Playing To Win (LSJ)
Brian
Yay!
Posting, and communicating, and...
it's great.
Anyway this is long so I'd better get started.
I have some questions pertaining to playing to win. The first three
are more about how to enforce a decision than what decision to make.
These three require the same setup:
At a five-player table, the players (in order) are called A,B,C,D, and
E.
Setup:
Player B is a poor player.
B believes he is playing to maximize VPs.
He is trying to get two VPs.
Player A sees a strategy for B which B has not seen.
A believes B can get 3 VPs, and is probably correct.
A calls a judge and the judge rules that B can in fact get 3 VPs.
And this is integral:
B does not know how to get the 3 VPs.
This is the setup for all the following scenarios.
*Case A*
------------
Player A only called the judge in the interest of fairness.
No player has an interest in seeing Player B get three VP's.
How should the "play to win" rule be enforced?
Is any player required to tell B the strategy?
Is the judge required to tell him?
Is Player B required to think of it on his own?
If none of these, how is player B to play to win, without knowing what
to do?
*Case B*
------------
Player A called the judge in his own interests.
A gladly tells B how to win.
B lacks the skill necessary to pull off the strategy.
B rejects the strategy, claiming it would not work.
A is correct that a player in B's position could get 3 VP's.
B is correct that Player B in his position could not get 3 VP's.
What is to be done? The judge has already ruled.
Must Player B accept the strategy which he does not believe will work?
Assume the strategy is "Play Fame on your prey, blood doll ON to your
vampires, and rush like crazy".
Assume B is forced to accept the strategy by a judge's ruling.
B enters combat with C, plays many "before range is determined" cards,
forgets Immortal Grapple, and is promptly shut down by a Majesty which
was already public knowledge (due to an open hand or ash heap
retrieval).
(B of course points out that he knew he couldn't pull it off)
(A of course points out that he could have, but he blew it)
If B would be unable to oust Player C now due to lack of combat cards,
would this excess "stupid" play constitute illegal play?
If not, can he now declare he can take the 2 VP deal, because he can
no longer get 3 VPs?
*Case C*
------------
Player A called the judge in his own interests.
A gladly tells Player B the strategy, which is complex.
B does not understand the strategy.
Player A tries to explain, but it seems to no avail.
Must Player B accept the strategy?
If so, how?
How can one accept a strategy he doesn't understand?
(Note: this case seems functionally identical to Case A)
*New situation, with an entirely different setup*
------------
Player B is a skilled player.
Player B believes he is maximizing VPs with a deal in which he will
get two VPs.
Player A is a poor player.
Player A believes Player B can get 3 VP's.
Player A is probably not correct.
Player A calls a judge.
The judge is a poor player.
Player B attempts to explain why he cannot get 3, but the judge is not
convinced.
The judge rules Player B can in fact get 3 VP's.
(and therefore must try)
Is there any recourse for Player B?
Can B appeal to a judge he feels is more "knowledgeable"?
If he had a *guaranteed* two VP's, and per the judge's ruling was
unable to pursue them (because he might get three otherwise), and he
ends up with 0, can any corrective action be taken? (I assume not.)
If the judge later finds that B knew something that he didn't, which
guaranteed Player B could not get 3 VPs, can he declare his ruling in
error and reverse game state to where the deal was to be made?
If so, must he?
Now for the COMPLICATED situation :)
A has ousted B
D has ousted E
Players A, C, and D are still alive.
Players A and D have 1 pool.
All of Player D's minions are tapped.
Player C has 12 pool and controls Revelations (at superior) and two
untapped vampires.
D is playing dedicated Tzimisce intercept/combat and has demonstrated
heavy use of Forced Awakening.
C cannot generate stealth or meaningful combat at the moment.
It is Player C's turn.
D's hand contains Forced Awakening and six combat cards.
If C does nothing, D will probably oust both remaining players.
If C bleeds with one vampire, that vampire will be blocked and burned,
and D will probably draw a Forced Awakening from the resulting combat.
Therefore, C will probably get 0 VPs.
D is worried that even though ousting A will be easy, ousting C before
the time limit finishes may be difficult.
So D offers C a deal where D will oust A, and then one of (C or D)
will withdraw.
(This deal seems legal for D because it still results in him winning.)
(This deal seems legal for C because it raises his 0 projected VPs to
1.)
Player A argues that Player C can oust Player D.
This would be in Player A's interest, as he would get another turn and
a chance at a table win.
Player A calls a judge.
The players are all familiar with Player D's Tzimisce deck
Its contents include
8 Forced Awakening
6 Cat's Guidance
4 Read the Winds
and he has not drawn anywhere near his share so far.
Player A's Argument:
If C goes forward with both vampires, and D draws no way to untap a
vampire, D will die.
This is possible (although highly unlikely.)
A argues that Player C is not yet unable to get 3 VP, just very
unlikely, and so may not "lose on purpose".
C argues, of course, that 1 is better than none, which is what he'll
get if he tries.
All players are fairly confident that the Tzimisce wall can draw one
wake.
But it's not IMPOSSIBLE that he dies. He has 7 more non-wake cards in
the deck.
Is the withdraw-deal legal?
Or in shortest form,
As long as it is *possible* that C can oust D, must he try, regardless
of odds?
In a one-round game, I'd almost always say yes, but in a
tournament...?
-- Brian
Hans Sjunnesson
> First, I'm back online!
> Yay!
> Posting, and communicating, and...
> it's great.
> Anyway this is long so I'd better get started.
>
> I have some questions pertaining to playing to win. The first three
> are more about how to enforce a decision than what decision to make.
> These three require the same setup:
>
Seriously, isn't the playing to win rule there just so people won't act
as sore losers when they're on the outs and disrupting the table with
not blocking and not bleeding, so they're giving their prey and predator
an advantage?
This seems taking things way way too literally.
--
Hans
LSJ
> I have some questions pertaining to playing to win. The first three
> are more about how to enforce a decision than what decision to make.
The judge "enforces" a correction to illegal play by disallowing the
illegal play. If the player refuses (and instead insists on making only
the illegal play), then the judge should remove that player and effect
whatever additional measures are necessary to preserve table balance
for the remaining players.
> How should the "play to win" rule be enforced?
If a player is in violation of any rule, then the violation
should be corrected (by the judge). Other players noticing a
violation (or a possible violation) should call for the
judge to make a ruling. In the case of not playing to win, the
judge and the player who is suspected of making the infraction
should discuss the matter (the player, if he feels he is not
in violation of the rule, explaining how he is not, of course.
This explanation need not be made in the hearing range of
the other players when it involves information not known to
the other players, like cards in hand or library, etc.)
> Player B attempts to explain why he cannot get 3, but the judge is not
> convinced.
> The judge rules Player B can in fact get 3 VP's.
> (and therefore must try)
>
> Is there any recourse for Player B?
> Can B appeal to a judge he feels is more "knowledgeable"?
He can appeal to the head judge, if he feels the judge's ruling
should be reviewed. The head judge's ruling is final.
We (judges) can all make mistakes. If you feel that the judge
made a mistake, you can ask for further clarification after the
tournament from this newsgroup or via private email to me or
to the prince list or what have you. The judge's ruling must
be followed at the tournament, however.
If a judge makes an (seemingly) intentional error in ruling, then,
while the ruling must be abided at the time, the player should
report the suspect abuse of authority to the VEKN (myself or
Robert) later, for review.
> If he had a *guaranteed* two VP's, and per the judge's ruling was
There are no guaranteed VPs.
(zero occurrence cornercases like everyone playing with an open hand
and empty libraries and one pool while a pair of Anarch Revolts
ousts everyone in turn notwithstanding - it'd be hard to screw that
one up, anyhow :-).
> unable to pursue them (because he might get three otherwise), and he
> ends up with 0, can any corrective action be taken? (I assume not.)
> If the judge later finds that B knew something that he didn't, which
> guaranteed Player B could not get 3 VPs, can he declare his ruling in
> error and reverse game state to where the deal was to be made?
The player should make the thing that he knew and that the judge didn't
know known to the judge at the time of the ruling. And there are no
guaranteed VPs.
> As long as it is *possible* that C can oust D, must he try, regardless
> of odds?
The odds are factored into the judgment.
The player must play to win. He must play to get as many GWs (up to 1)
that he can *reasonably* get. If he can get none, he must play to achieve
the most VPs that he can *reasonably* achieve.
--
LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc.
Links to V:TES news, rules, cards, utilities, and tournament calendar:
http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/
Derek Ray
firstco...@aol.com (Brian) mumbled something about:
>I have some questions pertaining to playing to win. The first three
>are more about how to enforce a decision than what decision to make.
>These three require the same setup:
>
>At a five-player table, the players (in order) are called A,B,C,D, and
>E.
>
>Setup:
>Player B is a poor player.
>B believes he is playing to maximize VPs.
>He is trying to get two VPs.
Player B is well within his rights to do this, assuming he has some
valid reason to believe he can only get 2VP. These circumstances depend
entirely on game state.
>Player A sees a strategy for B which B has not seen.
>A believes B can get 3 VPs, and is probably correct.
>A calls a judge and the judge rules that B can in fact get 3 VPs.
Ugh. I don't like this assumption just because it's very based on the
judge being psychic. These sorts of situations are likely to be
incredibly, well, situational. But for now, would you be content to
rephrase it:
The Judge believes that player B has a reasonable chance of getting 3VP.
...and NO ruling has been made yet!
>And this is integral:
>B does not know how to get the 3 VPs.
We will also assume, for the sake of trying to connect it to the real
world in some fashion: B is being manipulated by another player to
accept the wrong end of a 3-2 deal, which, if followed through, would
cause A to gain 0VP.
This is the most likely scenario; details can be irrelevant, but at
least now we know why A has called the judge in the first place.
>This is the setup for all the following scenarios.
>
>*Case A*
>------------
>Player A only called the judge in the interest of fairness.
>No player has an interest in seeing Player B get three VP's.
>
>How should the "play to win" rule be enforced?
>Is any player required to tell B the strategy?
No.
>Is the judge required to tell him?
No, and the judge should keep his mouth shut here.
>Is Player B required to think of it on his own?
Not possible. If he successfully thinks of it, that's great, but if he
doesn't, oh well.
>If none of these, how is player B to play to win, without knowing what
>to do?
He follows his original (LEGAL, mind you) plan of getting 2VP. This
could be overruled by situational circumstances such as player B
attempting to accept this deal on turn 2 (B has no valid reason to
believe he can only get 2VP).
>*Case B*
>------------
>Player A called the judge in his own interests.
>A gladly tells B how to win.
Note: what if A is wrong, or lying?
Per our assumptions above, he is both correct and telling the truth.
But he might NOT be, in a real-world situation.
>B lacks the skill necessary to pull off the strategy.
>B rejects the strategy, claiming it would not work.
B is allowed to do this. B is a poor player, per our assumptions above;
B may be making a mistake, but you cannot legislate against poor play.
>A is correct that a player in B's position could get 3 VP's.
>B is correct that Player B in his position could not get 3 VP's.
The important part: B believes, whether or not he is correct, that he
cannot get 3VP, and has valid reasons to do so.
>What is to be done? The judge has already ruled.
The judge most certainly has NOT ruled, and this is my objection to your
assumption. You cannot make such a ruling as you describe above in
those terms; you must rule on whether or not the player believes he is
playing to win.
>Must Player B accept the strategy which he does not believe will work?
Of course not.
>Assume the strategy is "Play Fame on your prey, blood doll ON to your
>vampires, and rush like crazy".
>Assume B is forced to accept the strategy by a judge's ruling.
Not possible. No ruling should ever force B to take an action.
"Play to Win" typically will concern itself with disallowing illegal
actions and/or deals, not forcing actions and/or honoring deals.
(impossible situation snipped)
>*Case C*
>------------
>Player A called the judge in his own interests.
>A gladly tells Player B the strategy, which is complex.
>B does not understand the strategy.
>Player A tries to explain, but it seems to no avail.
This is identical to the situation above.
In the above case, B rejects the strategy as wrong, because he does not
understand how it can work.
In this case, B rejects the strategy because he just has no idea what A
is talking about.
B cannot be forced to take actions.
*snipped*
>*New situation, with an entirely different setup*
>------------
>Player B is a skilled player.
>Player B believes he is maximizing VPs with a deal in which he will
>get two VPs.
>
>Player A is a poor player.
>Player A believes Player B can get 3 VP's.
>Player A is probably not correct.
>Player A calls a judge.
>
>The judge is a poor player.
>Player B attempts to explain why he cannot get 3, but the judge is not
>convinced.
>The judge rules Player B can in fact get 3 VP's.
>
>(and therefore must try)
The judge has erred, but this is not germane to the "play to win"
discussion, as you can create any situation you like if you assume that
the judges will not be fair and/or rules will not be correctly followed.
The problem with this situation relies directly on a judge
misinterpreting the game state, and can only be handled properly by
evaluating that judge.
It can further be handled by "poor players probably shouldn't be
judges", as poor players often misremember card text, rulings, etc., ...
part of what makes them, well, poor players.
>Is there any recourse for Player B?
I believe B can appeal to VEKN, but realistically, this is not going to
help him. Should this situation ever arise, (which by the way I deem
extremely unlikely -- typically the judges in these tournaments are
quite skilled players themselves) it would need to be handled on a case
by case basis. No general decision can be made.
>Can B appeal to a judge he feels is more "knowledgeable"?
?? I suppose, but good luck finding one; most tournaments run with one
judge, I believe, or are under the multi-judge system, which means that
often those other judges are sitting at the table and therefore biased.
>If he had a *guaranteed* two VP's, and per the judge's ruling was
>unable to pursue them (because he might get three otherwise), and he
>ends up with 0, can any corrective action be taken? (I assume not.)
Guaranteed is not an appropriate word for this conversation. Situations
will all be different and must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.
That's why we have judges.
>If the judge later finds that B knew something that he didn't, which
>guaranteed Player B could not get 3 VPs, can he declare his ruling in
>error and reverse game state to where the deal was to be made?
Again, guaranteed is not an appropriate word for this conversation.
To answer the question: unlikely, as the reversion of the game state
would be too complex.
>If so, must he?
No.
>Now for the COMPLICATED situation :)
>A has ousted B
>D has ousted E
>Players A, C, and D are still alive.
A has 1VP; D has 1VP.
>Players A and D have 1 pool.
>All of Player D's minions are tapped.
Missing information: How many minions does A have?
>Player C has 12 pool and controls Revelations (at superior) and two
>untapped vampires.
>D is playing dedicated Tzimisce intercept/combat and has demonstrated
>heavy use of Forced Awakening.
>C cannot generate stealth or meaningful combat at the moment.
>
>It is Player C's turn.
>D's hand contains Forced Awakening and six combat cards.
Missing information: How many of those combat cards would be playable
if C were to bleed and get blocked? For now, we will assume three:
Carrion Crows, Chiropteran Marauder, and Breath of the Dragon. We will
further assume that player D's hand contains 2x of each of those cards.
Missing information: How many cards are left in D's library?
Missing information: How many Forced Awakenings are in D's ash heap?
Missing information: Does C have sufficient stealth in his deck, or
sufficient combat, to eventually be able to sneak past and/or kill D's
vampires? We will assume "yes", as the whole thing is moot if C is
never going to get anywhere ANYWAY.
>If C does nothing, D will probably oust both remaining players.
This conclusion is unsupported by the game state. D will surely oust A
and have 2VP to A's 1VP, but 12 pool is a long way to go for a Tzimisce
deck that bleeds for only 1 -- even further if that deck must
consistently defend itself. Forced Awakenings run out.
>If C bleeds with one vampire, that vampire will be blocked and burned,
>and D will probably draw a Forced Awakening from the resulting combat.
>Therefore, C will probably get 0 VPs.
This conclusion is only partially supported, because we don't know
what's in C's hand or how much blood C's vamps have. Also should be
restated: C has a valid reason to believe that D may draw into a Forced
Awakening, causing C to lose.
>D is worried that even though ousting A will be easy, ousting C before
>the time limit finishes may be difficult.
This is a much more valid conclusion, and is the one any judge should be
able to reach as well.
>So D offers C a deal where D will oust A, and then one of (C or D)
>will withdraw.
>
>(This deal seems legal for D because it still results in him winning.)
>(This deal seems legal for C because it raises his 0 projected VPs to
>1.)
So far, so good.
>Player A argues that Player C can oust Player D.
Player A is wrong.
Player C has a CHANCE to oust player D. It is far from certain.
>This would be in Player A's interest, as he would get another turn and
>a chance at a table win.
Again, we really need to know the number of player A's minions and
nature of player A's deck that would allow him to bleed through 18 pool
before losing a single one himself.
>Player A calls a judge.
>
>The players are all familiar with Player D's Tzimisce deck
>Its contents include
>8 Forced Awakening
>6 Cat's Guidance
>4 Read the Winds
>and he has not drawn anywhere near his share so far.
This information should really have been added up above and exact
numbers used, but no big deal.
We will assume for the sake of argument:
Player D has played 50 cards from an 80-card library, and displayed 4x
Forced, 2x Read the Winds, and 1x Cat's Guidance, including the one in
his hand.
(Worthless mathematical note: Assuming player D plays 4 cards in the
resulting combat, his chance of drawing one of the 11 untap cards
remaining are 90.8%.)
>Player A's Argument:
>If C goes forward with both vampires, and D draws no way to untap a
>vampire, D will die.
>This is possible (although highly unlikely.)
>A argues that Player C is not yet unable to get 3 VP, just very
>unlikely, and so may not "lose on purpose".
>
>C argues, of course, that 1 is better than none, which is what he'll
>get if he tries.
A is wrong.
Player C's best equity play here is to take the deal; in fact, he WILL
be playing to win by doing so.
Player C has a 9% chance of getting 3VP, and a 100% chance of getting 1.
If this situation were repeated 100 times, player C would get 27VP if he
always tried for the 9% chance, and would get 100VP if he always went
for the deal.
Open-and-shut case; player C's play is legal. It would be legal in
almost all situations, actually, regardless of the actual numbers used.
>Or in shortest form,
>As long as it is *possible* that C can oust D, must he try, regardless
>of odds?
>In a one-round game, I'd almost always say yes, but in a
>tournament...?
No. This isn't a black-and-white sort of thing; C is allowed to use his
best judgement.
-- Derek
a host is a host from coast to coast
and no one will talk to a host that's close
unless the host that isn't close
is busy, hung, or dead
Brian
> illegal play. If the player refuses (and instead insists on making only
> the illegal play), then the judge should remove that player and effect
> whatever additional measures are necessary to preserve table balance
> for the remaining players.
So, "play to win" is not enforced as "you must", but as "you may not"?
If enforced as a "you may not", as addressed in Cases A, B, and C, it
leaves the question of what you "may".
If there is only one way (or a limited number of ways) that a player
could play to win, and those are unknown to the player, then all play
the player is capable of is "illegal play". If the player proceeds to
play the game at all, and does not become aware of how to win, then he
or she should be removed?
> In the case of not playing to win, the
> judge and the player who is suspected of making the infraction
> should discuss the matter (the player, if he feels he is not
> in violation of the rule, explaining how he is not, of course.
> This explanation need not be made in the hearing range of
> the other players when it involves information not known to
> the other players, like cards in hand or library, etc.)
So Player B splits the table with C, getting himself only 1 VP.
B argues he is taking the best strategy, and the judge and Player D
see a clearly better strategy that B has not taken. Perhaps something
as simple as "didn't notice his prey was at 4", or "neglected that
Fame will cost his prey another point of pool during untap".
The judge will rule that he can do better than the rollover deal.
If Player B still doesn't notice how he can win, he will try something
else, which can also be ruled illegal, indefinitely.
He MUST OUST and does not know that he can.
