Will VTES $25,000 prize be next?
librarian
EVE CCG to Offer $25,000 at Gen Con
Tournament to celebrate the release of The Exiled
Posted: 2007-07-23
Atlanta, GA - June 23, 2007 – EVE: The Second Genesis, CCP | White
Wolf's collectible card game that debuted at Gen Con 2006, will be
returning this year with a new expansion set and a $25,000 Championship
Tournament.
Taking place at the largest hobby show in North America, Gen Con
Indianapolis, this year's competition will offer more than double the
prize pool of last year's, making it one of the largest CCG payouts at
the convention. To celebrate the release of the game's first expansion,
The Exiled, CCP has opened up the tournament to all Gen Con attendees...
Read the rest here:
http://www.white-wolf.com/eveccg/index.php?line=news&articleid=810
Posted without much comment -
chris
--
Super Fun Cards
http://stores.ebay.com/superfuncards/
auct...@superfuncards.com
Rehlow
> Saw this on WW site:
>
> EVE CCG to Offer $25,000 at Gen Con
> Tournament to celebrate the release of The Exiled
> Posted: 2007-07-23
>
When I saw Oscar at Origins I asked him why VTES didn't have a large
money prize tournament. He said something along the line of it would
ruin VTES. As much as I'd like $25,000, he's probably correct.
Later,
~Rehlow
Petri Wessman
> money prize tournament. He said something along the line of it would
> ruin VTES. As much as I'd like $25,000, he's probably correct.
Yeah. I think the huge money price for the EVE tournament is actually
a pretty idiotic idea, and will probably bring all sorts of unwanted
factors into the tournament scene. Good thing that game doesn't
interest me in the least, played it once and went "meh".
Big VTES tournaments are already tense enough, but there is still
quite a bit of fun and sportsmanship going around. Can you imagine
what sorts of bloody disputes we'd have if there was a huge cash prize
on the line? Would you want to be a judge at a tournament like that,
given the at times nebulous rules around what's "playing to win" and
what's not, etc yadda yadda? I know I wouldn't.
Oscar is 100% correct, it would almost certainly ruin the game (at
least the tournament scene).
Jeroen
Probably. Is Eve a multi-player or a duel game? I never saw it. For
duels, i don't think a large price is *that* much of a problem. Except
when people go overboard in trying to win outside of the card duel
(like that M:TG guy who didn't brush his teeth a week in advance of a
tournement and ate lots of garlic.) And lots of net decking, but I
don't think thats really bad.
For multiplayers it would be baaaaad, especially in V:TES where
dealing for prizes in the finals is considered legal.
OTOH, it would be funny to see everybody play a deck that tries to out-
cheese the others and show everyone the trouble points in V:TES.
James Coupe
Both. That is to say, you can have duel formats or multi-player
formats. By default, it seems to be mostly duels, though. e.g.
http://www.eve-ccg.com/tournament-rules-6.html is the pairing system,
which is basically set up only for two people.
But...
The Multi-Judge System may also be employed for multiplayer-
format tournaments.
--
James Coupe
PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D YOU ARE IN ERROR.
EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 NO-ONE IS SCREAMING.
13D7E668C3695D623D5D THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.
lon...@dlc.fi
Why ruin the tournament atmosphere by introducing the moneytary prize
element to the scene.
I'm not even sure if attracting the "I'll be able to cash in the big
bucks by the game" -type of player is the one VTES would really need.
Ta ta,
Lönkka
www.ahmametal.com
www.myspace.com/iwearnohelmet
Anthony Coleman
> In message <1185348385.146394.214...@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com>,
>
> Jeroen <joen_...@hotmail.com> writes:
> >Probably. Is Eve a multi-player or a duel game?
>
> Both. That is to say, you can have duel formats or multi-player
> which is basically set up only for two people.
I'm getting a headache just thinking about the amount of collusion and
general cheating that would go on if there was a large cash prize in
V:tES, both real and percieved, and the amound of newsgroup noise
about it..
Its totally not practicle to add cash into a multiplayer game of the
nature of V:tES, cant see a problem with it in a dual game though...
Anthony
PS: is the magic player with the garlic and unbrushed teeth actually a
true story?
Teeka
> PS: is the magic player with the garlic and unbrushed teeth actually a
> true story?
In my experience, this was true for lots of MTG tourney-players,
intentional or not. Luckily though, most of the time the scent of
garlic was totally overtaken by the player's BO. :-S
Jeroen
> PS: is the magic player with the garlic and unbrushed teeth actually a
> true story?
I heard it multiple times, but always 2nd or 3th hand, so it might
just be an urban myth.
bspaul
> I'll have to agree wholeheartedly with Oscar, Petri et al on this.
>
> Why ruin the tournament atmosphere by introducing the moneytary prize
> element to the scene.
>
> I'm not even sure if attracting the "I'll be able to cash in the big
> bucks by the game" -type of player is the one VTES would really need.
This type of statement is exactly what I would expect to see from
frequent visitors to this group.
So as everyone chimes in that a cash prize would ruin VTES, I would
say that I support it.
I used to play in all the big events. The reasons were the challenge
(primary) and then prizes (a far, far second). Well, WW has always
really sucked big time when it came to providing prizes for VTES.
Once I made it to the NAC final table, this was the end of the
challenge for me. When I saw LSJ give out a box of boosters and some
lame ass promo stuff to the Top 5 players, end of the line for me. It
was simple math at that point. I paid $250+/ea or so dollars to go to
a Qualifier Tournament (or two). Then I paid $1500 to go to Gencon.
I walk away with 18 booster packs. At that point, without the
challenge aspect, all I had was a quest for prizes. It quickly dawned
on me that I could save time and money by just staying home. I could
then spend the $1750 on $65 booster boxes of cards and get around 30
boxes (1080 booster packs).
So I've been staying home. However, the booster pack logic has taken
a new twist. Since I no longer have to stay uber competitive, I no
longer buy any cards. I used to drop hundreds of dollars on each new
release by WW. It's now been 3-4 sets that I have just gone to a
prerelease and not placed my order. That's probably $1000 of my money
that WW has lost-and will continue to not capture. Plus since I no
longer have to playtest high level tournament decks, I no longer make
the effort to assemble a local playgroup. I used to run one that had
8-12 players, weekly playnights, monthly tournaments. How many of
those players did I influence to buy cards? We would pool orders to
get discounts and save on shipping. So how much money was I making
for WW both directly and indirectly? Hard to tell really. It's much
easier on my wallet these days because I can take my huge pile of
cards and make a good deck that can win local tournaments.
Therefore, if WW was to offer larger cash prizes for the bigger
events, I would be tempted to get back up to speed and attend these
events. It doesn't have to be $25,000 dollars. But as long as the
"break even" ratio still points to staying home, I'm home. So if you
want to keep this game rolling along the SAME as it's always been,
feel free to continue to offer lame ass prizes. Sure, it's obvious
that there are 50-75 people who will keep attending these events year
after year (has anyone seen the attendance at Regional/higher level
events increase in a significant manner over the last seven
years???). It's obvious that WW lets personal opinions of certain
people make business decisions. It's obvious this game is stale
regarding the upper level tournament structure. But please, continue
to be horrified at the simple notion of offering more than half a box
of boosters to the winner of the NAC. Maybe LA's ideas are the start
of something. Still not enough to get me, or any of the local players
I know, to spend the time/money and attend larger events. Plus the
final kicker of it all is that the couple of people I know who do play
VTES and might attend the larger events, will be playing other games
instead that do have larger prizes (there is only so much time at a
convention-so you could play 18hrs of VTES over two days or multiple
VS/Magic events-win the VTES and get a promo card, with the VS/Magic
event and pay for a year of college). Look around, people are so
saturated with CCG's that offering money payouts are now the standard
(which brings us back full circle to EVE). If you don't do that, it's
like bringing a new 2008 model car to market without A/C. Who's going
to buy that? Maybe I'm in the minority (at least here I am as most of
the players I know don't even bother to read this group).
It's nice to see that fear of change still rules and kills a
discussion before it's even started.
Ben.S.
XZealot
Unless there were teams.....
Comments Welocome,
Norman S. Brown, Jr
XZealot
Archon of the Swamp
LSJ
> On Jul 25, 6:22 am, lon...@dlc.fi wrote:
>> I'll have to agree wholeheartedly with Oscar, Petri et al on this.
>>
>> Why ruin the tournament atmosphere by introducing the moneytary prize
>> element to the scene.
>>
>> I'm not even sure if attracting the "I'll be able to cash in the big
>> bucks by the game" -type of player is the one VTES would really need.
<snip long discussion of how the current system is "lame ass" and "sucks big time">
> It's nice to see that fear of change still rules and kills a
> discussion before it's even started.
How was this discussion killed or even stifled?
Anthony Coleman
So, is this the guy who didn't brush his teeth for weeks, and ate a +
+Garlic dinner each day? Seems to me he has been eating something more
sour....
Anthony?
Jeroen
> On Jul 25, 6:22 am, lon...@dlc.fi wrote:
>
> > I'll have to agree wholeheartedly with Oscar, Petri et al on this.
>
> > Why ruin the tournament atmosphere by introducing the moneytary prize
> > element to the scene.
>
> > I'm not even sure if attracting the "I'll be able to cash in the big
> > bucks by the game" -type of player is the one VTES would really need.
>
> This type of statement is exactly what I would expect to see from
> frequent visitors to this group.
>
> So as everyone chimes in that a cash prize would ruin VTES, I would
> say that I support it.
I don't, and your logic below doesn't make me reconsider.
>
> I used to play in all the big events. The reasons were the challenge
> (primary) and then prizes (a far, far second). Well, WW has always
> really sucked big time when it came to providing prizes for VTES.
> Once I made it to the NAC final table, this was the end of the
> challenge for me. When I saw LSJ give out a box of boosters and some
> lame ass promo stuff to the Top 5 players, end of the line for me. It
> was simple math at that point. I paid $250+/ea or so dollars to go to
> a Qualifier Tournament (or two). Then I paid $1500 to go to Gencon.
> I walk away with 18 booster packs. At that point, without the
> challenge aspect, all I had was a quest for prizes. It quickly dawned
> on me that I could save time and money by just staying home. I could
> then spend the $1750 on $65 booster boxes of cards and get around 30
> boxes (1080 booster packs).
If you apply that logic to everything, you would stay home all the
time, for everything. You didn't add values for 'fun had at tourney'
or 'friends made/seen after a long time' or anything like that.
It's the same as never eating out, because you can get the food
cheaper at home. Not calculating all other things in. (like better
preparation, chance of getting out of the normal routine, etc...)
<snip ramble>
everything you say in the snipped portion is equal too: I need to be
bribed by WW to come and play. or, mathematically, you value fun at
$0.00
As an example: I have an expensive 5string bass guitar. Do you think I
will ever earn the €2500 back that I paid for it. (not being a
professional musician) I don't think so. But am I glad I got it? Damn
sure.
> It's nice to see that fear of change still rules
Nice! you can read everyone's mind over the internet. You need to show
me that trick.
>and kills a
> discussion before it's even started.
Discussion wasn't started, right. But who is killing it here?
Janne Hägglund
> It quickly dawned on me that I could save time and money by just staying
> home.
I've thought VTES is a thing where you put time, money and effort in, and you
get lots of fun out.
> It's nice to see that fear of change still rules and kills a
> discussion before it's even started.
Complaining about things that exist and you don't like is OK.
Complaining about stuff you just made up isn't.
HG
--
hg@ "If you can't offend part of your audience,
iki.fi there is no point in being an artist at all." -Hakim Bey
witness1
> So as everyone chimes in that a cash prize would ruin VTES, I would
> say that I support it.
>
> I used to play in all the big events. The reasons were the challenge
> (primary) and then prizes (a far, far second). Well, WW has always
> really sucked big time when it came to providing prizes for VTES.
> Once I made it to the NAC final table, this was the end of the
> challenge for me. When I saw LSJ give out a box of boosters and some
> lame ass promo stuff to the Top 5 players, end of the line for me. It
> was simple math at that point. I paid $250+/ea or so dollars to go to
> a Qualifier Tournament (or two). Then I paid $1500 to go to Gencon.
> I walk away with 18 booster packs. At that point, without the
> challenge aspect, all I had was a quest for prizes. It quickly dawned
> on me that I could save time and money by just staying home. I could
> then spend the $1750 on $65 booster boxes of cards and get around 30
> boxes (1080 booster packs).
So once upon a time, the challenge of VtES was sufficient for you to
overlook about $1750 dollars worth of expense, but it's suddenly not
worth it anymore? What is that challenge worth, do you think? $500?
$50?
> So I've been staying home. However, the booster pack logic has taken
> a new twist. Since I no longer have to stay uber competitive, I no
> longer buy any cards. I used to drop hundreds of dollars on each new
> release by WW. It's now been 3-4 sets that I have just gone to a
> prerelease and not placed my order. That's probably $1000 of my money
> that WW has lost-and will continue to not capture.
Oooh. So if they'd offered you up your $1750, you would've spent about
$1000 more on into the game? That sounds like a great deal.
> Plus since I no
> longer have to playtest high level tournament decks, I no longer make
> the effort to assemble a local playgroup. I used to run one that had
> 8-12 players, weekly playnights, monthly tournaments. How many of
> those players did I influence to buy cards? We would pool orders to
> get discounts and save on shipping. So how much money was I making
> for WW both directly and indirectly? Hard to tell really. It's much
> easier on my wallet these days because I can take my huge pile of
> cards and make a good deck that can win local tournaments.
>
> Therefore, if WW was to offer larger cash prizes for the bigger
> events, I would be tempted to get back up to speed and attend these
> events. It doesn't have to be $25,000 dollars. But as long as the
> "break even" ratio still points to staying home, I'm home. So if you
> want to keep this game rolling along the SAME as it's always been,
> feel free to continue to offer lame ass prizes. Sure, it's obvious
> that there are 50-75 people who will keep attending these events year
> after year (has anyone seen the attendance at Regional/higher level
> events increase in a significant manner over the last seven
> years???). It's obvious that WW lets personal opinions of certain
> people make business decisions. It's obvious this game is stale
> regarding the upper level tournament structure. But please, continue
> to be horrified at the simple notion of offering more than half a box
> of boosters to the winner of the NAC.
Runaway argument. I'm all for better prize support (and so are most
folks here, I'd wager). Cash prizes less so, for a variety of reasons.
But I'm not really playing the game for the prizes. And I'm happy not
to be playing against opponents who are playing primarily for the
prizes. I'd like to keep it that way.
> Maybe LA's ideas are the start
> of something. Still not enough to get me, or any of the local players
> I know, to spend the time/money and attend larger events. Plus the
> final kicker of it all is that the couple of people I know who do play
> VTES and might attend the larger events, will be playing other games
> instead that do have larger prizes (there is only so much time at a
> convention-so you could play 18hrs of VTES over two days or multiple
> VS/Magic events-win the VTES and get a promo card, with the VS/Magic
> event and pay for a year of college). Look around, people are so
> saturated with CCG's that offering money payouts are now the standard
> (which brings us back full circle to EVE). If you don't do that, it's
> like bringing a new 2008 model car to market without A/C. Who's going
> to buy that? Maybe I'm in the minority (at least here I am as most of
> the players I know don't even bother to read this group).
A number of existing VtES players are happy NOT to be playing a game
where that much is at stake. It's one of the reasons why some people
play VtES instead of some other game. Sacrificing that niche may not
be worthwhile. I have no real way of knowing much beyond my own
preferences, however.
> It's nice to see that fear of change still rules and kills a
> discussion before it's even started.
