A Better [?] Tournament Scoring System
nys...@cs.com
following issue has been discussed before. I am proposing a
tournament scoring system that seems to be an improvement over the
current one, and I am interested in feedback and counterarguments.
THE PROPOSED SYSTEM
Same as the current system, except:
1) No messing around with half victory points in uncompleted games.
A player gets a full victory point for not being ousted (whether due
to withdrawal or due to still being in the game when time is called).
This means that for uncompleted games, just like completed games, the
number of victory points distributed among the players equals the
number of players in the game.
2) For uncompleted games, 3 victory points (including the one for not
being ousted, if applicable) are required for a game win. For
completed games, one can still get a game win with 2 victory points
(on those very rare occasion when no-one else has 2 victory points).
WHY IT IS BETTER
1) It is more accurate in predicting what the outcome of the game is
likely to be if the game were played to completion (see, for instance,
the example below).
2) It is less encouraging of the sort of fast-vote and fast-bleed
decks that tend to dominate tournaments.
AN EXAMPLE
The following example seeks show why the proposed system is better
than the current system in predicting game outcomes:
In a five-player game, A (playing a fast, aggressive deck) ousts B &
C, then runs out of steam and gets ousted by E. D and E remain in the
game when it gets called for time.
Under the current system, players A, B, C, D and E get 2, 0, 0, .5 and
1.5 victory points respectively. A gets awarded a game win, E takes
second place.
This result, however, is dead wrong under the original rules. The one
thing we know for certain is that, under the original rules, it is
impossible for A to win the game. The best he can hope for is a tie
for first place (which is not a win).
If the game is played to a finish, there are only 3 ways it can end,
only 2 of which are even remotely likely, and NONE of which result in
a win for player A. Either E will oust D, in which case E will have 3
victory points and a game win, or else D will oust E, taking 2 victory
points, and tying with A so that nobody takes a game win. The third
possibility, withdrawal, results in 2 victory points for E (no matter
who withdraws) which is also a tie game with no winner.
If ANYONE in this called-for-time game should be granted a game win,
it should clearly be Player E, since he is the only person who has any
chance of winning it if it is played to a finish. Indeed, if we make
allowances for the fact that a person who starts winning is likely to
keep winning, his odds of emerging as winner may be greater than 50%.
Player A should not get it -- he is only the most successful of the
proven losers.
The proposed system has a fairer result. The five players get 2, 0,
0, 1, 2. Nobody gets a game win and Players A and E tie for first
place.
We cannot know whether D will end the game with 0 vp or 2 vp, so we
split the difference and give him 1 vp. We cannot know whether E will
end the game with 1 vp or 3 vp, so we split the difference and give
him 2.
ANTICIPATING SOME COUNTERARGUMENTS
1. "The point of the game is to oust people, not to sit there and
survive."
If the point of the game is really that simple, it is only because the
current tournament rules have made it so by devaluing survival. The
rule-book says differently. The rule-book says that survival or
withdrawal is worth as much as the ousting of a single prey. Of
course, the rulebook requires that one do more than merely survive in
order to win the game. In addition to survival, you will probably
need to oust two prey to win a completed 5-player game (in rare
situations, one prey ousted plus survival will suffice). So yes, you
need to do more than survive to win, just as you need to achieve more
than a single oust to win; but that does not mean that a single oust
should be worth more than survival.
Yes, the rules do require ousting, and should require ousting. The
proposed system reflects those values accurately.
2. "The current system encourages all players to play quickly in
order to maximize victory points for themselves as well as the whole
table; your proposed system might give a player currently in the lead,
or anyone in danger of being ousted, an incentive to stall."
This is true to some extent, but the force of this argument is very
much abated by the fact that game wins are the primary measure of
tournament success, with victory point totals being used only as tie
breakers. Under the proposed system, a game win is far more likely in
a finished game than an unfinished one, and I think this is all the
incentive for speed that is needed. If the game does not make
substantial progress, then nobody gets a game win.
And, although I agree that it would be better if games would finish, I
also feel that there can be too much of a good thing. An excessive
"hurry hurry hurry" atmosphere of tournament play does not necessarily
make for a relaxing and enjoyable tournament experience.
3. "Long drawn out games are boring, and are one of the flaws of
V:TES. It is good that tournament rules alter the game environment by
encouraging people to design decks that have some hope of proving
their worth within a 2 hour time limit."
Personally, I rather like long, drawn-out epic games. I am
nonetheless willing to assume, for the sake of argument, that long
games are bad for V:TES.
My response, again, is that the need to score a "game win" (rather
than merely survive or score more victory points than anyone else at
the table) is sufficient encouragement for people to design reasonably
fast decks intended to make substantial progress (including oustings)
within the 2-hour time limit.
And whatever the hostility toward drawn out games, I cannot help also
noting substantial hostility towards the sort of fast bleed/vote decks
that tend to do well in tournaments. People bemoan the fact that they
cannot bring to tournaments the "interesting" decks that they reserve
for casual play.
Seems to me that the system I propose is a suitable compromise,
offering reasonable encouragement to decks that can demonstrate SOME
progress within 2 hours, but not unfairly rewarding the fast weenie
deck that scores two victory points before it runs out of steam and
gets ousted.
J
> being ousted, if applicable) are required for a game win. For
> completed games, one can still get a game win with 2 victory points
> (on those very rare occasion when no-one else has 2 victory points).
I disagree, and you've put in the main reason
> ANTICIPATING SOME COUNTERARGUMENTS
>
> 1. "The point of the game is to oust people, not to sit there and
> survive."
If I'm in a game where I know I can't win, I can choose to wall up to
the point that I'm now trying only to survive. Attack backwards/
xtable whatever to destabalise the environment just so that another
player cannot win the game. This in my opinion woud open the game up
to some pretty poor player attitudes. It will actually encourage
players IMO to try and sabotage other players games to prevent them
from getting the GW.
--> J
grail_pbem "at" hotmail.com
nys...@cs.com
J wrote:
> > 2) For uncompleted games, 3 victory points (including the one
> > for not being ousted, if applicable) are required for a game
> > win. For completed games, one can still get a game win with 2
> > victory points (on those very rare occasion when no-one else has
> > 2 victory points).
>
> I disagree, and you've put in the main reason
>
> > ANTICIPATING SOME COUNTERARGUMENTS
> >
> > 1. "The point of the game is to oust people, not to sit there
> > and survive."
I've already anticipated and responded to this argument -- but I'll
add another one. The argument simply proves too much. Not only does
it prove that a survivor should not get one victory point, but it also
proves that a survivor should not get a half victory point.
The question is not whether survivors should get credit, but how much
credit they should get. If you are not going to address that
question, then you have landed by accident in the wrong argument.
> If I'm in a game where I know I can't win, I can choose to wall up
> to the point that I'm now trying only to survive.
If you are really in a game where you "know you can't win" then you
can do this for a half victory point just as well as you can do it for
a whole victory point. Neither under the current system nor under the
proposed system is this strategy likely to be of much use in getting
you into the finals. Under either system, even a remote chance of a
game win is worth far more than any number of victory points without
such a win.
The single victory point you get for merely surviving is going to be
entirely worthless to you, especially if that is all your deck can
do. In a competitive environment, you need to do better than anyone
else, not merely keep the vp you brought to the table with you.
> Attack backwards/
> xtable whatever to destabalise the environment just so that another
> player cannot win the game. This in my opinion woud open the game > up to some pretty poor player attitudes. It will actually
> encourage players IMO to try and sabotage other players games to
> prevent them from getting the GW.
If this is really so, then why does not the current system have the
same effect? Are you objecting to my system, or to both systems. Do
you think that survivors should not even get the half point?
nys...@cs.com
J wrote:
> It will actually encourage
> players IMO to try and sabotage other players games to prevent them
> from getting the GW.
Incidentally, I did not understand this comment. As far as I know,
the point of the game is to win and prevent others from winning, and I
do not see how this is any more true under my proposed system than it
is under the current one.
Could you elaborate?
Bram Vink
> I have not been a regular poster here for a while, so forgive if the
> following issue has been discussed before. I am proposing a
> tournament scoring system that seems to be an improvement over the
> current one, and I am interested in feedback and counterarguments.
<snip proposed system>
> Seems to me that the system I propose is a suitable compromise,
> offering reasonable encouragement to decks that can demonstrate SOME
> progress within 2 hours, but not unfairly rewarding the fast weenie
> deck that scores two victory points before it runs out of steam and
> gets ousted.
Are those unfairly rewarded in the current system? Do you see many 2VP
gamewins by such decks?
The thing concerning timeouts and such weenie decks is that they often
do not happen simultaneously. I'd say there's an average of about 40
turns playable in 2 hours (educated guess, but just that. These are
turns all around the table) . If three people are ousted in the first
20 turns, that leaves 20 turns for 2 players to finish the game in.
Perhaps a few more in a 1v1 endgame. But timeouts and super aggressive
decks usually do not mix and match.
So whereas I'm not yet commenting on the actual proposed rules, my
question to you is, why would this change be neccessary? Is there a
need for this?
Cheers,
B
nys...@cs.com
> On 24 sep, 07:51, nyst...@cs.com wrote:
> > Seems to me that the system I propose is a suitable compromise,
> > offering reasonable encouragement to decks that can demonstrate SOME
> > progress within 2 hours, but not unfairly rewarding the fast weenie
> > deck that scores two victory points before it runs out of steam and
> > gets ousted.
>
> Are those unfairly rewarded in the current system? Do you see many 2VP
> gamewins by such decks?
I claim no expertise regarding the tournament environment. My own
limited experience in my own local groups is that weenie fast bleed
and weenie fast vote are alot less common than they used to be. There
still seems to be a fair amount of player hostility towards those kind
of decks, however. It therefore seems strange that such decks would
be deliberately favored by a skewed tournament scoring system that
goes out of its way to reward fast decks, as opposed to a system that
more accurately reflects the original rules.
Nor would I be much concerned about the tournament environment, if not
for the effect it is having on my local group. My local group is
influenced by the tournament environment -- games are always called
after two hours, and any victory after the two-hour time limit is
openly disparraged as something that does not really count. Indeed,
games are often called after 1 hour and 45 minutes, on the ground that
not enough time remains for anyone to score the sort of victory that
might count in tournaments.
I have also noticed the effect on me, whenever I consider which of my
OWN decks I would consider playing in a tournament. For instance, I
do have one or two fast weenie bleed decks (such as a mono-obfuscate
bleed deck with burnable stealth). This deck has some chance of
sweeping, but when it fails at this aim, frequently fails by scoring
one or two victory points and then getting ousted.
I have other decks, which seem just as likely -- if not more likely --
to win a completed game, but face a serious question as to whether
they can do this within a 2-hour time limit. They might well win a 3-
hour final, if only it could make it into the finals. To my mind it
is just as good a deck -- if not a better deck -- but it will not make
the finals, in part because the tournament rules -- for no good reason
that I can think of -- devalue survival in games called for time.
But I do not claim my experience is typical -- my argument does not
depend on my expertise. My argument depends simply on the fact that
tournament scoring distorts and poorly estimates the outcome of
unfinished games. Does it matter how often a deck scores two victory
points and then gets ousted in a five player game that is then called
for time? Bottom line is, no matter what kind of deck this is,
whether weenie bleed or a fascinating and creative intercept combat
deck, that the tournament rules award such decks a game win that it
does not (under the standard rules) deserve. It awards a game win to
a player who we know for a fact could not have won the game had it
been completed.
> The thing concerning timeouts and such weenie decks is that they often
> do not happen simultaneously. I'd say there's an average of about 40
> turns playable in 2 hours (educated guess, but just that. These are
> turns all around the table) . If three people are ousted in the first
> 20 turns, that leaves 20 turns for 2 players to finish the game in.
> Perhaps a few more in a 1v1 endgame. But timeouts and super aggressive
> decks usually do not mix and match.
The point of what you are saying is lost on me. Are you suggesting
that it is impossible, or extremely unlikely, for a player to score
two victory points, then be ousted, and then have the game called for
time among the two remaining players? I assure you that that can and
does happen. And when it does happen, the tournament scoring system
awards the game win to the wrong person.
But this is only an extreme and striking example of the undervalueing
of surviving decks in games that get called for time. EVERY time a
game gets called for time (and this is NOT an uncommon occurrence),
the surviving players get a half victory point less than what what a
fair assessment of the strength of their position would award them.
This is a very serious consideration when choosing one's decks for
tournament play, and effectively prevents me from playing many
interesting decks I might otherwise want to try.
Suppose their are 5 players left when the game gets called for time.
We know only that, if the game is finished, Player A could get as many
as 5 victory points, or he may get none at all. A fair averaging of
the possibilities leaves him with the victory point he brought to the
table with him -- in short -- everyone should get a victory point.
There is no reason to impose a half-point penalty, unless we
deliberately want to punish those decks that win after 2 hours and
fifteen minutes, as opposed to those decks that win after one hour and
fifteen minutes.