And I get the impression from you that neither the judge nor any of
the other players are required to tell this to Player B.
Am I correct?
> He can appeal to the head judge, if he feels the judge's ruling
> should be reviewed. The head judge's ruling is final.
OK, this answers this question fully.
> The player should make the thing that he knew and that the judge didn't
> know known to the judge at the time of the ruling. And there are no
> guaranteed VPs.
Yes, the player should.
If, however, neither party was competent enough to do so, and later
this information is revealed, and the judge was clearly in error,
then: should the game state be corrected?
> > As long as it is *possible* that C can oust D, must he try, regardless
> > of odds?
>
> The odds are factored into the judgment.
OK, this answers that question fully.
-- Brian
LSJ
> If Player B still doesn't notice how he can win, he will try something
> else, which can also be ruled illegal, indefinitely.
> He MUST OUST and does not know that he can.
> And I get the impression from you that neither the judge nor any of
> the other players are required to tell this to Player B.
>
> Am I correct?
No. One cannot posit that a given move is not the best in isolation.
For the "he's not playing to win" argument to be made, the/a better
play must be referenced.
[...]
> If, however, neither party was competent enough to do so, and later
> this information is revealed, and the judge was clearly in error,
> then: should the game state be corrected?
No. The state is not in error, so needs no correction.
The judge's ruling was proper at the time and, proper or not,
still stands.
Brian
> Brian wrote:
> > If Player B still doesn't notice how he can win, he will try something
> > else, which can also be ruled illegal, indefinitely.
> > He MUST OUST and does not know that he can.
> > And I get the impression from you that neither the judge nor any of
> > the other players are required to tell this to Player B.
> >
> > Am I correct?
>
> No. One cannot posit that a given move is not the best in isolation.
> For the "he's not playing to win" argument to be made, the/a better
> play must be referenced.
...but not necessarily aloud, right next to the player.
A better play must be referenced in private, to the judge.
In the same situation above, if Player A called the judge, saying
"Player B can oust and he isn't", then that specific play (ousting) is
referenced.
And Player B has not been made aware of it.
(Or of how to do it.)
So unless Player B figures it out, all of his play is illegal.
> [...]
>
> > If, however, neither party was competent enough to do so, and later
> > this information is revealed, and the judge was clearly in error,
> > then: should the game state be corrected?
>
> No. The state is not in error, so needs no correction.
> The judge's ruling was proper at the time and, proper or not,
> still stands.
So, a judge's ruling, if not appealed immediately, will stand.
Fair enough.
-- Brian
Gregory Stuart Pettigrew
>
No, it is clearly the Judge's responsibility to make him aware of the
avenue to victory he is not performing. Otherwise, the Judge cannot
discuss "playing to win."
Ira
> that he can *reasonably* get. If he can get none, he must play to achieve
> the most VPs that he can *reasonably* achieve.
A player need not get an extra 1/2 VP if doing so allows someone else
to get the game win. For instance:
4 player game, A->B->C->D. C ousted D, then B ousted C. B has a
bunch of pool but no minions and no deck. B attempts to withdraw. 10
seconds left in the round.
If A allows B to withdraw, A will get an extra 1/2 VP, but give B the
Game Win at the same time. If A allows the game to go to time, he
prevents B from getting the Game Win.
A is not obligated to allow B to withdraw under the good sportmanship
rules (which is where the play-to-win rule comes from.)
Correct?
Another example of not being required to maximize VPs is during the
final round, because players are assumed to be playing to win and can
do whatever they want (collusion is still disallowed, of course.)
Ira
Brian
> >E.
> >
> >Setup:
> >Player B is a poor player.
> >B believes he is playing to maximize VPs.
> >He is trying to get two VPs.
>
> Player B is well within his rights to do this, assuming he has some
> valid reason to believe he can only get 2VP. These circumstances depend
> entirely on game state.
?
No they don't.
He can believe whatever he wants to believe.
"Valid Reason" does not enter the equation.
The "play to win" rule is there to enforce what the JUDGE believes.
> >Player A sees a strategy for B which B has not seen.
> >A believes B can get 3 VPs, and is probably correct.
> >A calls a judge and the judge rules that B can in fact get 3 VPs.
>
> Ugh. I don't like this assumption just because it's very based on the
> judge being psychic. These sorts of situations are likely to be
> incredibly, well, situational. But for now, would you be content to
> rephrase it:
>
> The Judge believes that player B has a reasonable chance of getting 3VP.
I would be content with:
The Judge believes that Player B has a reasonable chance of getting
3VP, and rules accordingly. (I.E., rules that Player B may not play
to less than 3 unless and until something stops him from being able to
get 3.)
> ...and NO ruling has been made yet!
Actually, according to the premises, yes, it has:
"...the judge rules that..."
> >And this is integral:
> >B does not know how to get the 3 VPs.
>
> We will also assume, for the sake of trying to connect it to the real
> world in some fashion: B is being manipulated by another player to
> accept the wrong end of a 3-2 deal, which, if followed through, would
> cause A to gain 0VP.
It could be another reason, such as B has offered someone else a 3-2
deal which, if followed through, would cause A to gain 0 VPs, or such
as Player A wants the game to go according to the rules, for its own
sake.
> This is the most likely scenario; details can be irrelevant, but at
> least now we know why A has called the judge in the first place.
Actually, this is merely "general setup", and the reason A has called
the judge is specified in each scenario. The reason each scenario
ascribes a different motivation to Player A is because in some
scenarios, B learns how to better maximize his VPs (through Player A),
and in others, he does not.
> >This is the setup for all the following scenarios.
> >
> >*Case A*
> >------------
> >Player A only called the judge in the interest of fairness.
> >No player has an interest in seeing Player B get three VP's.
> >
> >How should the "play to win" rule be enforced?
> >Is any player required to tell B the strategy?
>
> No.
>
> >Is the judge required to tell him?
>
> No, and the judge should keep his mouth shut here.
>
> >Is Player B required to think of it on his own?
>
> Not possible. If he successfully thinks of it, that's great, but if he
> doesn't, oh well.
>
> >If none of these, how is player B to play to win, without knowing what
> >to do?
>
> He follows his original (LEGAL, mind you) plan of getting 2VP. This
> could be overruled by situational circumstances such as player B
> attempting to accept this deal on turn 2 (B has no valid reason to
> believe he can only get 2VP).
So you believe that, if a player can reasonably get 3 VPs, and is
trying to get 2 VPs anyway, and a judge is called, that the judge
should allow the player his plan for 2 VPs?
Isn't this what the "play to win" rule was created to prevent?
> >*Case B*
> >------------
> >Player A called the judge in his own interests.
> >A gladly tells B how to win.
> >B lacks the skill necessary to pull off the strategy.
> >B rejects the strategy, claiming it would not work.
>
> B is allowed to do this. B is a poor player, per our assumptions above;
> B may be making a mistake, but you cannot legislate against poor play.
It is arguable that the "play to win" rule attempts to.
> >A is correct that a player in B's position could get 3 VP's.
> >B is correct that Player B in his position could not get 3 VP's.
>
> The important part: B believes, whether or not he is correct, that he
> cannot get 3VP, and has valid reasons to do so.
What constitutes a valid reason?
More importantly, what constitutes an INVALID one?
> >What is to be done? The judge has already ruled.
>
> The judge most certainly has NOT ruled, and this is my objection to your
> assumption. You cannot make such a ruling as you describe above in
> those terms; you must rule on whether or not the player believes he is
> playing to win.
LSJ would directly contradict you:
------------
From post #7 in thread "GameWinRule:unenforceable?":
> What if he states he cannot win (or believes that at least) and
> therefore wants to maximize his vps with a split?
If he can convince the judge that, based on game state, he cannot win,
then he is free to procede with his not winning in whatever (legal)
manner he chooses. It is quite difficult to "take one look at his
preys vampire" in the early part of a game and deduce that one cannot
win, however.
What the player believes is of no relevance. It is what the judge
believes that matters when it comes to a player's chances of winning.
------------
> No ruling should ever force B to take an action.
>
> "Play to Win" typically will concern itself with disallowing illegal
> actions and/or deals, not forcing actions and/or honoring deals.
I asked LSJ if "play to win" is more of a "you may not" than a "you
must". I haven't really gotten a response to that, but it's really
the least important part of the discussion. I think the answer is
yes.
(snip discussion of hypothetical judge's error)
> >D is worried that even though ousting A will be easy, ousting C before
> >the time limit finishes may be difficult.
> >So D offers C a deal where D will oust A, and then one of (C or D)
> >will withdraw.
> >As long as it is *possible* that C can oust D, must he try, regardless
> >of odds?
> No. This isn't a black-and-white sort of thing; C is allowed to use his
> best judgement.
Exactly what LSJ said.
-- Brian
Derek Ray
>> >At a five-player table, the players (in order) are called A,B,C,D, and
>> >E.
>> >
>> >Setup:
>> >Player B is a poor player.
>> >B believes he is playing to maximize VPs.
>> >He is trying to get two VPs.
>>
>> Player B is well within his rights to do this, assuming he has some
>> valid reason to believe he can only get 2VP. These circumstances depend
>> entirely on game state.
>
>?
>No they don't.
Yes, they do, actually. Always. It's why we have judges.
>He can believe whatever he wants to believe.
>"Valid Reason" does not enter the equation.
Yes, it does. Partly because it's not an equation.
>The "play to win" rule is there to enforce what the JUDGE believes.
Absolutely, completely, 100% untrue.
What the Judge believes is one thing and should be used to assist the
judge in his ruling, but there are generally many courses of action
available at a given table, and players are assumed to not be
omniscient.
Repeat this to yourself, over and over:
You cannot legislate against poor play.
>> >Player A sees a strategy for B which B has not seen.
>> >A believes B can get 3 VPs, and is probably correct.
>> >A calls a judge and the judge rules that B can in fact get 3 VPs.
>>
>> Ugh. I don't like this assumption just because it's very based on the
>> judge being psychic. These sorts of situations are likely to be
>> incredibly, well, situational. But for now, would you be content to
>> rephrase it:
>>
>> The Judge believes that player B has a reasonable chance of getting 3VP.
>
>I would be content with:
>The Judge believes that Player B has a reasonable chance of getting
>3VP, and rules accordingly. (I.E., rules that Player B may not play
>to less than 3 unless and until something stops him from being able to
>get 3.)
Totally wrong! The Judge may not make such a ruling.
He may only disallow illegal plays; he may not force B to play in any
single specific manner.
>> ...and NO ruling has been made yet!
>
>Actually, according to the premises, yes, it has:
But your premise is invalid, and based on a misunderstanding of the rule
itself. The judge may not make this ruling. See LSJ's post, which
answers you directly and succinctly. Reference the portion which deals
with "you may not" compared to "you must".
>> >This is the setup for all the following scenarios.
>> >
>> >*Case A*
>> >------------
>> >Player A only called the judge in the interest of fairness.
>> >No player has an interest in seeing Player B get three VP's.
>> >
>> >How should the "play to win" rule be enforced?
>> >Is any player required to tell B the strategy?
>>
>> No.
>>
>> >Is the judge required to tell him?
>>
>> No, and the judge should keep his mouth shut here.
>>
>> >Is Player B required to think of it on his own?
>>
>> Not possible. If he successfully thinks of it, that's great, but if he
>> doesn't, oh well.
>>
>> >If none of these, how is player B to play to win, without knowing what
>> >to do?
>>
>> He follows his original (LEGAL, mind you) plan of getting 2VP. This
>> could be overruled by situational circumstances such as player B
>> attempting to accept this deal on turn 2 (B has no valid reason to
>> believe he can only get 2VP).
>
>So you believe that, if a player can reasonably get 3 VPs, and is
>trying to get 2 VPs anyway, and a judge is called, that the judge
>should allow the player his plan for 2 VPs?
Given the situation you have described above: Yes. If that player has
valid reason to believe, _based on his perception of the game state_,
that he can only get 2VP, then he must be allowed to continue with that
plan.
The flaw in the "what the Judge believes" argument is that the Judge has
access to perfect information (contents of every player's hand, crypt,
and library), while no player has access to more than a small subset of
that information. The Judge will frequently have reason to believe
something different than a player.
Each situation must be handled on a case-by-case basis. No general
answer is available; this is what Judges are for.
>Isn't this what the "play to win" rule was created to prevent?
No. The Play to Win rule was not created to prevent poor play.
>> >*Case B*
>> >------------
>> >Player A called the judge in his own interests.
>> >A gladly tells B how to win.
>
>> >B lacks the skill necessary to pull off the strategy.
>> >B rejects the strategy, claiming it would not work.
>>
>> B is allowed to do this. B is a poor player, per our assumptions above;
>> B may be making a mistake, but you cannot legislate against poor play.
>
>It is arguable that the "play to win" rule attempts to.
It is not arguable. This has been covered in the past, I believe.
>> >A is correct that a player in B's position could get 3 VP's.
>> >B is correct that Player B in his position could not get 3 VP's.
>>
>> The important part: B believes, whether or not he is correct, that he
>> cannot get 3VP, and has valid reasons to do so.
>
>What constitutes a valid reason?
Case-by-case basis; requires a judge.
>More importantly, what constitutes an INVALID one?
"I don't like the color of his shirt."
"He pissed me off last game, so I'm screwing him this game."
"I don't want him to make the Finals, he's too good."
"I'm already qualified, and I don't want anyone who plays at my table to
be able to qualify. I don't care who they are, I just want to be the
random factor that ruins 12 people's chances."
>> >What is to be done? The judge has already ruled.
>>
>> The judge most certainly has NOT ruled, and this is my objection to your
>> assumption. You cannot make such a ruling as you describe above in
>> those terms; you must rule on whether or not the player believes he is
>> playing to win.
>
>LSJ would directly contradict you:
Then he would be wrong, but only in part; what the player believes IS of
relevance, at least where that player is pursuing a course of action to
maximize his VPs as opposed to win ...and possibly in other instances as
regards the manner in which the player is attempting to win.
Take the situation where Player A wishes to Rush backwards and kill all
his predator's vampires, say, because his predator put _X_ horrible card
in play (Slaughterhouse) that player A fears will ruin his game and make
him lose. Player A wishes to oust his predator so that the
Slaughterhouse goes away.
Everyone else at the table, including the judge, is sure that this is a
damnfool move, and player A has every expectation of being able to get 1
or 2VP if he just goes forward, possibly even more than that... and if
he goes backwards, he will never get more than 1, maybe not any.
However, what player A believes is key here; he is allowed to make the
dumb play, because he BELIEVES he is attempting to both win and maximize
his VPs, and it is certainly possible for him to do so in this fashion.
If, on the other hand, player A is attempting to do this to his
GRANDPREDATOR who has just played a Slaughterhouse, offering up some
flimsy reason such as "I hate Slaughterhouse decks and I don't ever want
it to be my predator", or some such crap, then it's what the Judge
believes that begins to matter more -- in this case, player A does not
have a valid reason to be afraid of the Slaughterhouse yet, as it cannot
affect him.
It is always a situational, case-by-case basis.
>> No ruling should ever force B to take an action.
>>
>> "Play to Win" typically will concern itself with disallowing illegal
>> actions and/or deals, not forcing actions and/or honoring deals.
>
>I asked LSJ if "play to win" is more of a "you may not" than a "you
>must". I haven't really gotten a response to that, but it's really
>the least important part of the discussion. I think the answer is
>yes.
It is. But it's key to the entire discussion, frankly. All your
arguments are based on forcing B to take specific actions. This is
absolutely not what the Play to Win rule was created for.
Derek Ray
Gregory Stuart Pettigrew <ethe...@sidehack.sat.gweep.net> mumbled
something about:
And the Judge should never, ever, ever, ever, EVER interfere with the
course of a game in such a fashion -- providing coaching to a player at
the table?! Ridiculous.
A player who is insufficiently skilled at the game to detect the correct
course of action is not breaking the rules, he's just insufficiently
skilled.
Gregory Stuart Pettigrew
> >
> >No, it is clearly the Judge's responsibility to make him aware of the
> >avenue to victory he is not performing. Otherwise, the Judge cannot
> >discuss "playing to win."
>
> And the Judge should never, ever, ever, ever, EVER interfere with the
> course of a game in such a fashion -- providing coaching to a player at
> the table?! Ridiculous.
>
Far more ridiculous is forcing the Judge to stand there while the player
attempts to make every move until, completely by accident, he makes one
that will net him 3 VPs over the 2.
How else would you expect a Judge to force a player to "play to win" for
the 3 VPs *that another player told him about* instead of the 2?
Derek Ray
something about:
>> >> So unless Player B figures it out, all of his play is illegal.
>> >
>> >No, it is clearly the Judge's responsibility to make him aware of the
>> >avenue to victory he is not performing. Otherwise, the Judge cannot
>> >discuss "playing to win."
>>
>> And the Judge should never, ever, ever, ever, EVER interfere with the
>> course of a game in such a fashion -- providing coaching to a player at
>> the table?! Ridiculous.
>>
>Far more ridiculous is forcing the Judge to stand there while the player
>attempts to make every move until, completely by accident, he makes one
>that will net him 3 VPs over the 2.
I agree, this is foolishness on the face of it. Including the bit where
somehow, the Judge should force a player to take specific actions at the
table, as opposed to just disallowing illegal actions.
Why do all of you keep trying to force the square peg into the round
hole? It's been repeated over and over that the rule doesn't work that
way, wasn't intended that way, and should not ever be used that way.
What makes you think that any Magicky, munchkinny rules-lawyering on
your part will ever cause the rule to work that way? Come on, man, it's
common sense here. The Judge isn't about to sit down and play the game
for someone.
>How else would you expect a Judge to force a player to "play to win" for
>the 3 VPs *that another player told him about* instead of the 2?
Have you not been reading the other posts?
That isn't an appropriate action for the Judge to take under those
circumstances, and he should not do such a thing.
So what if another player told the first player something? The other
player may be lying, or incorrect, or both. The first player is allowed
to play poorly; he just isn't allowed to deliberately completely
circumvent the object of the game, or to play to alternate victory
conditions ("oust all Giovanni"). Hence, "play to win".
Honestly, is this so difficult to grasp?
salem
>> The player must play to win. He must play to get as many GWs (up to 1)
>> that he can *reasonably* get. If he can get none, he must play to achieve
>> the most VPs that he can *reasonably* achieve.
>
> A player need not get an extra 1/2 VP if doing so allows someone else
>to get the game win. For instance:
>
>4 player game, A->B->C->D. C ousted D, then B ousted C. B has a
>bunch of pool but no minions and no deck. B attempts to withdraw. 10
>seconds left in the round.
>
>If A allows B to withdraw, A will get an extra 1/2 VP, but give B the
>Game Win at the same time. If A allows the game to go to time, he
>prevents B from getting the Game Win.
>
>A is not obligated to allow B to withdraw under the good sportmanship
>rules (which is where the play-to-win rule comes from.)
>
>Correct?
erm, no. if A can't get the game win, he has to play to get as many
vps as he can. if, in getting those most more vps, he gives someone
else the game win, well, it sucks, but he is obliged to do so.
the 'play to win' rule does not include provisions for 'unless you're
trying to make someone else lose'. that way lies madness.
salem
domain:canberra http://www.geocities.com/salem_christ.geo/vtes.htm
(replace "hotmail" with "yahoo" to email)
"I like to play the field"-LSJ
salem
it helps things:
B is the guy who is going for 2vps, but others (A, etc) think he can
get 3vps, whereas B does not know how.
what people need to understand is, just because there might exist some
Good Player who, if he was in B's position, he could get 3 vps, does
not mean B (the person, a player. B is a person, not a seating
position) is good enough to get those 3 vps.
remember B is a person. a. person. playing to _their_ play level.
to reiterate Derek (or is that merely 'iterate'?)
you cannot legislate against poor play.