Of course the discussion is dead. That's why we're sitting here having
it. This is a game about vampires after all :P
witness1.
Teeka
to the essence of what he's saying.
On 25 jul, 15:18, bspaul <bspau...@excite.com> wrote:
> it quickly dawned
> on me that I could save time and money by just staying home. I could
> then spend the $1750 on $65 booster boxes of cards and get around 30
> boxes (1080 booster packs).
>
What a misconception this is. Dude, you don't pay to be at/play in a
CCG tournament to gain money, or get product at discount rate.
You pay to be able to play with others in a competitive environment,
at a nice venue, combined with an after-party and whatnot. You pay
because you want to play a game that's *FUN*, with people you normally
wouldn't get to play with. You pay because you want a chance to show
how good you are and have your 15 minutes of fame among your peers.
If you wanted to do something competively in order to get the big
bucks (or at least, more money than you put into it), you should've
gotten real good at a popular professional sport, dedicating your life
to it. This is a CCG (and not a world-wide extremely popular one at
that), where we sit on our asses and play a game with pieces of
cardboard while drinking beer. Why the hell should there be lots of
money involved in that?
I used to play competitive volleyball. Not because there was some big
prize to be won, or money, or fame. But because I liked the game and I
liked to play this game in a competitive environment. I invested
*lots* of time and money in it and never saw a dime back, but it was
great.
Teeka
-never that good at blocking, balls or minions.
Peter D Bakija
bspaul <bspa...@excite.com> wrote:
> This type of statement is exactly what I would expect to see from
> frequent visitors to this group.
>
> So as everyone chimes in that a cash prize would ruin VTES, I would
> say that I support it.
There is a difference between a "cash prize" and a "big cash prize". I
in no way think that it would be bad to have prizes in the $100.00 zone
for big tournaments (like, a couple box of boosters, or some cash or
something). But really, due to the structure of the game, a significant
cash prize *really* would make the game into something significantly
different than it is now, and not necessarily in a good way.
VTES is a free form, multi player game. Where folks can do arbitrary
things to totally hose other players that are usually dis-incentived by
virtue of it not being in their own best interest. When you, in the
finals, can say "Hey--guy with the Rush deck, if you cross table destroy
my predator and I win, I'll hand you $1000.00...", the game does not
become about the stated goals of the game--i.e. ousting your prey,
getting as many VPs as you can, and trying to get a game win.
The game *already* teeters dangerously close to being too arbitrary and
kingmakery, where the guy who wins the tournament is not the guy who can
build the best deck and can play the game the best, but is the guy who
is best at convincing their opponents to do things that are not in their
best interest. If you added in "and I'll give you a significant sum of
money if you help me win", the game ceases to be the game it is designed
to be.
Two player, duel type games are very well suited for significant cash
prizes, as diplomacy is not an issue. Multiplayer games, where diplomacy
and table talk and dealmaking are an accepted part of the game and can
determine who wins more often than not (see, in poker, you don't
generally see someone saying "Hey--I see how you are beating me with
that flush, but if you fold this hand so I can take the pot, I'll split
the winnings with you when I win the table...") are not very well suited
for significant cash prize environments. As the game ceases to be about
the actual game, and becomes "who can buy their way to victory with
promises of a cut of the winnings." Which isn't VTES.
Peter D Bakija
pd...@lightlink.com
http://www.lightlink.com/pdb6/vtes.html
librarian
> On Jul 25, 6:22 am, lon...@dlc.fi wrote:
>> I'll have to agree wholeheartedly with Oscar, Petri et al on this.
>>
>> Why ruin the tournament atmosphere by introducing the moneytary prize
>> element to the scene.
>>
>> I'm not even sure if attracting the "I'll be able to cash in the big
>> bucks by the game" -type of player is the one VTES would really need.
>
> This type of statement is exactly what I would expect to see from
> frequent visitors to this group.
>
> So as everyone chimes in that a cash prize would ruin VTES, I would
> say that I support it.
>
[snip reasoning]
Ben, I think it would be interesting to have a big money tournament, I
just don't know if I would play that. It would certainly change the
game significantly. I don't think it would any longer be VTES as I know
it, and I am pretty sure I wouldn't play it. I don't play poker/gamble
for the same reason.
I do agree with you that the tournament scene seems to be the same
people over and over, and that there hasn't been an increase in the
number of players, at least in the US.
Finally, I think if WW wanted to offer a big money prize, they would be
forced to increase the price of boosters - which no doubt would also be
met with derision and loss of sales.
Thanks though for posting an opposing view in a reasoned tone.
best -
Teeka
After having written my bit, I went into my living room and had a long
hard look at all the shelves full of board games. Then I walked to the
ones containing all the binders and boxes containing my huge
collection of VTES, MTG, Pokemon, Anachronism and Harry Potter CCG
cards. Then I imagined all the money I spent on those things, as well
as on beer and snacks, train tickets, gas... and decided it was all
worth it. Games have cost me a great deal of money, but who cares, I
had FUN.
And FWIW, I wouldn't want cash, boosters or other product for prizes.
I'd much rather have something unique (and essentially worthless) like
a cup or a trophy*.
-Teeka
*no, you nitpickaz, not the card type
atomweaver
@l70g2000hse.googlegroups.com:
> On Jul 25, 6:22 am, lon...@dlc.fi wrote:
>> I'll have to agree wholeheartedly with Oscar, Petri et al on this.
>>
>> Why ruin the tournament atmosphere by introducing the monetary prize
>> element to the scene.
>>
>> I'm not even sure if attracting the "I'll be able to cash in the big
>> bucks by the game" -type of player is the one VTES would really need.
>
> This type of statement is exactly what I would expect to see from
> frequent visitors to this group.
>
That would be because frequent visitors to this group are learned and
wise (about VTES, anyways).
> So as everyone chimes in that a cash prize would ruin VTES, I would
> say that I support it.
>
Snip teh rant. Mostly I know you're just grumpin', here. I won't agree
with your diatribe or conclusion (a big cash prize will attract an
element of player who will seek to leverage the multi-player format for
financial gain, and they could easily ruin the tournament experience for
others in the process), but I will absolutely agree with your basic
premise; prize support for the Continental Championships and other major
events does seem pretty weak (did we drink away the prize budget, Oscar?
:).
A booster box and an uncut card sheet for winning a CC..? the final
five should _each_ get a prize of that size, with the winner getting
about five boxes, plus a few somethings unique and interesting (like an
old keyboard of LSJ's, where the C-O-R-E-T keys have their ink worn
away... ;-). If the distributor price for a case of boosters is about
500 bucks, then it probably costs WW about $300 - $350 to make it.
That's a pretty tame contribution to make to the tournament scene 2-5
times/year.
DZ
AW
Teeka
> somethings unique and interesting (like an
> old keyboard of LSJ's, where the C-O-R-E-T keys have their ink worn
> away... ;-).
Thanks.
I think I actually popped something in my brain laughing so hard...
Vragozakas
more ads, a huge rearrangement of prize support for tournaments,
trained judges...all this things doesn't cost 25000$ but way less.
Why we don't already have them?
Matthew T. Morgan
> There is a difference between a "cash prize" and a "big cash prize".
I must respectfully disagree. Maybe $100 isn't enough to get you to play
against the goals of the game, but that's not necessarily true of
everyone.
Imagine: I wind up at a final table hoping to win the tournament. Someone
else winds up at the final table hoping to win $100. All I have to do is
wait until a critical point in the game, then offer that guy the money to
make sure I win.
Also, I've already bribed the judges, so this is just a bad idea all
around.
Matt Morgan
bspaul
> Ben, I think it would be interesting to have a big money tournament, I
> just don't know if I would play that. It would certainly change the
> game significantly. I don't think it would any longer be VTES as I know
> it, and I am pretty sure I wouldn't play it. I don't play poker/gamble
> for the same reason.
>
> I do agree with you that the tournament scene seems to be the same
> people over and over, and that there hasn't been an increase in the
> number of players, at least in the US.
>
> Finally, I think if WW wanted to offer a big money prize, they would be
> forced to increase the price of boosters - which no doubt would also be
> met with derision and loss of sales.
>
> Thanks though for posting an opposing view in a reasoned tone.
>
> best -
>
> chris
>
> --
> Super Fun Cardshttp://stores.ebay.com/superfuncards/
>
> - Show quoted text -
Right,
So I got my quota of "you're an evil person with a pointless rant"
responses as expected. But some of the posters did make some good
points. Chris seems to have mined the nugget of gold out of my post.
Thus it looks like so far the outcries have come from the play for fun
people, of which I used to be one of, denouncing me as Nergal
incarnate for wanting to play VTES for money. Hey, relax for a moment
and give my side of the issue a thought or two. Why not have two big
events each year? The "play for fun" crowd can duke it out at the
NAC. The "play for money" crowd can duke it out at The Nationals/
Gencon Indy.
Anyways, before I go back to the shadows, here's the text of an email
sent to me. The poster, who doesn't frequent this group, asked me to
post it here. So this is another opinion that may just be different
from yours, try not to panic.
Nice post. I agree with most of it. When I used to play Magic, toward
the end, I was just in it for the money. It definitely wasn't the
fame, because who really cares to be known by Magic trolls? And by
the time I stopped playing Magic, I hadn't been playing for the love
of the game in years. But that's Magic, which is an awful game. But
it proves that cash prizes can really lure in players, despite
hindrances.
That said, there are a lot of great CCGs out there and it drives me
nuts when they're mismanaged. Frankly, given the fates of Magi
Nation, DBZ, and Battlestar Galactica (all of which were as good if
not better than VTES, mechanically, despite some of their...content),
I'm sometimes surprised VTES has lasted this long, frankly. Don't get
me wrong: VTES is a great game. But if the aforementioned games teach
us one thing, it's that good games don't necessarily survive
startlingly poor management.
White Wolf has never done anything special to support VTES. Releasing
sets every now and then doesn't even register. Cash prizes,
tournament organization, real promotional materials (that are
attractive to both existing and potential players), and sponsoring
nifty events are a good start.
I think the root of the problem is stagnation. What we have is a
small yet loyal base of VTES players, which would be fine in a cozy-
kind-of-way except for the fact that the players have not changed
significantly in years. So, because there's no new blood drawn into
the game with cash prizes, events, etc., a small, entrenched group of
players have just scooped up the game and run off with it. The want--
need--for cash prizes goes beyond anyone's personal greed or
motivations in tournaments; we, as a community who likes to play this
game, need new players. Cash prizes are how we get those players.
Period.
Every time I hear anyone in any game ever complain about "ruining the
game" for whatever reason, it smacks of insularity and xenophobia. No
one is trying to change the rules or do anything else that would
actually change or ruin the game. The issue here is not the existence
of cash prizes, because those by themselves cannot and will not cause
problems. The real problem is the selfish, entrenched, (frankly)
boring people in charge. This is not to say that all veteran players
are mean, nasty old coots; I've met a lot of cool folks from the
Boston, NYC, and D.C. groups. But the vets who happen to have knee-
jerk negative reactions against new players and cash prizes need to
cut it out, shut up, and let the rest of us find a way to have a good
time. For some (or many), that means cash prizes. But at the very
least we will see some new faces across the table.
As cool as a tight-knit community is, it naturally breeds insularity.
New or potential players are going to be intimidated or scared-off by
that kind of coziness, at first. But cash is an incentive both within
and without the group. Oh. I can hear it now: "But that's just it!
We'll have a bunch of random people coming to qualifiers and maybe
winning!" Good! If they are that good, and they're nice folks, then
you just co-opt them into your community.
White Wolf has the money to put up for the big tourneys. They just
don't care. VTES is a player's game, and White Wolf listens to the
(few) players and gives "us" what "we" want. We just need to shake
things up so that "we" is not just a handful of entrenched xenophobes
and White Wolf knows who plays this game and what the rest of us want
out of it. I'd just like to see new players every now and then, and
anyone who tells me that they wouldn't like to win cash is a goddamn
liar.
I like this game and I'd like to continue to like it for a while. But
that means (and, again, no offense to anyone, certainly) more
players, for me. The people I play against are cool and all that, but
it would be even better to have some new folks around, right?
Chris.B.
witness1
> Right,
>
> So I got my quota of "you're an evil person with a pointless rant"
> responses as expected. But some of the posters did make some good
> points. Chris seems to have mined the nugget of gold out of my post.
> Thus it looks like so far the outcries have come from the play for fun
> people, of which I used to be one of, denouncing me as Nergal
> incarnate for wanting to play VTES for money. Hey, relax for a moment
> and give my side of the issue a thought or two. Why not have two big
> events each year? The "play for fun" crowd can duke it out at the
> NAC. The "play for money" crowd can duke it out at The Nationals/
> Gencon Indy.
And a bunch of people can play at both. It wouldn't be a problem per
se, except for where the money comes from. If the "play for fun" crowd
feels like it's coming out of their pockets (i.e., increase in booster
prices), that could hurt the game a lot.
> Anyways, before I go back to the shadows, here's the text of an email
> sent to me. The poster, who doesn't frequent this group, asked me to
> post it here. So this is another opinion that may just be different
> from yours, try not to panic.
>
> Nice post. I agree with most of it. When I used to play Magic, toward
> the end, I was just in it for the money. It definitely wasn't the
> fame, because who really cares to be known by Magic trolls? And by
> the time I stopped playing Magic, I hadn't been playing for the love
> of the game in years. But that's Magic, which is an awful game. But
> it proves that cash prizes can really lure in players, despite
> hindrances.
No. It demonstrates that cash prizes can keep an uninterested player
involved in a game they don't actually like. Can you provide an
anecdote or two about someone who *started* playing a CCG because of
the cash prize tournaments?
> That said, there are a lot of great CCGs out there and it drives me
> nuts when they're mismanaged. Frankly, given the fates of Magi
> Nation, DBZ, and Battlestar Galactica (all of which were as good if
> not better than VTES, mechanically, despite some of their...content),
> I'm sometimes surprised VTES has lasted this long, frankly. Don't get
> me wrong: VTES is a great game. But if the aforementioned games teach
> us one thing, it's that good games don't necessarily survive
> startlingly poor management.
Interesting. When attempting to persuade friends to pick up VtES, I
always point to its status as unkillable. I mean, first the card backs
changed, and then the game went unsupported for how many years? The
game is alive today because the fans kept it alive - and they didn't
need cash prizes to do it.
> White Wolf has never done anything special to support VTES. Releasing
> sets every now and then doesn't even register. Cash prizes,
> tournament organization, real promotional materials (that are
> attractive to both existing and potential players), and sponsoring
> nifty events are a good start.
I'll throw in my vote for better tournament organization, better
promotion, and more nifty events.
> I think the root of the problem is stagnation. What we have is a
> small yet loyal base of VTES players, which would be fine in a cozy-
> kind-of-way except for the fact that the players have not changed
> significantly in years. So, because there's no new blood drawn into
> the game with cash prizes, events, etc., a small, entrenched group of
> players have just scooped up the game and run off with it. The want--
> need--for cash prizes goes beyond anyone's personal greed or
> motivations in tournaments; we, as a community who likes to play this
> game, need new players. Cash prizes are how we get those players.
> Period.
Yikes. You just spent a chunk of your last post telling us how, once
upon a time, when the competition was enough motivation for you to go
to tournaments, you spent a chunk of your own time, energy, and money
developing a local playgroup, encouraging people to buy cards, etc.
Now you're saying that we can't get new players without cash prizes?
I disagree. We've had several new players recently in my area, and
most of them are happy to play and enjoy the game for its own sake.
They're also happy that it's relatively cheap to join in, older
players are happily willing to hand out free copies of common cards
that are good enough to put in decks, and so on.