Suppose their are two players left in a 4-player game, each with a
victory point. If the game is played to completion, one of these
players will get one victory point, whereas the other will get three.
A fair averaging of these possibilities gives them each 2 victory
points, not one and a half.
The judge of the tournament needs to choose the fifth player in a
tournament consisting of three rounds and a final. The next two
players in line each have one game win, so victory points will
determine the final round. Player A scored 3 vp in round one
(completed game); 1 victory points in round 2 (ousted in completed
game), and 1 victory point in round 3 (ousted in game called for time
after earning 1 vp) for a total of 5 vp. Player B, however, had the
misfortune to be stuck in slow games. He scored 2.5 vp in round one
(called for time with 2 players left); 1.5 vp in round 2 (called for
time with three players left); and 0.5 vp in round 3 (called for time
with 3 players left). He gets only 4.5 vp and therefore is knocked
out of the final running by player A. But a fair assessment of their
respective positions is that Player B is the stronger player. Had the
games been permitted to finish, the probabilities are very very
strongly in favor of his emerging with the most victory points. Even
without taking into account the fact that winning players tend to keep
winning, the law of averages suggest he would receive 6 victory
points, not 4.5.
Of course, it is possible that, had the games finished, he would have
received 3 vps; but it is also possible that, had the games finished,
he would have received 11 vps and 3 game wins. 6 vps fairly reflects
the law of averages and the strength of his position in the game.
There seems no compelling reason to impose this penalty. The fact
that his failure to finish rounds 2 and 3 has potentially deprived him
of one or two game wins is in itself an enormous penalty. Why impose
more beyond that? It just doesn't make sense
> So whereas I'm not yet commenting on the actual proposed rules, my
> question to you is, why would this change be neccessary? Is there a
> need for this?
I think I have adequately explained the need. I am now waiting for
someone to suggest some kind of justification for the half-point
penalty we currently impose on players remaining in a game that gets
called for time.
Frederick Scott
news:1190657111....@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com...
I claim no expertise regarding the tournament environment. My own
> limited experience in my own local groups is that weenie fast bleed
> and weenie fast vote are alot less common than they used to be. There
> still seems to be a fair amount of player hostility towards those kind
> of decks, however. It therefore seems strange that such decks would
> be deliberately favored by a skewed tournament scoring system that
> goes out of its way to reward fast decks, as opposed to a system that
> more accurately reflects the original rules.
Granted, fast weeny decks are always a problem in that they're hard things
for which to specifically build counter-decks. I mean, you _can_ build
counter decks for them, certainly, but not too many such decks are
otherwise viable in the greater metagame. So, acknowledging that, the
game also has (IMO) a distinct problem with decks which are too slow.
In this case, we're talking about fighty, intercepty combat decks which
stop up the whole table as they slowly build up and make it extremely
difficult for the anyone on the table to win except them - and they often
don't win either. Thus, the whole table gets punished for one deck's
"sins". Although your proposal would hurts them in a certain way (making
it difficult for them to get a game win if they don't finish the game)
and helps their opponents in a certain way (granting a whole VP for a
time-out), I think realistically it rewards them more (more whole victory
points for situations where they fail to win) and hurts their opponents
more (mainly their prey who feels little forward pressure from them may
get two VP but be unable to oust the intercepty deck) and so I wouldn't
think this was a positive proposal.
In general, the choice of the current GW criteria and withdrawal/time-out
rewards have been settled on from years of experience. They still strike
me as the best ones, absent more cogent reasons for changing them than
you've presented.
> I have also noticed the effect on me, whenever I consider which of my
> OWN decks I would consider playing in a tournament. For instance, I
> do have one or two fast weenie bleed decks (such as a mono-obfuscate
> bleed deck with burnable stealth). This deck has some chance of
> sweeping, but when it fails at this aim, frequently fails by scoring
> one or two victory points and then getting ousted.
This seems like a reason not to play them to me. So I'm confused what
your point is, here. I believe Darby Keeny played a weeny presence
bleed deck yesterday in the second day of the NAC. (Not absolutely sure
of the details since I didn't see him playing it but going from one of
his opponent's and his own description of it.) He got one table sweep
and nothing else (I believe) and failed to make the finals.
> There is no reason to impose a half-point penalty, unless we
> deliberately want to punish those decks that win after 2 hours and
> fifteen minutes, as opposed to those decks that win after one hour and
> fifteen minutes.
We deliberately want to punish those decks that win after 2 hours and
fifteen minutes, as opposed to those decks that win after one hour and
fifteen minutes, yes. The trouble with the former is that they make
it very difficult for OTHER decks to win at all. Thus, in a tournament
in which the time limit is two hours, you should be punished for bringing
a deck which has difficulty winning in less than two hours. Granted, the
penalty will also hit your opponents in that game - but since it's your
deck, you will get penalized all the time and your opponents will only
be penalized in the games they play with you. It's not a perfect answer
but it's the only one we really have.
> There seems no compelling reason to impose this penalty. The fact
> that his failure to finish rounds 2 and 3 has potentially deprived him
> of one or two game wins is in itself an enormous penalty. Why impose
> more beyond that? It just doesn't make sense
Why not? People REALLY shouldn't be bringing such decks. In fact, in
my observation people do bring slow decks sometimes and certain players
are good enough to win with them often enough that the payoff works for
them. But they should not be rewarded with a whole victory point for the
games which they fail to bring to a conclusion within the time limit.
Fred
nys...@cs.com
Frederick Scott wrote:
> In this case, we're talking about fighty, intercepty combat decks
> which stop up the whole table as they slowly build up and make it
> extremely difficult for the anyone on the table to win except
> them - and they often don't win either. Thus, the whole table
> gets punished for one deck's "sins". Although your proposal would
> hurts them in a certain way (making it difficult for them to get a
I will respond to your other points later (it might take a while,
since I disagree with almost everything you say) but I want to get one
point out of the way, since it is an easy point.
You are mistaken about my current proposal making it harder for
intercept decks to score game wins. My current proposal makes it
almost exactly as hard for intercept decks to score a game win as the
current tournament rules do. To score a game win in an unfinished
game under my proposal, the intercept deck needs not merely to
survive, but also to score two ousts -- exactly as under the current
system.
The only way my proposal prevents intercept decks from gaining game
wins is by NOT giving a game win to an intercept deck that scores 2
vp's and then gets ousted. But this is not an outcome that is very
likely with intercept decks.
Frederick Scott
<nys...@cs.com> wrote in message news:1190674549.7...@y42g2000hsy.googlegroups.com...
>
> Frederick Scott wrote:
>> In this case, we're talking about fighty, intercepty combat decks
>> which stop up the whole table as they slowly build up and make it
>> extremely difficult for the anyone on the table to win except
>> them - and they often don't win either. Thus, the whole table
>> gets punished for one deck's "sins". Although your proposal would
>> hurts them in a certain way (making it difficult for them to get a
>> game win if they don't finish the game) [...]
>
> I will respond to your other points later (it might take a while,
> since I disagree with almost everything you say) but I want to get one
> point out of the way, since it is an easy point.
>
> You are mistaken about my current proposal making it harder for
> intercept decks to score game wins.
That's an interesting contention. Maybe I'm missing something - which
I certainly do from time to time - but could you please list what
the conditions are in which any kind of deck could get a GW under
your system where it wouldn't get one under the old system? I believe
the only ones would involve withdrawal, which is extremely difficult
to pull off absent player agreements. My experience is that withdrawals
in tournaments are extremely rare.
> The only way my proposal prevents intercept decks from gaining game
> wins is by NOT giving a game win to an intercept deck that scores 2
> vp's and then gets ousted.
OK, I see that I erred in claiming that it would make it harder for
them to get a game win in an unfinished game since if they had 1 and
1/2 VPs under the current system, they would have 2 VPs under your
proposal - not a GW in either case. And if they had 2 1/2 VPs under
the current system, they would get 3 VPs under your proposal which
is a GW in either system. Thus I stand corrected. None the less,
you likewise pointed out a way in which it would be harder for them
to get game wins under your proposal yet you hold that overall, it
helps intercept decks (whether by helping them get game wins is
disputed, apparently). Thus our positions are the same in this sense.
It's just that we differ whether there is any overall goodness to the
idea of helping or encouraging these sorts of decks in timed tournament.
Fred
nys...@cs.com
> Maybe I'm missing something - which
> I certainly do from time to time - but could you please list what
> the conditions are in which any kind of deck could get a GW under
> your system where it wouldn't get one under the old system?
I am not sure I understand why you are asking the question. Did I
ever say anything to imply that my proposed system would EVER have
such an effect?
It does make slower decks (but not the slowest decks) marginally more
competitive -- but not by granting them game wins. One (very
marginal) way it help them is to prevent faster competition from being
awarded game wins in games where they certainly would not have won a
completed game. A more substantive benefit is the advantage in
victory points, but the effect is not earth shattering since this is
only used as a tie-breaker for game wins.
Of course, if a slower deck makes it into the 3-hour final, as a
result of the above advantages, it may end up winning the tournament
(taking full advantage of the extra time to prove its worth), which is
a game win it would not have otherwise achieved.
It is a cautious and modest proposal, neither intended nor likely to
have any radical effect on the game environment.
> I believe
> the only ones would involve withdrawal, which is extremely difficult
> to pull off absent player agreements. My experience is that withdrawals
> in tournaments are extremely rare.
I agree -- which perhaps explains why I did not bother mentioning it.
Peter D Bakija
> 1) No messing around with half victory points in uncompleted games.
> A player gets a full victory point for not being ousted (whether due
> to withdrawal or due to still being in the game when time is called).
> This means that for uncompleted games, just like completed games, the
> number of victory points distributed among the players equals the
> number of players in the game.
Hmm. You may have missed all the brujaja in recent months, but there
is a lot of concern over games timing out by design (more or less),
and givine even greater incentive to time out (i.e. getting 1VP for
timing out instead of .5) makes timing out even more attractive--if
simply surviving is as good as ousting your prey, in situations where
you think you can only oust your one prey but it is risky, it becomes
more beneficial simply to wall up and survive, rather than taking the
risky option to try and oust your prey.
Anything that removes incentive to oust your prey is Bad.
> 2) It is less encouraging of the sort of fast-vote and fast-bleed
> decks that tend to dominate tournaments.
Why? Fast decks will still oust and get VPs, as fast decks don't
benefit from slwing the game down. They benefit from ousting their
prey.
> If the point of the game is really that simple, it is only because the
> current tournament rules have made it so by devaluing survival.
The game is about ousting your prey.
> The
> rule-book says differently. The rule-book says that survival or
> withdrawal is worth as much as the ousting of a single prey.
A) Withdrawing from the game is generally considerably harder than
simply surviving till the game runs out of time.
B) The tournament rules currently stipulate you only get .5 VP for
withdrawing anyway. To remove the incentive to use withdrawl as a
dealmaking tool. To encourage folks to oust their prey.
> Yes, the rules do require ousting, and should require ousting. The
> proposed system reflects those values accurately.
Yet gives more incentive to not try and oust your prey if it seems
risky to do so and gives more incentive to try and just wall up and
make the game time out if you are in a bad position.
If you get .5 VP for surviving and 1 VP for ousting your prey,
however, there is *always* concrete incentive to try and go forward.
Even if it is risky. As the reward for the risk outweighs the reward
for inaction.
> And whatever the hostility toward drawn out games, I cannot help also
> noting substantial hostility towards the sort of fast bleed/vote decks
> that tend to do well in tournaments. People bemoan the fact that they
> cannot bring to tournaments the "interesting" decks that they reserve
> for casual play.
I, for one, would much rather see games that have fast decks and
result in people getting ousted than not.
-Peter
Frederick Scott
news:1190728181.9...@r29g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> On Sep 24, 7:22 pm, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote:
>> Maybe I'm missing something - which
>> I certainly do from time to time - but could you please list what
>> the conditions are in which any kind of deck could get a GW under
>> your system where it wouldn't get one under the old system?
>
> I am not sure I understand why you are asking the question. Did I
> ever say anything to imply that my proposed system would EVER have
> such an effect?
Sort of, yea. If it's exactly as hard to get a GW and you can no longer
get one after gaining two VP and being ousted, there must be another
situation somewhere else to make up for that. But never mind, in
truth it's mostly that I misread what you were claiming in your
previous post. I note that it's also harder for others to get game wins
by ousting two players and then being ousted when a game times out -
since the opponent who ousted them will now have two VP and tie them
whereas before the latter would only have 1 and 1/2 VP. (And the time-
out goal of 3 VP would be in effect - something the ousted player no
longer has any power over despite it affecting him.) So that's
another kind of 'reward' (i.e. preventing an opponent from getting a
GW) for a deck that didn't show enough offense to resolve the game in
two hours. Bad.
> It is a cautious and modest proposal, neither intended nor likely to
> have any radical effect on the game environment.
Perhaps not - except in its tendency to cause more tied (and thus
unawarded) game wins. But it just rewards exactly the wrong style of
play, IMHO.