Derek Ray
salem <salem_ch...@hotmail.com> mumbled something about:
>>If A allows B to withdraw, A will get an extra 1/2 VP, but give B the
>>Game Win at the same time. If A allows the game to go to time, he
>>prevents B from getting the Game Win.
>>
>>A is not obligated to allow B to withdraw under the good sportmanship
>>rules (which is where the play-to-win rule comes from.)
>>
>>Correct?
>
>erm, no. if A can't get the game win, he has to play to get as many
>vps as he can. if, in getting those most more vps, he gives someone
>else the game win, well, it sucks, but he is obliged to do so.
No, Ira is correct. Player A is never obliged to give any other players
any VP whatsoever, and certainly not provide them a Game Win.
Player A should be allowed to prevent B from withdrawing, although it is
probably a rare case where player A would wish to deny himself the extra
half-VP.
Is common sense truly so uncommon?
Timlagor
> >Player A's Argument:
> >If C goes forward with both vampires, and D draws no way to untap a
> >vampire, D will die.
> >This is possible (although highly unlikely.)
> >A argues that Player C is not yet unable to get 3 VP, just very
> >unlikely, and so may not "lose on purpose".
> >
> >C argues, of course, that 1 is better than none, which is what he'll
> >get if he tries.
>
> A is wrong.
>
> Player C's best equity play here is to take the deal; in fact, he WILL
> be playing to win by doing so.
>
> Player C has a 9% chance of getting 3VP, and a 100% chance of getting 1.
>
> If this situation were repeated 100 times, player C would get 27VP if he
> always tried for the 9% chance, and would get 100VP if he always went
> for the deal.
Where has this come from? The play to win rule says nothing about taking
the "best equity play"! It says that if you have a "reasonable chance"
to win then you *must* do so. If you have a play that can get you a
3Vp GW or 0vp with "resonable probability of GW) and another that will
alsmot certainly get you a 2 VP loss then you MUST take the GW/0Vp
option every time.
There has been much discussion of what constitutes as "reasonable
chance" and the problems of evaluating it but I think we can probably
agree for the purposes of argument that a 20% chance will qualify as a
reasonable chance:
20% * 3Vp + 0 = 0.6Vp on average
80% * 2Vp = 1.6VP on average
Whatever the actual numbers and factors in the actual situation, it is
clear from the figures that "best equity" play can be illegal.
It is my understanding that even if you can't win you still can't play
the "best equity".
Joshua Duffin
"salem" <salem_ch...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:r53dd0d79ln7joudi...@4ax.com...
> On 20 Jun 2004 16:31:17 -0700, ira...@yahoo.com (Ira) scrawled:
>
> >> The player must play to win. He must play to get as many GWs (up to
1)
> >> that he can *reasonably* get. If he can get none, he must play to
achieve
> >> the most VPs that he can *reasonably* achieve.
> >
> > A player need not get an extra 1/2 VP if doing so allows someone
else
> >to get the game win. For instance:
> >
> >4 player game, A->B->C->D. C ousted D, then B ousted C. B has a
> >bunch of pool but no minions and no deck. B attempts to withdraw.
10
> >seconds left in the round.
> >
> >If A allows B to withdraw, A will get an extra 1/2 VP, but give B the
> >Game Win at the same time. If A allows the game to go to time, he
> >prevents B from getting the Game Win.
> >
> >A is not obligated to allow B to withdraw under the good sportmanship
> >rules (which is where the play-to-win rule comes from.)
> >
> >Correct?
>
> erm, no. if A can't get the game win, he has to play to get as many
> vps as he can. if, in getting those most more vps, he gives someone
> else the game win, well, it sucks, but he is obliged to do so.
>
> the 'play to win' rule does not include provisions for 'unless you're
> trying to make someone else lose'. that way lies madness.
LSJ, is Salem right here, or is Ira? In a preliminary-round game, is a
player obliged to allow his remaining opponent to withdraw (it seems
that if it's the other player attempting to withdraw, there is no chance
of the player making this decision unexpectedly ending up with less than
1 VP), even if that will give the other player the game win, if the
player in question doesn't have a reasonable chance of getting more than
the 0.5 VP for going to time otherwise?
Josh
not that this is likely to come up much, either
(since it's somewhat unusual that the 1-VP-already player would be able
to exhaust his/her library and attempt to withdraw before time, I think)
Daneel
> It is. But it's key to the entire discussion, frankly. All your
> arguments are based on forcing B to take specific actions. This is
> absolutely not what the Play to Win rule was created for.
Okay, here is a random example that is worth considering. It is purely
fictional.
Meth A plays a War Ghoul deck and has 3 War Ghouls in play. His prey,
Meth B, is playing a deck that has no hitback that can sink a WG. In
fact, noone at the table does have any significant hitback. Meth A
does not rush forward. He does not bleed. He rushes backwards a bit
but usually just stands there. Meth B is slowly killing Meth C. It is
noted that Meth A is not necessarily playing to win, but the judges
cannot force him to take any action. He may even come up with some
explanation for his (in)action. Meth C is ousted, then so is D and E.
When left alone, the War Ghouls suddenly begin to rush and the round
ends, with Meth B getting 1/3 and Meth A taking 0/2. Meth A notes that
he would not have been able to win (which is obviously falsehood).
Now the case is obviously unsportsmanlike, but it is not within the
power of the judges to take any action concerning it.
Bye,
Daneel
Derek Ray
dan...@eposta.hu (Daneel) mumbled something about:
>Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<p0bcd0156drda5hnr...@4ax.com>...
>> It is. But it's key to the entire discussion, frankly. All your
>> arguments are based on forcing B to take specific actions. This is
>> absolutely not what the Play to Win rule was created for.
>
>Okay, here is a random example that is worth considering. It is purely
>fictional.
>
>Meth A plays a War Ghoul deck and has 3 War Ghouls in play. His prey,
>Meth B, is playing a deck that has no hitback that can sink a WG. In
Not something which is known to player A -- not relevant here, but
something to keep in mind for future situations.
>fact, noone at the table does have any significant hitback. Meth A
Again, not something which is known to player A.
>does not rush forward. He does not bleed. He rushes backwards a bit
>but usually just stands there. Meth B is slowly killing Meth C. It is
>noted that Meth A is not necessarily playing to win, but the judges
If the judge is called, he can pull player A away from the table, and
ask player A what his plan is to win the game, and what actions he
intends to take in order to get there.
It should be patently obvious from his response that player A is either
totally clueless, utterly full of shit, or has some Master Plan up his
sleeve -- this Master Plan can be verified by inspecting his library.
If it is not sufficiently obvious, the question can be repeated in a
couple turns as the game state changes.
Clueless players are VERY easy to spot, and while it hurts inside to do
so, you really should let them play; they usually have a Master Plan
that sucks rocks. People faking being clueless are ALSO very easy to
spot, and you can throw them out right then and save yourself the
trouble later.
If it becomes necessary, player A can be removed from the game, the game
state adjusted accordingly, and it can be allowed to continue with all
players playing to win.
>cannot force him to take any action. He may even come up with some
The Judge cannot force him to take any SPECIFIC action, such as "You
must bleed with all your minions this turn."
The Judge can surely tell him "At the moment your words, actions, and
library/hand contents lead me to believe that you're not even _trying_
to win this game. I recommend that you get on the stick here and
convince me otherwise, OK?"
>explanation for his (in)action. Meth C is ousted, then so is D and E.
The Judge is not required to believe OR honor bullshit explanations.
>When left alone, the War Ghouls suddenly begin to rush and the round
>ends, with Meth B getting 1/3 and Meth A taking 0/2. Meth A notes that
>he would not have been able to win (which is obviously falsehood).
Then I remove player A from the tournament, and the remaining rounds
continue. However, I could have handled it earlier -- see above.
>Now the case is obviously unsportsmanlike, but it is not within the
>power of the judges to take any action concerning it.
Sure it is. You just forgot about the Big Kaboom.
Just because you have the Big Kaboom doesn't mean you have to use it, or
that you should EVER use it if at all possible. But it's always good to
remember that you have it, because some actions (such as the deliberate,
malicious disruption of the table and the tournament you describe)
completely deserve it.
Derek Ray
Timlagor <TimSl...@yaMhoo.co.uk> mumbled something about:
>Derek Ray expounded:
>> >Player A's Argument:
>> >If C goes forward with both vampires, and D draws no way to untap a
>> >vampire, D will die.
>> >This is possible (although highly unlikely.)
>> >A argues that Player C is not yet unable to get 3 VP, just very
>> >unlikely, and so may not "lose on purpose".
>> >
>> >C argues, of course, that 1 is better than none, which is what he'll
>> >get if he tries.
>>
>> A is wrong.
>>
>> Player C's best equity play here is to take the deal; in fact, he WILL
>> be playing to win by doing so.
>>
>> Player C has a 9% chance of getting 3VP, and a 100% chance of getting 1.
>>
>> If this situation were repeated 100 times, player C would get 27VP if he
>> always tried for the 9% chance, and would get 100VP if he always went
>> for the deal.
>
>Where has this come from? The play to win rule says nothing about taking
Gee, I thought I might do the math for you just so it made a little more
sense. Silly me to try to appeal to common sense in V:TES players, huh?
I thought most of you were brighter than this.
It appears I was wrong in certain cases. Or maybe it's just all the
wannabe rules-lawyers doing the whining? The people who'd rather weasel
their way into a VP than actually grow some balls and skill?
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.
>the "best equity play"! It says that if you have a "reasonable chance"
>to win then you *must* do so. If you have a play that can get you a
9% is not a reasonable chance of victory.
>3Vp GW or 0vp with "resonable probability of GW) and another that will
>alsmot certainly get you a 2 VP loss then you MUST take the GW/0Vp
>option every time.
Hardly; see the math. 3VP > 2VP > 0VP. It is permissible to attempt to
maximise your VP.
>There has been much discussion of what constitutes as "reasonable
>chance" and the problems of evaluating it but I think we can probably
>agree for the purposes of argument that a 20% chance will qualify as a
>reasonable chance:
Given only two choices, a reasonable chance is of course 51%.
Come on, man, think it through. =) Zero is worse than 2 by a LOT more
than 2 is worse than 3. If I'm going to risk my whole game on whether
or not someone redraws a Wake, I want at least a 51% chance of the guy
not catching his card, ya know?
>Whatever the actual numbers and factors in the actual situation, it is
>clear from the figures that "best equity" play can be illegal.
Only if you assign a ridiculously unreasonable number to "reasonable".
Ira
> A player need not get an extra 1/2 VP if doing so allows someone else
> to get the game win. For instance:
>
> 4 player game, A->B->C->D. C ousted D, then B ousted C. B has a
> bunch of pool but no minions and no deck. B attempts to withdraw. 10
> seconds left in the round.
>
> If A allows B to withdraw, A will get an extra 1/2 VP, but give B the
> Game Win at the same time. If A allows the game to go to time, he
> prevents B from getting the Game Win.
>
> A is not obligated to allow B to withdraw under the good sportmanship
> rules (which is where the play-to-win rule comes from.)
>
> Correct?
Could we get an official answer on this one? Obviously there is
still some confusion.
> Another example of not being required to maximize VPs is during the
> final round, because players are assumed to be playing to win and can
> do whatever they want (collusion is still disallowed, of course.)
And on this one?
Thank you in advance,
Ira
LSJ
> Hey LSJ,
>> A player need not get an extra 1/2 VP if doing so allows someone else
>>to get the game win. For instance:
>>
>>4 player game, A->B->C->D. C ousted D, then B ousted C. B has a
>>bunch of pool but no minions and no deck. B attempts to withdraw. 10
>>seconds left in the round.
>>
>>If A allows B to withdraw, A will get an extra 1/2 VP, but give B the
>>Game Win at the same time. If A allows the game to go to time, he
>>prevents B from getting the Game Win.
>>
>>A is not obligated to allow B to withdraw under the good sportmanship
>>rules (which is where the play-to-win rule comes from.)
>>
>>Correct?
>
> Could we get an official answer on this one? Obviously there is
> still some confusion.
Play to win:
Get the GW. If you can't get the GW, get as many VPs as you can.
>> Another example of not being required to maximize VPs is during the
>>final round, because players are assumed to be playing to win and can
>>do whatever they want (collusion is still disallowed, of course.)
>
> And on this one?
Play to win in the finals:
The obvious meaning - play the finals so as to finish as high as possible.
Andrew S. Davidson
>9% is not a reasonable chance of victory.
The average chance of winning a 5 player game is 20%. Having a 9%
chance is worse than this but not unreasonably so - it's still 45% of
the average. I reckon you have to get down below 1% to start talking
about unreasonable.
Andrew
Derek Ray
Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> mumbled something about:
They tell me the maths in the UK are better than those in America.
What'd you do, sleep through that whole class?
Go pull the other one, it has got bells on.
The Doctor
>
> ...but not necessarily aloud, right next to the player.
> A better play must be referenced in private, to the judge.
Why?
If player A is so keen on seeing player B make the 'play to win' move,
then he should just tell player B what to do to get that win.
> In the same situation above, if Player A called the judge, saying
> "Player B can oust and he isn't", then that specific play (ousting) is
> referenced.
>
> And Player B has not been made aware of it.
> (Or of how to do it.)
>
> So unless Player B figures it out, all of his play is illegal.
And unless player A wants player B to make that move, he would not call
over the judge. So why not just tell player B the winning move and never
even bother with a judge, coz player B will surely play that winning
move if player A would tell him how :)
//Doc.
--
"Wees jezelf, er zijn al zoveel anderen" - Loesje
begin Your_MS_program_incorrectly_interprets_this_as_an_attachment.txt
The Doctor
>
> Play to win:
> Get the GW. If you can't get the GW, get as many VPs as you can.
So in the example given you'd have to allow your opponent to withdraw?
If I was in such a game I'd be trying to maximize my tournament
position, trying to win the tournament, rather then just the one game.
So I'd maximize my chances of reaching the finals, rather then getting
.5 VP extra and handing someone a GW (possibly losing my finals spot
because of that)
So how does 'play to win' affect the tournament environment in that
sense? SOmetimes denying someone a GW (assuming you cannot get it
yourself) will actually be better for your tournament result.
Andrew S. Davidson
>>The average chance of winning a 5 player game is 20%. Having a 9%
>>chance is worse than this but not unreasonably so - it's still 45% of
>>the average. I reckon you have to get down below 1% to start talking
>>about unreasonable.
>
>They tell me the maths in the UK are better than those in America.
>What'd you do, sleep through that whole class?
>Go pull the other one, it has got bells on.
I'm not seeing a mathematical argument to respond to. I'm just
surprised that you so readily give up your hope of winning. Perhaps
it's because you fancy yourself a good player and so expect your
chance of winning to be better than 20%. But it obviously can't be
like that for everyone. I suppose that many weak players go into a
game with a chance of winning which is less than 9% before a single
card is played. By your estimate of "reasonable" they would then be
entitled to cut a losing 2-3 table split deal immediately. But I
thought you didn't like that sort of reasoning?
Andrew
RavATwoFaces
>
> Now the case is obviously unsportsmanlike, but it is not within the
> power of the judges to take any action concerning it.
>
WHAT? The judge can take actions!
FIRST: he can look if the 2 players are friends or "something like".
In that case he can inform player A to play honestly or he will
disqualify him DIRECTLY.
SECOND: he can ask the strategy of player A and inform him that if he
continue to use a unsportsmanlike strategy he will be removed from the
game... And I will see his next 1-2 rounds of play.
THIRD: I can ask other players what they think about player A & B
behaviour and then act to correct the situation.
BUT: I cannot suggest that player the good strategy --> the judge must
not cheat and suggesting the right strategy is *CHEATING* :P
If he is a unexperienced player I can explain him the right strategy
for the former table between rounds of play and I will keep an eye on
him to see if he play correctly in the next table...
AS A PLAYER I CAN'T USE CONSIDERATIONS OUTSIDE THE GAME, BUT IF I'M A
JUDGE I CAN (or not ... LSJ?).
THE SECOND TIME (BUT FIRST AS A JUDGE) I SEE AN "EXPERIENCED" PLAYER
WHO PLAY IN AN UNSPORTSMANLIKE WAY OR HELP A FRIEND OR A "CUTE PERSON"
WITHOUT A REASON I WILL WARN HIM. IF HE PERSISTS I DISQUALIFY HIM FROM
THAT TOURNMENT... BECAUSE IS NOT THE FIRST TIME HE BEHAVES IN THAT
WAY.
IF IT'S MORE THAN THE 2ND TIME... I WILL DISQUALIFY HIM FOR THE
TOURNMENT AND ASK VEKN FOR A PUNISHMENT (SAY AS DISQUALIFICATION FOR
3-6 MONTHS).
*AS A SIDE NOTE: I'VE ALREADY 5 PLAYERS IN MY JUDGE'S BLACK LIST*
RavATwoFaces
VEKN Italian NC
(and unfair player headhunter)
Colin McGuigan
> AS A PLAYER I CAN'T USE CONSIDERATIONS OUTSIDE THE GAME, BUT IF I'M A
> JUDGE I CAN (or not ... LSJ?).
>
> THE SECOND TIME (BUT FIRST AS A JUDGE) I SEE AN "EXPERIENCED" PLAYER
> WHO PLAY IN AN UNSPORTSMANLIKE WAY OR HELP A FRIEND OR A "CUTE PERSON"
> WITHOUT A REASON I WILL WARN HIM. IF HE PERSISTS I DISQUALIFY HIM FROM
> THAT TOURNMENT... BECAUSE IS NOT THE FIRST TIME HE BEHAVES IN THAT
> WAY.
> IF IT'S MORE THAN THE 2ND TIME... I WILL DISQUALIFY HIM FOR THE
> TOURNMENT AND ASK VEKN FOR A PUNISHMENT (SAY AS DISQUALIFICATION FOR
> 3-6 MONTHS).
>
> *AS A SIDE NOTE: I'VE ALREADY 5 PLAYERS IN MY JUDGE'S BLACK LIST*
Your shift key seems to be stuck. HTH.
--Colin McGuigan
Derek Ray
>On Tue, 22 Jun 2004 08:33:28 -0400, Derek Ray wrote:
>
>>>The average chance of winning a 5 player game is 20%. Having a 9%
>>>chance is worse than this but not unreasonably so - it's still 45% of
>>>the average. I reckon you have to get down below 1% to start talking
>>>about unreasonable.
>>
>>They tell me the maths in the UK are better than those in America.
>>What'd you do, sleep through that whole class?
>>Go pull the other one, it has got bells on.
>
>I'm not seeing a mathematical argument to respond to. I'm just
Then you should have read closer. They also tell me the literacy is
better in the UK than America. I'm quite willing to believe that, but
you seemed totally incapable of reading my post. Wow.
Are you sure you're British and not Canadian*?
>surprised that you so readily give up your hope of winning. Perhaps
>it's because you fancy yourself a good player and so expect your
>chance of winning to be better than 20%. But it obviously can't be
20% is the chance of winning at the start of the game, before any cards
have been played -- and as such not relevant to the conversation,
because it is long, long past the start of the game.
In that situation as described, the chance of winning isn't anywhere
NEAR 20%; it's a lot more like 9%. But the chance of getting 2VP is
100%, and the decision this player is faced with is:
(A) Take a shot at 3VP and a GW for 9%, or (B) take the sure 2VP?
If you think option "A" is best, we can play a game that involves some
ten-sided dice. If you don't like my dice, we can use some that are
chosen by a neutral third party.
I will pay you $30 if you roll an 01-09.
You will pay me $20 if you roll a 10-99, or 00.