They're not typically all that concerned about prize support for a
while. Everyone who still plays is evidence that prize support is
unnecessary.
> Every time I hear anyone in any game ever complain about "ruining the
> game" for whatever reason, it smacks of insularity and xenophobia.
*shrug* I'm not one to go off about "ruining the game." And I'd love
for the prize support to improve overall. I just don't think cash
prizes are necessary to draw players into this game. And I definitely
don't want to subsidize other people getting tons of cash by paying
more for cards.
> No
> one is trying to change the rules or do anything else that would
> actually change or ruin the game. The issue here is not the existence
> of cash prizes, because those by themselves cannot and will not cause
> problems. The real problem is the selfish, entrenched, (frankly)
> boring people in charge.
Is there a problem? From my perspective, the game is flourishing just
fine. Of course, I'm not omniscient, like you :P
> This is not to say that all veteran players
> are mean, nasty old coots; I've met a lot of cool folks from the
> Boston, NYC, and D.C. groups.
Interesting. I would personally go as far as to say that NONE of the
veteran players I've met are mean, nasty old coots.
> But the vets who happen to have knee-
> jerk negative reactions against new players and cash prizes
Nice transposition there. "Think of the children!"
Cash prizes != new players. Aversion to cash prizes != aversion to new
players.
> need to
> cut it out, shut up, and let the rest of us find a way to have a good
> time.
? If you want to offer a cash prize, go ahead. But if you expect WW to
pay for it, there's a very real possibiliy that the cost is going to
end up coming out of my pocket. Asking me to "shut up" so you can
"have a good time" doesn't strike me as productive.
> For some (or many), that means cash prizes. But at the very
> least we will see some new faces across the table.
Possibly. I already *do* see new faces across the table, though.
> As cool as a tight-knit community is, it naturally breeds insularity.
> New or potential players are going to be intimidated or scared-off by
> that kind of coziness, at first. But cash is an incentive both within
> and without the group. Oh. I can hear it now: "But that's just it!
> We'll have a bunch of random people coming to qualifiers and maybe
> winning!"
??? Who gives a shit about random people winning qualifiers? Where do
you dig up this kind of back-asswards attitude? Who actually talks
like that?
> Good! If they are that good, and they're nice folks, then
> you just co-opt them into your community.
Indeed.
> White Wolf has the money to put up for the big tourneys. They just
> don't care. VTES is a player's game, and White Wolf listens to the
> (few) players and gives "us" what "we" want. We just need to shake
> things up so that "we" is not just a handful of entrenched xenophobes
> and White Wolf knows who plays this game and what the rest of us want
> out of it.
You've not yet provided much evidence that these "entrenched
xenophobes" even exist, much less that they're dictating policy.
> I'd just like to see new players every now and then, and
> anyone who tells me that they wouldn't like to win cash is a goddamn
> liar.
I'd love to win cash.
> I like this game and I'd like to continue to like it for a while. But
> that means (and, again, no offense to anyone, certainly) more
> players, for me. The people I play against are cool and all that, but
> it would be even better to have some new folks around, right?
Of course.
> Chris.B.
witness1
Rehlow
> On Jul 25, 6:22 am, lon...@dlc.fi wrote:
>
> > I'll have to agree wholeheartedly with Oscar, Petri et al on this.
>
> > Why ruin the tournament atmosphere by introducing the moneytary prize
> > element to the scene.
>
> > I'm not even sure if attracting the "I'll be able to cash in the big
> > bucks by the game" -type of player is the one VTES would really need.
>
> This type of statement is exactly what I would expect to see from
> frequent visitors to this group.
>
> So as everyone chimes in that a cash prize would ruin VTES, I would
> say that I support it.
>
I think it would be an interesting experiment to hold a tournament
with a cost of $10 and first place won all the tournament fees
(provided you can hold tournaments at a venue for free). I think this
might run into some issues with illegal gambling (for some states in
the US at least), but I've played Magic tournaments a long time ago
where the local card shop turned all the entry fee into store credit.
I would like to see what decks get played and what deals get made.
Judging illegal deals and collusion could be more of an issue than
current tournaments. There are different breakpoints at which money
starts to affect different people, but I would guess a tournament with
20 or more players resulting in at least $200 on the line would get at
least some people to play differently.
Unfortunately, I cannot conduct such an experiment, since I don't
think enough people locally would be interested. If you think I am
wrong and you'd travel to Wisconsin for an entry fee pays for cash
prize style tournament, please email me.
Later,
~Rehlow
John Flournoy
> On Jul 25, 12:59 pm, bspaul <bspau...@excite.com> wrote:
> > Nice post. I agree with most of it. When I used to play Magic, toward
> > the end, I was just in it for the money. It definitely wasn't the
> > fame, because who really cares to be known by Magic trolls? And by
> > the time I stopped playing Magic, I hadn't been playing for the love
> > of the game in years. But that's Magic, which is an awful game. But
> > it proves that cash prizes can really lure in players, despite
> > hindrances.
>
> No. It demonstrates that cash prizes can keep an uninterested player
> involved in a game they don't actually like. Can you provide an
> anecdote or two about someone who *started* playing a CCG because of
> the cash prize tournaments?
Anecdotally, there were several friends-of-VTES-players at Gen Con
2005 discussing how they were seriously looking into starting playing
the Vs. CCG due to the large cash prizes being offered for those
tournaments.
And one of my friends locally played a demo of EVE out of boredom
early in Gen Con last year. When he was told during the demo of the
cash prize pool for their tournament later in the con, he immediately
signed up and devoted much of his attention for the weekend to EVE (as
did several of his roommates). He's now involved enough in EVE where
he runs regional events and was running their tournaments at Origins
this year.
> > That said, there are a lot of great CCGs out there and it drives me
> > nuts when they're mismanaged. Frankly, given the fates of Magi
> > Nation, DBZ, and Battlestar Galactica (all of which were as good if
> > not better than VTES, mechanically, despite some of their...content),
> > I'm sometimes surprised VTES has lasted this long, frankly. Don't get
> > me wrong: VTES is a great game. But if the aforementioned games teach
> > us one thing, it's that good games don't necessarily survive
> > startlingly poor management.
Certainly true. Although an argument could be made that Magi Nation
and DBZ both failed in part because they were thematically competing
for a specific set of players (anime fans) in a market already
dominated by several mammoth CCGs - it's this same reason why no
matter how excellent a new fantasy RPG is, their sales will mainly
compete for the leftovers after D&D's market share. Which isn't
impossible to overcome, but plugging a game into a crowded field is
generally a 'startingly poor' idea compared to seeking out an untapped
market.
(Aiming thematically for an untapped market is - again, arguably - how
White Wolf succeeded as a game company in the first place.)
> > Chris.B.
>
> witness1
-John Flournoy
Jeroen Rombouts
"bspaul" <bspa...@excite.com> schreef in bericht
news:1185382790.2...@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> On Jul 25, 11:05 am, librarian <aucti...@superfuncards.com> wrote:
>The issue here is not the existence
> of cash prizes, because those by themselves cannot and will not cause
> problems.
I will only reply to this, because the rest follows using faulty logic from
the above statement.
Following the Tour de France lately? nuff said.
bluedevil
> Unless there were teams.....
When you are out to sea on submarines there is this traditional thing
called "half-way night", which is when you are half-way through the
grueling smear of misery that such things are. Historically one of
the things you do is have a big card tournement (one of the others is
to find the fattest ugliest guy on the boat, dub him "Baby Neptune",
and force blindfolded newbs to suck marishino cherries and lard out of
his belly button, and then there's the gross stuff I can't tell you
about).
I'd pretty much gotten a large chunk of the crew playing first M:tG
and then, later, V:TES. We'd play up on the mess decks when we
weren't working, and the Chief of the Boat saw that. So when it came
time to plan halfway night he asked us if we wanted to include V:TES
in it. I said yeah, and that was that. When the night came we headed
up to the mess deck and saw a poster on the wall listing the V:TES
"teams"; we hadn't asked for them, but he just saw groups of four
people (guess he missed the five-ways) and assumed it was a team game
(there was a lot of Tump, Spades, and Bridge that got played too).
Anyway, we rolled with it and it was actually pretty fun.
That's my team play anecdote. Yes, I am stuck at work and bored.
--
David Cherryholmes
Peter D Bakija
bspaul <bspa...@excite.com> wrote:
> The "play for money" crowd can duke it out at The Nationals/
> Gencon Indy.
If there is a substantial cash prize, then you aren't playing VTES. You
are playing "who can best bribe someone to help them win with a promise
of a share of the loot".
You notice how there are also aren't Big Money Diplomacy tournaments,
either...
Peter D Bakija
Teeka <teeka_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> What a misconception this is. Dude, you don't pay to be at/play in a
> CCG tournament to gain money, or get product at discount rate.
> You pay to be able to play with others in a competitive environment,
> at a nice venue, combined with an after-party and whatnot.
To be fair here, while *you* might pay to be able to play with others in
a competitive environment at a nice venue combined with an after party,
other folks certainly pay to be at/play in a CCG tournament specifically
to gain money or get product at a discount rate. Folks do that *all* the
time.
Kevin M.
> On Wed, 25 Jul 2007, Peter D Bakija wrote:
>> There is a difference between a "cash prize" and a "big cash prize".
>
> I must respectfully disagree. Maybe $100 isn't enough to get you to
> play against the goals of the game, but that's not necessarily true of
> everyone.
>
> Imagine: I wind up at a final table hoping to win the tournament.
> Someone else winds up at the final table hoping to win $100. All I
> have to do is wait until a critical point in the game, then offer
> that guy the money to make sure I win.
Illegal, unless you and he are the only two remaining in that game. And
if you and he are the only two remaining in that game, then the rules
state that you can already deal for prizes.
> Also, I've already bribed the judges, so this is just a bad idea all
> around.
Also illegal, so you have now been kicked out of the tournament twice.
Care to try again? ;)
Kevin M., Prince of Las Vegas
"Know your enemy, and know yourself; in one-thousand battles
you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, *The Art of War*
"Contentment... Complacency... Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier
Peter D Bakija
"Matthew T. Morgan" <far...@io.com> wrote:
> I must respectfully disagree. Maybe $100 isn't enough to get you to play
> against the goals of the game, but that's not necessarily true of
> everyone.
Sure--but I think it is a matter of scale--currently, at big tournament,
some folks win, like, $100.00 worth of boosters sometimes. How often
does that result in someone throwing the game in exchange for the prize
support?
Like, where motivation goes from "playing to win the game and do well
for the sake of winning the game and doing well" to "playing to win a
bunch of money" is certainly a gray area. But I think there is certainly
some amount of money where there generally isn't enough incentive to
throw the game in exchange for the money (under $100.00?) and certainly
some amount of money where there is enough incentive to throw the game
in exchange for the money ($1000.00, certainly. Probably less.). The
trick is to operate under the average threshold.
> Imagine: I wind up at a final table hoping to win the tournament. Someone
> else winds up at the final table hoping to win $100. All I have to do is
> wait until a critical point in the game, then offer that guy the money to
> make sure I win.
Sure. But *most* folks probably would not do this for $100.00. Much like
most folks would probably not do this for a box of boosters. But if you
change the $100.00 into $1000.00, and the most becomes much, much
smaller.
> Also, I've already bribed the judges, so this is just a bad idea all
> around.
I don't even wanna know what this is about...
Matthew T. Morgan
> Matthew T. Morgan <far...@io.com> wrote:
>>
>> Imagine: I wind up at a final table hoping to win the tournament.
>> Someone else winds up at the final table hoping to win $100. All I
>> have to do is wait until a critical point in the game, then offer
>> that guy the money to make sure I win.
>
> Illegal, unless you and he are the only two remaining in that game. And
> if you and he are the only two remaining in that game, then the rules
> state that you can already deal for prizes.
What makes you say this is illegal? There are plenty of circumstances in
which it would be perfectly legal.
>> Also, I've already bribed the judges, so this is just a bad idea all
>> around.
>
> Also illegal, so you have now been kicked out of the tournament twice.
This is a highly illogical argument. If I've bribed the judges, they
aren't going to kick me out.
> Care to try again? ;)
No need.
Matt Morgan
Matthew T. Morgan
> Sure--but I think it is a matter of scale--currently, at big tournament,
> some folks win, like, $100.00 worth of boosters sometimes. How often
> does that result in someone throwing the game in exchange for the prize
> support?
I've never seen anyone do that. Hopefully the answer to your question is
"never." But many players who wind up in tournament finals don't really
need all those boosters. Cash is something else.
> Like, where motivation goes from "playing to win the game and do well
> for the sake of winning the game and doing well" to "playing to win a
> bunch of money" is certainly a gray area. But I think there is certainly
> some amount of money where there generally isn't enough incentive to
> throw the game in exchange for the money (under $100.00?) and certainly
> some amount of money where there is enough incentive to throw the game
> in exchange for the money ($1000.00, certainly. Probably less.). The
> trick is to operate under the average threshold.
I've been at plenty of final tables where at least one of the finalists
didn't really expect to win and didn't really try that hard due to
inexperience, expectation (oh god, there's no way I can beat Peter Bakija)
or whatever. I think you'd find these guys are pretty easily bribed since
they don't expect to win anyway.
>> Imagine: I wind up at a final table hoping to win the tournament. Someone
>> else winds up at the final table hoping to win $100. All I have to do is
>> wait until a critical point in the game, then offer that guy the money to
>> make sure I win.
>
> Sure. But *most* folks probably would not do this for $100.00. Much like
> most folks would probably not do this for a box of boosters. But if you
> change the $100.00 into $1000.00, and the most becomes much, much
> smaller.
I think you're right that most vtes players won't throw a game for $100.
However, they might "choose how to lose" by chosing to kingmake me for
that $100.
So anyway, there's a disadvantage to having money games in vtes. What's
the advantage exactly?
>> Also, I've already bribed the judges, so this is just a bad idea all
>> around.
>
> I don't even wanna know what this is about...
Humor?
Matt Morgan
Peter D Bakija
"Matthew T. Morgan" <far...@io.com> wrote:
> So anyway, there's a disadvantage to having money games in vtes. What's
> the advantage exactly?
Many would argue "it brings folks into the game". I would certainly
agree that it could bring people into the game. But as it would also
likely turn the game into something other than the game as designed, I
have no need to see it go this way, myself, bringing folks into the game
or no.
> Humor?
Ah, see, I forgot the smiley. Making my humor response to your humor
more oblique than necessary.
Matthew T. Morgan
> In article <2007072514...@fnord.io.com>,
> "Matthew T. Morgan" <far...@io.com> wrote:
>
>> So anyway, there's a disadvantage to having money games in vtes. What's
>> the advantage exactly?
>
> Many would argue "it brings folks into the game". I would certainly
> agree that it could bring people into the game. But as it would also
> likely turn the game into something other than the game as designed, I
> have no need to see it go this way, myself, bringing folks into the game
> or no.
Yeah, I'm not convinced that would really happen. I mean, if I were on
the lookout for a $25,000 jackpot, I would look for a new game so I could
get in on the ground floor and nobody would have more experience than me.
Getting into vtes hoping for a windfall really seems like a longshot,
considering how many of us have so much experience playing the game.
>> Humor?
>
> Ah, see, I forgot the smiley. Making my humor response to your humor
> more oblique than necessary.
The only thing to do in cases like these is to insist that each of us knew
the other was kidding all along.
Matt Morgan
Kushiel
> sent to me. The poster, who doesn't frequent this group, asked me to
> post it here.
How did someone who doesn't frequent the group and can't be bothered
to post to it himself manage to form such strong opinions about the
people who post here?