Fred
nys...@cs.com
> I note that it's also harder for others to get game wins
> by ousting two players and then being ousted when a game times out -
> since the opponent who ousted them will now have two VP and tie them
> whereas before the latter would only have 1 and 1/2 VP.
Right. This was the example I chose for my original post.
> (And the time-
> out goal of 3 VP would be in effect - something the ousted player no
> longer has any power over despite it affecting him.)
I'm not sure what you mean, but I suspect you are making a mistake.
You seem to be accusing my proposal of a flaw of which it is quite
innocent, but which the current system is actually guilty.
Only in extremely rare situtations can you score a game win with 2
victory points in a completed 4 or 5-player game. One of these rare
situations involves withdrawals by multiple players, and is not even
worth discussing. In the other, E gets ousted by D, who in turn gets
ousted by C, who in turn gets ousted by B, who in turn gets ousted by
A, permitting a situation where A, B, C, D, and E get 2, 1, 1, 1 and 0
vps respectively. What makes this situation so ridiculously unlikely
is that it always requires the last person to score a vp to be the
next person ousted, despite the fact that ousting normally strengthens
a player by earning them pool. In short, a 2 vp victory is merely a
theoretical possiblity that no-one should expect. The normal
requirement for victory in a 4 or 5 player game is 3 vp.
Being ousted normally means a non-win. In a 5-player game, a person
who finally gets ousted by the last player after ousting everyone else
is the winner with 3 vps, but this is the only exception that exists
in games with fewer than six players. There are NO situations where,
in a completed game, an ousted person with 2 victory points can win.
When person scores two victory points and then gets ousted, the
theoretical possibility of a 2vp victory is no longer a possiblity --
this game will be won by someone gaining 3 vps, or it will not be won
at all. Depending on what happens next, he will either tie with a
player for 2 vp, or lose to a player with 3 victory points. He will
not win. Period.
Under my proposed system, he is not granted a game win merely because
the last two people standing fail to finish the game. He is NOT
affected by what they do after he is ousted.
Under the current system, he WILL be granted a game win if the last
two players are called for time, and WON'T be granted a game win if
they manage to finish the game. So it is the CURRENT system that
punishes or rewards him based on what happens after he is ousted.
In fact (and I only just thought of this) this scenario could give one
of the last two players an incentive to throw the game to his
opponent, in order to deprive Player A (who scored 2 vps and then got
ousted) or a game win. If this scenario, one of the last 2 players
(player E) has 1 vp, and the other (Player D) has 0 vp. If the game
goes to time, A will win with 2, 0, 0, 1.5, 0.5. But if player E lets
himself be ousted D, then he will prevent A from getting a game win at
a cost of a half-victory point. This creates a final score of 2, 0,
0, 1, 2 -- and nobody gets a game win. Player E might consider this a
perfecely reasonable option if, in the last 5 minutes of the game, he
realizes he cannot oust his opponent and get the game win himself.
Despite the cost of a half vp, depriving an opponent of a game win
could maximize Player E's chances of making it into the finals.
My proposed system avoids such silliness.
I still have to respond to your other points. Forgive me if I take my
time. Writing is exhausting for me, and I seem to be quite
outnumbered here.
Frederick Scott
news:1190758375.9...@50g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...
> On Sep 25, 12:50 pm, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote:
>> I note that it's also harder for others to get game wins
>> by ousting two players and then being ousted when a game times out -
>> since the opponent who ousted them will now have two VP and tie them
>> whereas before the latter would only have 1 and 1/2 VP.
>
> Right. This was the example I chose for my original post.
...and another thing that I would deem a negative, since the ousted
player (one would assume) took risks to resolve the game sooner (a
good thing in my value system) whereas the player who (one would
assume) had the upper hand at the end of the game failed to move
aggressively enough to resolve it (a bad thing in my value system).
I strongly prefer the former get a game win and the latter be
penalized.
>> (And the time-
>> out goal of 3 VP would be in effect - something the ousted player no
>> longer has any power over despite it affecting him.)
>
> I'm not sure what you mean, but I suspect you are making a mistake.
> You seem to be accusing my proposal of a flaw of which it is quite
> innocent, but which the current system is actually guilty.
>
> Only in extremely rare situtations can you score a game win with 2
> victory points in a completed 4 or 5-player game. One of these rare
> situations involves withdrawals by multiple players, and is not even
> worth discussing. In the other, E gets ousted by D, who in turn gets
> ousted by C, who in turn gets ousted by B, who in turn gets ousted by
> A, permitting a situation where A, B, C, D, and E get 2, 1, 1, 1 and 0
> vps respectively. What makes this situation so ridiculously unlikely
> is that it always requires the last person to score a vp to be the
> next person ousted, despite the fact that ousting normally strengthens
> a player by earning them pool. In short, a 2 vp victory is merely a
> theoretical possiblity that no-one should expect. The normal
> requirement for victory in a 4 or 5 player game is 3 vp.
(Just as an aside...)
Well, actually this is the archetypical "back-oust" and is not all that
rare. Certain kinds of decks are constructed to back-oust (but aren't
considered mainstream, of course, because so many things can go wrong)
and sometimes rush decks do it more or less by accident (either by
encountering successive predators who can only be neutralized through
their utter destruction or by accidentally destroying them). Granted,
it's not a common occurrence but it happens - especially in four-
player games.
> Being ousted normally means a non-win.
It depends on what you mean. Under the current system, two VPs before
oust can be a game win, if the remaining players are ineffective in
ousting one another before time. I believe that's how if should be.
Your change would eliminate that feature. My parenthetical comment
you wished to respond to above was just to point out that the standard
for a game win hinges on whether the game was completed or not and the
ousted player has no control over that. Nothing more. If your reply
is just that under your proposed system it doesn't matter (since he isn't
going to get a game win either way), OK - so noted. It wasn't really
important anyway which was why I used the parenthesis.
> In fact (and I only just thought of this) this scenario could give one
> of the last two players an incentive to throw the game to his
> opponent, in order to deprive Player A (who scored 2 vps and then got
> ousted) or a game win. If this scenario, one of the last 2 players
> (player E) has 1 vp, and the other (Player D) has 0 vp. If the game
> goes to time, A will win with 2, 0, 0, 1.5, 0.5. But if player E lets
> himself be ousted D, then he will prevent A from getting a game win at
> a cost of a half-victory point. This creates a final score of 2, 0,
> 0, 1, 2 -- and nobody gets a game win. Player E might consider this a
> perfecely reasonable option if, in the last 5 minutes of the game, he
> realizes he cannot oust his opponent and get the game win himself.
> Despite the cost of a half vp, depriving an opponent of a game win
> could maximize Player E's chances of making it into the finals.
Sure. But, in practice, it seldom does. And, for what it's worth, that
kind of reasoning is illegal because it doesn't pass muster under the
play-to-win rule. Tournament standing is considered an "out-of-game
motivation". In practice, this is difficult to enforce because in many
instances the judge would have to read player E's mind to have any
evidence that an illegal play happened. But at the very least, it
prevents the remaining players from speaking of this and making
out-loud deals around it.
> My proposed system avoids such silliness.
It isn't really considered a problem, as far as I know. If a player is
on the bubble, the 1/2 victory point makes the difference between him
and anyone else he's tied with for game wins and victory points or could
become tied with (thus leaving it to tournament points and/or
randomization). Preventing player A from gaining a game win only helps
him against player A. If he has knowledge that player A is the only
player he needs to compete with for that last spot in the finals and
that preventing player A from getting a game win is the only way to do
it, this might make a difference. But in a tournament with eight or more
players, that is almost never the case and when it is, player E will
seldom be aware of it. Trust me, this is a miniscule thing.
> I still have to respond to your other points. Forgive me if I take my
> time. Writing is exhausting for me, and I seem to be quite
> outnumbered here.
Well, the obvious issue is the original one cited: why reward decks that
are so slow and deliberate that they excessively risk going to time and
preventing all players from getting a game win? If we have any other
real issues beyond that, I fail to see what they could be.
Fred
nys...@cs.com
> On Sep 24, 1:51 am, nyst...@cs.com wrote:>
> > 1) No messing around with half victory points in uncompleted
> > games. A player gets a full victory point for not being ousted
> > (whether due to withdrawal or due to still being in the game when
> > time is called). This means that for uncompleted games, just like
> > completed games, the number of victory points distributed among
> > the players equals the number of players in the game.
>
> Hmm. You may have missed all the brujaja in recent months, but
> there is a lot of concern over games timing out by design (more or
I did a bit of searching, and all I could find recently was some posts
about FINALISTS who seem willing to permit the final round to go to
time because they don't need a "game win" to win the tournament. But
this can hardly be what you had in mind. As I am sure you realize --
my proposed system has no affect on such dynamics whatsoever, for
better or worse.
Since you said "by design" I guess you are talking about players
deliberately orchestrating "time outs", and not merely talking about
issues of game design and game mechanics that make survival too easy
and ousting too hard. If the problem is merely one of game design &
game mechanics, resulting in games running too long (whatever you
think "too long" is), then the solution, in my opinion, is for the
design team to print new cards that tend to promote faster games. I'm
sure the design team has been doing just that -- and/or will do just
that -- to the extent that they perceive a problem.
Unless you want to actually ban blood dolls and bleed defense (and
such), then printing new cards that promote fast games seems to me the
ONLY solution to any alleged problem. Such a solution does NOT involve
blaming the players when their games go to time, nor should it.
Virtually all players are doing the best they can to win the game --
which is exactly what they should be doing.
Until you elaborate, I will presume you are discussing the same
phenomenon I have noticed. The problem I have noticed is players
getting understandably frustrated when games go to time because a time
out HURTS THEM by depriving them -- not only of their hopes of of
victory -- but also of the reasonable value of their reasonable
expectations. To use the simplest example: If 2 players are left in
a game, it is reasonable to suppose that, if the game is permitted to
continue indefinitely, one will eventually oust the other. In other
words, each has about 50-50 chance of winning 2 victory points (above
and beyond whatever they may have already earned). As any gambler or
mathematician knows, a 50-50 chance of 2 vp is worth one vp, not half
a vp.
A more negative aspect of this phenomenon of understandable player
frustration is the phenomenon of mean-spirited, petulant and
unsportsmanlike players, unhappy at the game outcome, taking out their
otherwise-understandable frustration at what they call "Bad Players"
who kept everyone else (and especially a Certain Someone) from gaining
victory points, without scoring any victory points themselves. I
seriously hope that whiny losers of this variety have not been getting
a sympathetic ear on this NG. To my mind, petulant tantrume directed
at one's fellow losers is even more reprehensible than petulance at
the winner. At least the winner knows he won and can laugh in your
face. But the fellow loser often knows that (to some extent) he did
play badly -- that's why he lost, and the whiny loser may succeed in
making him feel bad. But it the whiny loser were honest with himself,
he would acknowledge that he does not really want his opponent to play
better -- he wants them to play worse.
My solution to this problem (both the understandable frustration and
the unsportsmanlike petulance) would be to reduce player frustration
by granting players the fair victory-point value of their position in
the game when it times out.
This will not (as a general rule) make them WANT games to time out,
because, under my system, one still needs to score two ousts for a
game win. The only people (apart from tournament finalists discussed
above) likely to WANT to "merely" surive til time out under my
proposed system are people who have already scored two ousts and are
therefore guaranteed a game win provided no-one ousts them (and it is
hardly fair to call that "merely" surviving til time out). But this
is not a flaw compared to the current system, because the current
system works almost exactly the same way in this regard.
> [...] and giving even greater incentive to time out (i.e. getting 1VP
> for timing out instead of .5) makes timing out even more attractive--
This, to me, seems somewhat analogous to saying that letting drivers
wear seatbelts while driving makes crashing their car more
attractive. It may be, in some very marginal sense, true that if we
don't let drivers wear seatbelts they might drive a tiny bit more
carefully, but on the whole it is a poor argument against seatbelts.
My proposed system is not going to make players any more eager for 5-
way tie games than current drivers are eager to crash their cars. I
expect players will still try to win the game in much the same that
seatbelted drivers will still try to avoid crashing into other
vehicles. They just might be a little less unhappy when they fail,
since they will not be unfairly treated compared.
> [...] if simply surviving is as good as ousting your prey, in
> situations where you think you can only oust your one prey but it
> is risky, it becomes more beneficial simply to wall up and survive,
> rather than taking the risky option to try and oust your prey.
First of all, a single oust IS worth the same as survival. The rules
(which are applied more or less intact in completed games even in
tournaments) say so. If you don't like that, you can advocate that
the rules be changed. It would certainly be possible to have a game
where only ousts were counted as victory points. In such a game, one
who scored 2 ousts in a 4-player game would win, even if the final
player then ousted him.
This would also create a situation where granting a half vp for
survival in uncompleted games would (for 2 surviving players) more or
less fairly reflect the strength of their position in the game (the
one remaining vp is divided equally between them).
