be not fair.
Before the GW rule a 3-2 split was a 3-2 split. Now it is kind of like
an 5-2 split. Seems like more VPs are available for the splitting...
But that doesn't make splits any less nasty when gone about in a
subtly unfair way. It takes away some of the motivation.
--
Bye,
Daneel
Robert Goudie
Daneel wrote:
> On 31 Mar 2005 11:18:39 -0800, Robert Goudie <rob...@vtesinla.org>
wrote:
>
> > It wasn't specifically combat decks that necessitated the change.
It
> > was that it was almost always in everyone's best interest to split
the
> > table. Tables were being split 3/2 or 2/3 too quickly after the
rounds
> > began. As James noted, the "losing side" of that split still get's
2
> > VPs. Many players would reach the finals on the strength of
sitting
> > down and accepting 3 deals at 2 VPs each.
> >
> > Essentially we were rewarding 2 VP losses almost as much as we were
> > rewarding wins and the choice of finalists based on VPs gave
incentive
> > for players to choose to lose.
>
> I agree with this. Introducing the GW rule is a good alternative to
> posting a judge beside every table who can watch whether players
> play fair. But doing so alters the game in other ways as well.
Rather than have a tournament system that rewards VPs but requires GWs
in the rules, we chose to reward what we required--GWs. Whenever you
ask players to do something contrary to what you are rewarding, you are
asking for trouble---whether or not there's a judge at the table.
> >> I'm somewhat beginning to doubt the necesity of the Game Win rule.
> >
> > Daneel, were you involved in tournaments pre-GW? Just curious. I
don't
> > imagine very many tournament players from that era would agree with
> > you.
>
> Yeah, though we did not see too much sanctioning. Most early
tournaments
> I attended were using 4CL, for example, like the DCI tournaments.
You mean the Magic tournament rules, right? I ask because the DCI also
sanctioned V:TES tournaments (but didn't have a 4CL).
> Interesting to note, I actually started to notice splits after the
GW
> rule got introduced (as the meth aspiring for 3 VP could now "throw
> away" 2 VPs, because those VPs were not needed to gain the GW).
Under
> the GW rule most folks will agree to a winning split, meaning you
can
> usually get 2 VP off a table if you lay down. Worth much less than
the
> GW, true, but does wonders if you already have a GW and the break
point
> is governed by VPs.
The breakpoint is first governed by GWs. So you are still better off
seeking another GW if possible. Only when the GW is not possible will
someone consider a deal to grab 2 VPs. Under the old system, accepting
2 VPs was much more valuable.
Splits happen far less frequently now. The tournament environment is
much improved.
-Robert