John Eno
The Name Forgotten
> > Cash prizes != new players. Aversion to cash prizes != aversion to new
> players.
>
Well, if the problem is that you are not getting enough new players
than you should try think what is going to get new players into the
game from their perspective. I can see that this is what you are
trying to do, but I don't think your rationale is quite right.
The basic problem with your argument of cash prizes = more new players
is that this market has already been well covered for by many other
card games out there who can do this sort of thing far better than
VTES can. To try put VTES into that market will certainly be forcing
VTES to play on it's hind leg, so to speak. As people have already
mentioned - duel based card games are far better at this sort of prize
structure and player mentality than VTES is.
Instead, if you want to get new players, the best way to do so is to
play to VTES strengths. VTES is a very social card game. It helps
build up a community of friendly helpful cardgamers (especially if the
people in charge foster this kind of attitude). This is what I find
refreshing about VTES and what really attracts me to the game. Over
here in Cape Town, we don't have any asshole players (anymore at
least). All of our players here want to have newbies join the game and
are always willing to help them out. Unfortunately with it's complex
rules and sheer volume of errata, VTES can be quite difficult for new
players to get a hang of, so having a more care-free attitude about
the game is more of a plus than a minus. Not to say that there isn't a
time or place for 'play-to-win' mentality, but that attitude is
generally reserved for the more experienced players when playing
amongst each other.
That being said, I think the complete opposite mentality is actually
better for attracting new players. One of VTES major strengths has
always been the fact that (comparatively) it is a very inexpensive
game to play and 99.9% of your cards will always be playable in a
tournament environment. I, for one, am running a completely free
preconstructed tournament that is focused on getting new players into
the game. There is no entrance cost, a very minor prize, but all the
players involved will be able to walk away with a preconstructed deck
that they can now play with their friends.
I'm fortunate enough to have played with all the experienced players
out here in Cape Town (and I fully realise that I am a Prince in a
city filled with really great sociable players), so I know that our
players will actually go around finding new players to join in this
event - and we already have a decently sized group of newbies who will
try out the game. I'm also incredibly grateful to Oscar who was kind
enough to send us 3rd Ed starter boxes for free in order for us to be
able to run this newbie tournament. If it wasn't for that, I'd
probably pay for some of it out of my own pocket, and raise some funds
in our tournaments to pay for the rest, but Oscar has always been very
supportive of my attempts to get new players and organise tournament
events.
My argument, as such, is that in order for you to get VTES to grow in
your community, maybe you should try thinking of playing to VTES
strengths, and realise that VTES marketed to a group of players that
(generally) wanted a game that was different from your powerhouse CCGs
like Magic. Trying to squeeze into their market is just suicidal for
the game. Instead, the strength of VTES has always been it's social
strength and it's community of fans who just want the game to grow,
and to share their love of the game with others.
In closing, if players really just wanted to play a game for great
prizes, there are far better games to do that with than VTES, and most
card players will immediately sense that by just looking at how a game
or two of VTES is played. There may be other reasons that you could
use to argue for great cash prizes, but the attraction for new players
is a rather weak point in my opinion, because there are far better
ways of attracting a better kind of new player anyway.
Peter D Bakija
"Matthew T. Morgan" <far...@io.com> wrote:
> Yeah, I'm not convinced that would really happen. I mean, if I were on
> the lookout for a $25,000 jackpot, I would look for a new game so I could
> get in on the ground floor and nobody would have more experience than me.
That is a good point. And I'd also be on the lookout for a non
multi-player game, where I could win or lose based on how good I am at
manipulating that particular rules system (or how good I am at buying
power cards), rather than a game where I could lose the big money prize
simply 'cause two wonks on the other side of the table decided to split
the pot and freeze me out of the game.
> Getting into vtes hoping for a windfall really seems like a longshot,
> considering how many of us have so much experience playing the game.
Likely. Although if there *was* a huge cash prize somewhere along the
way, it does seem likely that it would lead to *some* sort of increase
in attendance. I mean, really, it might just pull all the pre-existing
VTES sharks out of the woodwork (rather than bring in new folks), but
if, say, the NAC handed out $10,000.00 as first prize, I'd bet that the
attendance would double, at the very least. Give or take.
> The only thing to do in cases like these is to insist that each of us knew
> the other was kidding all along.
So insisted! See, it is *always* safe to insist that I'm kidding all
along...
wumpus
> So I got my quota of "you're an evil person with a pointless rant"
> responses as expected.
It is good that you expected to your hostility to be met with some
measure of hostility in return. Though I have to wonder if you
couldn't have just avoided being so hostile to begin with?
> But some of the posters did make some good
> points.
And also good that you apparently could still recognize something of
value in the many well-argued replies, though by not addressing them,
you devalue your own arguments.
And for your 'friend' Chris B.:
> White Wolf has the money to put up for the big tourneys. They just
> don't care. VTES is a player's game, and White Wolf listens to the
> (few) players and gives "us" what "we" want. We just need to shake
> things up so that "we" is not just a handful of entrenched xenophobes
> and White Wolf knows who plays this game and what the rest of us want
> out of it. I'd just like to see new players every now and then, and
> anyone who tells me that they wouldn't like to win cash is a goddamn
> liar.
Nice straw man. Sure, I'd like to win cash - who wouldn't? But just
like I don't play the lottery (unless my expected return on a dollar
goes significantly over a dollar, but I'm rarely tempted to even
attempt to compute expectation values like that), I'd never even
consider entering a V:TES tournament with a large cash prize, 'cause I
like to play V:TES. Am I (or the others who have said essentially the
same thing in this thread) a goddamn liar? Preemptively insulting
your opponents in a debate seems like a poor tactic for persuading
them.
My own anecdote: The worst V:TES tournament I ever played in was
played for an unopened box of Sabbat, somewhere around 2002-3, back
when it was worth a relatively large amount.
The first bad thing: the entry fee was high. The second bad thing:
almost no one showed up to play, which kind of contradicts the thesis
that big prizes attract a lot of players. The third bad thing: at
least some of the players really, really wanted the prize, and were
willing to play like jerks to get it, making awful, huge table deals,
nitpicking rules, just generally making things really unfun. The one
good thing: the guy who finally won split the box among all the
participants, even the jerk who insisted that his placement entitled
him to more than anybody else.
That experience was enough to show me that 'professionalizing' V:TES
is likely to be a complete disaster. And it wasn't even for cash,
just a few hundred dollars' cash equivalence. Much more relevant for
bringing in new players: visibility and friendliness.
Alex
Blooded Sand
First of, Name Forgotten, you deserve a medal for rekindling that play
group. If you had been around about 6 years ago I would most likely
never have sold my initial collection when all the players in Cape
Town seemed to isapear. (Oh to have my 20 Sabbat Decapitates and CVS
back... :) And I also have to say that the games I played with these
guys was intense, tight, (somewhat tense sometimes) but overall an
amazing amount of fun. Friendly, helpfull people who where willing to
come and pick up a stranger and drive them kilometres to a game and
back, well that just makes your heart glow.
Second. If there was huge money tournaments, I would like them to be a
Silence of Death on Steroids format. Players would not be allowed to
communicate in any way regarding the tournament. Which kinda kills the
whole social aspect of VtES. Which sucks. Which means I don't wanna
play for cash. But maybe it could be a worthwhile experiment to run 1
single tournament, once, with a substantial prize, maybe not cash, but
something like 5-20 booster boxes, just to see what happens.
Third. VtES players tend to be highly obsessive. Hey, all CCG players
are obsessive, but, like they say in that silly anime, "In a good
way!" I know I am.... :)
Who else is gonna arrange a collection of little cardboard rectangles,
select relatively small amounts of them in accordance with some arcane
frikkin formula, then go and see if they can be better at talking than
other people who are as obsessed with these little birs of cardboard?
(For the internet tone deaf (myself included first of all) this is
called humour ;). Just like my favourite net sig: "I am NOT a geek. I
am a 19th level Paladin"...
Anyhow, enough babbling
Frederick Scott
news:2007072514...@fnord.io.com...
> So anyway, there's a disadvantage to having money games in vtes. What's
> the advantage exactly?
I don't know if "disadvange" is exactly the right concept to employ when
discussing money in VtES. I think the issue is that is just won't work.
The reality of the game is that it can be fixed undetectably by people
trying hard enough. I think it's been demonstrated over time that a box
or two of boosters and even the heady title of "Continental Champion"
isn't really interesting enough to motivate people to work that hard to
fix a tournament (including all the work to get good enough at the game
itself to make it look good and then get good enough at fixing the tournament
undetectably, which would not be cake walk IMO). But if you start pouring
money into the pot, at some level - I wouldn't care to predict where it
was but it certainly exists - you would hit a point where it would become
worthwhile. The bottom line is that with all the ambiguities of
play-to-win issues in our tournaments, VtES simply does not make a
good platform for hard-core monetary-reward-motivated competition.
Fred
Shade
> I used to play in all the big events. The reasons were the challenge
> (primary) and then prizes (a far, far second). Well, WW has always
> really sucked big time when it came to providing prizes for VTES.
> Once I made it to the NAC final table, this was the end of the
> challenge for me. When I saw LSJ give out a box of boosters and some
> lame ass promo stuff to the Top 5 players, end of the line for me. It
> was simple math at that point. I paid $250+/ea or so dollars to go to
> a Qualifier Tournament (or two). Then I paid $1500 to go to Gencon.
> I walk away with 18 booster packs. At that point, without the
> challenge aspect, all I had was a quest for prizes. It quickly dawned
> on me that I could save time and money by just staying home. I could
> then spend the $1750 on $65 booster boxes of cards and get around 30
> boxes (1080 booster packs).
I agree with you that the prize support could use some help sure. I
have a t-shirt from qualifying at Swansea last year that is
approximately twice as wide as I am, maybe I don't really need it so
much :-)
Still I think your basic premiss is faulty. You made the final table
and, presumably although only you will know, had some fun games and a
generally good time if you did that well. I mean the final table at a
big event is a great effort, better than many many people have ever
done including me. If you didn't go to have a good time, play in a
more competitive environment, and test your skills against your peers
then you probably went with the wrong expectations. If money is your
goal then upskill yourself so you earn more, work more hours, or get a
second job because that'll pay off better than even winning a $25,000
event over the long run anyway given the huge number of hours and cost
in cards you'll need to invest to win that.
Pat
news:1185370756.0...@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com...
> On Jul 24, 4:27 pm, Rehlow <newsgr...@rehlow.com> wrote:
>> On Jul 24, 12:38 pm, librarian <aucti...@superfuncards.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Saw this on WW site:
>>
>> > EVE CCG to Offer $25,000 at Gen Con
>> > Tournament to celebrate the release of The Exiled
>> > Posted: 2007-07-23
>>
>> When I saw Oscar at Origins I asked him why VTES didn't have a large
>> money prize tournament. He said something along the line of it would
>> ruin VTES. As much as I'd like $25,000, he's probably correct.
>
> Unless there were teams.....
>
The team event at WoN last year was fun. The only real "team" part was
group-drafting boosters to go with the starters, but it was a good time.
- Pat
nood...@iprimus.com.au
> Historically one of
> the things you do is have a big card tournement (one of the others is
> to find the fattest ugliest guy on the boat, dub him "Baby Neptune",
> and force blindfolded newbs to suck marishino cherries and lard out of
> his belly button, and then there's the gross stuff I can't tell you
> about).
Dot
Dot
Dot
Kevin M.
> Kevin M. wrote:
>> Matthew T. Morgan <far...@io.com> wrote:
>>> Imagine: I wind up at a final table hoping to win the tournament.
>>> Someone else winds up at the final table hoping to win $100. All I
>>> have to do is wait until a critical point in the game, then offer
>>> that guy the money to make sure I win.
>>
>> Illegal, unless you and he are the only two remaining in that game.
>> And if you and he are the only two remaining in that game, then the
>> rules state that you can already deal for prizes.
>
> What makes you say this is illegal? There are plenty of
> circumstances in which it would be perfectly legal.
It is illegal to deal for prizes and places unless the other players left
in the tournament agree to the dealing.
>>> Also, I've already bribed the judges, so this
>>> is just a bad idea all around.
>>
>> Also illegal, so you have now been kicked out
>> of the tournament twice.
>
> This is a highly illogical argument. If I've bribed the judges,
> they aren't going to kick me out.
OK, then: since it is already a possibility to bribe the judges, using
cards instead of money, then I take it that you have no objection on those
grounds to a money prize entering into the game. Thanks!
>> Care to try again? ;)
>
> No need.
Evidently there is.
Kevin M.
>> Sure--but I think it is a matter of scale--currently, at big
>> tournament, some folks win, like, $100.00 worth of boosters
>> sometimes. How often does that result in someone throwing
>> the game in exchange for the prize support?
>
> I've never seen anyone do that. Hopefully the answer to your
> question is "never." But many players who wind up in tournament
> finals don't really need all those boosters. Cash is something else.
Many players who wind up in tournament finals don't need the cash. You
have said nothing new, here.
>> Like, where motivation goes from "playing to win the game and do
>> well for the sake of winning the game and doing well" to "playing to
>> win a bunch of money" is certainly a gray area. But I think there is
>> certainly some amount of money where there generally isn't enough
>> incentive to throw the game in exchange for the money (under $100.00?)
>> and certainly some amount of money where there is enough incentive to
>> throw the game in exchange for the money ($1000.00, certainly. Probably
>> less.). The trick is to operate under the average threshold.
>
> I've been at plenty of final tables where at least one of the
> finalists didn't really expect to win and didn't really try that hard
> due to inexperience, expectation (oh god, there's no way I can beat
> Peter Bakija) or whatever. I think you'd find these guys are pretty
> easily bribed since they don't expect to win anyway.
Possibly, but a total guess on your part.
>>> Imagine: I wind up at a final table hoping to win the tournament.
>>> Someone else winds up at the final table hoping to win $100. All I
>>> have to do is wait until a critical point in the game, then offer
>>> that guy the money to make sure I win.
>>
>> Sure. But *most* folks probably would not do this for $100.00. Much
>> like most folks would probably not do this for a box of boosters.
>> But if you change the $100.00 into $1000.00, and the most becomes
>> much, much smaller.
>
> I think you're right that most vtes players won't throw a game for
> $100. However, they might "choose how to lose" by chosing to kingmake
> me for that $100.
And they might "choose how to lose" by chosing to kingmake for those
boosters.
> So anyway, there's a disadvantage to having money games in vtes.
Incorrect conclusion on your part, with no data to support it.
>>> Also, I've already bribed the judges,
>>> so this is just a bad idea all around.
>>
>> I don't even wanna know what this is about...
>
> Humor?
I definitely agree with that. ;)
Azel
> premise; prize support for the Continental Championships and other major
> events does seem pretty weak (did we drink away the prize budget, Oscar?
> :).
i agree that things could be better here. it would be a good thing to
attract new players.
> A booster box and an uncut card sheet for winning a CC..? the final
> five should _each_ get a prize of that size, with the winner getting
> about five boxes, plus a few somethings unique and interesting (like an
> old keyboard of LSJ's, where the C-O-R-E-T keys have their ink worn
> away... ;-).
>
> DZ
> AW
bwa ha ha! but i totally think you are onto something here. i think if
we could switch from a currency/resources method of rewarding we can do
like it was done in feudal japan, and reward with items of status. so
instead of money or cards offer unique, but essentially moderately
priced, icons of the game.