Under the current rules, however, the above situation is a tie game,
despite the fact that the surviving player has only one oust, wheras
his opponent has two ousts.
An oust is worth the same as ultimate survival. However, you
generally need 3 vps for a game win, and you can only survive once, so
ousts are (collectively) more important than being the last player
standing.
It hardly follows, however, that players will roll over and let
themselves be ousted if we give them the right incentive. An ousted
methuselah can do nothing. Not only has he no chance whatsoever of
ousting his prey, but he cannot even have fun playing his cards and
learning what it is about his deck that works and what does not.
> Anything that removes incentive to oust your prey is Bad.
Irrelevant, since my proposed system does not remove the incentive to
oust your prey. Two ousts are still required for a game win (ignoring
rare exceptions).
But if you mean something more than that, you have said too much. You
cannot really mean that anything which has any potential whatsoever to
prolong a game is bad.
If you really mean what you say, perhaps you think the game would be
even better if the players received NO points for surviving in timed
out games. Then they would be in even more of a panic to finish;
would take greater risks. They might even deliberately oust
themselves (after a coin flip) to let the game finish (doesn't cost
them anything).
We could try as an experiment a game where we simply raced to see who
could be the first to score an oust. That person would be declared
the winner, period! But if, after trying such an experiment, you
found you were dissatisfied, and wanted to return to the old way, an
opponent could counter with "anything that removes your incentive to
oust your prey is bad."
> > 2) It is less encouraging of the sort of fast-vote and fast-bleed
> > decks that tend to dominate tournaments.
>
> Why?
For the reasons I stated. No need to repeat myself since I am sure
you understood me.
> Fast decks will still oust and get VPs, [...]
Indeed. My proposal is neither intended nor likely to have any
radical effects.
> > If the point of the game is really that simple, it is only
> > because the current tournament rules have made it so by
> > devaluing survival.
>
> The game is about ousting your prey.
Please stop pretending you didn't understand me. Please stop
pretending I am trying to eliminate the need for ousting. I am
perfectly aware that ousting is required, and should be required, for
victory, and you are arguing with a straw man if you try to pretend
otherwise.
However, under the current rules for completed games, the number of
ousts is not the only factor used to determine victory. If you think
it SHOULD be the only factor, then say so, but don't pretend that is
how it IS.
A person who scores a single oust, and then gets ousted, gets one
victory point. A person who merely avoids getting ousted, and
survives until the last person in the game withdraws, gets one victory
point.
Neither are winners, because 3 vps are generally needed for victory in
a 4-5 player game. But the "mere" single-ouster is not rated higher
than the "mere" survivor.
If you think it should be otherwise, then we need to change the rules.
> > The
> > rule-book says differently. The rule-book says that survival or
> > withdrawal is worth as much as the ousting of a single prey.
>
> A) Withdrawing from the game is generally considerably harder than
> simply surviving till the game runs out of time.
I'm not sure why you are telling me this. I only mentioned withdrawal
for completeness, to avoid the annoyance of someone coming correcting
me.
> B) The tournament rules currently stipulate you only get .5 VP for
> withdrawing anyway. To remove the incentive to use withdrawl as a
> dealmaking tool. To encourage folks to oust their prey.
I don't think it was primarily "To encourage folks to oust their
prey." I think it was understood that the players already had that
incentive, and only resorted to the withdrawal device when they
realized that their hopes and efforts had failed.
I just think it was felt that, if one of several players cannot
overcome the others, he should not gain more victory points in the
final round by agreeing to a draw by one method rather than by
another. It is simply an abuse of the withdrawal rule to use it for
such purposes. It takes advantage of the tension between the rules
for completed games and the rules for uncompleted games. A 5-way draw
is a 5-way draw is a 5-way draw. A deadlock is a deadlock is a
deadlock. Why should a 5-way draw at one table give its players more
points than a 5-way draw at another table? If you have not, in any
way, bested your opponents, why should you gain extra credit?
But such problems still potentially exist under the current rules.
Imagine 5 players left at the table. Each player has 5 or more
minions, but 5 or less pool. With 15 seconds to go, Player A calls
Ancilla Empowerment. Everyone with votes sees the implications and
votes in favor. Everyone gets ousted simultaneously, and everyone
gets a victory point. Meanwhile, a similarly deadlocked game at a
nearby table goes to time, and everyone there gets a half victory
point.
The second situation is an abuse for the same reason that the first
situation is an abuse. It gives the players extra credit despite the
fact that no player at the table got the better of any other person at
the table.
Note that the problem, in the second situation, is not that the player
was not interested in ousting his prey. If anything, he was too
interested in ousting his prey. He ousted his prey under
circumstances where ousting bore no relationship whatsoever to winning
or besting his opponents.
Victory points should be awarded based on one's success in besting
other players at your table. You should not be competing with other
tables, by trying to maximize the total number of victory points
distributed at your table compared to other tables. The number of
vp's handed out at a table should always be the same -- 1 vp per
player -- regardless of whether the game gets called for time.
My proposal eliminates both abuses (without skewing the results for
completed games where withdrawal occurs).
> > Yes, the rules do require ousting, and should require ousting.
> > The proposed system reflects those values accurately.
>
> Yet gives more incentive to not try and oust your prey if it seems
> risky to do so and gives more incentive to try and just wall up and
> make the game time out if you are in a bad position.
I'm sorry, but that's pretty much what one SHOULD do if one is in a
bad position. Nobody has an obligation to give up and let themselves
be ousted just because they realize they cannot score a game win. I
see no evidence that anyone is walling up under any other
circumstances, nor am I inclined to second guess the judgment of other
players.
Of course, one can and does take risks in Jyhad, in the hope of
victory. But, for reasons explained below, this does not depend very
much on the price tag you place on survival.
> If you get .5 VP for surviving and 1 VP for ousting your prey,
> however, there is *always* concrete incentive to try and go
> forward. Even if it is risky. As the reward for the risk outweighs
> the reward for inaction.
I understand what you are saying. It is sort of a gambler's
argument. Suppose Player A says to himself -- "If I tap out all my
minions, I have a 40 percent chance of earning a dollar, but on the
downside, their is also an independent 50 percent chance that I will
lose a dollar. On the average, I can expect to lose 10 cents on this
deal, I won't do it." But if you reduce the potential loss to 50
cents, then the equation is (.40 times 1,00 is .40) minus (.50 time .
50 is .25) equals a situation where on average the gambler can earn 15
cents, and therefore thinks it a good deal to go forward.
The problem is that, in jyhad, a player the point is not to count
pennies. The point is to win the game, by beating your opponents, and
not letting them beat you.
A player who gets ousted does not lose 50 cents; he does not lose a
dollar. He loses the game, and gets kicked out of the game. I know
there are rare exceptions. In a 5 player game, for instance, a player
who scores 3 ousts is a victor even if he then gets ousted. But to
achieve this he had to survive at least long enough to score three
ousts -- in fact, despite the fact that he was the last player
standing, he had to survive until the very end of the game.
A player who lets himself be one of the first 2 or 3 players ousted in
a game has failed. He has failed regardless of any silly attempts to
place a discounted value on his survival. He has no chance of earning
any future victory points. He does not even have the reward of being
able to have fun playing around with his cards so he can learn how to
make his deck better.
He came to win (something he generally cannot do without surviving til
the end of the game), and, failing that, he came to score an oust or
two (something he cannot do without surviving a substantial part of
the game), and failing that, he came to get that lousy half vp he gets
for surviving under the current system, and, failing that, he came to
hold out as long as possible before being ousted so he could spend as
much time as possible playing cards and having fun and as little time
as possible sitting on the sidelines feeling bored. You really think
he will feel happier about being ousted if you tell him that his
survival was only worth a half victory point instead of one? Do you
suppose he would play much differently if you reduced the survival
award to zero?
The need for a game win already means that there is concrete incentive
to try to oust, regardless of whether survival is discounted in time-
out games.
> > And whatever the hostility toward drawn out games, I cannot help
> > also noting substantial hostility towards the sort of fast
> > bleed/vote decks that tend to do well in tournaments. People
> > bemoan the fact that they cannot bring to tournaments the
> > "interesting" decks that they reserve for casual play.
>
> I, for one, would much rather see games that have fast decks and
> result in people getting ousted than not.
Of course, there is some circularity here. Part of the reason you
want to see fast games is because you want to avoid the time out
penalty, a problem I am proposing we correct.
But, even if you do just prefer fast games, that does not help much.
I'm not sure what your definition of a "fast deck" is. Other players
have their own preferences, and obviously the solution cannot be to
have you tell them what sort of decks they may or may not bring to
the tournament. You're not supposed to know what I'm bringing, and
I'm not supposed to know what you're bringing.
Many of the factors that cause games to go to time are beyond player
control. Each player is trying to win, and there are 4 other players
at the table trying to stop him. The only way players can truly
control the situation is to let themselves be ousted, which they
should not do. Generally, all players, whatever their errors in
judgment, are playing to the best of their ability. Each tries to
outguess the other. A player whose deck has too little offense, or
the wrong kind of offense, together with too much defense, or the
right kind of defense, has merely made an error in guessing his
opposition. And if he decides to wall up and survive, he is virtually
always making the best of a bad situation, to the best of his limited
judgment.
nys...@cs.com
Frederick Scott wrote:
> <nys...@cs.com> wrote in message
> news:1190758375.9...@50g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...
> > On Sep 25, 12:50 pm, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com>
> > wrote:
> >> I note that it's also harder for others to get game wins
> >> by ousting two players and then being ousted when a game times
> >> out - since the opponent who ousted them will now have two VP
> >> and tie them whereas before the latter would only have 1 and
> >> 1/2 VP.
> >
> > Right. This was the example I chose for my original post.
>
> ...and another thing that I would deem a negative, since the ousted
> player (one would assume) took risks to resolve the game sooner (a
> good thing in my value system) whereas the player who (one would
> assume) had the upper hand at the end of the game failed to move
> aggressively enough to resolve it (a bad thing in my value system).
> I strongly prefer the former get a game win and the latter be
> penalized.
Why are you making assumpions not inherent in the fact pattern?
The only "value systems" I am aware of are the current tournament
rules for scoring incomplete games, which declare the above player a
winner, and the standard rules for scoring complete games, which
declare him a loser. Player A played well under the former value
system, and badly under the latter. Why should there be this tension
between the two value systems, when Player A has no control over what
happens after he is ousted? Would it not be better for Player A to
know which "value system" will judge him while he still has a chance
to do something about it?
If you really think that Player A needs to be rewarded with victory,
after scoring 2 vps and then being ousted, then perhaps we should
change the standard rules. If we deprive players of the extra 1 vp
they get for being the last player standing, then our ousted player
has a reasonable chance of winning even if the game is completed. The
worst he can do is tie. There will be less tension between the
completed game and the incomplete game.
If you want to make absolute sure he keeps his well-deserved reward,
we could further introduce a rule that the winner is the first person
to gain 2 vp, regardless of whether another player gains 2 vp later in
the game (simultaneous vps are still a tie).
But somehow, the "value system" of the original rules seems more
appealing to me. It avoids the strange situation of an ousted
"winner" sitting bored on the sidelines as he waits for the game to
finish, watching the happy losers as having fun as they jockey for
second place (and, unless you choose both of the above rules changes,
waiting helplessly to see if his crown will be taken from him).
Under the current rules (for completed games), the only situations I
can think of where an ousted player can win is where the game ends
immediately after he is ousted.
nys...@cs.com
>
> It depends on what you mean.
That's why I took so much trouble explaining what I meant.
> Under the current system, two VPs before
> oust can be a game win, if the remaining players are ineffective in
> ousting one another before time.
I was discussing completed games under the standard rules. I am
pretty sure I was clear about that, since my whole point was to
contrast completed games with incomplete ones scored under the current
tournament rules.
nys...@cs.com
Frederick Scott wrote:
> My parenthetical comment
> you wished to respond to above was just to point out that the
> standard for a game win hinges on whether the game was completed
> or not and the ousted player has no control over that. Nothing
> more. If your reply is just that under your proposed system it
> doesn't matter (since he isn't going to get a game win either
> way), OK - so noted. It wasn't really
> important anyway which was why I used the parenthesis.
It's a minor point, yes, but still (I think) worth mentioning.
The standard rulebook rules, for completed 4 or 5-player games, do not
allow for a situation where an ousted player sits around watching the
game waiting to see if he has won or not.
The tournament rules for INCOMPLETE games do allow for such a
situation, granting the ousted player a game win only if the remaining
players play until a time out.
Under my proposed rules, as in the standard rules, a player ousted
from a continuing game is never a game winner, regardless of whether
the game later goes to time. Hence my proposal is more consistent
with the rules for finished games.
Salem
> Frederick Scott wrote:
>> My parenthetical comment
>> you wished to respond to above was just to point out that the
>> standard for a game win hinges on whether the game was completed
>> or not and the ousted player has no control over that. Nothing
>> more. If your reply is just that under your proposed system it
>> doesn't matter (since he isn't going to get a game win either
>> way), OK - so noted. It wasn't really
>> important anyway which was why I used the parenthesis.