We will play this game for a minimum of ten rolls; after that, either
player may quit as they choose. I will personally bring $300 and never
quit. I like this game. In fact, if you want to make it an exact
comparison to this situation, then we can only roll the dice ONCE. I
still like this game.
(snip the rest, where you forget that the situation is long after the
start of the game, so "start of the game" comparisons are not relevant)
-- Derek
* Disclaimer: I love Canadians, and of course our Northern Moose
Brothers are surely no less smart and literate than all the rest of us,
especially ones named Wes. HUG! =)
Andrew S. Davidson
>In that situation as described, the chance of winning isn't anywhere
>NEAR 20%; it's a lot more like 9%. But the chance of getting 2VP is
>100%, and the decision this player is faced with is:
>
>(A) Take a shot at 3VP and a GW for 9%, or (B) take the sure 2VP?
>
>If you think option "A" is best, we can play a game that involves some
>ten-sided dice....
I'm not sure of the details of this scenario (I've just been
skimming). Does option A) give you some probability of getting 2 or 1
VP too? But it doesn't really matter to me. If option A) gives me a
9% chance of winning then I'll go for it over a certain chance of
second place every time. That's "playing to win" as per VEKN policy.
Your dice game is another matter. Playing for money rather than game
wins makes the game and its payoffs different.
Andrew
Derek Ray
>On Tue, 22 Jun 2004 19:16:56 -0400, Derek Ray wrote:
>
>>In that situation as described, the chance of winning isn't anywhere
>>NEAR 20%; it's a lot more like 9%. But the chance of getting 2VP is
>>100%, and the decision this player is faced with is:
>>
>>(A) Take a shot at 3VP and a GW for 9%, or (B) take the sure 2VP?
>>
>>If you think option "A" is best, we can play a game that involves some
>>ten-sided dice....
>
>I'm not sure of the details of this scenario (I've just been
>skimming). Does option A) give you some probability of getting 2 or 1
>VP too? But it doesn't really matter to me. If option A) gives me a
>9% chance of winning then I'll go for it over a certain chance of
>second place every time. That's "playing to win" as per VEKN policy.
Option A) gives you 100% chance of getting 0VP *IF* your opponent
successfully draws a Wake. Suggest reading closer next time, since you
admit you've just been skimming but still consider yourself capable of
arguing the details?
Trying for the 9% is definitely not the ONLY way to "play to win" --
which you'd know if you actually bothered to read the thread, instead of
skim. Thanks for playing, though! We have some lovely parting gifts.
>Your dice game is another matter. Playing for money rather than game
>wins makes the game and its payoffs different.
Not in the slightest. It's just that you don't take the game wins
seriously, and it shows in your choice of decisions when money is
brought into it, compared to when it's just V:TES.
The rule is written assuming people will take it seriously.
Wouter Kuyper
I cannot agree more, even though you have just been skimming.
"you have to play to win if you have a reasonable chance" means in my
book you have to take that path that has a chance of 4 or 5% of
winning.
I wouldn't mind it changed though, i myself much rather take the 100%
of getting 2 VPs, or anything else, but hey, that is me...
and indeed there is a big difference between the dicegame and vampire.
with the dicegame there are multiple outcomes that you can play for.
with vampire you have to play for the Gamewin, and either you get it
or you don't.
Only if you don't get the gamewin there are multiple outcomes.
W
The Doctor
Assuming the chance to win should indeed be 20% in a game of VTES I'd
say this game is no fair comparison.
Even if the chance for the other player would be raised a bit, becuase
the other player is bad, the following would be better:
"I will pay you $30 if you roll an 01-09.
You will pay me $20 if you roll a 10-40."
But you'd probably still play that game :)
The Doctor
>
> I cannot agree more, even though you have just been skimming.
> "you have to play to win if you have a reasonable chance" means in my
> book you have to take that path that has a chance of 4 or 5% of
> winning.
Even if that would reduce your chances of reaching the final?
Derek Ray
The Doctor <D...@freemail.nl> mumbled something about:
>Derek Ray wrote:
>> In message <64fgd0thr1g2k9ntd...@4ax.com>,
>>
>> 20% is the chance of winning at the start of the game, before any cards
>> have been played -- and as such not relevant to the conversation,
>> because it is long, long past the start of the game.
>>
>> In that situation as described, the chance of winning isn't anywhere
>> NEAR 20%; it's a lot more like 9%. But the chance of getting 2VP is
>> 100%, and the decision this player is faced with is:
>>
>> (A) Take a shot at 3VP and a GW for 9%, or (B) take the sure 2VP?
>>
>> If you think option "A" is best, we can play a game that involves some
>> ten-sided dice. If you don't like my dice, we can use some that are
>> chosen by a neutral third party.
>>
>> I will pay you $30 if you roll an 01-09.
>> You will pay me $20 if you roll a 10-99, or 00.
>
>Assuming the chance to win should indeed be 20% in a game of VTES I'd
>say this game is no fair comparison.
However, the chance to win is not 20% at this point in the game -- I've
snipped all the non-relevant bits above.
The chance to win RIGHT NOW is 9%.
>Even if the chance for the other player would be raised a bit, becuase
>the other player is bad, the following would be better:
Play skill isn't really relevant at this point in the game. It's either
"bleed twice, and if he doesn't draw a Wake, I get 1VP, maybe 3", or
"take the deal and walk away with 2VP."
It's hard to see someone deciding to, say, Rush a vampire here, no
matter how unskilled. ;)
>"I will pay you $30 if you roll an 01-09.
>You will pay me $20 if you roll a 10-40."
>
>But you'd probably still play that game :)
I'd be inclined to. ;) I still like my chances. =)
Derek Ray
Wouter...@yahoo.com (Wouter Kuyper) mumbled something about:
>I cannot agree more, even though you have just been skimming.
>"you have to play to win if you have a reasonable chance" means in my
>book you have to take that path that has a chance of 4 or 5% of
>winning.
Would you like to play my dice game?
9% is almost twice 4-5%; you'll have MUCH more than a reasonable chance
of winning, by your standards!
>I wouldn't mind it changed though, i myself much rather take the 100%
>of getting 2 VPs, or anything else, but hey, that is me...
So wait, you're saying you personally do not believe that 9% is a
reasonable chance of winning from that situation?
It sounds like you're contradicting yourself here.
>and indeed there is a big difference between the dicegame and vampire.
Not at all. It's all about "reasonable chance of winning", isn't it?
>with the dicegame there are multiple outcomes that you can play for.
With this situation there are also multiple outcomes.
You can go for 3VP and the gusto at a very high risk.
You can take 2 sure VP.
>with vampire you have to play for the Gamewin, and either you get it
>or you don't.
cf. "reasonable chance". You are not REQUIRED to suicidally charge
forward attempting to get the Game Win. COME ON, people. WAKE UP.
Gregory Stuart Pettigrew
>
Playing for Tournament Placing is an ultimately destructive game. The
moment anyone gains a VP, it is in everyone's best interest to obliterate
them before they get a second.
In any game, you should be trying to win *that game*, even if that game
has other effects outside of that game. Otherwise, you're no longer even
playing *that game*.
Kamel SENNI
Sorry, your game is not a true comparison of the situation.
In a normal size tournament, get the TW value much more than fifty
percent more than two vp's.
'Cause you probably need at least one, and in the biggest tournaments,
two TW to reach the final round.
Gettting the TW value three times, four times, or more, than getting
only 2 vps.
I'm quite agree with the defintion of Andrew: 9 percent chances (if
someone is able to make the calculation, that is, I think, strictly
impossible), is still a reasonable chance to get the TW.
If you play in very small tournament (less than 10 people) your
methaphor (exact word ???), is quite god. In any other situations, a
lot of elements enter in play, and your demonstration is certainly
false.
Kamel Senni,
Prince of Paris.
Curevei
>moment anyone gains a VP, it is in everyone's best interest to obliterate
>them before they get a second.
I much more often see this problem when people aren't playing for tournament
placing. The common problems I see when people play for tournament placing are
things like: causing other people to sweep, giving away table wins for a VP or
two, screwing other specific opponents to manipulate seeding or who else gets
into finals, 2/2/1 split arrangements. Of course, different size tournaments
have different problems.
>In any game, you should be trying to win *that game*, even if that game
>has other effects outside of that game. Otherwise, you're no longer even
>playing *that game*.
This would be fine if it didn't create certain problems. In particular, if you
force people to play to the game rather than the tournament, it's possible to
force them to work against their own interests. There's something just so
wrong about punishing people for doing what is in their own best interests when
such doesn't rise to the level of what should be considered cheating.
The best player should be rewarded in a tournament, right? So, why punish
players for play that maximizes their chances of winning?
The data we do have suggests that better players do better in tournaments as
it's common to see the same names at the top. I wonder how often better
players, though, manipulate the scoring system to an extent far greater than
other players.
Derek Ray
kamel...@yvelines.pref.gouv.fr (Kamel SENNI) mumbled something about:
>Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<dqehd0p3sfdqgv2ag...@4ax.com>...
>> In message <64fgd0thr1g2k9ntd...@4ax.com>,
>>
>> In that situation as described, the chance of winning isn't anywhere
>> NEAR 20%; it's a lot more like 9%. But the chance of getting 2VP is
>> 100%, and the decision this player is faced with is:
>>
>> (A) Take a shot at 3VP and a GW for 9%, or (B) take the sure 2VP?
>>
>Sorry, your game is not a true comparison of the situation.
Oh, but it is. It's an accurate estimation of the probabilities, and an
accurate estimation of the chances for each person.
The only inaccuracy about it is that we play it 10 times. Instead, we
could play it once to make it PERFECTLY accurate, and I know which end I
want to be on.
>In a normal size tournament, get the TW value much more than fifty
>percent more than two vp's.
"normal size tournament" is not a phrase which is appropriate for this
discussion, as it has not been adequately defined and is not going to be
consistent from location to location anyway.
Getting zero VPs instead of two VPs is still much, much worse.
>'Cause you probably need at least one, and in the biggest tournaments,
>two TW to reach the final round.
You have three rounds in which to get the single Game Win, or the second
Game Win. The extra two VP will help you in the tiebreak against others
who also only have that single Game Win.
Ignoring the extra VP you can obtain could be the difference between
making the final and finishing 7th.
>Gettting the TW value three times, four times, or more, than getting
>only 2 vps.
Totally unsupported by the facts OR the math. You are speculating
randomly at this point, and assuming that the person is incapable of
getting Game Wins in his other two rounds. Do you have so little
confidence in your own chances in those other rounds then, that you have
to chase 9% now?? Silliness.
It's a three-rounder for a reason. 1GW and 3VP isn't going anywhere in
most tournaments; since you're going to need an extra GW or an extra 3VP
from your other two rounds anyway, you might as well pick up the 2VP now
and be sure of THAT, and then try to do better later.
Bird in the hand, two in the bush, etc.
>I'm quite agree with the defintion of Andrew: 9 percent chances (if
>someone is able to make the calculation, that is, I think, strictly
>impossible), is still a reasonable chance to get the TW.
Let's play a dice game! All you people who like 9% so darn much need to
play my game as often as possible. I really don't see how some of you
can manage to pay your bills, personally.
Obviously, in real life it would be impossible to make such an exact
calculation. But it is VERY simple to tell the difference between
chances that are close to 10% (bad play), and chances that are closer to
50% (good play).
>If you play in very small tournament (less than 10 people) your
>methaphor (exact word ???), is quite god. In any other situations, a
>lot of elements enter in play, and your demonstration is certainly
>false.
This is typical blather from people who aren't capable of doing the
math. Just to demonstrate my point beyond all hope of your feeble
rebuttals, I went into the finals 2nd in our 24-person qualifier with
1GW and 6VP. Thirteen different players got Game Wins on the day out of
15 possible; those extra VP I got in the non-GW rounds meant EVERYTHING.
Every point, every HALF point counts. Players who ignore that are
simply living in a dreamworld and hoping their luck doesn't run out...
they're the same players who go to Vegas expecting to win.
Wouter Kuyper
> In message <44a2da05.04062...@posting.google.com>,
> Wouter...@yahoo.com (Wouter Kuyper) mumbled something about:
>
> >I cannot agree more, even though you have just been skimming.
> >"you have to play to win if you have a reasonable chance" means in my
> >book you have to take that path that has a chance of 4 or 5% of
> >winning.
>
> Would you like to play my dice game?
>
> 9% is almost twice 4-5%; you'll have MUCH more than a reasonable chance
> of winning, by your standards!
a reasonable chance of winning leaves in this case a much bigger
chance of losing.
>
> >I wouldn't mind it changed though, i myself much rather take the 100%
> >of getting 2 VPs, or anything else, but hey, that is me...
>
> So wait, you're saying you personally do not believe that 9% is a
> reasonable chance of winning from that situation?
>
> It sounds like you're contradicting yourself here.
I am not. i am just saying that i would rather take the surer route.
91% chance of losing is a big chance, but i consider 5% still a
reasonable chance.
I think (i am not sure though) that 5% was mentioned in threads about
when you could choose to transfer yourself out
>
> >and indeed there is a big difference between the dicegame and vampire.
>
> Not at all. It's all about "reasonable chance of winning", isn't it?
>
> >with the dicegame there are multiple outcomes that you can play for.
>
> With this situation there are also multiple outcomes.
>
> You can go for 3VP and the gusto at a very high risk.
> You can take 2 sure VP.
Yes, but since you have to play for Gamewins the only 2 outcomes for
the first requirement is either you get a gamewin or you don't. it
doesn't matter with how many VP's you DON't get that gamewin. you have
to play for the gamewin if you have a reasonable chance of taking it.
In my book a reasonable chance of taking it is about 5%. what do think
is a reasonable chance?
>
> >with vampire you have to play for the Gamewin, and either you get it
> >or you don't.
>
> cf. "reasonable chance". You are not REQUIRED to suicidally charge
> forward attempting to get the Game Win. COME ON, people. WAKE UP.
That is how i read the rules. If there is still a reasonable chance of
taking the gamewin you have to go for it and cannot take a losing
deal. on the same route: If there is still a reasonable chance of
getting VP's you cannot oust yourself (even though that could be
advantageous for you as well in the tournament placing)
with other words..this is how i read the rules:
a) If your expected Value for the gamewin is higher then 0.05
(0.05*1) you have to go for it.
b) If not (and only if not) you have to go for the most VPs.
the expected number of VP's in a) (for instance 0.05*3=0.15) can be
much lower then in b) (for instance 0.95*2=1.9) but that is just bad
luck.
when playing for money getting 1.9 VP(or dollars) out of your 1 VP(or
dollars) is pure profit, i would play that game until i was a
millionaire, but in terms of Vampire that would mean that you would
lose all games, instead of winning...
Do you see what i mean?
BTW, LSJ, did you have a chance in mind when you mentioned
"reasonable" in this context?
W
LSJ
> BTW, LSJ, did you have a chance in mind when you mentioned
> "reasonable" in this context?
Yes. A reasonable chance is what I had in mind.
The numbers cannot be calculated in practice.
Wouter Kuyper
> Wouter Kuyper wrote:
> > BTW, LSJ, did you have a chance in mind when you mentioned
> > "reasonable" in this context?
>
> Yes. A reasonable chance is what I had in mind.
> The numbers cannot be calculated in practice.
yeah, i know they cannot be cacluclated at that very moment but they
can be guestimated as a result of experience. Having been in similar
situations in 100 cases and having won 6 times. things like that...
I am guessing that you find 20% a reasonable chance at a gamewin (or
you could make a losing deal from the start) and i think having a 1%
chance of winning is not considered reasonable...but somewhere in
between?
I mean, i think 1/20 is reasonable, Derek finds 1/11 not yet
reasonable, does this mean that the rules are different for the both
of us?
W
LSJ
> I mean, i think 1/20 is reasonable, Derek finds 1/11 not yet
> reasonable, does this mean that the rules are different for the both
> of us?
It is up to the judge, not the players, to determine what is reasonable.
Ira
> The numbers cannot be calculated in practice.
It is "reasonable" as defined by the judge at the time. Personally,
as a judge, I use approximately 5% or more as a "reasonable" chance.
To calculate that possibility I'll imagine all possible outcomes of
the game; surely I'll fail to imagine some possibilities, but as a
judge, I must make some decisions somehow, and I find it more helpful
to articulate that number than to simply say, "reasonable."
With "reasonable" as the official ruling, surely different judges will
rule differently in similar circumstances (and both judges will be
correct when doing so.) Then again, even if LSJ provided some number
(5%), the judges would still rule differently because, as LSJ noted,
that number can't be calculated in practice.
LSJ, ideally, would all judges make the same rulings in the same
situations? I personally view it as a Bad Thing that different judges
can make different, correct rulings in the exact same situation. That
is, different judges have different definitions of "reasonable" and
can therefore make correct but differing rulings.
I'm not sure if we're striving for uniform decisions given the same
input, or not.
If we are striving for uniform decisions, then I think one of the best
ways to learn is by case studies. Most case studies I've suggested to
LSJ have been left unanswered, but maybe we could start a separate
thread and discuss it ourselves.
Ira
Derek Ray
ira...@yahoo.com (Ira) mumbled something about:
>> Yes. A reasonable chance is what I had in mind.
>> The numbers cannot be calculated in practice.
>
>It is "reasonable" as defined by the judge at the time. Personally,
>as a judge, I use approximately 5% or more as a "reasonable" chance.
FIVE PERCENT!?
Want to play a dice game?
>To calculate that possibility I'll imagine all possible outcomes of
>the game; surely I'll fail to imagine some possibilities, but as a
>judge, I must make some decisions somehow, and I find it more helpful
>to articulate that number than to simply say, "reasonable."
I agree, hence my attempt to articulate some numbers based on the
situation I was given.
I absolutely am astounded, however, at what some of you think is
reasonable. I mean, flat astounded. From what I am reading here, you
guys are willing to take a flyer on any half-ass chance of winning, as
long as somehow, if 300 different, distinct events happen in the exact
order you require, you can rationalize a path to success.
Well, you know what? Not all of us follow the "lunge left and hope like
hell" method to winning games and/or obtaining VP. Some of us have
found that we get much better results by occasionally demonstrating a
bit of restraint ... or just not relying on blind luck to serve us.
>LSJ, ideally, would all judges make the same rulings in the same
>situations? I personally view it as a Bad Thing that different judges
>can make different, correct rulings in the exact same situation. That
>is, different judges have different definitions of "reasonable" and
>can therefore make correct but differing rulings.
Case in point: Someone who tries to tell me I must attempt a 5% chance
at a 3VP Game Win, when the alternative is a sure 2VP, and the price of
failure is 0VP.... well, you'll have to throw me out of the tournament,
because you can FORGET IT; I'm not losing the 2VP on only a 5% chance.
I don't know what universe you are from, that you think a 5% chance of
winning is good. I really don't. This is why I keep bringing up my
dice game that nobody wants to play.
Doesn't it say something to you that you aren't willing to play my dice
game, even though it has identical odds to the 5% chance you're so
gleefully willing to force on others? You'd think this would open your
eyes by now, but it seems some people are so far into denial that they
just aren't willing to budge.
>If we are striving for uniform decisions, then I think one of the best
>ways to learn is by case studies. Most case studies I've suggested to
>LSJ have been left unanswered, but maybe we could start a separate
>thread and discuss it ourselves.
Yeah. Suggested thread title: "How you can win playing for 5%."
Derek Ray
Wouter...@yahoo.com (Wouter Kuyper) mumbled something about:
>Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<jiuid01thf513sb8e...@4ax.com>...
>>
>> Would you like to play my dice game?
>>
>> 9% is almost twice 4-5%; you'll have MUCH more than a reasonable chance
>> of winning, by your standards!
>
>a reasonable chance of winning leaves in this case a much bigger
>chance of losing.