LSJ's Keyboard is a great funny example, but the idea is solid. imagine
a unique hand-crafted Edge specially made for the occasion. or perhaps
even a piece of original art signed by the artist, a set of special
ordered Morano glass blood tokens, or a gilded deck box could be used.
it could even start like a series of status collectibles; make
"Fragments of the Book of Nod" with a unique "fragment" representing
each of the major qualifiers.
Matthew T. Morgan
> It is illegal to deal for prizes and places unless the other players left
> in the tournament agree to the dealing.
I can't find this rule anywhere in the vekn rules nor on the newsgroup.
The only thing that I can find that involves all remaining players
agreeing is conceding the game or declaring an intentional draw (3.5 and
3.6). That's not what I'm talking about. There's also this:
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/09736db282060da8?dmode=source&hl=en
That ruling is a bit old, but I can't find anything more recent to
contradict it. Here's the same ruling with a more recent date:
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/b1e9ce14ded97666?dmode=source&hl=en
I'm not saying I like it or anything, but prize-splitting seems to be
legal. If I've missed something, I know someone will point it out to me
and I'll be somewhat relieved to be proven wrong.
> OK, then: since it is already a possibility to bribe the judges, using
> cards instead of money, then I take it that you have no objection on those
> grounds to a money prize entering into the game. Thanks!
That's a fairly illogical leap, but at least you're consistent.
Matt Morgan
Matthew T. Morgan
> Many players who wind up in tournament finals don't need the cash. You
> have said nothing new, here.
Yeah, so it might be possible to persuade a player to play against the
goals of the game by offering him a few boosters. I think cash is way
more likely to do it. I'm not going to come on here and argue against any
kind of prizes. I don't think that would go over well. Plus, it would
break Oscar's heart.
>> I've been at plenty of final tables where at least one of the
>> finalists didn't really expect to win and didn't really try that hard
>> due to inexperience, expectation (oh god, there's no way I can beat
>> Peter Bakija) or whatever. I think you'd find these guys are pretty
>> easily bribed since they don't expect to win anyway.
>
> Possibly, but a total guess on your part.
For sure. There's no way to have hard data to talk about here, since big
money vtes tournaments haven't happened. I think my reasoning is sound
though.
> And they might "choose how to lose" by chosing to kingmake for those
> boosters.
They might and that wouldn't be so great, but I do believe people are less
likely to play against the goals of the game for boosters than they would
be for cash. That's important to me. Again, I don't want to completely
remove prizes from the equation.
Also, I've played in a lot of tournaments and I've never seen a player
throw a game for some booster packs.
>> So anyway, there's a disadvantage to having money games in vtes.
>
> Incorrect conclusion on your part, with no data to support it.
But it made sense in the context of the discussion I was having with
Peter, since he agreed there was a disadvantage. Context!
> I definitely agree with that. ;)
I'm glad you agree with me. See how context is important? :)
Matt Morgan
librarian
> atomweaver wrote: but I will absolutely agree with your basic
>> premise; prize support for the Continental Championships and other
>> major events does seem pretty weak (did we drink away the prize
>> budget, Oscar? :).
>
> i agree that things could be better here. it would be a good thing to
> attract new players.
>
>> A booster box and an uncut card sheet for winning a CC..? the final
>> five should _each_ get a prize of that size, with the winner getting
>> about five boxes, plus a few somethings unique and interesting (like
>> an old keyboard of LSJ's, where the C-O-R-E-T keys have their ink worn
>> away... ;-).
>> DZ
>> AW
>
> bwa ha ha! but i totally think you are onto something here. i think if
> we could switch from a currency/resources method of rewarding we can do
> like it was done in feudal japan, and reward with items of status.
... and if you f**k up, you disembowel yourself. Ok.
best -
chris
--
Super Fun Cards
http://stores.ebay.com/superfuncards/
auct...@superfuncards.com
librarian
> like it was done in feudal japan
You know, speaking of feudal Japan, I am reminded of L5R, which has not
offered big cash prizes, but really focuses on the storyline aspect of
the development of the CCG.
On a parallel track, I notice that a) we see a lot more of the newbies
at the storyline tournaments and b) there seems to be a lot of interest
in the results of the clans in those tournaments too.
I think if we want to entice new players, we should have more storyline
tournaments/events - maybe leagues or the like.
Right now Robert G is totally organizing the NAC with Mike C, and
probably has had little time to set up a new storyline. And let's be
fair, Robert gets *very little* remuneration for creating storylines.
I think if we said, "ok, here's $25,000, what can we do to get
new/newish people excited about VTES?"
Instead of throwing that money into the prize pool for the NAC, I think
an answer would be: Hire someone to specifically create and organize
storyline tournaments and leagues for VTES. Someone to help Oscar perhaps.
What do people think?
The Lasombra
>I think if we said, "ok, here's $25,000, what can we do to get
>new/newish people excited about VTES?"
>Instead of throwing that money into the prize pool for the NAC, I think
>an answer would be: Hire someone to specifically create and organize
>storyline tournaments and leagues for VTES.
>What do people think?
I think that's how and why we got Oscar to begin with.....
Andrew 'Wes' Weston
"bluedevil" <david.che...@gmail.com> wrote
>
> That's my team play anecdote. Yes, I am stuck at work and bored.
We had a Michigan vs. Ohio team game a few years back that was kinda fun (I
was made an honorary Michigander for the day).
Well, it was fun until my cross-table teammate decided that I was a
table-threat. Still having trouble understanding that one, heh.
What was also fun was coming up with ideas for then next such tournament
which, sadly, never happened. I had an idea of using 1-caps and alternating
Dramatic Upheavals to make sure the other team never got to play. No longer
possible, unfortunately, I mean fortunately.
Cheers,
WES
Ector
> In article <1185369488.044267.70...@l70g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
>
At the very beginning, I must state that I'm completely sure that VTES
would *benefit a lot* from the larger prizes, and, moreover, they
would attract more players and keep more players in the game. Bspaul
is absolutely right here, but he used the wrong arguments. The
structure of this "prize" could vary, though.
What does the large prize mean? It means that the game is SERIOUS.
It's not just "a fun waste of time". It's a world of serious
competition, training and luck. If you win a $100.000 tournament, you
are much more proud than after winning a $100 tournament, since
$100.000 tournament is going to attract the BEST players possible, and
$100 tournament isn't.
Besides, the winners of a major tournament should really get a prize
that will compensate for their travel expenses - not necessary in
money, but something of value (for them). Without that the tournaments
will inevitably lose some players. Some players love the game, but
they could use the money better way.
Moreover, good advertising programs and good prizes would regularly
create more players for VTES. It's like a "snowball effect" - the more
people know about the game, the easier is to become a fan. And vice
versa: the less people know about the game, the harder is to keep
being a fan.
Our tournament support, for instance, is currently limited to promo
cards - we don't even have beautiful posters to decorate the
tournament room that almost all other games have. No T-shirts, no cups
- only promo cards, if we manage to order them in time...
> bspaul <bspau...@excite.com> wrote:
> > This type of statement is exactly what I would expect to see from
> > frequent visitors to this group.
>
> > So as everyone chimes in that a cash prize would ruin VTES, I would
> > say that I support it.
>
> There is a difference between a "cash prize" and a "big cash prize". I
> in no way think that it would be bad to have prizes in the $100.00 zone
> for big tournaments (like, a couple box of boosters, or some cash or
> something). But really, due to the structure of the game, a significant
> cash prize *really* would make the game into something significantly
> different than it is now, and not necessarily in a good way.
>
> VTES is a free form, multi player game. Where folks can do arbitrary
> things to totally hose other players that are usually dis-incentived by
> virtue of it not being in their own best interest. When you, in the
> finals, can say "Hey--guy with the Rush deck, if you cross table destroy
> my predator and I win, I'll hand you $1000.00...", the game does not
> become about the stated goals of the game--i.e. ousting your prey,
> getting as many VPs as you can, and trying to get a game win.
>
> The game *already* teeters dangerously close to being too arbitrary and
> kingmakery, where the guy who wins the tournament is not the guy who can
> build the best deck and can play the game the best, but is the guy who
> is best at convincing their opponents to do things that are not in their
> best interest. If you added in "and I'll give you a significant sum of
> money if you help me win", the game ceases to be the game it is designed
> to be.
This is a lame argument, if an argument at all. *Any* game has a
possibility of cheating, bribery and collusion - that's what the
judges are for.
Why do you think that $25.000 prize will make people cheat or violate
PTW? You have players that are willing to spend $1000 or more on the
travel expenses - so why are you going to insult these players with
such suspicions?
In other words, people are currently playing to win, aren't they? So
why do you fear that they won't play to win with a large prize? I
cannot get your logic here: a larger prize is going to *enforce* PTW,
not weaken it.
> Two player, duel type games are very well suited for significant cash
> prizes, as diplomacy is not an issue. Multiplayer games, where diplomacy
> and table talk and dealmaking are an accepted part of the game and can
> determine who wins more often than not (see, in poker, you don't
> generally see someone saying "Hey--I see how you are beating me with
> that flush, but if you fold this hand so I can take the pot, I'll split
> the winnings with you when I win the table...") are not very well suited
> for significant cash prize environments. As the game ceases to be about
> the actual game, and becomes "who can buy their way to victory with
> promises of a cut of the winnings." Which isn't VTES.
"Buying the way to victory with promises of a cut of the winnings" is
a Cheating: Collusion. So you are SURE that some of VTES players that
you know (and you know most of the good players) are going to accept
"a cut of the winnings" and give up? Or even worse, to suggest such
collusion to the other players? Please name such players, I will watch
them should I even play or judge a tournament with them :)
Look, if a player is willing to cheat, he can cheat with ANY prize.
Just to be called "a champion", for instance. There are no "seasoned
cheaters" among the VTES players, and they aren't going to appear even
with a $25.000 prize. Probably, a 25 mln prize would make some
cheaters, but we aren't talking about such sums.
Besides the money, there could be special prizes to provide the
special fame for the players. Why Magic champions can design their own
cards, but VTES champions cannot? Where are special Edges, counters or
other premium prizes? Surely, a booster box isn't a big deal for a
champion that's probably buying a lot of such boxes...
Yours,
Ector
Jeroen
> This is a lame argument, if an argument at all. *Any* game has a
> possibility of cheating, bribery and collusion - that's what the
> judges are for.
*wrong* In a multi-player, bribing players is not necesarrily
cheating.
> Why do you think that $25.000 prize will make people cheat or violate
> PTW? You have players that are willing to spend $1000 or more on the
> travel expenses - so why are you going to insult these players with
> such suspicions?
nor is it necessarily violating PTW.
> In other words, people are currently playing to win, aren't they? So
> why do you fear that they won't play to win with a large prize? I
> cannot get your logic here: a larger prize is going to *enforce* PTW,
> not weaken it.
Nope. PTW states that:
a/ you need to play for the GW
b/ failing that, you need to maximise your VPs
c/ failing that, you can play any way you want.
People in position c will gladly take a cut of the prize money for
doing something for you. Some people in position b will too, if you
include a VP in the deal.
All legal, all according to PTW.
>
> "Buying the way to victory with promises of a cut of the winnings" is
> a Cheating: Collusion. So you are SURE that some of VTES players that
> you know (and you know most of the good players) are going to accept
> "a cut of the winnings" and give up? Or even worse, to suggest such
> collusion to the other players? Please name such players, I will watch
> them should I even play or judge a tournament with them :)
see above. no cheating per se.
> Look, if a player is willing to cheat, he can cheat with ANY prize.
> Just to be called "a champion", for instance. There are no "seasoned
> cheaters" among the VTES players, and they aren't going to appear even
> with a $25.000 prize.
How are you so sure? Cheaters is BTW not the big problem, it's the
LEGAL!!! (repeated in caps!) buying of victory in the finals that can
and will change the way the game is played.
>
> Besides the money, there could be special prizes to provide the
> special fame for the players. Why Magic champions can design their own
> cards, but VTES champions cannot? Where are special Edges, counters or
> other premium prizes? Surely, a booster box isn't a big deal for a
> champion that's probably buying a lot of such boxes...
>
No-one is disputing this, only big cash prizes.
lon...@dlc.fi
> Once I made it to the NAC final table, this was the end of the
> challenge for me. When I saw LSJ give out a box of boosters and some
> lame ass promo stuff to the Top 5 players, end of the line for me.
I think that one of the strengths of VTES has been that there hasn't
been any gimmicky chase cards/prizes and that most cards can be
abtained with relatively inexpensivly and easily. Heck, plenty of
great decks work just fine and dandy with your basic commons.
Heh, that being said some of the 3rd edition commons and uncommons
tend to be pretty darn hard to get. Just yesterday at Helsinki's
weekly games Petri managed to pull his first Mirror Walk and his
second Heart of Nizchetus -so it is possible to get double the amount
of the set's the most wanted rare than a new commons :)
But I shouldn't be opening that collation problem can of worms in this
lively discussion about another topic anyway...
But yeah, in the top events it sure wouldn't hurt if SLIGHTLY more
support was available.
Then again I'm under the assumption that local players have been quite
happy with the fact that at least in Helsinki area we've basically
always been able to hand out at least few promos to each and every
participant in addition to the finalists recieving some more prizes.
So nothing massive is needed.
Especially the idea of making Fragments for the top events of the year
sounds very cool to me. I'm sure it is relatively easy to come by with
similar ones and some were already mentioned. Doesn't have to be
anything grand and playable but just some nifty things that have
something to do with VTES.
Uncut sheets could easily be used as prizes too, I assume.
In the few Rage tournaments I've attended in GenCons of the past the
organizers have purchased some pieces of original artwork to be used
as prizes. Not all originals are THAT expensive -I've bought several
VTES and Rage pieces for $25 to $100 each. Granted, it is much easier
to acquire these from the artists at big US cons where you have the
artists present selling their art so it might not be that viable for
us furriners. But plenty of artists sell their art online too with
easy payment options like PayPal.
As for crying for $10,000 or $25,000 prizes for larger VTES
tournaments since "WW most definately has the money to burn" I'm not
that sure the WW is actually swimming in cash. How many boosters, even
at full SRP, you have to sell to make that kind of money? Then think
about how many you have to sell if you deduct the discounts they have
to give to retailers PLUS the manufacturing costs.
I don't think that most of the current "we're offering huge cash
prizes in our tournaments" games and companies will be around for that
many years. They are just trying to get their feet into the fierce
competiton of the CCG publishing and feel that they HAVE to compete
against MtG and such using the same methods and not realizing that
there is virtually no chance that tehir game will ever be another MtG.
VTES has been around from 13 years and I do firmly believe that it'll
easily outlive the new upstarts without the need of unviable cash
support.
My 2c,
Lönkka
VTES NC Finland
www.ahmametal.com
www.myspace.com/iwearnohelmet
bluedevil
Nightmares. That was *very* interesting.
Ector
> On 26 jul, 09:11, Ector <Ec...@mail.ru> wrote:
>
> > This is a lame argument, if an argument at all. *Any* game has a
> > possibility of cheating, bribery and collusion - that's what the
> > judges are for.
>
> *wrong* In a multi-player, bribing players is not necesarrily
> cheating.
See VEKN Tournament Rules, 5.1 "Cheating"
"Cheating includes, but is not limited to, the following intentional
activities:...
* Collusion to alter the results of a game..."
Any deal that includes out-of-the-game things (money, for instance) is
collusion. "Rush this vampire, and I will play Consangineous Boon for
you" is a normal deal. "Rush that vampire and I will give you $10 (or
any portion of the prize)" is cheating without any doubts.
Hope that LSJ will make his decision about this... or else we are
going to play Poker instead of VTES :)
Yours,
Ector
Jeroen
> On Jul 26, 10:55 am, Jeroen <joen_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On 26 jul, 09:11, Ector <Ec...@mail.ru> wrote:
>
> > > This is a lame argument, if an argument at all. *Any* game has a
> > > possibility of cheating, bribery and collusion - that's what the
> > > judges are for.