>
> It's a minor point, yes, but still (I think) worth mentioning.
>
> The standard rulebook rules, for completed 4 or 5-player games, do not
> allow for a situation where an ousted player sits around watching the
> game waiting to see if he has won or not.
huh?
A, B, C, D, E.
A ousts B and C.
E ousts A.
So there is D and E left.
If D ousts E, thus getting 2vps, A ties for the win with D. If E ousts
D, A does not get a tied win, they just come 2nd, on 2vps.
If either D or E withdraw, A will tie with E instead of D.
So A is waiting to see if:
i) they lose
or
ii) They tie for the win but with:
1) D
or
2) E
And then everything can be a lot messier if A got their 2nd vp not
through ousting C, but from withdrawing. Or if C got a vp before A
ousted them.
There are plenty of scenarios where an ousted player sits around waiting
to see if they have won or not.
--
salem
(replace 'hotmail' with 'yahoo' to email)
nys...@cs.com
Frederick Scott wrote:
> Well, the obvious issue is the original one cited: why reward
> decks that are so slow and deliberate that they excessively risk
> going to time and preventing all players from getting a game win?
The obvious answer is that my proposal does not do that. Two ousts
are (normally) still required for a game win. My proposal marginally
rewards successful decks by providing a fairer approximation of the
ultimate game outcome. It does not reward the deck that sits there
and votes lots of Autarchis Persecutions for everyone.
It depends, of course, what you mean by "excessive". You seem to be a
hard man to please. I described my fastest deck to you, and you told
me I ought not play it. I said I had some slower decks, and you said
I ought not play them either. I am forced to conclude that, in your
opinion, I am simply not welcome in tournaments. :)
I described to you a deck that scored 2.5 vps and a game win in round
1, 1.5 vps in round 2 and 0.5 vps in round 3, and you told me (without
knowing anything about the deck or why the game went to time) that
this person should not have brought the deck to the tournament.
nys...@cs.com
Salem wrote:
> nys...@cs.com wrote:
> > The standard rulebook rules, for completed 4 or 5-player games,
> > do not allow for a situation where an ousted player sits around
> > watching the game waiting to see if he has won or not.
>
> huh?
>
> A, B, C, D, E.
> A ousts B and C.
> E ousts A.
> So there is D and E left.
> If D ousts E, thus getting 2vps, A ties for the win with D. If E
> ousts D, A does not get a tied win, they just come 2nd, on 2vps.
>
> If either D or E withdraw, A will tie with E instead of D.
>
> So A is waiting to see if:
> i) they lose
> or
> ii) They tie for the win but with:
> 1) D
> or
> 2) E
There is no such thing as "tie for the win". A tie game is not a
win. To win, you need more vps than any other player. Check the rule
book.
This is the exact scenario we have been discussing. Under the
tournament rules for unfinished games, Player A can win only if the
game does not finish, because only then will he have more vps than any
other player.
nys...@cs.com
> In general, the choice of the current GW criteria and
> withdrawal/time-out rewards have been settled on from years of
> experience.
"In general" you may be right. But as regards to anything resembling
the current proposal, this is, as far as I can tell simply not true.
The half victory point time out rule goes back at least as far as the
Duelists' Convention Tournament Rules, revised October 1995. I would
guess the prior version was the same on this point (but I have been
unable to find it).
Although the half victory point time out rule always struck me as
wrong, I cannot ever recall it being debated of justified. I can
certainly recall no other system ever being tested and tried.
At the time, there was no counting of game wins as primary criteria.
Victory points were the primary criteria. If I were to guess, I would
guess that the half-point rule was meant as a kind of imperfect
attempt to ensure that players who won a game by the rulebook would
get more points than those who merely scored a vp or two. Since it
was possible to score a game win (per the rulebook) with only 2 vps, I
would guess that someone decided it was unfair that a person who went
to time with a single vp should earn the exact same result.
Of course, now that game wins are treated as a primary determination,
that is no longer the issue.
XZealot
The funny thing is that the GW scoring rule is a relatively recent
incarnation of the spirit of victory. When it was introduced in '03
(I'm guessing but it sounds right) it got people off their laurels
who were just trying to shoot for 2 VPs. I think your new rules
reintroduce that mechanic and the huge (HUGE!) amount of table deals
that went along with it.
Comments Welcome,
Norman S. Brown, Jr
XZealot
Archon of the Swamp
nys...@cs.com
XZealot wrote:
> The funny thing is that the GW scoring rule is a relatively recent
> incarnation of the spirit of victory. When it was introduced in '03
> (I'm guessing but it sounds right) it got people off their laurels
> who were just trying to shoot for 2 VPs. I think your new rules
> reintroduce that mechanic and the huge (HUGE!) amount of table
> deals that went along with it.
Well, (without having an opinion as to whether this is good or bad) I
do see that the "game win" system would encourage deal-making. But
I'm not sure what else you are saying. Are you suggesting that my
proposal would FURTHER encourage deal-making? (If so, I can't see
how).
LSJ
> Salem wrote:
>> nys...@cs.com wrote:
>>> The standard rulebook rules, for completed 4 or 5-player games,
>>> do not allow for a situation where an ousted player sits around
>>> watching the game waiting to see if he has won or not.
>> huh?
>>
>> A, B, C, D, E.
>> A ousts B and C.
>> E ousts A.
>> So there is D and E left.
>> If D ousts E, thus getting 2vps, A ties for the win with D. If E
>> ousts D, A does not get a tied win, they just come 2nd, on 2vps.
>>
>> If either D or E withdraw, A will tie with E instead of D.
>>
>> So A is waiting to see if:
>> i) they lose
>> or
>> ii) They tie for the win but with:
>> 1) D
>> or
>> 2) E
>
> There is no such thing as "tie for the win". A tie game is not a
> win. To win, you need more vps than any other player. Check the rule
> book.
A ousts B and then withdraws.
Many turns later, C calls a referendum that ousts C, D, and E simultaneously.
A wins 2-0-1-1-1.
Peter D Bakija
nys...@cs.com wrote:
> I did a bit of searching, and all I could find recently was some posts
> about FINALISTS who seem willing to permit the final round to go to
> time because they don't need a "game win" to win the tournament. But
> this can hardly be what you had in mind.
Why can that hardly be what I had in mind? There has been an awful lot
of discussion of late specifically about final games going to time and
not actually ending with a concrete winner--instead the winner being
determined by tiebreakers (i.e. the final ends with 3 people left at the
table, 2 of them each have 1VP, the guy with the higher initial seed
wins! Woo!)
> As I am sure you realize --
> my proposed system has no affect on such dynamics whatsoever, for
> better or worse.
Your proposed system gives 1VP for survival. This encourages folks to
try a lot harder to not die as opposed to oust their prey, which has an
effect on the whole dynamic.
> Until you elaborate, I will presume you are discussing the same
> phenomenon I have noticed. The problem I have noticed is players
> getting understandably frustrated when games go to time because a time
> out HURTS THEM by depriving them -- not only of their hopes of of
> victory -- but also of the reasonable value of their reasonable
> expectations.
Games going to time hurts folks 'cause no one actually wins the game. If
folks want someone to win the game, they should try harder to oust their
prey. Giving folks more incentive to wall up and *not* try and oust
their prey, isn't going to improve this dynamic.
> First of all, a single oust IS worth the same as survival. The rules
> (which are applied more or less intact in completed games even in
> tournaments) say so. If you don't like that, you can advocate that
> the rules be changed.
I don't need to advocate that the rules be changed--as the rules stand,
you get .5VP for surviving. If you are the last person at the table, you
get a full VP for survival, as being the last guy at the table is a
considerably more significant event that simply surviving till time runs
out. Which is why you get 1VP for being last guy at the table and only
.5VP for not being ousted when time runs out.
> Irrelevant, since my proposed system does not remove the incentive to
> oust your prey. Two ousts are still required for a game win (ignoring
> rare exceptions).
Giving 1VP for still being at the table when time runs out removes
incentive to oust your prey in any remotely risky situation, as defense
(i.e. walling up and covering your head) is generally less risky than
offense (going all out to oust your prey even if it means you might fail
and get ousted). If the reward in a difficult situation is 1VP for
walling up and covering your head instead of .5VP, you have incentive to
wall up and cover your head rather than lunging for the risky oust.
Anything that disincentives folks going for the risky oust is bad.
> If you really mean what you say, perhaps you think the game would be
> even better if the players received NO points for surviving in timed
> out games.
I'd be ok with that. Except that, as you note, it makes folks arbitrary
and reckless. Which is why the current system is reasonable--you have
more incentive to try and go forward than to simply survive, but more
incentive to survive than to get ousted.
> Please stop pretending you didn't understand me. Please stop
> pretending I am trying to eliminate the need for ousting.
It is called "rhetorical device", not "pretending".
> Victory points should be awarded based on one's success in besting
> other players at your table.
Sure. Simply staying alive is not success in besting other players at
the table. Which is why you get .5VP for still being alive when time
runs out, rather than 1VP. As more often than not, being alive when time
runs out has nothing at all to do with ones actual in game position--you
could easily be at 1 pool, next to go, and sitting in front of an Anarch
Revolt without the Edge when time runs out during your predator's turn.
You survive, sure, but only by arbitrary time limit, not by virtue of
game play. Consequently, the general consensus is that .5VP for
survivial at time is a reasonable compromise.
> I'm sorry, but that's pretty much what one SHOULD do if one is in a
> bad position.
See, clearly you do think this, as your proposal encourages this. Which
I don't believe is actually a good idea. To reward folks for not trying
to oust their prey. The tournament rules need to reward folks for trying
to oust their prey over simply surviving. Giving .5VP for surviving is a
reasonable compromise.
Peter D Bakija
pd...@lightlink.com
http://www.lightlink.com/pdb6/vtes.html
"Find hungry samurai."
-The Old Man
John P.
"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:1fNLi.53319
>> There is no such thing as "tie for the win". A tie game is not a
>> win. To win, you need more vps than any other player. Check the rule
>> book.
>
> A ousts B and then withdraws.
> Many turns later, C calls a referendum that ousts C, D, and E
> simultaneously.
> A wins 2-0-1-1-1.
1/2 vp for withdraw? A=1.5?
John P.
LSJ
Context, as quoted in my post: "The standard rulebook rules"
John P.
"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:baQLi.30137
>
> Context, as quoted in my post: "The standard rulebook rules"
I should have known better....
Frederick Scott
<nys...@cs.com> wrote in message news:1191122394.6...@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>
> Frederick Scott wrote:
>> <nys...@cs.com> wrote in message
>> news:1190758375.9...@50g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...
>> > On Sep 25, 12:50 pm, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com>
>> > wrote:
>> >> I note that it's also harder for others to get game wins
>> >> by ousting two players and then being ousted when a game times
>> >> out - since the opponent who ousted them will now have two VP
>> >> and tie them whereas before the latter would only have 1 and
>> >> 1/2 VP.
>> >
>> > Right. This was the example I chose for my original post.
>>
>> ...and another thing that I would deem a negative, since the ousted
>> player (one would assume) took risks to resolve the game sooner (a
>> good thing in my value system) whereas the player who (one would
>> assume) had the upper hand at the end of the game failed to move
>> aggressively enough to resolve it (a bad thing in my value system).
>> I strongly prefer the former get a game win and the latter be
>> penalized.
>
> Why are you making assumpions not inherent in the fact pattern?
>
> The only "value systems" I am aware of are the current tournament
> rules for scoring incomplete games, which declare the above player a
> winner, and the standard rules for scoring complete games, which
> declare him a loser.
The whole scoring system is a value system, not just the scores for
incomplete games. In general that's exactly what scores are: values
placed on outcomes and thus behaviors - hence, they are value systems.
In this case, my reference to "my own value system" is how I think
player behaviors should be rewarded or penalized depending on how I
think they contribute to the fun of playing a tournament - which is
ultimately what should be optimized.
> Player A played well under the former value
> system, and badly under the latter. Why should there be this tension
> between the two value systems, when Player A has no control over what
> happens after he is ousted? Would it not be better for Player A to
> know which "value system" will judge him while he still has a chance
> to do something about it?
It would probably be better but it's less important than encouraging
behavior that resolves a game with in its time limit.
> If you really think that Player A needs to be rewarded with victory,
> after scoring 2 vps and then being ousted, then perhaps we should
> change the standard rules. If we deprive players of the extra 1 vp
> they get for being the last player standing, then our ousted player
> has a reasonable chance of winning even if the game is completed. The
> worst he can do is tie. There will be less tension between the
> completed game and the incomplete game.
You're overgeneralizing what I said to create a straw man argument
in order make the appearance of a case of reductio ad absurdum.