That's exactly the situation as described in the thread.
You can try for 3VP, and have a 9% chance of getting it.
Or, you can take a sure 2VP.
If you don't hit the 9% chance, you will get 0VP.
There's no difference between this and my dice game, except that you
only get one shot at your 9% here.
>> >I wouldn't mind it changed though, i myself much rather take the 100%
>> >of getting 2 VPs, or anything else, but hey, that is me...
>>
>> So wait, you're saying you personally do not believe that 9% is a
>> reasonable chance of winning from that situation?
>>
>> It sounds like you're contradicting yourself here.
>
>I am not. i am just saying that i would rather take the surer route.
>91% chance of losing is a big chance, but i consider 5% still a
>reasonable chance.
HOW?
You won't even play my dice game; what happened to 5% being reasonable
there? How is that 5% any different from this 5%?
>I think (i am not sure though) that 5% was mentioned in threads about
>when you could choose to transfer yourself out
Transferring yourself out results in 0VP.
Not trying for the Game Win here still results in 2VP.
Trying for the Game Win and failing results in 0VP.
There is a HUGE difference between not trying for the Game Win, and
still getting 2VP as a result instead of losing, and not trying for the
Game Win when you're going to get 0VP anyway.
>> With this situation there are also multiple outcomes.
>>
>> You can go for 3VP and the gusto at a very high risk.
>> You can take 2 sure VP.
>
>Yes, but since you have to play for Gamewins the only 2 outcomes for
>the first requirement is either you get a gamewin or you don't. it
No. You are also allowed to maximize your VP, as this ALSO comes under
the "play to win" rule. If you do not have a reasonable chance of
obtaining the Game Win, then you can instead choose the course of action
to maximize your VP.
It is ludicrous to assume that 9% is "good".
>doesn't matter with how many VP's you DON't get that gamewin. you have
>to play for the gamewin if you have a reasonable chance of taking it.
>In my book a reasonable chance of taking it is about 5%. what do think
>is a reasonable chance?
51%. If I have the opportunity to follow a path with two outcomes, one
very good and one very bad, I want at least 51% on the "very good"...
especially if I have the opportunity to follow that path OR another path
with "good, but not as good" that has a 100% chance of that outcome.
>> cf. "reasonable chance". You are not REQUIRED to suicidally charge
>> forward attempting to get the Game Win. COME ON, people. WAKE UP.
>
>That is how i read the rules. If there is still a reasonable chance of
>taking the gamewin you have to go for it and cannot take a losing
>deal. on the same route: If there is still a reasonable chance of
>getting VP's you cannot oust yourself (even though that could be
>advantageous for you as well in the tournament placing)
Again, it is ludicrous to assume that 9% is a reasonable chance.
The "self-oust" is much different, by the way, as there is no difference
between getting ousted trying to win, and self-ousting: both result in
0VP, and as such you should always try to win because failure makes no
difference in the results.
>with other words..this is how i read the rules:
>
>a) If your expected Value for the gamewin is higher then 0.05
>(0.05*1) you have to go for it.
This assumes that 5% is a "reasonable" chance. I say that 5% is
absolutely ridiculous on the face of it.
Anyone who believes 5% is a reasonable chance of winning MUST play my
dice game with me, or admit that their logic is terribly flawed. After
all, numbers are numbers; 5% is 5% no matter where you go, right?
>Do you see what i mean?
Yes, I see what you mean, and it all hinges on the statement:
"5% is a reasonable chance of winning".
Let me repeat it one more time: LUDICROUS ON THE FACE OF IT.
Ira
I think our opinions differ primarily on the value of a Game Win.
That is, 2 VPs (where someone else gets a game win) is nearly the same
as 0 VPs in a tournament setting.
So, the situation I see is:
5% chance at getting a Game win and making the finals
95% chance of not making the finals
VS.
100% chance of not making the finals
I realize I'm exaggerating a little bit, but not that much.
Furthermore, I think it's extremely rare to be put in a situation
where you have 100% chance at 2 VPs. Almost always you're talking
about a deal-making situation, and that's rarely a 100% situation.
Finally, I never want to be in the situation we're discussing. So,
even if your dice game somehow exactly matched the V:TES situation, I
still wouldn't want to play because we're discussing a sucky V:TES
situation, not a good one.
Ira
Derek Ray
>Hey Derek,
>
> I think our opinions differ primarily on the value of a Game Win.
>That is, 2 VPs (where someone else gets a game win) is nearly the same
>as 0 VPs in a tournament setting.
But you can't make that statement, Ira. It's just not true. Tons of
empirical evidence proves this out, not the least of which being our own
qualifier, where four people with 1 GW made the finals, and 13 different
people had 1 GW out of a possible 15.
It is very possible for a single GW to make the finals -- and at that
point, the extra VP you get will determine your seating, and seating is
EVERYTHING in a final.
That was a 24-person tournament. Those aren't small! Those are, in
fact, probably larger than the average -- and I mean the REAL average,
not just the high-profile ones. It only begins to matter more to get
the GW as tournaments approach the "ridiculously large" stage of 70+
players... but even then, VP will matter for the purposes of seating,
it'll just matter for the people with 2GW as opposed to only 1.
> So, the situation I see is:
>
>5% chance at getting a Game win and making the finals
>95% chance of not making the finals
But that is absolutely, positively NOT the situation, Ira.
You are reading way, way more into this and assuming all kinds of facts
that support your position, instead of dealing with the situation as it
stands and is described.
There are two other rounds in most tournaments that either will have
been played, or will not have been played yet. Either way, the
individual will be free to determine his own course of direction.
> I realize I'm exaggerating a little bit, but not that much.
No, you are exaggerating a LOT. To attempt to claim that 2VP is the
same as getting 0VP is ignoring the realities of the situation.
> Furthermore, I think it's extremely rare to be put in a situation
>where you have 100% chance at 2 VPs. Almost always you're talking
>about a deal-making situation, and that's rarely a 100% situation.
A deal-making situation is typically a very high probability, barring
the broken deal; but the broken deal is its own punishment, typically.
> Finally, I never want to be in the situation we're discussing. So,
That isn't likely to be your choice, honestly.
No player is so good that they always end up in a sure position.
Eventually you'll have to take some risks in order to win; and the level
of risk will vary. Sometimes it will be a high risk, sometimes a low
one, and each player must be allowed to determine the level of risk
they're willing to deal with.
>even if your dice game somehow exactly matched the V:TES situation, I
>still wouldn't want to play because we're discussing a sucky V:TES
>situation, not a good one.
You're going to encounter far more sucky V:TES situations than you will
good ones, you know.
Wouter Kuyper
> "Wouter Kuyper" <Wouter...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > I mean, i think 1/20 is reasonable, Derek finds 1/11 not yet
> > reasonable, does this mean that the rules are different for the both
> > of us?
>
> It is up to the judge, not the players, to determine what is reasonable.
So, if both of us would be judges we would be ok to interpret the
rules differently? (NB we are judging the situation the same, say 8%
chance at winning, but read the rules(!) differently)
W
Daneel
> You can try for 3VP, and have a 9% chance of getting it.
> Or, you can take a sure 2VP.
> If you don't hit the 9% chance, you will get 0VP.
>
> There's no difference between this and my dice game, except that you
> only get one shot at your 9% here.
Well, there are two notes I would like to add. Both are built around
one basic statement (and at least one of them considers an assumption
as well):
STATEMENT: When you sit down to play at a table of VTES, given all
things equal you have about 20% chance of winning (that is, scoring a
Game Win).
ASSUMPTION: In a tournament of sufficient size your only sure way to
make the finals is to score 3 GWs. VPs are only used for secondary
sorting. Lots of people will have 2 GW; the second best way to make it
is to have 2 GW and lots of VPs. Nevertheless, without GWs you won't
make the finals.
I would like to draw two conclusions from this statement regarding the
current debate:
CONCLUSION I: The 9% in the example is 45% of the 20% you'd get when
sitting down at a "virgin" table. I seldom see people whine and offer
losing deals to one another when they just sat down to play, lamenting
how their petty 20% is not worth the attempt, how they want more than
a "dice game". In the debated fictional situation, your chances to win
are approximately half of what they used to be. If the original chance
was reasonable (you sat down after all), then cutting it in half
should not in and of itself diminish its reasonability.
CONCLUSION II: While there are people who play dice, there are also
people who play VTES. Without doubting that at least a part of what
draws players to VTES is the desire to try Lady Luck on for size, I
must also admit that there may be other factors (if nothing else, then
the factors for electing this particular card game). Meaning, most
people derive additional pleasure from a game of VTES (as opposed to
the enjoyment offered by merely taking chances). In this sense, that
enjoyment may be in playing one's deck according to one's personality
(rather than striving for an absolute score).
Additional notes:
NOTE I: Expanding a bit on your math... Assuming you get this
(admittedly sucky and rare) situation during all three rounds. In case
A you always take chances, and never settle for deals. In case B you
play diplomacy and negotiate. After 3 rounds, your standing will be:
Case A:
0 GW and 0 VP: 75% (about 45th place)
1 GW and 3 VP: 22% (about 15th place)
2 GW and 6 VP: 2.2% (some chance for the finals; about 5th place)
3 GW and 9 VP: 0.073% (probably finals + first seed)
Case B:
0 GW and 6 VP: 100% (In a tournament with 50 people that's about 16th
place.)
I'm not sure about you guys, but I'd definitaly go for the table where
I have chances (especially for making the finals). After all, if any
of the three succeed (having a combined chance over 20%), I am better
off than if I were playing for keeps.
Best Regards,
Daneel
Wouter Kuyper
> In message <44a2da05.04062...@posting.google.com>,
> Wouter...@yahoo.com (Wouter Kuyper) mumbled something about:
>
> >Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<jiuid01thf513sb8e...@4ax.com>...
> >>
> >> Would you like to play my dice game?
> >>
> >> 9% is almost twice 4-5%; you'll have MUCH more than a reasonable chance
> >> of winning, by your standards!
> >
> >a reasonable chance of winning leaves in this case a much bigger
> >chance of losing.
>
> That's exactly the situation as described in the thread.
>
> You can try for 3VP, and have a 9% chance of getting it.
> Or, you can take a sure 2VP.
> If you don't hit the 9% chance, you will get 0VP.
>
> There's no difference between this and my dice game, except that you
> only get one shot at your 9% here.
Ok, let's make it even more obvious what i mean. rule number1 says you
have to play for a Gamewin. let's take something else that you HAVE to
play for, your life.
you are in this situation:
option 1) 9% chance of staying alive, but if you fail, the most
horrible death you can imagine.
option 2) 100% chance of death, but you can chose the way you die, and
you chose a painless death.
Which path do you chose?
>
> >> >I wouldn't mind it changed though, i myself much rather take the 100%
> >> >of getting 2 VPs, or anything else, but hey, that is me...
> >>
> >> So wait, you're saying you personally do not believe that 9% is a
> >> reasonable chance of winning from that situation?
> >>
> >> It sounds like you're contradicting yourself here.
> >
> >I am not. i am just saying that i would rather take the surer route.
> >91% chance of losing is a big chance, but i consider 5% still a
> >reasonable chance.
>
> HOW?
what do you mean how? 5% is not at all a good chance, but i consider
it reasonable...
>
> You won't even play my dice game; what happened to 5% being reasonable
> there? How is that 5% any different from this 5%?
Make that game russian roulette and i am guessing you will take the 5%
as well.
>
> >I think (i am not sure though) that 5% was mentioned in threads about
> >when you could choose to transfer yourself out
>
> Transferring yourself out results in 0VP.
i was looking at the word reasonable... what kind of chance do you
find reasonable to transfer yourself out? less then 9%? i mean "if you
have no reasonable chance at a VP you can go out any way you want"
(not an exact quote, but it is something like that)
How do you value reasonable in this case?
>
> Not trying for the Game Win here still results in 2VP.
>
> Trying for the Game Win and failing results in 0VP.
completely true, and the rules say you have to play for a Gamewin. and
with 2 VP's you didn't get it and thus you lost.
>
> There is a HUGE difference between not trying for the Game Win, and
> still getting 2VP as a result instead of losing, and not trying for the
> Game Win when you're going to get 0VP anyway.
>
> >> With this situation there are also multiple outcomes.
> >>
> >> You can go for 3VP and the gusto at a very high risk.
> >> You can take 2 sure VP.
> >
> >Yes, but since you have to play for Gamewins the only 2 outcomes for
> >the first requirement is either you get a gamewin or you don't. it
>
> No. You are also allowed to maximize your VP, as this ALSO comes under
> the "play to win" rule.
only if cannot get a Gamewin.
If you do not have a reasonable chance of
> obtaining the Game Win, then you can instead choose the course of action
> to maximize your VP.
>
> It is ludicrous to assume that 9% is "good".
I agree. completely. but "reasonable" != "good"
>
> >doesn't matter with how many VP's you DON't get that gamewin. you have
> >to play for the gamewin if you have a reasonable chance of taking it.
> >In my book a reasonable chance of taking it is about 5%. what do think
> >is a reasonable chance?
>
> 51%. If I have the opportunity to follow a path with two outcomes, one
> very good and one very bad, I want at least 51% on the "very good"...
> especially if I have the opportunity to follow that path OR another path
> with "good, but not as good" that has a 100% chance of that outcome.
huhhh? So, at the start of a game (where noone has any knowledge)
everyone has a chance of 20% at the gamewin. this is way below your
"reasonable" 51%. If i offer you a losing deal, i get 3 VP's you will
get 2 VPs (let's assume we are 100% sure that it works)
with your logic, you would take it, right?
>
> >> cf. "reasonable chance". You are not REQUIRED to suicidally charge
> >> forward attempting to get the Game Win. COME ON, people. WAKE UP.
> >
> >That is how i read the rules. If there is still a reasonable chance of
> >taking the gamewin you have to go for it and cannot take a losing
> >deal. on the same route: If there is still a reasonable chance of
> >getting VP's you cannot oust yourself (even though that could be
> >advantageous for you as well in the tournament placing)
>
> Again, it is ludicrous to assume that 9% is a reasonable chance.
>
> The "self-oust" is much different, by the way, as there is no difference
> between getting ousted trying to win, and self-ousting: both result in
> 0VP, and as such you should always try to win because failure makes no
> difference in the results.
>
> >with other words..this is how i read the rules:
> >
> >a) If your expected Value for the gamewin is higher then 0.05
> >(0.05*1) you have to go for it.
>
> This assumes that 5% is a "reasonable" chance. I say that 5% is
> absolutely ridiculous on the face of it.
>
> Anyone who believes 5% is a reasonable chance of winning MUST play my
> dice game with me, or admit that their logic is terribly flawed. After
> all, numbers are numbers; 5% is 5% no matter where you go, right?
>
> >Do you see what i mean?
>
> Yes, I see what you mean, and it all hinges on the statement:
>
> "5% is a reasonable chance of winning".
>
> Let me repeat it one more time: LUDICROUS ON THE FACE OF IT.
I think calling 51% (just) reasonable is ludicrous.
Don't get me wrong, i think in practice there is no real difference
between 5 and 10 percent. but 51???
W
Kamel SENNI
Derek, in four years, I've won twelwe tournaments of our game, and get
into 20 others finals (either sanctionned or not).
If it was luck, I could go to Vegas, isn't it ?
(jutst to answer to your personal argument ;-))
I suppose there is a little part due to strategy, even in the
calculation of how many points I need to get into final, when i can
accept a losing deal for me, and when I have to take my nine percent
chance to get the TW.
A TW in tournament (with 3 points) value much more than fifty percent
than 2 points.
True or false ?
Kamel.
Wouter Kuyper
Am i correct if i understand you as in "i will play for my best
tournament standing?"
I mean, it seems to me that you are calculating the other games you
have played or are going to play in your playing of this very game.
Isn't that illegal under the current rules?
Ofcourse 2 VP's can be the deciding factor when looking at who plays
the finals. But i am not sure if looking at it like that is allowed...
W
Derek Ray
Wouter...@yahoo.com (Wouter Kuyper) mumbled something about:
>Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<1b8nd01ihk2cmb4oc...@4ax.com>...
>> In message <500e74e.04062...@posting.google.com>,
>
>Am i correct if i understand you as in "i will play for my best
>tournament standing?"
No, I will play for the best chance of getting the most VP out of that
individual game. In that game, the math says that I should take the 2VP
and run with it, because the chance for 3VP is too small and I risk 0VP.
Other people such as yourself and Ira have brought in the "But 2VP is
worthless in a tournament, you must go for the Game Win" argument -- I
am simply demonstrating that even if you argue it that way, it's still a
bad decision to throw away 2VP chasing a 3rd if you don't have a good
chance of getting the 3rd.
>I mean, it seems to me that you are calculating the other games you
>have played or are going to play in your playing of this very game.
>Isn't that illegal under the current rules?
>
>Ofcourse 2 VP's can be the deciding factor when looking at who plays
>the finals. But i am not sure if looking at it like that is allowed...
That's a good question.
According to the rules, "outside considerations" aren't allowed. But
that rule is primarily in place to keep people from keeping tabs on
opponents' VPs (technically disallowed anyway, but in practice, everyone
always knows) and deliberately playing to prevent certain opponents from
making the finals.
However, it is impossible to prevent a player from knowing their own
VP/GW total and attempting to select the course that best gets
THEMSELVES into the finals. Typically, this is going to be "hoover up
as much as you possibly can manage at any point in time", and so the
whole "outside considerations" thing is moot. But in situations like
the one above, we go back to "is a player allowed to not risk a sure
thing for a very small chance of something better, when failing at the
chance of something better leaves him much worse off?"
You just cannot force players to do this. It crosses far too many lines
(making players take specific actions, for one) and will be used as a
tool at every opportunity by certain groups to force players to act
against their own best interests -- which is completely against the
spirit of the game.
Again, the Play to Win rule was put in place to prevent players from
playing to alternate victory conditions AND to prevent the "deal on turn
2" syndrome, NOT to force them to mickey-mouse their way through
impossible chains of logic.
Derek Ray
kamel...@yvelines.pref.gouv.fr (Kamel SENNI) mumbled something about:
>Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<0d1kd05jrpq67iobm...@4ax.com>...
>> In message <1b066664.04062...@posting.google.com>,
>> kamel...@yvelines.pref.gouv.fr (Kamel SENNI) mumbled something about:
>> This is typical blather from people who aren't capable of doing the
>> math. Just to demonstrate my point beyond all hope of your feeble
>> rebuttals, I went into the finals 2nd in our 24-person qualifier with
>> 1GW and 6VP. Thirteen different players got Game Wins on the day out of
>> 15 possible; those extra VP I got in the non-GW rounds meant EVERYTHING.
>>
>> Every point, every HALF point counts. Players who ignore that are
>> simply living in a dreamworld and hoping their luck doesn't run out...
>> they're the same players who go to Vegas expecting to win.
>
>Derek, in four years, I've won twelwe tournaments of our game, and get
>into 20 others finals (either sanctionned or not).
I don't really care about your personal record.
>If it was luck, I could go to Vegas, isn't it ?
No, I implied that your decision is based on a "get lucky, all or
nothing" mentality. Perhaps you play decks that support that mentality
well, and so you perform well in tournaments. But not all decks or
players play that way, and it is not necessarily (in fact, is NOT) the
best way to play.
Given your record, I believe you do not play in the fashion you are
currently espousing; and in fact, the paragraph below indicates that
when it comes right down to it, you DON'T rely on luck -- you think it
through.
But in this case you need to preach what you practice, instead of trying
to argue for a tool to manipulate other players.
>I suppose there is a little part due to strategy, even in the
>calculation of how many points I need to get into final, when i can
>accept a losing deal for me, and when I have to take my nine percent
>chance to get the TW.