>
> > *wrong* In a multi-player, bribing players is not necesarrily
> > cheating.
>
> See VEKN Tournament Rules, 5.1 "Cheating"
> "Cheating includes, but is not limited to, the following intentional
> activities:...
> * Collusion to alter the results of a game..."
> Any deal that includes out-of-the-game things (money, for instance)
Prizes are part of the final. They are not an out-of-game
consideration.
>is
> collusion. "Rush this vampire, and I will play Consangineous Boon for
> you" is a normal deal. "Rush that vampire and I will give you $10 (or
> any portion of the prize)" is cheating without any doubts.
Not in the finals and with regards to prizes (you can't use the $10
bribe unless there is money to be won for winning the tournement.) Use
the search function: deals prizes final author:lsj
> Hope that LSJ will make his decision about this... or else we are
> going to play Poker instead of VTES :)
He did. Years ago.
XZealot
> On Jul 25, 6:22 am, lon...@dlc.fi wrote:
>
> > I'll have to agree wholeheartedly with Oscar, Petri et al on this.
>
> > Why ruin the tournament atmosphere by introducing the moneytary prize
> > element to the scene.
>
> > I'm not even sure if attracting the "I'll be able to cash in the big
> > bucks by the game" -type of player is the one VTES would really need.
>
> This type of statement is exactly what I would expect to see from
> frequent visitors to this group.
>
> So as everyone chimes in that a cash prize would ruin VTES, I would
> say that I support it.
I think that cash prizes would be a good thing as they attract
attention that the game desperately needs. If it doesn't work then we
can always go back to no cash prizes.
> I used to play in all the big events. The reasons were the challenge
> (primary) and then prizes (a far, far second). Well, WW has always
> really sucked big time when it came to providing prizes for VTES.
> Once I made it to the NAC final table, this was the end of the
> challenge for me. When I saw LSJ give out a box of boosters and some
> lame ass promo stuff to the Top 5 players, end of the line for me. It
> was simple math at that point. I paid $250+/ea or so dollars to go to
> a Qualifier Tournament (or two). Then I paid $1500 to go to Gencon.
> I walk away with 18 booster packs. At that point, without the
> challenge aspect, all I had was a quest for prizes. It quickly dawned
> on me that I could save time and money by just staying home. I could
> then spend the $1750 on $65 booster boxes of cards and get around 30
> boxes (1080 booster packs).
This arguement is not convincing, but I certainly apreciate the hard
work you put into it.
> So I've been staying home. However, the booster pack logic has taken
> a new twist. Since I no longer have to stay uber competitive, I no
> longer buy any cards. I used to drop hundreds of dollars on each new
> release by WW. It's now been 3-4 sets that I have just gone to a
> prerelease and not placed my order. That's probably $1000 of my money
> that WW has lost-and will continue to not capture. Plus since I no
> longer have to playtest high level tournament decks, I no longer make
> the effort to assemble a local playgroup. I used to run one that had
> 8-12 players, weekly playnights, monthly tournaments. How many of
> those players did I influence to buy cards? We would pool orders to
> get discounts and save on shipping. So how much money was I making
> for WW both directly and indirectly? Hard to tell really. It's much
> easier on my wallet these days because I can take my huge pile of
> cards and make a good deck that can win local tournaments.
....and quitters never win or something pithy like that. The idea of
the cash prize is to get new players into the game. Old loyal players
will not be affected as much, although the difference between an old
player who starts playing again and a new completely new player is
something to be discussed. We can all agree that an increase in the
VTES player population is absolutely necessary.
> Therefore, if WW was to offer larger cash prizes for the bigger
> events, I would be tempted to get back up to speed and attend these
> events. It doesn't have to be $25,000 dollars. But as long as the
> "break even" ratio still points to staying home, I'm home. So if you
> want to keep this game rolling along the SAME as it's always been,
> feel free to continue to offer lame ass prizes. Sure, it's obvious
> that there are 50-75 people who will keep attending these events year
> after year (has anyone seen the attendance at Regional/higher level
> events increase in a significant manner over the last seven
> years???). It's obvious that WW lets personal opinions of certain
> people make business decisions. It's obvious this game is stale
> regarding the upper level tournament structure. But please, continue
> to be horrified at the simple notion of offering more than half a box
> of boosters to the winner of the NAC. Maybe LA's ideas are the start
> of something. Still not enough to get me, or any of the local players
> I know, to spend the time/money and attend larger events. Plus the
> final kicker of it all is that the couple of people I know who do play
> VTES and might attend the larger events, will be playing other games
> instead that do have larger prizes (there is only so much time at a
> convention-so you could play 18hrs of VTES over two days or multiple
> VS/Magic events-win the VTES and get a promo card, with the VS/Magic
> event and pay for a year of college). Look around, people are so
> saturated with CCG's that offering money payouts are now the standard
> (which brings us back full circle to EVE). If you don't do that, it's
> like bringing a new 2008 model car to market without A/C. Who's going
> to buy that? Maybe I'm in the minority (at least here I am as most of
> the players I know don't even bother to read this group).
I generally thought that WW wouldn't offer cash prizes, but since they
have done so for EVE then they definantly need to do it for VTES. I
think the best way to discourage collusion at the finals table is
simple. Don't make it a winner take all situation. Make sure that
every finalist walks away with something. This encourages players to
try to get a higher position than anyone else on the table.
So for example if WW were to put $30,000.00 on the table as a cash
prize. The worst thing that they could do is to give all of it to the
first place player. The best way to do it would be to break it down
as follows.
1st Prize: $10,000.00
2nd Prize: $8,000.00
3rd Prize: $6,000.00
4th Prize: $4,000.00
5th Prize: $2,000.00
There is a signifigant difference between 1st place and 5th place, but
not enough difference between one prize level and the next to make
playing a 5th place "kingmaker" a better play than trying to get 4th
place instead.
Also, since I am one of the players who has actually played VTES for
money and it was not enjoyable. I will tell you specifically what
went wrong.
First, I played in 1996 for money at a 12 person tournamnet winner
take all.
These are the problems that existed then that don't exist now.
There was no errata. This game was pre 7-7 rulings.
We played on a 12 person table. Now we would have played on 3 4-
player tables.
There were no anti-collusion rules. Collusion was actually expected.
Now we have judges and rules to stop collusion from taking place.
We only played one game. Now we have 3 rounds and a final.
Now we have corrected all these problems. The only thing that seems
to rear its ugly head is the collusion rules.
How can you stop collusion? You need to give players incentives to
keep them in the game. I think that making sure that everyone at the
finals table or even top 10 walks away with something will make it
less likely that players will collude together.
I think we should try it, and if it doesn't work then we can alway
change back.
Comments Welcome,
Norman S. Brown, Jr
XZealot
Archon of the Swamp
Christoph
> PTW? You have players that are willing to spend $1000 or more on the
> travel expenses - so why are you going to insult these players with
> such suspicions?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't you the guy who requires all players
participating in one of your tournaments to provide decklists? And wasn't
your agument throughout that (very long winded) thread the fact that you
expect people to cheat?
If so, then the above is pretty funny coming from you...
Sorrow
---
"Our generation has had no Great Depression, no Great War.
Our war is a spiritual war. Our depression is our lives."
- Tyler Durden
Peter D Bakija
Ector <Ec...@mail.ru> wrote:
> What does the large prize mean? It means that the game is SERIOUS.
Oh, Ector.
> This is a lame argument, if an argument at all. *Any* game has a
> possibility of cheating, bribery and collusion - that's what the
> judges are for.
I'm not talking about cheating. I'm talking about people taking money in
exchange for helping someone else win. Which in a lot of situations
isn't cheating. Nor is it collusion, as it isn't something that was
necessarily established anywhere but at the table.
> Why do you think that $25.000 prize will make people cheat or violate
> PTW?
You don't have to cheat or violate PTW to buy someone off.
> In other words, people are currently playing to win, aren't they? So
> why do you fear that they won't play to win with a large prize? I
> cannot get your logic here: a larger prize is going to *enforce* PTW,
> not weaken it.
I am not doing hot in a final game. I could continue trying to get my 1
possible but not certain VP, or I could help you sweep the table in
exchange for half the prize money. I am now no longer playing to win, I
am playing to help you win. But I'm not cheating, as I wasn't that
likely to win before anyway.
> "Buying the way to victory with promises of a cut of the winnings" is
> a Cheating: Collusion.
Collusion is something that is established before a game. If a deal is
cut within a game, it is not collusion. It is playing the game.
> So you are SURE that some of VTES players that
> you know (and you know most of the good players) are going to accept
> "a cut of the winnings" and give up?
In exchange for a bunch of money? Yes. Yes I do. I have a mortgage to
pay. If in the finals of a big tournament where my absolute victory was
not certain, and another player offered to split the $10,000.00 first
prize if I helped him win? I'd take it.
> Look, if a player is willing to cheat, he can cheat with ANY prize.
I'm not talking about cheating. I'm talking about perfectly legal play
that is leveraged by money--deals that could be legally made anyway, but
are much less worth making if large sums of money aren't involved.
Peter D Bakija
Ector <Ec...@mail.ru> wrote:
> See VEKN Tournament Rules, 5.1 "Cheating"
> "Cheating includes, but is not limited to, the following intentional
> activities:...
> * Collusion to alter the results of a game..."
Collusion os something that occurs outside of the bounds of a game for
the intention of affecting the results of that game (i.e. a couple of
buddies deciding before the game starts to make sure player A wins).
Deals struck within the context of a game are not collusion, as long as
all other rules are observed.
> Any deal that includes out-of-the-game things (money, for instance) is
> collusion.
I don't think that is actually true.
Jeroen
> 1st Prize: $10,000.00
> 2nd Prize: $8,000.00
> 3rd Prize: $6,000.00
> 4th Prize: $4,000.00
> 5th Prize: $2,000.00
>
> There is a signifigant difference between 1st place and 5th place, but
> not enough difference between one prize level and the next to make
> playing a 5th place "kingmaker" a better play than trying to get 4th
> place instead.
>
doesn't help: because, if the winner gives you 2,500 you're still
ahead of being 5th instead of 4th.
And collusion isn't the problem, it's the legal bribing of players in
the finals.
Jeroen
sorry for the self reply, but I posted to quick. What I meant to add
was:
"I have no problem with cash prizes in and off themselves. But they
should be impossible to use as bribes during the finals. Maybe all
prize splitting deals should be disallowed.
atomweaver
news:BsidnXlkmIlPljXb...@comcast.com:
> atomweaver wrote:
>> A booster box and an uncut card sheet for winning a CC..? the final
>> five should _each_ get a prize of that size, with the winner getting
>> about five boxes, plus a few somethings unique and interesting (like
>> an old keyboard of LSJ's, where the C-O-R-E-T keys have their ink
>> worn away... ;-).
>>
>> DZ
>> AW
>
> bwa ha ha! but i totally think you are onto something here. i think if
> we could switch from a currency/resources method of rewarding we can
> do like it was done in feudal japan, and reward with items of status.
> so instead of money or cards offer unique, but essentially moderately
> priced, icons of the game.
>
Agreed. The highest prize ever given away in this game, IMO, is that of
winning your way onto a vampire card. The Lasombra (Adonai), Steve Coombs
(Egottha), Christian Chenard (Carmine Gio), and Stefan Ferenci (Gharston
Roland) are the only honorees in that respect (although others have made
their way onto cards by different means).
> LSJ's Keyboard is a great funny example, but the idea is solid.
> imagine a unique hand-crafted Edge specially made for the occasion. or
> perhaps even a piece of original art signed by the artist, a set of
> special ordered Morano glass blood tokens, or a gilded deck box could
> be used. it could even start like a series of status collectibles;
> make "Fragments of the Book of Nod" with a unique "fragment"
> representing each of the major qualifiers.
The ring they designed for the EC a few years back was an astoundingly good
example, too.
DaveZ
witness1
> On 26 jul, 14:18, XZealot <xzea...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > 1st Prize: $10,000.00
> > 2nd Prize: $8,000.00
> > 3rd Prize: $6,000.00
> > 4th Prize: $4,000.00
> > 5th Prize: $2,000.00
>
> > There is a signifigant difference between 1st place and 5th place, but
> > not enough difference between one prize level and the next to make
> > playing a 5th place "kingmaker" a better play than trying to get 4th
> > place instead.
>
> doesn't help: because, if the winner gives you 2,500 you're still
> ahead of being 5th instead of 4th.
But that winner ends up with less cash than second place (10,000 -
2,500 = 7500). Which doesn't mean that there aren't some scenarios
where bribing would be useful (hey, help me move from 3rd to 1st!
It'll only take you down from 4th to 5th, so I can afford to offer you
$3,000 and we both come out ahead!) But it would probably be less
problematic than a large cash prize for (only) first place.
witness1
Johannes Walch
> Two player, duel type games are very well suited for significant cash
> prizes, as diplomacy is not an issue.
That is just dead wrong. One guy I know who was playing CCGs at a
professional level (and making his living out of it) explained me how
much collusion/bribing/cheating is going on behind the scenes of such
duel games. If a win in the next game will shoot you to the final 8
(=big money) for sure and your opponent will have a <50% of being final
8 with that win you might offer him 1000$ to intentionally loose the
game. It´s possible and it´s happening.
Also the amount of judging and on-site arguing about judgement calls in
those tournaments is just insane. When so much is at stake people get weird.
Even if this kind of prize would attract new players I am also not very
fond of the type of players. I found the high-ranked/big money CCG
players pretty sleazy most of the time, no way I would spend my time
hanging out with those.
And finally no money in the world can replace the experiences and good
times I made while travelling just to play V:TES. The V:TES tournament
scene does have quite some really bright and outstanding people. I am
honored to call them my friends, much for than I would be honored when
winning 10K in the NAC. Sounds pathetic, but actually it´s true.
Johannes Walch
Jeroen Rombouts
"witness1" <jwnew...@bellsouth.net> schreef in bericht
news:1185457664....@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com...
> On Jul 26, 8:50 am, Jeroen <joen_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On 26 jul, 14:18, XZealot <xzea...@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>> > 1st Prize: $10,000.00
>> > 2nd Prize: $8,000.00
>> > 3rd Prize: $6,000.00
>> > 4th Prize: $4,000.00
>> > 5th Prize: $2,000.00
>>
>> > There is a signifigant difference between 1st place and 5th place, but
>> > not enough difference between one prize level and the next to make
>> > playing a 5th place "kingmaker" a better play than trying to get 4th
>> > place instead.
>>
>> doesn't help: because, if the winner gives you 2,500 you're still
>> ahead of being 5th instead of 4th.
>
> But that winner ends up with less cash than second place (10,000 -
> 2,500 = 7500).
But he won! or isn't that worth 500? :-)
>Which doesn't mean that there aren't some scenarios
> where bribing would be useful (hey, help me move from 3rd to 1st!
> It'll only take you down from 4th to 5th, so I can afford to offer you
> $3,000 and we both come out ahead!) But it would probably be less
> problematic than a large cash prize for (only) first place.
true. But still problematic, imo.
Ector
> I'm not talking about cheating. I'm talking about people taking money in
> exchange for helping someone else win. Which in a lot of situations
> isn't cheating. Nor is it collusion, as it isn't something that was
> necessarily established anywhere but at the table.
isn't cheating? It definitely is.