I think it's better that a player who got two VP and then ousted be
granted a GW if no remaining player got more than one VP in a timed
out game. Period. I think this because the relative valuation of
outcomes between the player who ousted two other players at the risk
of his own ability to remain in the game is higher than the remaining
player(s) who could not oust more than one other player even though
they survived the game. Such a comparison obviously doesn't hold if
the game is completed, so tinkering with the current system in the
way you propose wouldn't yield anything positive.
> Under the current rules (for completed games), the only situations I
> can think of where an ousted player can win is where the game ends
> immediately after he is ousted.
I'm not sure what you mean by this. Under the current rules, I believe
the only situation where an ousted player can win a completed game would
involve withdrawals by at least one other player.
Fred
Frederick Scott
news:1191123493....@n39g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
Well, the trouble is, your proposed change affects non-completed games
as well as completed games. And the effect is adverse, IMHO.
Fred
Frederick Scott
news:1191126935.3...@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> Frederick Scott wrote:
>> My parenthetical comment
>> you wished to respond to above was just to point out that the
>> standard for a game win hinges on whether the game was completed
>> or not and the ousted player has no control over that. Nothing
>> more. If your reply is just that under your proposed system it
>> doesn't matter (since he isn't going to get a game win either
>> way), OK - so noted. It wasn't really
>> important anyway which was why I used the parenthesis.
>
> It's a minor point, yes, but still (I think) worth mentioning.
>
> The standard rulebook rules, for completed 4 or 5-player games, do not
> allow for a situation where an ousted player sits around watching the
> game waiting to see if he has won or not.
He could possibly still win, yes. Player A ousts players B and C but
is ousted by player E. He has two VPs and players B and C have zero.
Player E withdraws and receives 1 and 1/2 VPs. Player D remains with
one VP. Player A gets a game win.
> Under my proposed rules, as in the standard rules, a player ousted
> from a continuing game is never a game winner, regardless of whether
> the game later goes to time. Hence my proposal is more consistent
> with the rules for finished games.
Perhaps, but why on Earth should we care about such a nit? I don't
care about this particular form of consistency and I don't see why
anyone else should either.
Fred
Frederick Scott
> <nys...@cs.com> wrote in message
>> The standard rulebook rules, for completed 4 or 5-player games, do not
>> allow for a situation where an ousted player sits around watching the
>> game waiting to see if he has won or not.
>
> He could possibly still win, yes. Player A ousts players B and C but
> is ousted by player E. He has two VPs and players B and C have zero.
> Player E withdraws and receives 1 and 1/2 VPs. Player D remains with
> one VP. Player A gets a game win.
Ah, reading further down the thread, LSJ's post drew my attention to the
point that you were talking about "standard rulebook rules" over the course
of your entire previous post, not just in the last paragraph. I'm kind of
a sloppy reader (obviously) when another poster takes the discussion off
in a direction I wasn't expecting. I apologize for this.
In general, you seem to think we should value consistency between
tournament scoring and rulebook rules scoring and merely endeavor to find
a tournament scoring system which rewards things as nearly as possible
to non-timed play. You need to be aware that this is not all that high
a priority in the tournament scoring system and I don't believe it should
be. Tournaments feature time-limited games and they need to be played that
way. Players who play decks which can win given unlimited time but don't
tend to resolve games before the tournament time limit SHOULD be penalized
for that because such play unfairly robs other players who happen to draw
them as opponents during the tournament of their chance to get game wins.
As a general statement, of course, we want tournament play to resemble
non-tournament play. But the fact of time limits and how they affect
fairness needs to be given its due as a higher priority.
Fred
Frederick Scott
<nys...@cs.com> wrote in message
news:1191127800.3...@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> Frederick Scott wrote:
>> Well, the obvious issue is the original one cited: why reward
>> decks that are so slow and deliberate that they excessively risk
>> going to time and preventing all players from getting a game win?
>
> The obvious answer is that my proposal does not do that. Two ousts
> are (normally) still required for a game win.
It does do that by removing the 1/2 point penalty for being in a
timed out game. Rewards in tournament scoring are not only in the
form of game wins. Victory points make a significant difference.
They are lower on the heirarchy of determiners but they come into
play quite often so their contribution should not be understated.
> My proposal marginally
> rewards successful decks by providing a fairer approximation of the
> ultimate game outcome.
Your definition of "successful decks" is a stab at a circular
argument: by defining these particular decks as a "successful", you
infer it would be a good thing that they should be rewarded. I
reject the definition.
Again, what seems to be at issue here is your insistence on
approximating successful behavior in non-timed games with tournament
scoring that matches it. This is not important to me. See the
last paragraph of the post where I responded to my own post.
> It depends, of course, what you mean by "excessive". You seem to be a
> hard man to please. I described my fastest deck to you, and you told
> me I ought not play it. I said I had some slower decks, and you said
> I ought not play them either. I am forced to conclude that, in your
> opinion, I am simply not welcome in tournaments. :)
If your decks can't win within the time limit of the tournament, you
can and should be penalized for that, yes. Again, such behavior robs
other players of their chance to get game wins within the time limit
and that's bad. As for being "welcome" or not, you're always welcome
to join a tournament as long as your overall motivation as in line with
the tournament's overall motivation (having fun, as expressed by
competition for the highest possible tournament standing). However,
if you don't wish to choose a style of play which resolves games within
the time limit, you will be penalized for that under the scoring system
and, IMHO, you should be.
> I described to you a deck that scored 2.5 vps and a game win in round
> 1, 1.5 vps in round 2 and 0.5 vps in round 3, and you told me (without
> knowing anything about the deck or why the game went to time) that
> this person should not have brought the deck to the tournament.
In my original reply to you, the use of the word "should" was intended
to convey "for purposes of winning the tournament" - not some kind of
moral value system or anything. The only thing you really told me about
your deck was that it tends to win after two hours and 15 minutes, a
period longer than the two hour time limit most tournaments use. Don't
conflate the sense of the generalized point I was trying to make: that
the scoring system deliberately penalizes slow decks for a good reason.
Your deck won one game and timed out two others. Of course, I can't
know the circumstances of the time outs with the above information so
please don't subsequently blindside me (again) with the inference that
I'm being overly judgmental with insufficient information, here. I'm
just trying to speak of general principals. If your deck which tends
to take longer to win than the tournament time limit was a contributing
factor to those two games timing out, then I think it's fair you should
penalized for it since the slow style of play robs other players of their
chance at getting game wins within the time limit. Hence, it becomes
an unfair penalty for them to draw you as an opponent.
You are, of course, free to choose such a deck anyway if you deem its
overall chance of success under the existing scoring system makes it
a good choice despite the penalties. But I see no reason to enhance
its value by increasing victory point rewards for timing out a game.
If anything, I would like to penalize such play even further.
Unfortunately, I can't think of any means of doing that without causing
some other undesirable effect. Until I do, I support continuation of
the existing system.
Fred
Frederick Scott
news:1191131280....@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> Frederick Scott wrote:
>> In general, the choice of the current GW criteria and
>> withdrawal/time-out rewards have been settled on from years of
>> experience.
>
> "In general" you may be right. But as regards to anything resembling
> the current proposal, this is, as far as I can tell simply not true.
>
> The half victory point time out rule goes back at least as far as the
> Duelists' Convention Tournament Rules, revised October 1995. I would
> guess the prior version was the same on this point (but I have been
> unable to find it).
>
> Although the half victory point time out rule always struck me as
> wrong, I cannot ever recall it being debated of justified.
I don't recall anyone questioning it either. I always took it as a
sign of agreement that 1) timeouts are bad; and 2) play which contributes
to timeouts (whether it be deckbuilding style or game play) is likewise
bad.
Norm is right about the game wins: they were instituted to discourage
dealmaking by players who tried to gain one or two VPs in exhange for
kingmaking another player, a style of play which frequently worked well
for those engaging in it but was found to warp the intent of the game
and rob it of its competitive balance. As I've said previously, the
current system has been arrived upon through a lot of hard experience.
Some of this may not be apparent to those who didn't live through it.
> At the time, there was no counting of game wins as primary criteria.
> Victory points were the primary criteria. If I were to guess, I would
> guess that the half-point rule was meant as a kind of imperfect
> attempt to ensure that players who won a game by the rulebook would
> get more points than those who merely scored a vp or two. Since it
> was possible to score a game win (per the rulebook) with only 2 vps, I
> would guess that someone decided it was unfair that a person who went
> to time with a single vp should earn the exact same result.
I always assumed the intent was to get players to recognize the time
limit and encourage them to attack with one another as opposed to
"turtling up" and merely surviving until time. Granting a player a
full VP for going to time rewards players who have no hope of ousting
their first prey equally with another player who is playing defensively
as a means of eventually winning the game. Granted, awarding both
players one half victory point does the same thing, but the above point
pierces the fallacy of trying to assert that scoring systems should
attempt to reward timed out game participants as closely as possible to
how they would be rewarded in a non-time-limited game. In truth, it's
impossible to do such a thing very accurately. So it should not be a
high priority.
Fred
librarian
> As a general statement, of course, we want tournament play to resemble
> non-tournament play. But the fact of time limits and how they affect
> fairness needs to be given its due as a higher priority.
As you know in LA, all our "casual" games are timed to 2 hours.
AFAIC, that should be the standard anyway.
best -
chris
--
Super Fun Cards
http://stores.ebay.com/superfuncards/
auct...@superfuncards.com
Salem
> Salem wrote:
>> nys...@cs.com wrote:
>> > The standard rulebook rules, for completed 4 or 5-player games,
>> > do not allow for a situation where an ousted player sits around
>> > watching the game waiting to see if he has won or not.
>>
>> huh?
>>
>> A, B, C, D, E.
>> A ousts B and C.
>> E ousts A.
>> So there is D and E left.
>> If D ousts E, thus getting 2vps, A ties for the win with D. If E
>> ousts D, A does not get a tied win, they just come 2nd, on 2vps.
>>
>> If either D or E withdraw, A will tie with E instead of D.
>>
>> So A is waiting to see if:
>> i) they lose
>> or
>> ii) They tie for the win but with:
>> 1) D
>> or
>> 2) E
>
> There is no such thing as "tie for the win". A tie game is not a
> win. To win, you need more vps than any other player. Check the rule
> book.
OK. The most recent rule book i could find lying around is my Legacies
of Blood one, so it'll have to do.
"the winner is the player with the most victory points at the end of the
game"
The most victory points at the end of the game in scenario ii) is 2. And
two players both got that value. So you have two players winning. ergo,
a 'tie for the win'.
Then there is also the scenario LSJ mentions later on for a unique
winner on 2vps but still ousted before the game ends.
> This is the exact scenario we have been discussing. Under the
> tournament rules for unfinished games, Player A can win only if the
> game does not finish, because only then will he have more vps than any
> other player.
Only the tournament rules care about more than any other player. The
standard rulebook just cares about 'the most'.
nys...@cs.com
LSJ wrote:
> A ousts B and then withdraws.
> Many turns later, C calls a referendum that ousts C, D, and E
> simultaneously. A wins 2-0-1-1-1.
Yes, but what I said was ....
"The standard rulebook rules, for completed 4 or 5-player games, do
not allow for a situation where an ousted player sits around
watching the game waiting to see if he has won or not."
A withdrawn player is different from an ousted one.
nys...@cs.com
Salem wrote:
> Then there is also the scenario LSJ mentions later on for a unique
> winner on 2vps but still ousted before the game ends.
No. LSJ came up with no such situation.
> Only the tournament rules care about more than any other player.
> The standard rulebook just cares about 'the most'.
I do not read it that way. It says "the player with the most" not
"the players with the most".
I won't argue further with your interpretation, because it is just
semantics. Your semantics are obviously not that adopted by the VEKN
for the term "game win". For that reason, your interpretation has
minimal relevance to this discussion.
I'm sure you can appreciate the difference between what the VEKN calls
a "game win" and what you call a "tie for a win". When I said win, I
was talking about a "game win" (per the VEKN's definition).
Salem
> Salem wrote:
>> Then there is also the scenario LSJ mentions later on for a unique
>> winner on 2vps but still ousted before the game ends.
>
> No. LSJ came up with no such situation.
Would you have considered withdrawing and being ousted to be distinct
scenarios if LSJ hadn't come up with that scenario? I doubt it.
I don't think the person sitting off to one side will feel more or less
like they're still part of the game depending on whether they were
ousted or withdrew.
>> Only the tournament rules care about more than any other player.
>> The standard rulebook just cares about 'the most'.
>
> I do not read it that way. It says "the player with the most" not
> "the players with the most".
Well, actually, you had read it as 'the player with more'. which wasn't
even in the rulebook. but you seem to have snipped that line out from
the above quotes.
> I won't argue further with your interpretation, because it is just
> semantics. Your semantics are obviously not that adopted by the VEKN
> for the term "game win". For that reason, your interpretation has
> minimal relevance to this discussion.
it's not really semantics. and they're also not the reason the VEKN
changed the tournament rules. I am not sure if you played tournaments
back before the Game Win rule existed, but back then there was a lot of
dealing for tied wins. 2-2 splits being the most common. And since there
did not exist such a thing as a 'game win' to score off, those things
were highly desirable. The Game Win rule was created to try and force
players to not deal as much for those sorts of splits. It wasn't based
off some re-reading of the standard rulebook and deciding that's what it
really meant all along.