Yes, there is a great deal of this due to strategy.
And you explain it quite nicely in that sentence. In some situations,
you take the 2VP. In some situations, you go for the 9%.
When you've got only 1VP in both prior rounds, an extra 2VP is worthless
to you -- you need to have 1GW and 5VP, not 0GW and 4VP, so it makes
much more sense to take the 9% there (and I would try it at that point).
But even then, I believe that the player must be allowed to decide for
themselves; maybe they have given up on the tournament and are worried
about rating points at that point, and don't want to get the 0VP. And
this all could be moot anyway due to the "outside considerations" rule,
although I think it is legitimate to consider your OWN standing and
attempt to improve it as best you can.
>A TW in tournament (with 3 points) value much more than fifty percent
>than 2 points.
>True or false ?
False. This is entirely dependent on the situation, actually, so the
correct answer is "neither"; but since a TW is often only worth slightly
more than 2VP, as opposed to "much more than 50%", the statement is
false.
Please don't EVEN try to play cross-examiner with me; I've beaten down
so many rules lawyers it's not even funny. What is so hard about seeing
that it is wrong to force a person to take specific actions? Answer me
that, eh?
Could you, with a straight face, stand over a player and say "No, you
must throw away your 2VP and try for a ridiculously small chance of 3VP;
you MUST try to bleed twice"?? Could you? I don't believe ANY of you
could, and that is the real point I am making out of all this. You
cannot force players to take specific actions, but you are trying to
argue yourselves into a corner where he MUST take those specific
actions. Don't you see the inherent paradox?
The Doctor
>
> The data we do have suggests that better players do better in tournaments as
> it's common to see the same names at the top. I wonder how often better
> players, though, manipulate the scoring system to an extent far greater than
> other players.
Perhaps we can simply ask those players :)
Curevei
>>That is, 2 VPs (where someone else gets a game win) is nearly the same
>>as 0 VPs in a tournament setting.
>
>But you can't make that statement, Ira. It's just not true. Tons of
>empirical evidence proves this out, not the least of which being our own
>qualifier, where four people with 1 GW made the finals, and 13 different
>people had 1 GW out of a possible 15.
>
>It is very possible for a single GW to make the finals -- and at that
>point, the extra VP you get will determine your seating, and seating is
>EVERYTHING in a final.
>
>That was a 24-person tournament. Those aren't small! Those are, in
>fact, probably larger than the average -- and I mean the REAL average,
>not just the high-profile ones. It only begins to matter more to get
>the GW as tournaments approach the "ridiculously large" stage of 70+
>players... but even then, VP will matter for the purposes of seating,
>it'll just matter for the people with 2GW as opposed to only 1.
While it's its own topic, the debate over the value of a TW should be cleared
up. TWs become more valuable the more players there are, everyone agree? This
is simple as it's based on the fact that there are more TWs to be had,
nevermind that there are more ways for opponents to have multiple TWs.
I can see where Kamel is coming from on the issue as the European Championship
tournaments often have much larger attendance than what Derek correctly
identifies as the real typical size of tournaments. If I had to choose a
typical size of a local tournament in the US, I'd figure it would be about 12
people with majors skewing the average number for all US tournaments up to
around 15. That's just a guess, but the average is much lower than the size of
majors. A 24 player tournament is large, if not huge, for US standards. But,
it's common to see a report for a European tournament with 40, 50, or more
players.
It's tiresome to have to write, every time, when talking about the problems of
tournament play how it depends highly on tournament size. But, it does. I've
seen someone make the finals of a tournament with 0 VPs. His beautiful
strategy was being at the largest tables with the most sweeps. A 10 player 2+F
tournament means a TW guarantees finals, doing a 2/2/1 split in one's favor in
a round is quite strong assuming the goal is to make the finals.
I see a lot of exaggerations in statements made about the difference between 2
VPs and a 3 VP TW. I wouldn't agree with 2 VPs being a lot like 0, even in
huge tournaments. I wouldn't agree that you need to have 70 players before it
matters more to get the TW. I also wouldn't agree that seating is everything
in the finals, but that's a separate issue.
Note also that the general play style of the players in a tournament affects
the value of TWs v. VPs. If players are more prone to time outs and even table
splits, then VPs are relatively more valuable. Also, the distribution of TWs
affects what is needed to get into the finals. In a small tournament, at
least, when TWs are concentrated, it becomes much easier to get into finals
with lesser results (how else does someone make the finals with 0 VPs?). Might
be kind of the other way around with enough players as concentration of TWs may
extend beyond the top 1 or 2 to the top 4 or 5 or whatever.
Timlagor
> In message <MPG.1b40fbc5c...@news.eclipse.co.uk>,
> Timlagor <TimSl...@yaMhoo.co.uk> mumbled something about:
>
> >Derek Ray expounded:
> >> >Player A's Argument:
> >> >If C goes forward with both vampires, and D draws no way to untap a
> >> >vampire, D will die.
> >> >This is possible (although highly unlikely.)
> >> >A argues that Player C is not yet unable to get 3 VP, just very
> >> >unlikely, and so may not "lose on purpose".
> >> >
> >> >C argues, of course, that 1 is better than none, which is what he'll
> >> >get if he tries.
> >>
> >> A is wrong.
> >>
> >> Player C's best equity play here is to take the deal; in fact, he WILL
> >> be playing to win by doing so.
> >>
> >> Player C has a 9% chance of getting 3VP, and a 100% chance of getting 1.
> >>
> >> If this situation were repeated 100 times, player C would get 27VP if he
> >> always tried for the 9% chance, and would get 100VP if he always went
> >> for the deal.
> >
> >Where has this come from? The play to win rule says nothing about taking
>
> Gee, I thought I might do the math for you just so it made a little more
> sense. Silly me to try to appeal to common sense in V:TES players, huh?
> I thought most of you were brighter than this.
>
> It appears I was wrong in certain cases. Or maybe it's just all the
> wannabe rules-lawyers doing the whining? The people who'd rather weasel
> their way into a VP than actually grow some balls and skill?
>
> Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.
>
> >the "best equity play"! It says that if you have a "reasonable chance"
> >to win then you *must* do so. If you have a play that can get you a
>
> 9% is not a reasonable chance of victory.
>
> >3Vp GW or 0vp with "resonable probability of GW) and another that will
> >alsmot certainly get you a 2 VP loss then you MUST take the GW/0Vp
> >option every time.
>
> Hardly; see the math. 3VP > 2VP > 0VP. It is permissible to attempt to
> maximise your VP.
Absolutely not. You have to WIN if you can. Only if you cannot win are
you allowed to even look at what you get if you don't win. The
"reasonable chance" of winning must be decided entirely without
reference to what happens if you fail.
> >There has been much discussion of what constitutes as "reasonable
> >chance" and the problems of evaluating it but I think we can probably
> >agree for the purposes of argument that a 20% chance will qualify as a
> >reasonable chance:
>
> Given only two choices, a reasonable chance is of course 51%.
Nope
Derek Ray
>Derek Ray expounded:
>> >3Vp GW or 0vp with "resonable probability of GW) and another that will
>> >alsmot certainly get you a 2 VP loss then you MUST take the GW/0Vp
>> >option every time.
>>
>> Hardly; see the math. 3VP > 2VP > 0VP. It is permissible to attempt to
>> maximise your VP.
>
>Absolutely not. You have to WIN if you can. Only if you cannot win are
And what do you think "cannot" is measured by?
The only time you have 0% chance of winning is after you are ousted. We
obviously do not use that, or the Play to Win rule wouldn't even be
meaningful.
If you no longer have a reasonable chance of winning, you are allowed to
take actions in the interest of maximizing your VP. A "reasonable"
chance will be different in every single situation. At the start of the
game, for example, you _always_ have a reasonable chance of winning,
because the game state is so volatile at that point. (I will respond to
Daneel's post shortly with an explanation of volatility, since you all
obviously aren't too familiar with it ... you keep holding up the
start-of-the-game 20% general case and trying to compare that to an
endgame 9% case).
Sit! Stay. Good boy!
>you allowed to even look at what you get if you don't win. The
>"reasonable chance" of winning must be decided entirely without
>reference to what happens if you fail.
Uh... no. Fetch boy, fetch! Good dog!
Yes, Tim, I'm mocking you. You're frantically defending an indefensible
position simply because you want to get the Play to Win rule torn down,
because you don't understand it and it can't be rules-lawyered in your
favor. Guess what: it doesn't have to be torn down, it just has to be
applied with:
COMMON
SENSE
I hear a lot of people are short on that one these days.
Derek Ray
dan...@eposta.hu (Daneel) mumbled something about:
>Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<vfmmd0dmjefplrsuk...@4ax.com>...
>> You can try for 3VP, and have a 9% chance of getting it.
>> Or, you can take a sure 2VP.
>> If you don't hit the 9% chance, you will get 0VP.
>>
>> There's no difference between this and my dice game, except that you
>> only get one shot at your 9% here.
>
>Well, there are two notes I would like to add. Both are built around
>one basic statement (and at least one of them considers an assumption
>as well):
>
>STATEMENT: When you sit down to play at a table of VTES, given all
>things equal you have about 20% chance of winning (that is, scoring a
>Game Win).
This is the general case, and it assumes no cards have been played AND
that all decks are equal. Invariably even before the cards have been
played, some decks have a better chance than others just from seating
position -- but none of the players know this yet.
It makes a good general case, but don't get too wedded to that number.
>ASSUMPTION: In a tournament of sufficient size your only sure way to
>make the finals is to score 3 GWs. VPs are only used for secondary
Not actually true; there could be 6 people with 3 GW. Unlikely, but
quite possible. It's far more realistic to assume that 2GW and decent
VP will make the final, as it is very unlikely that many people will get
3GW -- although it is very likely that at least ONE person will, giving
more weight to 2GW + some VP as your best/most attainable chance.
It does me no good in basketball, for example, to say that my only sure
chance of scoring is to dunk over Shaq. It's definitely the
highest-percentage shot taken by itself... until you allow for Shaq's
presence, and then I have about 0% chance of managing it. Turns out my
best/most attainable chance is to fire 3-pointers from the perimeter.
>I would like to draw two conclusions from this statement regarding the
>current debate:
>
>CONCLUSION I: The 9% in the example is 45% of the 20% you'd get when
>sitting down at a "virgin" table. I seldom see people whine and offer
>losing deals to one another when they just sat down to play, lamenting
>how their petty 20% is not worth the attempt, how they want more than
>a "dice game". In the debated fictional situation, your chances to win
>are approximately half of what they used to be. If the original chance
>was reasonable (you sat down after all), then cutting it in half
>should not in and of itself diminish its reasonability.
This is contrived math that does not take into account one thing:
Volatility.
The 9% chance above has minimal volatility. There's nothing that will
change about it; you can't wait another turn to see if things get
better; you can't play some cards; there aren't any other people who get
to take a turn inbetween yours and this one. It's stuck at 9% forever,
and you have to decide RIGHT NOW, while it's at 9%. It can't change.
The 20% chance at the start of the game has 100% volatility; the minute
a single card is played, everyone's 20% changes either for better or for
worse. After the initial vampires have been influenced, the chance of
winning could be ANYTHING at all.
This is why a 20% chance of winning at the start of the game is
"reasonable", while even if our quoted 9% were a 20% chance, it would
not even be close to reasonable. The more accurately a situation can be
depicted, the more accurate the conclusions and predictions that can be
drawn from it. Our example uses near-perfect information, and as such
is very simple to draw numbers from. The start of a game has near-zero
information, so the 20% is simply an arbitrary number that is convenient
for some purposes.
>the enjoyment offered by merely taking chances). In this sense, that
>enjoyment may be in playing one's deck according to one's personality
>(rather than striving for an absolute score).
Then those people should go play the RPG, because those of us who enjoy
it as a strategy game find it annoying to be disrupted by wannabe
Malkavian whackoffs who are not playing to the same objective as the
rest of us.
>Additional notes:
>
>NOTE I: Expanding a bit on your math... Assuming you get this
>(admittedly sucky and rare) situation during all three rounds. In case
>A you always take chances, and never settle for deals. In case B you
>play diplomacy and negotiate. After 3 rounds, your standing will be:
>
>Case A:
>0 GW and 0 VP: 75% (about 45th place)
>1 GW and 3 VP: 22% (about 15th place)
>2 GW and 6 VP: 2.2% (some chance for the finals; about 5th place)
>3 GW and 9 VP: 0.073% (probably finals + first seed)
>
>Case B:
>0 GW and 6 VP: 100% (In a tournament with 50 people that's about 16th
>place.)
So 75% of the time you finish MUCH worse off than you would have.
22% of the time you finish about where you would have anyway (15th v
16th in a 50-person tournament is negligible, since nothing is awarded
for that far down anyway). We can effectively ignore the 22%.
2.3% of the time, you perform better than Case B.
The difference between 2.3% and 75% says that Case A is the worse
decision... by about 30 to 1. You can expand on the math all you like,
but it always comes out to the same conclusion; if you aren't getting
the right reward for your risk, you shouldn't be taking that risk.
In this case, you'll never get the right reward for your 9%. If you
feel lucky, go for it -- but you'll have to get _very_ lucky to get a
good result.
Derek Ray
Wouter...@yahoo.com (Wouter Kuyper) mumbled something about:
>Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<vfmmd0dmjefplrsuk...@4ax.com>...
>> In message <44a2da05.04062...@posting.google.com>,
>>
>> That's exactly the situation as described in the thread.
>>
>> You can try for 3VP, and have a 9% chance of getting it.
>> Or, you can take a sure 2VP.
>> If you don't hit the 9% chance, you will get 0VP.
>>
>> There's no difference between this and my dice game, except that you
>> only get one shot at your 9% here.
>
>Ok, let's make it even more obvious what i mean. rule number1 says you
>have to play for a Gamewin. let's take something else that you HAVE to
>play for, your life.
Wrong. Rule #1 says that you may play for a Game Win, or if you do not
have a reasonable chance of getting the Game Win, that you may maximize
your VPs.
>you are in this situation:
>option 1) 9% chance of staying alive, but if you fail, the most
>horrible death you can imagine.
>option 2) 100% chance of death, but you can chose the way you die, and
>you chose a painless death.
>
>Which path do you chose?
Irrelevant. Not the same situation. You need to quit trying to put the
Play to Win rule in black-and-white terms, and instead start using
common sense. (Interestingly, I know several people who'd pick #2.)
That's what the rest of us out here play by. I know you just would love
to mickey-mouse some people into forced actions in your favor, but guess
what; you're going to have to win at the table, and not from the
rulebook.
>> >I am not. i am just saying that i would rather take the surer route.
>> >91% chance of losing is a big chance, but i consider 5% still a
>> >reasonable chance.
>>
>> HOW?
>
>what do you mean how? 5% is not at all a good chance, but i consider
>it reasonable...
Dude, you MUST PLAY MY GAME.
>> You won't even play my dice game; what happened to 5% being reasonable
>> there? How is that 5% any different from this 5%?
>
>Make that game russian roulette and i am guessing you will take the 5%
>as well.
Russian Roulette isn't the same situation at all. See above.
>>
>> >I think (i am not sure though) that 5% was mentioned in threads about
>> >when you could choose to transfer yourself out
>>
>> Transferring yourself out results in 0VP.
>
>i was looking at the word reasonable... what kind of chance do you
>find reasonable to transfer yourself out? less then 9%? i mean "if you
I would personally like to see transferring yourself out blocked. It is
the only 0% chance of winning, in my estimation -- when you're no longer
at the table, you DEFINITELY can't win. If you hang around, maybe
someone will do something silly, or Ancilla Empowerment, or something,
and you can back into 1VP. It's how I got one of my VPs at the
qualifier; I had all but 1 vamp in torpor, my prey was on 2 pool, and my
grandprey decided that his current predator was too strong and he'd
rather have me with my 2 vamps and no combat defense. So he rescued one
of my guys, who got a blood from the Hunting Ground and I ousted my
prey. Next turn, he dunked both my guys and left me for dead. But this
just goes to show that no situation is worth self-ousting.
Self-ousting is not the same situation as making a deal for 2VP, though.
>have no reasonable chance at a VP you can go out any way you want"
>(not an exact quote, but it is something like that)
>How do you value reasonable in this case?
Depends on the situation, of course.
In the situation above, I could have self-ousted, but I was hoping my
predator would rescue one or two of my vamps so I could take some random
shots at my prey. I would not have blamed me in that situation if I
*had* self-ousted; it was clear that my prey, with an Archon on Cock
Robin, was not going to let any of my vamps live if it looked like I
might be able to oust him, and a self-oust wouldn't have changed
anything. But I don't like the idea of self-oust, and maybe with one
vamp I can get in some cheap diablerie or something on my way out.
I consider the situation above definitely no reasonable chance of a VP.
But each situation will be different.
>> Not trying for the Game Win here still results in 2VP.
>>
>> Trying for the Game Win and failing results in 0VP.
>
>completely true, and the rules say you have to play for a Gamewin. and
>with 2 VP's you didn't get it and thus you lost.
Except that's not how it works.
>> No. You are also allowed to maximize your VP, as this ALSO comes under
>> the "play to win" rule.
>
>only if cannot get a Gamewin.
Only if you do not have a reasonable chance of the game win.
You are not required to suicide blindly.
> If you do not have a reasonable chance of
>> obtaining the Game Win, then you can instead choose the course of action
>> to maximize your VP.
>>
>> It is ludicrous to assume that 9% is "good".
>
>I agree. completely. but "reasonable" != "good"
And "must suicide for the game win" != "play to win".
>> 51%. If I have the opportunity to follow a path with two outcomes, one
>> very good and one very bad, I want at least 51% on the "very good"...
>> especially if I have the opportunity to follow that path OR another path
>> with "good, but not as good" that has a 100% chance of that outcome.
>
>huhhh? So, at the start of a game (where noone has any knowledge)
>everyone has a chance of 20% at the gamewin. this is way below your
>"reasonable" 51%. If i offer you a losing deal, i get 3 VP's you will
>get 2 VPs (let's assume we are 100% sure that it works)
>with your logic, you would take it, right?
No. See the post to Daneel with regards to volatility. The 20% will
change significantly after the first two turns. It will change
significantly after the first two turns beyond that.
That 9% chance has almost no volatility. It can't change, and you have
to decide on it RIGHT THEN; there are no two turns to wait.
>Don't get me wrong, i think in practice there is no real difference
>between 5 and 10 percent. but 51???
Realistically, the chance is closer to 33%, probably slightly less.
Doing the math: if path A offers either 3VP or 0VP at X%, and path B
offers 2VP at 100%, then I need path A to have at least a 34% chance of
3VP in order to make it the correct decision to go that way.
That may be inaccurate, but I need to run. More later.
The Doctor
>
> Then those people should go play the RPG, because those of us who enjoy
> it as a strategy game find it annoying to be disrupted by wannabe
> Malkavian whackoffs who are not playing to the same objective as the
> rest of us.
Have you ever even remotely considered that those Malkavians might be
right, and you might be wrong?
I suppose you'd have to see one of those 'whackoffs' win some serious
tournament before you'd believe it?
Snapcase
> Have you ever even remotely considered that those Malkavians might be
> right, and you might be wrong?
>
> I suppose you'd have to see one of those 'whackoffs' win some serious
> tournament before you'd believe it?
>
> //Doc.
Has it actually happened yet? This is a card game. Why not leave the
roleplaying in the roleplaying game?
--
-Snapcase
Daneel
> Volatility.
Good point.
> >the enjoyment offered by merely taking chances). In this sense, that
> >enjoyment may be in playing one's deck according to one's personality
> >(rather than striving for an absolute score).