As far as I recall from my Magic experience, the ONLY thing that was
allowed to do with the prize money is an agreement to split the prize
INSTEAD of playing. Thus, if the finalists decided to split the prize,
they must do it before the game starts. As soon as the game was
started, any dogmeat who dares to suggest a bribe get DQ on sight. And
don't tell me that multiplayer nature of VTES makes cheating legal.
The finalists can split the prize money BEFORE the game if they ALL
come to a certain agreement. During the game, any bribe suggestion
should be "awarded" a DQ.
> > Why do you think that $25.000 prize will make people cheat or violate
> > PTW?
> You don't have to cheat or violate PTW to buy someone off.
OK. So if I'm the richest guy here, I don't even need to play? I can
just buy some players to play for me? REALLY???
> > In other words, people are currently playing to win, aren't they? So
> > why do you fear that they won't play to win with a large prize? I
> > cannot get your logic here: a larger prize is going to *enforce* PTW,
> > not weaken it.
>
> I am not doing hot in a final game. I could continue trying to get my 1
> possible but not certain VP, or I could help you sweep the table in
> exchange for half the prize money. I am now no longer playing to win, I
> am playing to help you win. But I'm not cheating, as I wasn't that
> likely to win before anyway.
You are cheating just because you've accepted a bribery, and your
"partner" is cheating because he suggested a bribe to you. That's
enough to DQ both of you.
> > "Buying the way to victory with promises of a cut of the winnings" is
> > a Cheating: Collusion.
>
> Collusion is something that is established before a game. If a deal is
> cut within a game, it is not collusion. It is playing the game.
Who told you this? Collusion can be established during a game as well
as any other time. Any deal that includes non-game things (money or
something else) is a collusion.
> > So you are SURE that some of VTES players that
> > you know (and you know most of the good players) are going to accept
> > "a cut of the winnings" and give up?
>
> In exchange for a bunch of money? Yes. Yes I do. I have a mortgage to
> pay. If in the finals of a big tournament where my absolute victory was
> not certain, and another player offered to split the $10,000.00 first
> prize if I helped him win? I'd take it.
Well, $10.000 is a large sum for me (probably much larger than for
you, since Belarus is a poor country), but my reputation is much more
valuable for me, and I like this game too much to allow such things to
happen. I would never participate in such deals.
> > Look, if a player is willing to cheat, he can cheat with ANY prize.
>
> I'm not talking about cheating. I'm talking about perfectly legal play
> that is leveraged by money--deals that could be legally made anyway, but
> are much less worth making if large sums of money aren't involved.
One of us must be insane. Look, we have a lot of VERY POOR players
that would be happy to give up for $5, and we have some "rich" players
that would be happy to pay these $5 to win. So, do you suggest us to
play a game of "who gives more money?" instead of VTES?
Yours,
Ector
librarian
>
> Uncut sheets could easily be used as prizes too, I assume.
>
Blech. Personally, I can't stand uncut sheets. Boosters and Cash/Cash
equivalents (store/con credit) are universally acceptable prizes. Small
items are cool too, like an edge, or a ring, or something. But
something big and bulky and hard to transport without damaging like
uncut sheets - blech. Sorry.
> In the few Rage tournaments I've attended in GenCons of the past the
> organizers have purchased some pieces of original artwork to be used
> as prizes. Not all originals are THAT expensive -I've bought several
> VTES and Rage pieces for $25 to $100 each.
VTESinLA.org has a list of who owns what original art, and I didn't see
your name there.
http://vtesinla.org/art/artlist.asp
Jeroen Rombouts
"Ector" <Ec...@mail.ru> schreef in bericht
news:1185462689.9...@b79g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> On Jul 26, 3:37 pm, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote:
> One of us must be insane.
You said this. Not I.
Now read what I wrote as an answer to you.
Cuckoo much?
XZealot
> On 26 jul, 14:18, XZealot <xzea...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > 1st Prize: $10,000.00
> > 2nd Prize: $8,000.00
> > 3rd Prize: $6,000.00
> > 4th Prize: $4,000.00
> > 5th Prize: $2,000.00
>
> > There is a signifigant difference between 1st place and 5th place, but
> > not enough difference between one prize level and the next to make
> > playing a 5th place "kingmaker" a better play than trying to get 4th
> > place instead.
>
> doesn't help: because, if the winner gives you 2,500 you're still
> ahead of being 5th instead of 4th.
Just like John said, that would put him in a worst position than
second place. There isn't any incentive monetarily to do that.
> And collusion isn't the problem, it's the legal bribing of players in
> the finals.
Obviously, that would have to change, or we would have to liquidate
the VEKN rules team and use them for prizes.
atomweaver
news:f8acbo$qdk$1...@news01.versatel.de:
> Even if this kind of prize would attract new players I am also not
> very fond of the type of players.
Quoted for truth! Well said, Johannes.
DZ
witness1
> lon...@dlc.fi wrote:
>
> > Uncut sheets could easily be used as prizes too, I assume.
>
> Blech. Personally, I can't stand uncut sheets. Boosters and Cash/Cash
> equivalents (store/con credit) are universally acceptable prizes. Small
> items are cool too, like an edge, or a ring, or something. But
> something big and bulky and hard to transport without damaging like
> uncut sheets - blech. Sorry.
Include shipping as part of the prize.
> > In the few Rage tournaments I've attended in GenCons of the past the
> > organizers have purchased some pieces of original artwork to be used
> > as prizes. Not all originals are THAT expensive -I've bought several
> > VTES and Rage pieces for $25 to $100 each.
>
> VTESinLA.org has a list of who owns what original art, and I didn't see
> your name there.
Several local tournaments over the past couple years have given out
VtES art. I think it makes a great prize.
witness1
Morgan Vening
<pd...@lightlink.com> wrote:
>> In other words, people are currently playing to win, aren't they? So
>> why do you fear that they won't play to win with a large prize? I
>> cannot get your logic here: a larger prize is going to *enforce* PTW,
>> not weaken it.
>
>I am not doing hot in a final game. I could continue trying to get my 1
>possible but not certain VP, or I could help you sweep the table in
>exchange for half the prize money. I am now no longer playing to win, I
>am playing to help you win. But I'm not cheating, as I wasn't that
>likely to win before anyway.
And herein lies the 'rub'.
You'd want to go into the final round in first seed. Because the game
is almost DEFINATELY going to time out with VP splitting/prize
splitting deals.
Heck, just going into the finals with a rush deck could be a
moneymaker. It'd be like an EBay auction for the others at the table
to buy your services.
Oh, and the headaches and upset feelings that would eventuate from the
following situation.
Player A in reasonable position.
Player D is a rush deck with a poor prey matchup.
Player A - "Dee, you help me sweep, and I'll give you half the cash
prize."
Player D- "Done.
Game progresses. Player A eliminates B, C, D is on 1 pool, no minions
untapped, and it's A's turn.
Player A- "I think I'm going to have to reneg on our deal."
At what point could a deal discussing prize splitting be reneged? What
if instead of A and D, it's A and E (with a no forward pressure wall
deck)? Once it gets to 2 players, aren't all deals voided by the
recent ruling?
Morgan Vening
Morgan Vening
<auct...@superfuncards.com> wrote:
>lon...@dlc.fi wrote:
>
>>
>> Uncut sheets could easily be used as prizes too, I assume.
>>
>
>
>Blech. Personally, I can't stand uncut sheets. Boosters and Cash/Cash
>equivalents (store/con credit) are universally acceptable prizes. Small
>items are cool too, like an edge, or a ring, or something. But
>something big and bulky and hard to transport without damaging like
>uncut sheets - blech. Sorry.
I'm not sure on the mechanics of manufacturing, but how about the
possibility of variant vintage cards? Think in the nature of the
regular promo cards, but a reprinting of an older card with a new card
art, in the new format, and if necessary, the latest text.
Week of Nightmares, Camarilla Vitae Slave, even the staples that are
rarely disappointing to get (Freak Drive, IG, Arika, etc).
I'm not sure on how the distribution system works, but you have "2006
Nationals" on it, and run off a set for the start of the year for your
"big events".
I dunno. I dropped out of MtG because of the over-competitive nature
of the player base. And I've been at GC the last 3 years and avoided
VTES for a similar fear. I like my games casual*, and unrushed.
Morgan Vening
* And I also have an aversion to playing the same deck (or even deck
type!) twice in a row. My deck box should always has a politico,
bleed(bruise or stealth, fight(rush or block), and stupid gimmick deck
in it. Toolbox can be substituted for any of the first three.
Morgan Vening
Doesn't even need to be that. Player wanting to win offers player
almost guaranteed to lose $1000.
Player winning still gets more than 2nd place, player who can't do any
better anyways, gets 50% more than he would have.
I still think the negotiations for prize splitting would time out the
game. How about "Prize pool $30,000, $6,000 for each player who made
it, now that's sorted, PLAY. THE. GAME."
Morgan Vening
Morgan Vening
>On Jul 26, 7:50 am, Jeroen <joen_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On 26 jul, 14:18, XZealot <xzea...@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>> > 1st Prize: $10,000.00
>> > 2nd Prize: $8,000.00
>> > 3rd Prize: $6,000.00
>> > 4th Prize: $4,000.00
>> > 5th Prize: $2,000.00
>>
>> > There is a signifigant difference between 1st place and 5th place, but
>> > not enough difference between one prize level and the next to make
>> > playing a 5th place "kingmaker" a better play than trying to get 4th
>> > place instead.
>>
>> doesn't help: because, if the winner gives you 2,500 you're still
>> ahead of being 5th instead of 4th.
>
>Just like John said, that would put him in a worst position than
>second place. There isn't any incentive monetarily to do that.
Unless he would be looking at a 3rd (or lower) place finish. Which,
given a low seeding, and a possibility of a time out, might be his
only choice.
Morgan Vening
Peter D Bakija
Ector <Ec...@mail.ru> wrote:
> How can you pretend that playing a "Bribery" game instead of VTES
> isn't cheating? It definitely is.
Leveraging an otherwise legal deal with money is certainly something I
can call "bribery" tongue in cheek, but as long as all other aspects of
the game are being obeyed, there is nothing cheating about it.
Currently, there are plenty of instances where you can accept the losing
end of a deal, although without any concrete incentive, it doesn't
happen as often as it could. If there was concrete incentive (i.e.
cash), it would happen all the time.
Again, say I am in the finals and I'm not doing so hot. I have the
option of:
A) Possibly getting a VP for 4th place, or possibly just getting killed
for 5th.
or
B) Certainly getting 5th place, and helping someone else get 1st place.
Currently, with no money on the line, I have no incentive to pick (B),
so I'll always pick (A).
If the other guy I can help can offer me a split of the prize, it is
completely in my best interest to pick option (B), and I likely easily
defend my position of "I'm losing anyway, so I choose to lose like
this..." And it isn't cheating. And it can be called "bribery". Even if
only tongue in cheek.
> As far as I recall from my Magic experience, the ONLY thing that was
> allowed to do with the prize money is an agreement to split the prize
> INSTEAD of playing.
Which is all well and good, except:
A) This isn't Magic.
B) Magic is a two player game. Which is very, very different from a 5
player game.
> OK. So if I'm the richest guy here, I don't even need to play? I can
> just buy some players to play for me? REALLY???
People buy folks to play for them all the time in other games (i.e. "I'm
not the best basketball player in the world, but I want my team to win,
so I'll leverage getting this ringer on my team with money..."). But
other than that, I don't really know what you are talking about here.
> You are cheating just because you've accepted a bribery, and your
> "partner" is cheating because he suggested a bribe to you. That's
> enough to DQ both of you.
How am I cheating? If there was no money involved, I could make a deal
like that (i.e. give up a questionable position to help someone else).
How does having money in the equation suddenly make it cheating? You are
inventing rules in your head that don't currently exist.
> Who told you this? Collusion can be established during a game as well
> as any other time. Any deal that includes non-game things (money or
> something else) is a collusion.
I don't think collusion in this context means what you think it means.
> Well, $10.000 is a large sum for me (probably much larger than for
> you, since Belarus is a poor country), but my reputation is much more
> valuable for me, and I like this game too much to allow such things to
> happen. I would never participate in such deals.
That is nice to say now. But given the opportunity to legally say "Huh.
I could probably lose here and get nothing or I could throw my support
behind someone else and be guaranteed money...", most folks would take
the money. And that doesn't mean they are cheating.
In tournament poker, the final two players, more often than not, agree
to a prize split rather than playing till the bitter end, as head to
head poker is a long slow process. And if someone is behind going into
that point, they have all the incentive in the world to make a
reasonable split. This is in no way cheating (unless the rules
specifically say "no final two splitting"). And if you are playing for
money, it is totally reasonable. But if you are playing for not money,
there is no incentive at all to do this--you just play to the bitter end.
> One of us must be insane.
I think we have already established that...
> Look, we have a lot of VERY POOR players
> that would be happy to give up for $5, and we have some "rich" players
> that would be happy to pay these $5 to win. So, do you suggest us to
> play a game of "who gives more money?" instead of VTES?
No. That is exactly why I think having substantial cash prizes in VTES
is a bad idea.
Peter D Bakija
Johannes Walch <johanne...@vekn.de> wrote:
> Peter D Bakija schrieb:
> > Two player, duel type games are very well suited for significant cash
> > prizes, as diplomacy is not an issue.
>
> That is just dead wrong. One guy I know who was playing CCGs at a
> professional level (and making his living out of it) explained me how
> much collusion/bribing/cheating is going on behind the scenes of such
> duel games.
Collusion/bribing/cheating != diplomacy.
VTES is a game of table talk and diplomacy when you *aren't* cheating or
trying to rig the game. Table talk and diplomacy are an accepted, legal
part of the game.
In two player games, this is generally not the case--you are generally
expecting your opponent to do their best to kill you with their cards
and the rules, and they are expecting the same--table talk and diplomacy
have, on the accepted surface level, generally no impact on such a game.
I'm talking about table talk and diplomacy. You seem to be talking about
collusion/bribing/cheating. Which is something completely different.
bspaul
Time for some general comments. Some people who have responded have
confused my comments with the ones I posted from Chris.B. But this
happens when replying.
The idea of alternate, non-cash prizes, is interesting. However, in
my mind looking at only dollar amounts, a specially made ring or
replica walk of fame star, etc. still doesn't equal the $1700 invested
in making the NAC.
Perhaps "Big Money" is not needed in VTES. Perhaps a $2,000/top 5
player option would work best.
Collusion and cheating happen in the world of VTES. Its happened in
the past, it happens now, and it will continue to happen.
Would new players, who were jumping into VTES for the big money, spoil
the game? Maybe it would point out some of the problems in the game,
ie PTO/Weenie-Breed Swarm, etc. and provide the evidence to get them
fixed. It might make "the old timers" elevate their play to a whole
new level. Just because someone jumps into a game just to win money
doesn't necessarily mean they are automatically going to win. Maybe
some of these new players will actually be cool folks who will also
play casual during casual games? Using money as bait doesn't imply it
will only catch "the evil assholes". People all have different
personalities, no matter if you are playing VTES for 18 booster packs
or $1800. To be honest, I've met a few assholes playing VTES. I'm
sure some people I've faced think I am a total jerk. It happens. But
I have also met some really cool people playing VTES. I don't think
that experience would change with a big cash prize, except that I
would have the opportunity to meet more people (and perhaps find more
opportunities to play games, find people to trade with, etc.).
Jeff makes a point about the reason for why Oscar was hired. In my
opinion, I don't really see any big change in the tournament scene
since he's been a WW employee. One or two more storylines, but
otherwise it's been the same as it was. Of course I am not privy to
behind the scene schemes and plans.