> I'm sure you can appreciate the difference between what the VEKN calls
> a "game win" and what you call a "tie for a win".
I do. One is from the rulebook, one is in the tournament rules.
> When I said win, I
> was talking about a "game win" (per the VEKN's definition).
No you weren't. You were explicitly talking about a rulebook only
situation, and explicitly excluded the VEKN rules from this part of the
discussion.
nys...@cs.com
Salem wrote:
> nys...@cs.com wrote:
> > Salem wrote:
> >> Then there is also the scenario LSJ mentions later on for a
> >> unique winner on 2vps but still ousted before the game ends.
> >
> > No. LSJ came up with no such situation.
>
> Would you have considered withdrawing and being ousted to be
> distinct scenarios if LSJ hadn't come up with that scenario?
I *did* consider them to be distinct, which is why I worded the
sentence the way I did. I was aware of LSJ's example before I
posted. Earlier in the discussion, I had mentioned withdrawal for
completeness, only to have my opponent complain that withdrawal was
virtually unheard of. I decided not to make an issue out of
withdrawal exceptions from then on.
> I doubt it.
Sure, fine. Call me a liar. I cannot stop you from being nasty, if
that's what you want to be. There is no question about what I said,
but you want to tell me I really meant something else.
> I don't think the person sitting off to one side will feel more or
> less like they're still part of the game depending on whether they
> were ousted or withdrew.
In my mind they are distinct, for various reasons.
> > When I said win, I
> > was talking about a "game win" (per the VEKN's definition).
>
> No you weren't.
Yes I was. I was talking about situations where one player earns more
victory points than any other player. If you look at the discussions,
this is absolutely clear in context, since on several occasions, I
explicitly mentioned tie games as non-wins.
> You were explicitly talking about a rulebook only
> situation, and explicitly excluded the VEKN rules from this part
> of the discussion.
As already explained, I saw no difference.
Even if you are right, and the rulebook definition is meant to be
different, then it is still clear that I was talking about situations
where (under the standard rulebook rules) one player earns more
victory points than any other player.
>From now on, when I discuss "wins" in context of the standard rulebook
rules, assume I mean "wins excluding tie games" (in the context of the
standard rulebook rules). I am refering to situations where the game
ends, and a single player has more victory points than any other
player. Such sitiations *do* occur under the standard rules, and
THOSE are the situations I am referring to.
Okay?
nys...@cs.com
Frederick Scott wrote:
> In general, you seem to think we should value consistency between
> tournament scoring and rulebook rules scoring and merely endeavor
> to find a tournament scoring system which rewards things as nearly
> as possible to non-timed play.
I would not say "as near as possible". For instance, where a 5-player
game goes to time with 4 players remaining, after A ousts B, my system
gives 2vp to Player A, and the other survivors 1 vp, but does not
award A a game win, despite the fact that he finished in the lead and
there is a logical basis for guessing that he is the most likely
winner. I still require two ousts for a game win. I deprive him of
his reasonable hope of a game win, but give him the fair vp value of
his game position as a consolation prize. This ensures that he has a
good incentive to finish the game, but is perhaps not quite so
frustrated when he fails.
Consistency between tournament scoring and rulebook scoring ensures
that players are competing with eachother and not with other tables.
Under the standard rules, every methuselah brings a vp with him to the
table. When any methuselah gets the better of another methuselah (by
ousting him) he takes his vp. One maximizes vp gain by besting each
opponent and avoiding being bested by any opponent, to the extent
possible. Ideally by ousting everyone, avoiding being ousted, thereby
getting 5 vp; but failing that, by any strategy that gets a lesser
number. Since you are competing against the other players at the
table, any vp point one gains is always at the expense of another
player.
By changing this dynamic, the current rules allow for situations where
one can maximize vp gain without getting the better of other opponents
at the table. One can get a full vp for oneself without taking a full
vp from an opponent. The extreme case of this, which I described for
Mr. Bakija, was one where a player calls an Ancilla Empowerment which
ousts all 5 players simultaneously. The result is a 5-way tie, in
which no player got the better of any other player in a meaningful
way. There motive, was to get a full vp instead of a half vp, but
they did not get this benefit at the expense of their opponents (who
each received the same benefit) But their opponents are the only
people they SHOULD be competing with. Instead, they are competing
with neighboring tables -- cooperating to ensure that the maximum
number of vps are distribued at their table.
Players SHOULD try to finish games, but should do so for the RIGHT
reason. The RIGHT reason to want to finish is that they want to get
the better of their opponents at the table. The WRONG reason is to
maximize the number of vps distributed at their table compared to
neighboring tables.
My system keeps the right reason for wanting to finish, and dispenses
with the wrong reasons. It keeps the number of vps at a table
steady. Under my system, if you want to gain a vp, you have to take
it from your enemy.
> You need to be aware that this is
> not all that high a priority in the tournament scoring system and
Well, if the Powers That BE never take my suggestion, then I will
suppose my concerns are not a priority for them.
> I don't believe it should be.
We may soon have to just agree to disagree. We are not making too
much progress. I understand what you are saying about there being
(theoretically) a marginally higher incentive to go to time under my
system, but I just don't see it making much of a difference in
practice, for all the reasons I gave. I just don't think players are
going to be any happier dying just because there is a half-price sale
at the funeral parlor. Under my proposal, just like under the current
system, a player who hopes to win generally needs to score at least
two ousts, and therefore needs to survive long enough to achieve this
-- which generally means surviving most of the game. Under my system
(as under the current system) any risks he takes are measured against
that hope of two ousts -- and not merely against the whole or half vp
he stands to lose.
> Tournaments feature time-limited games and they need to be played
> that way.
Yes, but, under my proposal they will continue to be played that
way.
> Players who play decks which can win given unlimited time but don't
> tend to resolve games before the tournament time limit SHOULD be
> penalized for that because such play unfairly robs other players
> who happen to draw them as opponents during the tournament of
> their chance to get game wins.
That's where we disagree. They have not unfairly robbed other players
of anything. Each player has no obligation whatsoever to help
opponents gain vps -- quite the reverse in fact. His job is (if
possible) to sieze a vp from each opponent and (if possible) to not
let any opponent sieze a vp from him.
Every vp you get should be siezed fair & square from another
methuselah who lost exactly what you gained. Putting a discount on
death to bribe players to let other players oust them is silly.
Salem
> Salem wrote:
>> nys...@cs.com wrote:
>> > Salem wrote:
>> >> Then there is also the scenario LSJ mentions later on for a
>> >> unique winner on 2vps but still ousted before the game ends.
>> >
>> > No. LSJ came up with no such situation.
>>
>> Would you have considered withdrawing and being ousted to be
>> distinct scenarios if LSJ hadn't come up with that scenario?
>
> I *did* consider them to be distinct, which is why I worded the
> sentence the way I did. I was aware of LSJ's example before I
> posted. Earlier in the discussion, I had mentioned withdrawal for
> completeness, only to have my opponent complain that withdrawal was
> virtually unheard of. I decided not to make an issue out of
> withdrawal exceptions from then on.
>
>> I doubt it.
>
> Sure, fine. Call me a liar. I cannot stop you from being nasty, if
> that's what you want to be. There is no question about what I said,
> but you want to tell me I really meant something else.
my apologies. i didn't try and tell you you meant something else. I just
meant that the impression i got was something else. i didn't realise
that would cause offense. my bad.
>From now on, when I discuss "wins" in context of the standard rulebook
> rules, assume I mean "wins excluding tie games" (in the context of the
> standard rulebook rules). I am refering to situations where the game
> ends, and a single player has more victory points than any other
> player. Such sitiations *do* occur under the standard rules, and
> THOSE are the situations I am referring to.
>
> Okay?
Okay. Sure.
LSJ
It seemed as if the issue was the sitting around (not playing) to see if he has won.
A ousts B then C. E ousts A. E plays Gambit Accepted.
Many turns later, E withdraws.
A wins 2-0-0-1-1.
Frederick Scott
news:1191226174.2...@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...
> Players SHOULD try to finish games, but should do so for the RIGHT
> reason. The RIGHT reason to want to finish is that they want to get
> the better of their opponents at the table. The WRONG reason is to
> maximize the number of vps distributed at their table compared to
> neighboring tables.
I assert that your definition of a "right reason" is arbritrary and
not particularly important. I also assert that the emphasis you've
chosen to place on conservation of victory points is misguided.
In practice, there's less harm in robbing tables of victory points
based on failure to resolve a game than in unduly rewarding the
failure to resolve a game. Were there a reliable means of
indentifying the exact party guilty of "causing" the time out (or
"the most guilty" to further play with the concept) then perhaps
it would be reasonable to take victory points away from that party
and give them to other players and conserve the total at one VP per
player. In truth, of course, that's hopeless. But it works
reasonably effectively (at least in the long run) to penalize each
surviving player in a timed out game in order to discourage
timeouts.
And it's total argumentative chicaery to turn this construction on
its head and claim a player can create victory points out of thin
air by avoiding this penalty. One does not "get a full VP for
oneself without taking a full VP from an opponent" when one _avoids_
a penalty. That is simply doing what you're supposed to be doing.
The Ancilla Empowerment example is odd but, like the rest of your
complaints, it's not a thing that causes a real, tangible problem.
It's just an oddity which could potentially be employed by a
player to extricate a table which was going to time from the worst
result (as a group) of all - albeit if no one finished with 2 VPs,
I note the table would still finish without the game win.
In fact, along the same lines and much more realistic before the
rule change to grant withdrawn players only 1/2 of a victory point
instead of a full one, groups of players would sometimes agree to
mutually withdraw. This actually happened from time to time -
you'd see players drawing, discarding, and declaring their turn
over in a second or so. In theory, one or more of the players
could then double-cross the deal when the victims had discarded
their entire libraries and that happened once in a Blue Moon
as well - though the deals were fulfilled in the vast majority of
the cases. But my point is, all this stuff happened without
compromising the spirit of the game too badly. In retrospect,
the rule change was probably an improvment because mutual withdrawal
schemes (which were the main thing affected by it) really weren't
desirable outcomes. And a freak universal-ousting Ancilla
Empowerment could theorectically be employed to the same effect but
it's not a real problem because players are unlikely to deckbuild
or play for such outcomes, so the problem is limited to slim
chance. (More likely to be used by a player who had no chance of
any VPs except through it's use - which would be an entirely
legitimate play AFAICS.)
>> You need to be aware that this is
>> not all that high a priority in the tournament scoring system and
>
> Well, if the Powers That BE never take my suggestion, then I will
> suppose my concerns are not a priority for them.
>
>> I don't believe it should be.
>
> We may soon have to just agree to disagree. We are not making too
> much progress. I understand what you are saying about there being
> (theoretically) a marginally higher incentive to go to time under my
> system, but I just don't see it making much of a difference in
> practice, for all the reasons I gave.
It's not marginal and it does make a difference. And your system
also penalizes the two-VP-and-ousted player in a non-completed game
of his chance at a game win which is not a penalty I think is
a good thing either. By way of turnabout, your concerns about
conservation of victory points absolutely baffle me. They seem
more like ideology than practical problem solving.
>> Players who play decks which can win given unlimited time but don't
>> tend to resolve games before the tournament time limit SHOULD be
>> penalized for that because such play unfairly robs other players
>> who happen to draw them as opponents during the tournament of
>> their chance to get game wins.
>
> That's where we disagree. They have not unfairly robbed other players
> of anything. Each player has no obligation whatsoever to help
> opponents gain vps -- quite the reverse in fact. His job is (if
> possible) to sieze a vp from each opponent and (if possible) to not
> let any opponent sieze a vp from him.
If you play a deliberate game with a slow developing deck which risks a
table time out before victory, your play unquestionably exports that risk
to your opponents as well. This unfairly robs your opponents - in
comparison to other players at other tables who are not playing in a game
with a slow developing deck. This is, perhaps, one of the major failings
in your point of view. To suggest players at a table are competing only
with one another and not with the other players at the other tables is
simply wrong, a result of an overly narrow construction of the situation.
You can only make the finals by placing in the top five of *ALL* players
at the tournament. So if one or more of your opponents at your table
cause(s) a greater than normal risk of a timeout at your table, it makes it
harder than it should be for your or anyone else to get a game win at your
table. This is a bad thing and should be penalized.
Fred
nys...@cs.com
LSJ wrote:
> It seemed as if the issue was the sitting around (not playing) to
> see if he has won.
Okay, but more generally, my issue and point was that survival (for --
at the very least, a substantial portion of the game) is essential to
winning, and one creates a rather questionable dichotomy when one says
that the point of the game is to oust rather than to survive. To win,
you have to outlast at least some other players -- usually most of
them.