>
> Then those people should go play the RPG, because those of us who enjoy
> it as a strategy game find it annoying to be disrupted by wannabe
> Malkavian whackoffs who are not playing to the same objective as the
> rest of us.
Overgeneralisation and misunderstading. I'm not talking about whacky
Parthenon-Protected Resources-Malkavian Game & Prank decks. Yes, they
exist, yes they can (sometimes) win and yes they can (usually) just
fuck up everyone's game without gaining anyhting. That does not mean
that you are either a computing strategy machine or a Malkavian
whacko. ;P
The choices you make when you build a deck are part emotional
(preference) and part logical (effectiveness and efficiency). I'm sure
noone can be condemned for trying to vote with Brujah Antitribu or do
combat with Ventrue Antitribu, even if these clan-decktype matches are
not the most common or proven.
Also note that the choice of the game itself is influenced by
personality and preference. If the game would use the exact same cards
and mechanics, but with art, layout, text and card titles taken
completely out of context (like the Battle of the Giant Cyborg
Manufacturing Robot Masterminds), I might be less inclinced to play
it.
> So 75% of the time you finish MUCH worse off than you would have.
>
> 22% of the time you finish about where you would have anyway (15th v
> 16th in a 50-person tournament is negligible, since nothing is awarded
> for that far down anyway). We can effectively ignore the 22%.
>
> 2.3% of the time, you perform better than Case B.
>
> The difference between 2.3% and 75% says that Case A is the worse
> decision... by about 30 to 1. You can expand on the math all you like,
> but it always comes out to the same conclusion; if you aren't getting
> the right reward for your risk, you shouldn't be taking that risk.
I guess it all depends on what you strive for. If you wish to polish
your player rating, then go for ranking and the sure 16th place. If
you want to win and make it into the finals, then go for the smallest
risk that still offers you a chance to do so - even if it is a big
risk indeed.
Bye,
Daneel
Daneel
I've seen whacky Malk decks sweep tables, but you can never have
enough insight to figure how much pool a random stranger you met for
the first time is going to put *every time*. If you *ARE* that good,
you're not going to waste your time proving to the VTES community how
being random isn't random at all.
Bye,
Daneel
Daneel
> roleplaying in the roleplaying game?
Also please note that the RPG =/= whacky randomness. Vampire
roleplayers have the same amount of trouble with players who play Malk
'cause they are krayzee and kewl and can do anything because they are
basically kaotik newtral like in the other game.
Basically specific immature behavioral patterns can ruin any
collective spare time activity.
Bye,
Daneel
Wouter Kuyper
> >between 5 and 10 percent. but 51???
>
> Realistically, the chance is closer to 33%, probably slightly less.
>
> Doing the math: if path A offers either 3VP or 0VP at X%, and path B
> offers 2VP at 100%, then I need path A to have at least a 34% chance of
> 3VP in order to make it the correct decision to go that way.
>
> That may be inaccurate, but I need to run. More later.
I haven't got the time to read all the (and your) posts at this
moment, but the lines above show the difference quite clearly. Exactly
this way of reasoning that i think is (although perfectly logical and
perhaps even prefered by me as well) against the rules.
You go by "which path has the highest estimated number of VPs.(and if
this gets me the Gamewin, more glory to me)" This is also where your
dicegame comes from. If i were to play for that, i would take your
side of the dicegame any day of the week and twice on sunday.
I read the rules differently however (LSJ, please correct me if i am
wrong)
I play for the highest estimated value of GameWins. This path can have
a lower estimated value of VPs then another path; bad luck for me.
Hence also my example of russian roulette...only 2 options are open:
winning or losing.
I can think of (many) situations where i would rather take the certain
path of 2VP's instead of teh uncertain path of 3 or 0 VP.
How free am i to choose? I always considered myself binded? bound?
(what is the correct term?) by the rules in having to take the path
with the highest chance of a GW even if that chance is small (but
reasonable, for example 5-10%).
Am i indeed bound by the rules like this?
W
Timlagor
> -- Derek
*sigh*
Snapcase
says...
> Also please note that the RPG =/= whacky randomness. Vampire
> roleplayers have the same amount of trouble with players who play Malk
> 'cause they are krayzee and kewl and can do anything because they are
> basically kaotik newtral like in the other game.
At least it's "roleplaying" in the context of the rpg. They may be
roleplaying like an idiot, but at least they're doing it in the right
setting. Roleplaying like an idiot in the card game is stupid *and* out
of place.
--
-Snapcase
Derek Ray
The Doctor <D...@freemail.nl> mumbled something about:
>Derek Ray wrote:
>>
>> Then those people should go play the RPG, because those of us who enjoy
>> it as a strategy game find it annoying to be disrupted by wannabe
>> Malkavian whackoffs who are not playing to the same objective as the
>> rest of us.
>
>Have you ever even remotely considered that those Malkavians might be
>right, and you might be wrong?
Nope, never. Nor will I. Someone who is playing to the same objective
as the rest of us (get VPs) is one thing; someone who is playing to oust
all players who are wearing blue shirts, or to some other weird
objective like "get one of each ally in play"? No, they should go play
the RPG, where whacking off is rewarded.
>I suppose you'd have to see one of those 'whackoffs' win some serious
>tournament before you'd believe it?
That's redefining things, eh? Someone who wins a tournament is clearly
playing to the same objective as the rest of us, by definition. In
fact, it would be impossible to play in any other fashion and actually
win the tournament, because you don't get to the finals without VP and
Game Wins.
I know several players who are total whackoffs in casual play, but in a
tournament are a force to be reckoned with. However, it's worth noting
that they don't play their whackoff decks in tournaments; instead, they
try to play to win. No surprise, really.
Derek Ray
dan...@eposta.hu (Daneel) mumbled something about:
>Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<238rd0tj8tm1p01i5...@4ax.com>...
>> Volatility.
>
>Good point.
>
>> >the enjoyment offered by merely taking chances). In this sense, that
>> >enjoyment may be in playing one's deck according to one's personality
>> >(rather than striving for an absolute score).
>>
>> Then those people should go play the RPG, because those of us who enjoy
>> it as a strategy game find it annoying to be disrupted by wannabe
>> Malkavian whackoffs who are not playing to the same objective as the
>> rest of us.
>
>Overgeneralisation and misunderstading. I'm not talking about whacky
No, experience and prior reference.
>Parthenon-Protected Resources-Malkavian Game & Prank decks. Yes, they
>exist, yes they can (sometimes) win and yes they can (usually) just
>fuck up everyone's game without gaining anyhting. That does not mean
>that you are either a computing strategy machine or a Malkavian
>whacko. ;P
Most often in my experience, the person Parity Shifting their grandprey
is liable to make some claim like "I'm a Malkavian and I hate Tremere!",
or "I'm a Malkavian and your action last turn offended Lucian!", or...
...take your pick. It's V:TES flavored shorthand for the same syndrome
you mention earlier, the Chaotic Neutral issue, where someone wants to
simply be a random twerp. For some reason (sarcasm), the twerps all
pick Malkavian in this mythos.
>The choices you make when you build a deck are part emotional
>(preference) and part logical (effectiveness and efficiency). I'm sure
>noone can be condemned for trying to vote with Brujah Antitribu or do
>combat with Ventrue Antitribu, even if these clan-decktype matches are
>not the most common or proven.
Nor would they; they're trying to win, they're just picking a hard way
to do it.
>> The difference between 2.3% and 75% says that Case A is the worse
>> decision... by about 30 to 1. You can expand on the math all you like,
>> but it always comes out to the same conclusion; if you aren't getting
>> the right reward for your risk, you shouldn't be taking that risk.
>
>I guess it all depends on what you strive for. If you wish to polish
>your player rating, then go for ranking and the sure 16th place. If
>you want to win and make it into the finals, then go for the smallest
>risk that still offers you a chance to do so - even if it is a big
>risk indeed.
Since it's more than possible to make the finals with 1GW and 7VP, it
would make sense in your example situation to:
Round 1: Take the 2VP
Round 2: Take the 2VP
Round 3: Go for the Game Win and 3VP.
Only in round 3 do you have no further chances for Game Wins. While
it's a big risk at that point, it's also effectively your only shot.
In rounds 1 and 2, however, you do not have any way to know your results
from rounds 2 and 3 respectively. This means that you have every chance
of sweeping the table in those rounds, giving you 1GW/5VP and making
your additional 2VP worth their weight in gold, as it should put you way
past everyone else with 1GW and well in contention.
Your situation illustrates quite well why BOTH decisions should be
legal, as a matter of fact; sometimes one is the best play, other times
the other is the best play. A player should never be forced to make
decisions that would cost them VP, and a judge should never dictate a
specific course of action to a player.
Derek Ray
Wouter...@yahoo.com (Wouter Kuyper) mumbled something about:
>> >Don't get me wrong, i think in practice there is no real difference
>> >between 5 and 10 percent. but 51???
>>
>> Realistically, the chance is closer to 33%, probably slightly less.
>>
>> Doing the math: if path A offers either 3VP or 0VP at X%, and path B
>> offers 2VP at 100%, then I need path A to have at least a 34% chance of
>> 3VP in order to make it the correct decision to go that way.
>>
>> That may be inaccurate, but I need to run. More later.
>
>I haven't got the time to read all the (and your) posts at this
>moment, but the lines above show the difference quite clearly. Exactly
>this way of reasoning that i think is (although perfectly logical and
>perhaps even prefered by me as well) against the rules.
But it cannot possibly be against the rules, because of what it would
take to enforce those rules trampling on ANOTHER rule.
Perhaps we are approaching this from the wrong perspective. For this to
be against the rules in our given situation, a judge is going to have to
tell me "You must attempt to bleed once, and lose your vampire, and if
by some fluke he does not draw a Wake, you must attempt to bleed again."
I have always considered that a judge is present to render rulings,
provide information as appropriate, and prevent illegal play -- NOT to
play a player's deck for them, or to dictate specific actions to that
player.
I think that it is the worst possible direction for ANY game to go in
when a judge is permitted, or worse required, to step in and say "You
must take _X_ action." It is semi-appropriate for games like chess,
with perfect information available to the players; it is NOT appropriate
for a game like V:TES. But even in chess, the only forced moves are the
ones where there literally are no other legal moves (must move King out
of check, for example).
This is where I am basing a lot of this from. If we accept that a judge
must never dictate a player's specific actions (supported by just about
everyone else in this thread), then a judge may never rule the above
situation as in violation of the "play to win" rule, because there is
plenty of evidence to indicate that the player who does not wish to
bleed twice is, in fact, playing to LOSE if he takes those actions (0VP
with 91% certainty).
>You go by "which path has the highest estimated number of VPs.(and if
>this gets me the Gamewin, more glory to me)" This is also where your
Well, er, yeah. Most VPs either makes a Game Win, or doesn't. If it
doesn't, oh well.
>I play for the highest estimated value of GameWins. This path can have
>a lower estimated value of VPs then another path; bad luck for me.
Doesn't common sense just totally scream at you for this, though?
I don't think we want to set up situations where players are forced to
make stupid plays because of some technicality in the rules. It opens
it up all wide for the rules-lawyers, and believe me, we do NOT want
that to happen.
>I can think of (many) situations where i would rather take the certain
>path of 2VP's instead of teh uncertain path of 3 or 0 VP.
Of course. Who wouldn't?
>How free am i to choose? I always considered myself binded? bound?
>(what is the correct term?) by the rules in having to take the path
>with the highest chance of a GW even if that chance is small (but
>reasonable, for example 5-10%).
>Am i indeed bound by the rules like this?
Not in my book. And you would never catch me ruling that way, because
it forces people to make dumb plays on a technicality, and smells far
too much like rules-lawyerdom. As long as people are trying to do best
for themselves as opposed to screw someone else, I'm basically going to
be OK with it.
However, if that's not good enough, let's consider that the Revelations
at superior is NOT in play, and the acting player has no knowledge of
his prey's hand. Well, let's even make it a little simpler; his prey
has taken an intentional warning to "oops, I dropped" the Forced
Awakening faceup on the table, so the acting player knows there's one
Wake available.
Do you force the acting player to bleed twice? On what grounds? Now he
REALLY has reason to believe he can't break through... especially after
he sees a pile of combat cards fall out of his prey's hand and one of
his vampires go "poof". Remember, you can't reveal information, so you
can't tell him "He only has one wake, you have a chance". And you can't
rule that he's not trying to win, because with 2VP sitting in hand, it's
hard to believe that a Tzimisce deck doesn't either have two untaps, or
can't draw into a second untap.
Daneel
It's not roleplaying any more than wreaking random havoc at a table of
VTES is playing cards by the rules. You may be observing the rules of
the game (and tap your minion when you announce an action, play only
one master card each turn, etc.) and still break its spirit with
random (out of context) excuses.
Bye,
Daneel
Wouter Kuyper
> In message <44a2da05.04062...@posting.google.com>,
> Wouter...@yahoo.com (Wouter Kuyper) mumbled something about:
>
> >> >Don't get me wrong, i think in practice there is no real difference
> >> >between 5 and 10 percent. but 51???
> >>
> >> Realistically, the chance is closer to 33%, probably slightly less.
> >>
> >> Doing the math: if path A offers either 3VP or 0VP at X%, and path B
> >> offers 2VP at 100%, then I need path A to have at least a 34% chance of
> >> 3VP in order to make it the correct decision to go that way.
> >>
> >> That may be inaccurate, but I need to run. More later.
> >
> >I haven't got the time to read all the (and your) posts at this
> >moment, but the lines above show the difference quite clearly. Exactly
> >this way of reasoning that i think is (although perfectly logical and
> >perhaps even prefered by me as well) against the rules.
>
> But it cannot possibly be against the rules, because of what it would
> take to enforce those rules trampling on ANOTHER rule.
Well, i don't think that is a correct conclusion. Even the Human
Rights sometimes bite eachother (freedom of speech vs freedom of
religion?)
And it can be very hard to rule without trampling on other rules. But
that doesn't mean the rule isn't a just one.
>
> Perhaps we are approaching this from the wrong perspective. For this to
> be against the rules in our given situation, a judge is going to have to
> tell me "You must attempt to bleed once, and lose your vampire, and if
> by some fluke he does not draw a Wake, you must attempt to bleed again."
>
> I have always considered that a judge is present to render rulings,
> provide information as appropriate, and prevent illegal play -- NOT to
> play a player's deck for them, or to dictate specific actions to that
> player.
I agree. A judge should not play someones deck. Note that i wasn't
talking about judges ruling these kind of situations (yet). I was
talking about my own responsibilities towards the rules.
>
> >You go by "which path has the highest estimated number of VPs.(and if
> >this gets me the Gamewin, more glory to me)" This is also where your
>
> Well, er, yeah. Most VPs either makes a Game Win, or doesn't. If it
> doesn't, oh well.
>
> >I play for the highest estimated value of GameWins. This path can have
> >a lower estimated value of VPs then another path; bad luck for me.
>
> Doesn't common sense just totally scream at you for this, though?
yes, it does. But the rules, as i read them, scream at me when i don't
follow this path.
As i said, i think it is a bad thing if judges start telling me how to
play my cards. But i think players should play to win by themselves.
In the above situation i would much rather take the 2VP-path. But i
will only do so if i shout so loud that i cannot hear my own
conscience. I mean, he is obviously not trying to win the game (with
2VPs he loses), but he is trying to maximize his VP's if he doesn't
bleed.
W
Kamel SENNI
> In message <1b066664.04062...@posting.google.com>,
> kamel...@yvelines.pref.gouv.fr (Kamel SENNI) mumbled something about:
> >A TW in tournament (with 3 points) value much more than fifty percent
> >than 2 points.
> >True or false ?
>
> False. This is entirely dependent on the situation, actually, so the
> correct answer is "neither"; but since a TW is often only worth slightly
> more than 2VP, as opposed to "much more than 50%", the statement is
> false.
>
> Please don't EVEN try to play cross-examiner with me; I've beaten down
> so many rules lawyers it's not even funny.
"I don't really care about your personal record." ;))))))
What is so hard about seeing
> that it is wrong to force a person to take specific actions? Answer me
> that, eh?
> Could you, with a straight face, stand over a player and say "No, you
> must throw away your 2VP and try for a ridiculously small chance of 3VP;
> you MUST try to bleed twice"?? Could you? I don't believe ANY of you
> could, and that is the real point I am making out of all this. You
> cannot force players to take specific actions, but you are trying to
> argue yourselves into a corner where he MUST take those specific
> actions. Don't you see the inherent paradox?
Wait a minute : I'm not aggree with :
1) 9% chance is not ridiculous chance to get the TW.
2) The rule "Play to win" is the better thing we have, as judges, to
limit the collusion, in a multi players game.
I have already judged some table, and say : "you have to try to get
the TW, even if you only need one VP to get into final round". I have
never say that the player heve to take specific actions. It's a really
difficult decision, and I prefer let the player play, ACCORDING to the
rule "play to win" (in that point, I'm aggree with you). (But I have
said in a tournament : "I change the results of the game : it's 2-2,
and not 4-0". I have also already disqualified a player form
tournament for insults. So, to paraphrase your opinion : "you don't
have the b...cks to do what you say", I answer, no, no, Derek...
It's wrong to collude. Judges must have a tool to force players to
play correctly.
That rule (to force players to do specific things) is one tool. Very
rarely used, happily, but it's there.
Kamel.
Derek Ray
Wouter...@yahoo.com (Wouter Kuyper) mumbled something about:
>Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<2svud0570054c74vk...@4ax.com>...
>> Do you force the acting player to bleed twice? On what grounds? Now he
>> REALLY has reason to believe he can't break through... especially after
>> he sees a pile of combat cards fall out of his prey's hand and one of
>> his vampires go "poof". Remember, you can't reveal information, so you
>> can't tell him "He only has one wake, you have a chance". And you can't
>> rule that he's not trying to win, because with 2VP sitting in hand, it's
>> hard to believe that a Tzimisce deck doesn't either have two untaps, or
>> can't draw into a second untap.
>
>As i said, i think it is a bad thing if judges start telling me how to
>play my cards. But i think players should play to win by themselves.
>In the above situation i would much rather take the 2VP-path. But i
>will only do so if i shout so loud that i cannot hear my own
>conscience. I mean, he is obviously not trying to win the game (with
>2VPs he loses), but he is trying to maximize his VP's if he doesn't
>bleed.
It just is NEVER that black and white, though. Anytime you try to put
something that's different in every situation into a black-and-white
box, then you step into the realm of rules-lawyering... and you get very
foolish decisions out of it.
To quote someone's post from a webboard recently:
"The key is to play the game."
Trying for 2VP instead of 3, when going for the 3 could very easily net
you 0, is obviously still playing the game. I don't think you have any
worries about your own conscience here, personally; I think you're
afraid you'll come up against someone doing this, and you won't be able
to force them into a bad play that'll be to your advantage.
Derek Ray
>Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<v17od0psmmtufk2m9...@4ax.com>...
>> In message <1b066664.04062...@posting.google.com>,
>
>What is so hard about seeing
>> that it is wrong to force a person to take specific actions? Answer me
>> that, eh?
>
>> Could you, with a straight face, stand over a player and say "No, you
>> must throw away your 2VP and try for a ridiculously small chance of 3VP;
>> you MUST try to bleed twice"?? Could you? I don't believe ANY of you
>> could, and that is the real point I am making out of all this. You
>> cannot force players to take specific actions, but you are trying to
>> argue yourselves into a corner where he MUST take those specific
>> actions. Don't you see the inherent paradox?
>
>Wait a minute : I'm not aggree with :
>1) 9% chance is not ridiculous chance to get the TW.
9% is complete garbage. Come play my dice game.
Alternately, read my posts to Daneel, etc. about volatility.
>2) The rule "Play to win" is the better thing we have, as judges, to
>limit the collusion, in a multi players game.