In summary, the general theme that has appeared in this topic is that
WW should (and can now obviously afford) do more to advertise and
promote this game. The game needs to offer more to keep it from
totally falling off the radar and doing it's impression of the slow
withering. The game has got to bring a gun to a gun fight-a knife
just doesn't do it anymore these days. VTES has to "recruit" players
just like employers have to recruit new employees. If you don't offer
the same benefits as the business across the street, you won't attract
the same number of applicants. Prizes need to be increased to not
only attract new players, but to give something back to all the "old
timer" players and keep them interested. The core group of the
hardcore players needs to open up slightly to new ideas and efforts to
bring in new players. Why not try a bigger prize pool for a year or
two and see what happens? Would such an idea really bring about
Gehenna for VTES? Let's try something new, it just might bring the
game to a whole new level. Without change, things will stay the same
(prophetic stuff isn't it?). This topic has turned into a decent
discussion. I was afraid that without some abrasiveness from me, the
topic would've been killed quite quickly by the loyal "we play for the
fun of the game because that's the way we've done it for 13 years and
it works well enough for me" crowd that tends to be the regular ones
who read this group.
That is all.
Frederick Scott
news:Xns99797A0E34...@207.115.33.102...
Let me add an, "Amen, brothers!" One of the things that led me out of
Magic was that tournaments started becoming a lot less fun after the
first year or so. Too many hotshot assholes started showing up.
Granted, some of them were very good and winning tournaments become a
lot more challenging at that point but aside from that, I was just
finding I plain didn't like them. Man, that saps the fun out of
things.
Fred
Frederick Scott
news:1185469922.6...@z24g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
> Well,
>
> Time for some general comments. Some people who have responded have
> confused my comments with the ones I posted from Chris.B. But this
> happens when replying.
>
> The idea of alternate, non-cash prizes, is interesting. However, in
> my mind looking at only dollar amounts, a specially made ring or
> replica walk of fame star, etc. still doesn't equal the $1700 invested
> in making the NAC.
I think a lot of people think that what you got for your $1700 was at
the tournaments you attended. You paid the money and got to play good
competive games and tournaments and some of us happen to think that's
not too bad a deal in and of itself. For people who need a shot at
prizes that even begin to recoup their investment in cards and travel,
I still say this is not the game for them. This game simply cannot be
structured in a way that gurantees the level of fairness and impeccability
demanded for contests involving valuable prizes. Play-to-win is just
too nebulous, too subjective, and in some cases just plain impossible
to judge correctly. Unfortunately, the game really relies on the
sportsmanship of its players to avoid problems in these areas. And
if you inject large rewards into the mix, you won't get that in some
cases.
Fred
Xian
> There's also the Clan Wars format that Bernie ran at the first Week of
> Nightmares. That was *very* interesting.
I especially liked the part where one team failed to understand the
seating charts. ;)
Although it was fun, I thought that in general, the tournament was a
little sketchy. With the whole 6-player tables, and the knowing where
you would be seated ahead of time. Not that I wouldn't play it again,
it was just...a little too structured, I thought. Y'know?
But it was definitely awesome that Bernie came up with the idea and
ran it and all.
Xian
Giovanni FN starter 4tw...
witness1
> Well,
>
> Time for some general comments. Some people who have responded have
> confused my comments with the ones I posted from Chris.B. But this
> happens when replying.
>
> The idea of alternate, non-cash prizes, is interesting. However, in
> my mind looking at only dollar amounts, a specially made ring or
> replica walk of fame star, etc. still doesn't equal the $1700 invested
> in making the NAC.
No, it doesn't. Nor does $25,000 that someone else wins. But the game
provides enough enjoyment for a bunch of people to get out to the NAC
every year in *spite* of the cost. So maybe the prizes don't have to
match the expense after all?
> Perhaps "Big Money" is not needed in VTES. Perhaps a $2,000/top 5
> player option would work best.
And perhaps monetary prizes aren't needed at all.
> Collusion and cheating happen in the world of VTES. Its happened in
> the past, it happens now, and it will continue to happen.
The amount which these things happens matters. The results of these
things happening matters.
> Would new players, who were jumping into VTES for the big money, spoil
> the game? Maybe it would point out some of the problems in the game,
> ie PTO/Weenie-Breed Swarm, etc. and provide the evidence to get them
> fixed. It might make "the old timers" elevate their play to a whole
> new level. Just because someone jumps into a game just to win money
> doesn't necessarily mean they are automatically going to win. Maybe
> some of these new players will actually be cool folks who will also
> play casual during casual games? Using money as bait doesn't imply it
> will only catch "the evil assholes". People all have different
> personalities, no matter if you are playing VTES for 18 booster packs
> or $1800. To be honest, I've met a few assholes playing VTES. I'm
> sure some people I've faced think I am a total jerk. It happens. But
> I have also met some really cool people playing VTES. I don't think
> that experience would change with a big cash prize, except that I
> would have the opportunity to meet more people (and perhaps find more
> opportunities to play games, find people to trade with, etc.).
I'm not terribly afraid of "evil assholes" coming to ruin the game.
But the presence of a cash prize would alter _my_ mindset, to what I'm
afraid would be the detriment of my own enjoyment of the game.
Meanwhile, increased booster support, airfare to the next big Con,
etc., strike me as excellent, precisely because the large prize is
reinvested in the game, no matter who wins.
> Jeff makes a point about the reason for why Oscar was hired. In my
> opinion, I don't really see any big change in the tournament scene
> since he's been a WW employee. One or two more storylines, but
> otherwise it's been the same as it was. Of course I am not privy to
> behind the scene schemes and plans.
I'm not sure about big plans, but I'm fairly certain that Oscar's been
tirelessly running demos for potential new players at pretty much all
the major Conventions. At least, that's what I think he does. Which is
probably good for the game.
> In summary, the general theme that has appeared in this topic is that
> WW should (and can now obviously afford) do more to advertise and
> promote this game. The game needs to offer more to keep it from
> totally falling off the radar and doing it's impression of the slow
> withering. The game has got to bring a gun to a gun fight-a knife
> just doesn't do it anymore these days. VTES has to "recruit" players
> just like employers have to recruit new employees. If you don't offer
> the same benefits as the business across the street, you won't attract
> the same number of applicants. Prizes need to be increased to not
> only attract new players, but to give something back to all the "old
> timer" players and keep them interested. The core group of the
> hardcore players needs to open up slightly to new ideas and efforts to
> bring in new players. Why not try a bigger prize pool for a year or
> two and see what happens?
Heh. The game's not about prizes. I'd like to see it stay that way.
But increasing the prizes isn't a bad thing on its own.
> Would such an idea really bring about
> Gehenna for VTES? Let's try something new, it just might bring the
> game to a whole new level. Without change, things will stay the same
> (prophetic stuff isn't it?). This topic has turned into a decent
> discussion. I was afraid that without some abrasiveness from me, the
> topic would've been killed quite quickly by the loyal "we play for the
> fun of the game because that's the way we've done it for 13 years and
> it works well enough for me" crowd that tends to be the regular ones
> who read this group.
>
> That is all.
Heh. Actually, I think your _abrasiveness_ was annoying. And I
definitely think that discussion would have happened regardless. This
is a newsgroup. Constant yammering is what we do.
But thanks for providing an opposing viewpoint without being _too_
abrasive.
witness1.
atomweaver
news:pdb6-E3F40E.1...@news-server.stny.rr.com:
> In article <f8acbo$qdk$1...@news01.versatel.de>,
> Johannes Walch <johanne...@vekn.de> wrote:
>
>> Peter D Bakija schrieb:
>> > Two player, duel type games are very well suited for significant
>> > cash prizes, as diplomacy is not an issue.
>>
>> That is just dead wrong. One guy I know who was playing CCGs at a
>> professional level (and making his living out of it) explained me how
>> much collusion/bribing/cheating is going on behind the scenes of such
>> duel games.
>
> Collusion/bribing/cheating != diplomacy.
>
> snip
> I'm talking about table talk and diplomacy. You seem to be talking
> about collusion/bribing/cheating. Which is something completely
> different.
>
Yah, he is, and it is (J- was maybe talking past your point about
in-game diplomacy, but his point is still valid). Johannes meant that
cash prizes can attract an additional kind of player to a game, one that
colludes/bribes/cheats, because there's money to be gained in it. Cash
prizes attract players, yes. But they can also attract a greater
proportion of 'problem players', setting aside the rules of the game
(which is why this is a problem regardless of whether the game is
two-player or multi-player).
He's saying that being a fan of VTES playing in an environment that
cash prizes would create would suck rocks, becasue of the
money-hunting goobs a cash prize would attract... and I'm inclined to
agree.
DaveZ
AW
Peter D Bakija
atomweaver <atomw...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Yah, he is, and it is (J- was maybe talking past your point about
> in-game diplomacy, but his point is still valid).
Oh, sure. But it is a totally different point than I was addressing.
> Johannes meant that
> cash prizes can attract an additional kind of player to a game, one that
> colludes/bribes/cheats, because there's money to be gained in it.
Sure. Which I would never disagree with. But wasn't what I was talking
about :-)
XZealot
That's pretty amazing that before anyone is ousted that a player can
make the judgement call that paying someone to play kingmaker is going
to elevate them from 3rd to 1st place.
Try again, please
Comments Welcome,
Norman S. Brown, Jr
XZealot
Archon of the Sawmap
Shade
> > Johannes Walch <johannes.wa...@vekn.de> wrote in
> >> Even if this kind of prize would attract new players I am also not
> >> very fond of the type of players.
>
> > Quoted for truth! Well said, Johannes.
>
> Let me add an, "Amen, brothers!"
And one from me as well.
Simon
Pat
news:1185465815.7...@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com...
> On Jul 26, 11:23 am, librarian <aucti...@superfuncards.com> wrote:
>> lon...@dlc.fi wrote:
>>
>> > Uncut sheets could easily be used as prizes too, I assume.
>>
>> Blech. Personally, I can't stand uncut sheets. Boosters and Cash/Cash
>> equivalents (store/con credit) are universally acceptable prizes. Small
>> items are cool too, like an edge, or a ring, or something. But
>> something big and bulky and hard to transport without damaging like
>> uncut sheets - blech. Sorry.
>
> Include shipping as part of the prize.
>
Especially if the day after the event is a national holiday, resulting in
the only shipping place at the busiest airport in the country being closed.
:)
- Pat
not that that could ever happen
bluedevil
Xian wrote:
> I especially liked the part where one team failed to understand the
> seating charts. ;)
Hey man, it was the friggin' first WoN. Do you have any *idea* how
hung over I was for that one?
> Although it was fun, I thought that in general, the tournament was a
> little sketchy. With the whole 6-player tables, and the knowing where
> you would be seated ahead of time. Not that I wouldn't play it again,
> it was just...a little too structured, I thought. Y'know?
Yeah, I do. But I bet it could be tweaked successfully to have a more
random seating.
> But it was definitely awesome that Bernie came up with the idea and
> ran it and all.
Definitely, and maybe it could be resurrected at some future event.
> Xian
> Giovanni FN starter 4tw...
Cherryholmes....
.... who couldn't get his mitts on the Assamite starter (although
Jared rocked it pretty hard, and a rush deck sitting behind the
bleedzooka was the perfect strategy for the final table).
Blooded Sand
the winner/final five fr the next years NAC/EC, and the whole unique
artifact jobbies. Maybe a break where the winner gets accomodation and
flights, and the other 4 get flights. That would rock
Azel
> "bspaul" <bspa...@excite.com> wrote in message
> news:1185469922.6...@z24g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
>> Well,
>>
>> Time for some general comments. Some people who have responded have
>> confused my comments with the ones I posted from Chris.B. But this
>> happens when replying.
>>
>> The idea of alternate, non-cash prizes, is interesting. However, in
>> my mind looking at only dollar amounts, a specially made ring or
>> replica walk of fame star, etc. still doesn't equal the $1700 invested
>> in making the NAC.
Invested... invested. how i cannot stand that word in gamer culture --
and i come across it far too often. i always reply thus: Entertainment
is not an Investment.
Gold is an investment, bonds are an investment, stocks are an
investment, property is an investment. Entertainment, being the ephemera
that it is, is not an investment... unless you are willing to sit on
your ass with it for 50+ years and then try to find a market.
my atari and nintendo games, even some of my really rare ones, are not
investments. my books, including some rare, first edition, out-of-print
gaming books, are not an investment. unless you are planning to live
your retirement as an antiquarian, all the money you pour into the
consumption -- not production -- of entertainment is an utter craps
shoot of an 'investment.' your worth should be gained soon after the
mere act of consumption; anything beyond its transient life cycle is a
bonus.
there, my pet peeve ended.
now, if you really want to talk investments, objet d'art crafted by
known artisans can be an investment. so a special order porcelain Edge
by Lladro' (costing let's say $1700) would have roughly equivalent value
inside and outside the VTES market. which, if this would suit you, would
mean that you are possibly more pleased by the idea of in-kind rewards
than untested collectible value. (it could also potentially serve as
advertisement for the game, as well.)
> I think a lot of people think that what you got for your $1700 was at
> the tournaments you attended. You paid the money and got to play good
> competive games and tournaments and some of us happen to think that's
> not too bad a deal in and of itself. For people who need a shot at
> prizes that even begin to recoup their investment in cards and travel,
> I still say this is not the game for them.
and in this i heartily agree. if you are looking for significant prize
money, or restitution of a worth equivalent to your expenses, you should
be looking at other games. you should be looking at games like
CounterStrike, MtG, Bridge, or the big granddaddy -- Poker. you need a
market so large where there's enough high money players to cater to the
compensation of elite players. vtes just doesn't have that level of
saturation. and considering the nature of the game, as explained here...
This game simply cannot be
> structured in a way that gurantees the level of fairness and impeccability
> demanded for contests involving valuable prizes. Play-to-win is just
> too nebulous, too subjective, and in some cases just plain impossible
> to judge correctly. Unfortunately, the game really relies on the
> sportsmanship of its players to avoid problems in these areas. And
> if you inject large rewards into the mix, you won't get that in some
> cases.
>
> Fred
>
>
...it's too close to a pipe dream. there's so much social fluidity and
interaction that it complicates the means to get such foundational
benchmarks.
that said, i dig the "win tix to the euro championships, in Paris! :D"
method of compensation. it's an in-kind prize that has value both inside
and outside the world of vtes. also, unlike cash prizes, you can't
divide portions of your ticketed seat to butter up in-game deals. a
mixture of both in-kind compensation prizes, and unique objects of
status, could be a good compromise in trying to ratchet up the appeal of
the game.
what i would like, though, is a community assessment on where are we
having trouble recruiting and retaining players. is it rules, game
length, etc?
lon...@dlc.fi
> VTESinLA.org has a list of who owns what original art, and I didn't see
> your name there.
>
> http://vtesinla.org/art/artlist.asp
Sorry Chris,
I didn't even know that such list even existed and that you were
required to enter your originals there.
Since I'm not on the list it must mean I don't have any VTES originals
then... :)
Ta ta,
Lönkka
www.ahmametal.com
www.myspace.com/iwearnohelmet
Dorrinal Blackmantle
> > Historically one of
> > the things you do is have a big card tournement (one of the others is
> > to find the fattest ugliest guy on the boat, dub him "Baby Neptune",
> > and force blindfolded newbs to suck marishino cherries and lard out of
> > his belly button, and then there's the gross stuff I can't tell you
> > about).
>
> Dot
>
> Dot
>
> Dot
Ok, stop dots.
--
Dorrinal Blackmantle
Chantry Elder of Salt Lake City
Warlocks are broken.
Blooded Sand
wrote:
Dot it, dot it. Okay nuke it....