There is already a rule against collusion.
The play-to-win rule can help to detect collusion, true; but there is
already a direct rule against collusion that can be invoked.
>I have already judged some table, and say : "you have to try to get
>the TW, even if you only need one VP to get into final round". I have
Typically a player who still has a reasonable chance of getting a TW has
an even more reasonable chance of getting one VP.
If you ruled that someone must suicide and put themselves at high risk
of 0VP in the name of getting a TW, then I think you're an awful judge.
If, on the other hand, the player was just trying to make a deal for 1VP
and skate away without even trying to get the TW, then that's perfectly
fine, and it's one of the things the Play to Win rule is for -- to stop
people from dealing away VP in situations where they could easily keep
going
It's worth noting in our example situation that you can almost certainly
assume that player A has tried to get the TW over the course of the
game, since his prey is on 1 pool.
>never say that the player heve to take specific actions. It's a really
>difficult decision, and I prefer let the player play, ACCORDING to the
>rule "play to win" (in that point, I'm aggree with you). (But I have
>said in a tournament : "I change the results of the game : it's 2-2,
>and not 4-0". I have also already disqualified a player form
What circumstances will allow you to change the results of the game?
>tournament for insults. So, to paraphrase your opinion : "you don't
>have the b...cks to do what you say", I answer, no, no, Derek...
>It's wrong to collude. Judges must have a tool to force players to
>play correctly.
Sure, it's wrong to collude. But we aren't talking about collusion
here, Kamel. We're talking about someone trying to do best for
themselves in a game.
>That rule (to force players to do specific things) is one tool. Very
>rarely used, happily, but it's there.
As long as all it's used for is preventing collusion and illegal plays,
that's great. But it's not there to force people to make BAD plays.
Ankur Gupta
not specifically related to the discussion being had, but it's another
play to win question.
Suppose, in the same situation you guys are talking about, the player
who's offered 2 VPs declines it, with the reason "I hate these stupid
roll-over deals. So, regardless of what it might do for me, I'm not taking
it."
I know that you can't trust the other person and whatnot, but on the face
of it, would you say that reason is still ok with the play-to-win rule?
(Let's suppose that it's a given that the person who has offered the deal
isn't going to back out, for the purposes of this question.)
Ankur
Daneel
> >> >the enjoyment offered by merely taking chances). In this sense, that
> >> >enjoyment may be in playing one's deck according to one's personality
> >> >(rather than striving for an absolute score).
> >>
> >> Then those people should go play the RPG, because those of us who enjoy
> >> it as a strategy game find it annoying to be disrupted by wannabe
> >> Malkavian whackoffs who are not playing to the same objective as the
> >> rest of us.
> >
> >Overgeneralisation and misunderstading. I'm not talking about whacky
>
> No, experience and prior reference.
Playing a deck I find enjoyable in a way I find enjoyable does not in
itself relate to the extent to which I am observing the "Playing to
Win" rule (or any other rule, for that matter).
The game stops when someone tells me I cannot play my Ventrue
Antitribu combat deck because it is not optimal and therefore violates
the "Playing to Win" rule.
> Most often in my experience, the person Parity Shifting their grandprey
> is liable to make some claim like "I'm a Malkavian and I hate Tremere!",
> or "I'm a Malkavian and your action last turn offended Lucian!", or...
>
> ...take your pick. It's V:TES flavored shorthand for the same syndrome
> you mention earlier, the Chaotic Neutral issue, where someone wants to
> simply be a random twerp. For some reason (sarcasm), the twerps all
> pick Malkavian in this mythos.
This, while an existing phenomenon, has little to do with real
roleplaying IMHO. Maybe a bit more if it is only narration (that is,
you are playing your game normally and make the session more
interesting by colorful description). But in all seriousness, people
who really call a Parity Shift cross table only because the guy there
plays Tremere (and not because of his Tha combat or Aus intercept,
etc.) would do more service to both the card- and the roleplaying
community by staying home for a while.
> >I guess it all depends on what you strive for. If you wish to polish
> >your player rating, then go for ranking and the sure 16th place. If
> >you want to win and make it into the finals, then go for the smallest
> >risk that still offers you a chance to do so - even if it is a big
> >risk indeed.
>
> Since it's more than possible to make the finals with 1GW and 7VP, it
> would make sense in your example situation to:
What tournaments do you refer to? The majority of 50+ people tourneys
I saw had non-finalists with 2 GWs.
> Round 1: Take the 2VP
> Round 2: Take the 2VP
> Round 3: Go for the Game Win and 3VP.
Well, nevertheless I guess we agree in theory. Round 1 you may settle
for a losing deal if the 3 VP + GW has at least slightly less than 67%
chance. In the final round it's not an option anymore (unless you have
no chance to make the finals anyway, and instead work on your player
rating or something).
> Your situation illustrates quite well why BOTH decisions should be
> legal, as a matter of fact; sometimes one is the best play, other times
> the other is the best play. A player should never be forced to make
> decisions that would cost them VP, and a judge should never dictate a
> specific course of action to a player.
I still maintain that deck and personality have an effect on the risks
people take in given situations.
If I'm playing a given deck and my environment forces me to play as
another deck type, I am more willing to take bigger risks (because (i)
the game ain't no fun anyway, and (ii) it's pretty hard to impose
drastic change step by step).
Bye,
Daneel
Timlagor
You can always refuse a deal. You need not give a reason. Any reason you
do give need not be true.
Derek Ray
Ankur Gupta <agu...@cs.duke.edu> mumbled something about:
>Ok, I've been lurking in this thread, and I'd like to ask a question. It's
>not specifically related to the discussion being had, but it's another
>play to win question.
>
>Suppose, in the same situation you guys are talking about, the player
>who's offered 2 VPs declines it, with the reason "I hate these stupid
>roll-over deals. So, regardless of what it might do for me, I'm not taking
>it."
I've known players like that before. I've even been like that myself.
>I know that you can't trust the other person and whatnot, but on the face
>of it, would you say that reason is still ok with the play-to-win rule?
Yes, absolutely. He's taking a high-risk route to 3VP and a Game Win.
Both courses of action are valid in this situation. Trying for the Game
Win is obviously legal under the Play to Win rule. Maximizing your VPs
when faced with a no-longer-reasonable chance at the Game Win is also
legal.
The rule isn't as black and white as everyone wants to paint it. =)
lehrbuch
> It just is NEVER that black and white, though...
> ... personally; I think you're afraid you'll come up
> to force them into a bad play that'll be to your
> advantage.
That's my experience with people arguing about whether someone is
"playing to win" or not. Usually the person complaining is more
concerned that their opponent is not playing to their expectation.
I'm guilty of this myself. "Arrgh, you are obviously not playing to
win, you should be doing this [behaviour that I expect and is to my
advantage]."
I usually manage to contain myself, however, as I know that it is
very, very difficult to distinguish between someone "playing to an
alternative goal" and someone merely "playing stupidly". There is
also always the possibility that I am in fact wrong (either through my
own stupidity or lack of information) and what they are doing is their
best attempt to win.
Virtually the only time that it is possible to distinguish is when the
player explicitly states that they are playing in this way because
they "are a Malkavian" or because "Giovanni suck" etc. Even then,
there is always the possibility that they are lying.
* lehrbuch
Snapcase
says...
> It's not roleplaying any more than wreaking random havoc at a table of
> VTES is playing cards by the rules. You may be observing the rules of
> the game (and tap your minion when you announce an action, play only
> one master card each turn, etc.) and still break its spirit with
> random (out of context) excuses.
Then they are breaking the play to win rule; thus they are not playing
within the rules.
--
-Snapcase
Daneel
That is if you are at a tournament, where additional rules (tournament
rules) are enforced. The basic rules (game rules) govern only the game
mechanics.
Bye,
Daneel
Wouter Kuyper
you're calling me a liar?
I think you're
> afraid you'll come up against someone doing this, and you won't be able
> to force them into a bad play that'll be to your advantage.
Ofcourse, if i can use information that i have to better my position i
will use it.
I would love to see a tool that i can use when i see and say that if
they take that intended action they are giving the game to that
particular someone else. And when i say such a thing i am very often
right.
But as i said i don't think it is good to have someone else play your
cards for you, so i am not really looking for a tool like that.
What i would like is that everyone plays for the same
non-multi-interpretable rules (even if there is no tool to force it)
and uses their conscience when following these rules.
W
salem
straight from page 1 of the (online) rulebook:
"Object of the Game
Your goal is to accumulate the most victory points by destroying the
influence held by rival Methuselahs."
it might be on page 2 or 3 of actual printed rulebooks. it's
definately before any of the mechanics are mentioned.
salem
domain:canberra http://www.geocities.com/salem_christ.geo/vtes.htm
(replace "hotmail" with "yahoo" to email)
The Doctor
>
> Virtually the only time that it is possible to distinguish is when the
> player explicitly states that they are playing in this way because
> they "are a Malkavian" or because "Giovanni suck" etc. Even then,
> there is always the possibility that they are lying.
I would almost certainly add saying something like that to a move that
should lead to some hidden goal that will in the longer run get me the
GW. It tends to confuse the other players and makes them think you are
behaving irationally. They tend to difscard you as any force of
importance in the game and thus leaving you alone to build up and
thereby let you crush them when the time is right :P
Messing with people's minds in that way is part of the metagame.
The Doctor
> In message <Pine.GSO.4.60.04...@peso.cs.duke.edu>,
> Ankur Gupta <agu...@cs.duke.edu> mumbled something about:
>
>
>>Ok, I've been lurking in this thread, and I'd like to ask a question. It's
>>not specifically related to the discussion being had, but it's another
>>play to win question.
>>
>>Suppose, in the same situation you guys are talking about, the player
>>who's offered 2 VPs declines it, with the reason "I hate these stupid
>>roll-over deals. So, regardless of what it might do for me, I'm not taking
>>it."
>
>
> I've known players like that before. I've even been like that myself.
>
>
>>I know that you can't trust the other person and whatnot, but on the face
>>of it, would you say that reason is still ok with the play-to-win rule?
>
>
> Yes, absolutely. He's taking a high-risk route to 3VP and a Game Win.
So what if it's the other way around?
The 2VP player is offering the deal, making the refusing player get 3VP
and a GW. Can he still refuse that deal?
I'd be inclined to refuse that deal, coz I don't trust it one bit, but
"playing to win" says this is the easy route to a GW?
The Doctor
>
> 9% is complete garbage. Come play my dice game.
Again: your dice game is wrong. You assume 9% for one side and 91% to
the other side.
In Jyhad, the game is not 91% to one side.
YOu have not accounted for the multiplayer part (adding more people to
roll the dice or make bets) and you do not account for the ordinary base
chance of 20% that every player at a 5 player table would have.
So we have 5 players ante up, and whenever it rolls 01-09 PLayer A wins.
You are the lucky bastard and you get the winnings for 10-40.
But for 40-00, you still lose, coz players C, D or E will win.
Now play that dice game.
Derek Ray
Wouter...@yahoo.com (Wouter Kuyper) mumbled something about:
>Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<it20e0pd76h477bbl...@4ax.com>...
>> In message <44a2da05.04062...@posting.google.com>,
>>
>> Trying for 2VP instead of 3, when going for the 3 could very easily net
>> you 0, is obviously still playing the game. I don't think you have any
>> worries about your own conscience here, personally;
>
>you're calling me a liar?
Perhaps we should look at your own words below.
>> I think you're
>> afraid you'll come up against someone doing this, and you won't be able
>> to force them into a bad play that'll be to your advantage.
>
>Ofcourse, if i can use information that i have to better my position i
>will use it.
Hmmmm.... look what we found.
>I would love to see a tool that i can use when i see and say that if
>they take that intended action they are giving the game to that
>particular someone else. And when i say such a thing i am very often
>right.
But now you have stepped into the personal morass that lehrbuch outlined
so well; you are afraid that you will see "Thing X" that does not help
you win, but DOES help two other players do best for themselves, and you
want to have a tool in hand that can stop it, so that things will go
YOUR way -- because you see that giving a game to a non-Wouter person is
wrong. Perhaps you see it very often, and I can sympathise with this;
but if the person is actually maximizing their VPs from a bad position
by doing so, then it is just bad luck for you.
This is not an objective, unbiased position that you are arguing from,
I'm afraid. Sometimes, things will not go your way on the table, and it
may well be because two people are making good plays themselves.
>But as i said i don't think it is good to have someone else play your
>cards for you, so i am not really looking for a tool like that.
So we agree that the judge should not force players to take specific
actions. That's good; that's a solid foundation to start from.
>What i would like is that everyone plays for the same
>non-multi-interpretable rules (even if there is no tool to force it)
>and uses their conscience when following these rules.
Rephrased: so you would like it to not be necessary for a tool to even
exist, you would just like NOBODY to give the game to anyone else under
any circumstances, because you feel that this gives you the best chances
of winning. I can appreciate this desire as well, but your opponents
will not always play rationally, and to imagine that a bunch of gamers
are all going to use their conscience is somewhat laughable. Most
people who play this game are reasonably well-adjusted, and we have far
less of the "Magic twerp" population than any other CCG.
But that doesn't mean we don't have our bad apples, and an awful lot of
those bad apples don't post here, so it looks a lot better than it
actually is. So there has to be a tool available, and it has to be
applicable in some situations. And in some situations, the best play IS
to yield for the time being, take your 2VP, and run... and sometimes
this will hose someone else who didn't feel that they deserved to be
hosed. This is part of a multiplayer game. Others will take actions
that indirectly cause you to lose, as well as directly.
Derek Ray
>lehrbuch wrote:
>>
>> Virtually the only time that it is possible to distinguish is when the
>> player explicitly states that they are playing in this way because
>> they "are a Malkavian" or because "Giovanni suck" etc. Even then,
>> there is always the possibility that they are lying.
>
>I would almost certainly add saying something like that to a move that
>should lead to some hidden goal that will in the longer run get me the
>GW. It tends to confuse the other players and makes them think you are
No, it tends to irritate them.
>behaving irationally. They tend to difscard you as any force of
>importance in the game and thus leaving you alone to build up and
>thereby let you crush them when the time is right :P
If I think you're behaving irrationally, I'll knock you off the table in
self-defense. This is one reason I invariably play decks with
sufficient cross-table potential; I don't need MalKAvIaN!!111 players
deciding they should randomly hand pool out, or randomly hand damage to
me, or mess with my vampires, or whatever.
Think that doesn't come under the Play to Win rule? All I have to do is
point at your first random action (Malkavian Prank to give 4 pool to
everyone at the table is the typical one) and say "I don't want him
doing this anymore, because it will prevent me from winning; it gave 4
pool to my prey, making it harder for me to oust. The only way to stop
it is to make sure he doesn't have a ready Malkavian, or that he is
ousted."
Derek Ray
>Derek Ray wrote:
>>
>> 9% is complete garbage. Come play my dice game.
>
>Again: your dice game is wrong. You assume 9% for one side and 91% to
>the other side.
>In Jyhad, the game is not 91% to one side.
In the given example situation, it is.
Come play my dice game?
Derek Ray
>Derek Ray wrote:
>> In message <Pine.GSO.4.60.04...@peso.cs.duke.edu>,
>>
>> Yes, absolutely. He's taking a high-risk route to 3VP and a Game Win.
>
>So what if it's the other way around?
>The 2VP player is offering the deal, making the refusing player get 3VP
>and a GW. Can he still refuse that deal?
Yes, he can.
>I'd be inclined to refuse that deal, coz I don't trust it one bit, but
>"playing to win" says this is the easy route to a GW?
Well, for one, I'd expect the 2VP player to break the deal, because it
generally appears illegal on the face of it (offering a losing deal).
But in any case, you're never required to accept a deal. You can always
claim that you intend to sweep the table, for example, and gain more VP
along with your GW.
Flux
> In message <Pine.GSO.4.60.04...@peso.cs.duke.edu>,
> Ankur Gupta <agu...@cs.duke.edu> mumbled something about:
>
> >Ok, I've been lurking in this thread, and I'd like to ask a question. It's
> >not specifically related to the discussion being had, but it's another
> >play to win question.
> >
> >Suppose, in the same situation you guys are talking about, the player
> >who's offered 2 VPs declines it, with the reason "I hate these stupid
> >roll-over deals. So, regardless of what it might do for me, I'm not taking
> >it."
>
> I've known players like that before. I've even been like that myself.
>
> >I know that you can't trust the other person and whatnot, but on the face
> >of it, would you say that reason is still ok with the play-to-win rule?
>
> Yes, absolutely. He's taking a high-risk route to 3VP and a Game Win.
>
Not necessarily. He can refuse the deal even if his chances of getting
any VPs are 0% otherwise, he is not forced to accept/propose a deal in
any case.
Flux
Flux
> In message <a23a105e.04062...@posting.google.com>,
> dan...@eposta.hu (Daneel) mumbled something about:
> >(admittedly sucky and rare) situation during all three rounds. In case
> >A you always take chances, and never settle for deals. In case B you
> >play diplomacy and negotiate. After 3 rounds, your standing will be:
> >
> >Case A:
> >0 GW and 0 VP: 75% (about 45th place)
> >1 GW and 3 VP: 22% (about 15th place)
> >2 GW and 6 VP: 2.2% (some chance for the finals; about 5th place)
> >3 GW and 9 VP: 0.073% (probably finals + first seed)
> >
> >Case B:
> >0 GW and 6 VP: 100% (In a tournament with 50 people that's about 16th
> >place.)
>
> So 75% of the time you finish MUCH worse off than you would have.
>
> 22% of the time you finish about where you would have anyway (15th v
> 16th in a 50-person tournament is negligible, since nothing is awarded
> for that far down anyway). We can effectively ignore the 22%.
If the difference between 15th and 16th is negligible because nothing
is awarded that far down anyway, then surely getting 0 VPs is really
not that bad either, you're not losing anything (except ranking, but
that's an 'outside consideration').
> 2.3% of the time, you perform better than Case B.
>
> The difference between 2.3% and 75% says that Case A is the worse
> decision... by about 30 to 1. You can expand on the math all you like,
> but it always comes out to the same conclusion; if you aren't getting
> the right reward for your risk, you shouldn't be taking that risk.
But what are you losing with that 75%? In most cases, you're not
losing much at all anyway.
> In this case, you'll never get the right reward for your 9%. If you
> feel lucky, go for it -- but you'll have to get _very_ lucky to get a
> good result.
You said yourself that is some cases you might consider taking that 9%
chance (if you had 0 GWs on the third round, for example). To me, that
means that the chance must be 'reasonable'. An 'unreasonable' chance
would be one such that you wouldn't bother no matter what.
Sure, it's a crappy chance, but it's not 'unreasonable' to think that
you might make it.
Flux
The Doctor
>
> If I think you're behaving irrationally
There, mission accomplished.
> self-defense. This is one reason I invariably play decks with
> sufficient cross-table potential; I don't need MalKAvIaN!!111 players
> deciding they should randomly hand pool out, or randomly hand damage to
> me, or mess with my vampires, or whatever.
Ah, hating Malkavians is okay, hating Ventrue is not. Noted.
> Think that doesn't come under the Play to Win rule? All I have to do is
> point at your first random action (Malkavian Prank to give 4 pool to
> everyone at the table is the typical one) and say "I don't want him
> doing this anymore, because it will prevent me from winning; it gave 4
> pool to my prey, making it harder for me to oust. The only way to stop
> it is to make sure he doesn't have a ready Malkavian, or that he is
> ousted."
So you hate cross-table influence sufficiently enough to go cross-table
to oust the cross-table action player.
Now, there must be quite a few things wrong with that attitude, but I'm
guessing you would not want them pointed out anyway. You'd simply say
that your way of doing things is obviously much better :)