Had I mentioned withdrawal, for completeness, I might have pointed out
that (1) a withdrawer is a type of survivor, because he is never
ousted; (2) a withdrawer is still required to remain in the game long
enough to exhaust his library; and (3) a withdrawer is still required
to remain in the game longer than at least one other player in order
for his withdrawal to grant him any hope of a game win.
> A ousts B then C. E ousts A. E plays Gambit Accepted.
> Many turns later, E withdraws.
> A wins 2-0-0-1-1.
It appears, from your example, that the number of vps distributed at
the table have been reduced from 5 to 4. I was unaware that any cards
had been printed that were capable of altering the ultimate number of
vps distributed.
But looking at the example (and looking up the card text), it appears
to me that A ties with E for two victory points. E gets 1 vp for
withdrawal and an extra 1 vp for not being ousted at the end of the
game.
I suppose one could argue that, since cards are burned upon
withdrawal, this prevents the Gambit from taking effect. But in this
case the withdrawal is simultaneous with the end of the game. If
ousting you does not burn your cards fast enough to prevent one's
predator from gaining the extra vp for ousting you, then withdrawing
should not burn your cards fast enough to prevent you from gaining
that last extra vp at the end of the game.
I can see that, when E withdraws BEFORE the end of the game, one vp
would go up in smoke and no player would get it. I'm not too happy
about this, because it seems to me that the number of vps to be
ultimately distributed at a table should never be altered.
nys...@cs.com
LSJ wrote:
> It seemed as if the issue was the sitting around (not playing) to
> see if he has won.
This is also possible, of course, in a six player game, where a player
is ousted after scoring 3 ousts. But the precise words I chose
excluded that scenario.
Frederick Scott
news:1191255064.2...@n39g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>
> LSJ wrote:
>> It seemed as if the issue was the sitting around (not playing) to
>> see if he has won.
>
> Okay, but more generally, my issue and point was that survival (for --
> at the very least, a substantial portion of the game) is essential to
> winning, and one creates a rather questionable dichotomy when one says
> that the point of the game is to oust rather than to survive.
I didn't say this. I didn't see anyone else say this (though I'll grant,
I didn't read all the other branches of the thread with other people
replying to you). Both are important. It is in the common interest,
however, that games be encouraged to resolve before the time limit.
In that dynamic, ousting would necessarily be rewarded in preference to
surviving. Don't
> To win,
> you have to outlast at least some other players -- usually most of
> them.
Sure. But here you're talking about a different opposition - the one
resolved by the player's struggle for victory rather than the rulemakers
desire to create the best possible environment for fun. Do not conflate
the two. The former is resolved within the constraints determined by
the latter.
Fred
LSJ
> LSJ wrote:
>> A ousts B then C. E ousts A. E plays Gambit Accepted.
>> Many turns later, E withdraws.
>> A wins 2-0-0-1-1.
>
> It appears, from your example, that the number of vps distributed at
> the table have been reduced from 5 to 4. I was unaware that any cards
> had been printed that were capable of altering the ultimate number of
> vps distributed.
>
> But looking at the example (and looking up the card text), it appears
> to me that A ties with E for two victory points. E gets 1 vp for
> withdrawal and an extra 1 vp for not being ousted at the end of the
> game.
> I suppose one could argue that, since cards are burned upon
> withdrawal, this prevents the Gambit from taking effect. But in this
Correct.
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/666847c6e07bb99d
But then errata was issued to give the predator a VP is the controller
withdraws. (d'oh, that's twice today I've been caught reading obsolete rulings).
So A and D tie 2-0-0-2-1.
> case the withdrawal is simultaneous with the end of the game. If
> ousting you does not burn your cards fast enough to prevent one's
> predator from gaining the extra vp for ousting you, then withdrawing
> should not burn your cards fast enough to prevent you from gaining
> that last extra vp at the end of the game.
Either you're standing (in play) at the end of the game or you're not.
If you are, you get a VP for being the last Methuselah standing. If you're not,
then your cards aren't in play, either.
Since the withdrawn player doesn't get a VP for last Methuselah standing, it
follows that her Gambit isn't around to restore the VP she lost to it.
> I can see that, when E withdraws BEFORE the end of the game, one vp
> would go up in smoke and no player would get it. I'm not too happy
> about this, because it seems to me that the number of vps to be
> ultimately distributed at a table should never be altered.
Right.
Peter D Bakija
> I didn't say this. I didn't see anyone else say this (though I'll grant,
> I didn't read all the other branches of the thread with other people
> replying to you).
I said something like this, although, really, the jist of what I said
was that the point of the game is to oust your prey, and while it is
good to survive, it makes sense to reward and incentivize ousting over
simply surviving. The current system of 1VP for ousting and .5VP for
simply surviving (as opposed to being the last person at the table,
which also gets 1VP, as it is generally a more significant effort to
be last person standing than to just not get ousted before time runs
out) does this--it rewards ousting your prey (with the standard 1VP)
in preference to simply surving till time runs out (with the .5VP).
Both of these are better than dying (0VP). As a result, the order of
preference for these events are:
1. Oust your prey. Get 1VP.
2. Don't get killed before time runs out. Get .5VP.
3. Get killed. Get nothing.
Which is a very reasonable order of desireablity of these events.
If you get 1VP for surviving till time runs out, it will often be more
attractive to simply wall up and hope time runs out than it will be to
try and oust your prey. Which is why it would be a bad idea to change
the .5VP fro survival to 1VP for survival.
-Peter
Jeff Kuta
> I have not been a regular poster here for a while, so forgive if the
> following issue has been discussed before. I am proposing a
> tournament scoring system that seems to be an improvement over the
> current one, and I am interested in feedback and counterarguments.
>
> THE PROPOSED SYSTEM
>
> Same as the current system, except:
>
> 1) No messing around with half victory points in uncompleted games.
> A player gets a full victory point for not being ousted (whether due
> to withdrawal or due to still being in the game when time is called).
> This means that for uncompleted games, just like completed games, the
> number of victory points distributed among the players equals the
> number of players in the game.
>
> 2) For uncompleted games, 3 victory points (including the one for not
> being ousted, if applicable) are required for a game win. For
> completed games, one can still get a game win with 2 victory points
> (on those very rare occasion when no-one else has 2 victory points).
>
> WHY IT IS BETTER
>
> 1) It is more accurate in predicting what the outcome of the game is
> likely to be if the game were played to completion (see, for instance,
> the example below).
>
> 2) It is less encouraging of the sort of fast-vote and fast-bleed
> decks that tend to dominate tournaments.
>
> AN EXAMPLE
>
> The following example seeks show why the proposed system is better
> than the current system in predicting game outcomes:
>
> In a five-player game, A (playing a fast, aggressive deck) ousts B &
> C, then runs out of steam and gets ousted by E. D and E remain in the
> game when it gets called for time.
>
> Under the current system, players A, B, C, D and E get 2, 0, 0, .5 and
> 1.5 victory points respectively. A gets awarded a game win, E takes
> second place.
>
> This result, however, is dead wrong under the original rules. The one
> thing we know for certain is that, under the original rules, it is
> impossible for A to win the game. The best he can hope for is a tie
> for first place (which is not a win).
>
> If the game is played to a finish, there are only 3 ways it can end,
> only 2 of which are even remotely likely, and NONE of which result in
> a win for player A. Either E will oust D, in which case E will have 3
> victory points and a game win, or else D will oust E, taking 2 victory
> points, and tying with A so that nobody takes a game win. The third
> possibility, withdrawal, results in 2 victory points for E (no matter
> who withdraws) which is also a tie game with no winner.
>
> If ANYONE in this called-for-time game should be granted a game win,
> it should clearly be Player E, since he is the only person who has any
> chance of winning it if it is played to a finish. Indeed, if we make
> allowances for the fact that a person who starts winning is likely to
> keep winning, his odds of emerging as winner may be greater than 50%.
> Player A should not get it -- he is only the most successful of the
> proven losers.
>
> The proposed system has a fairer result. The five players get 2, 0,
> 0, 1, 2. Nobody gets a game win and Players A and E tie for first
> place.
>
> We cannot know whether D will end the game with 0 vp or 2 vp, so we
> split the difference and give him 1 vp. We cannot know whether E will
> end the game with 1 vp or 3 vp, so we split the difference and give
> him 2.
>
> ANTICIPATING SOME COUNTERARGUMENTS
>
> 1. "The point of the game is to oust people, not to sit there and
> survive."
>
> If the point of the game is really that simple, it is only because the
> current tournament rules have made it so by devaluing survival. The
> rule-book says differently. The rule-book says that survival or
> withdrawal is worth as much as the ousting of a single prey. Of
> course, the rulebook requires that one do more than merely survive in
> order to win the game. In addition to survival, you will probably
> need to oust two prey to win a completed 5-player game (in rare
> situations, one prey ousted plus survival will suffice). So yes, you
> need to do more than survive to win, just as you need to achieve more
> than a single oust to win; but that does not mean that a single oust
> should be worth more than survival.
>
> Yes, the rules do require ousting, and should require ousting. The
> proposed system reflects those values accurately.
>
> 2. "The current system encourages all players to play quickly in
> order to maximize victory points for themselves as well as the whole
> table; your proposed system might give a player currently in the lead,
> or anyone in danger of being ousted, an incentive to stall."
>
> This is true to some extent, but the force of this argument is very
> much abated by the fact that game wins are the primary measure of
> tournament success, with victory point totals being used only as tie
> breakers. Under the proposed system, a game win is far more likely in
> a finished game than an unfinished one, and I think this is all the
> incentive for speed that is needed. If the game does not make
> substantial progress, then nobody gets a game win.
>
> And, although I agree that it would be better if games would finish, I
> also feel that there can be too much of a good thing. An excessive
> "hurry hurry hurry" atmosphere of tournament play does not necessarily
> make for a relaxing and enjoyable tournament experience.
>
> 3. "Long drawn out games are boring, and are one of the flaws of
> V:TES. It is good that tournament rules alter the game environment by
> encouraging people to design decks that have some hope of proving
> their worth within a 2 hour time limit."
>
> Personally, I rather like long, drawn-out epic games. I am
> nonetheless willing to assume, for the sake of argument, that long
> games are bad for V:TES.
>
> My response, again, is that the need to score a "game win" (rather
> than merely survive or score more victory points than anyone else at
> the table) is sufficient encouragement for people to design reasonably
> fast decks intended to make substantial progress (including oustings)
> within the 2-hour time limit.
>
> And whatever the hostility toward drawn out games, I cannot help also
> noting substantial hostility towards the sort of fast bleed/vote decks
> that tend to do well in tournaments. People bemoan the fact that they
> cannot bring to tournaments the "interesting" decks that they reserve
> for casual play.
>
> Seems to me that the system I propose is a suitable compromise,
> offering reasonable encouragement to decks that can demonstrate SOME
> progress within 2 hours, but not unfairly rewarding the fast weenie
> deck that scores two victory points before it runs out of steam and
> gets ousted.
I'm a little bit late to the thread, but after reading a few of the
posts, I got to thinking about the current scoring structure. I think
this proposal is fine, but what I did not like is that there are two
separate conditions for earning a game win--3 VPs if game goes to
time, 2 VPs if otherwise. I think that's just too messy so I thought
about an additional consideration which not only solves this problem,
but creates a significant incentive for finishing the game to its
natural conclusion:
Give the sole survivor 2 VPs at the end.
I haven't thought about all the implications of this, but I think on
the face of it, they're positive.
* A player who makes a single oust and survives earns 3 VPs and the
GW.
* Players have no incentive to make a 3/2 deal because it might end up
being a 3/3 deal with no GW.
* That extra survival VP makes everyone want to finish the game to its
conclusion because it is a bonus that can only be earned with a
complete game.
Jeff
XZealot
> XZealot wrote:
> > The funny thing is that the GW scoring rule is a relatively recent
> > incarnation of the spirit of victory. When it was introduced in '03
> > (I'm guessing but it sounds right) it got people off their laurels
> > who were just trying to shoot for 2 VPs. I think your new rules
> > reintroduce that mechanic and the huge (HUGE!) amount of table
> > deals that went along with it.
>
> Well, (without having an opinion as to whether this is good or bad) I
> do see that the "game win" system would encourage deal-making. But
> I'm not sure what else you are saying. Are you suggesting that my
> proposal would FURTHER encourage deal-making? (If so, I can't see
> how).
Actually, the Game Win system greatly curtails deal making. When the
only sole determiner for making the finals was Victory Points than
every victory point was precious, so you would see people making
ridiculous deals constantly just to try and squeeze into the finals.
I am saying that your system further encourages deal-making by
punishing aggressive play.
Comments Welcome,
Norman S. Brown, Jr
XZealot
Archon of the Swamp
Jeff Kuta
> <nyst...@cs.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1191226174.2...@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...
>
> So if one or more of your opponents at your table
> cause(s) a greater than normal risk of a timeout at your table, it makes it
> harder than it should be for your or anyone else to get a game win at your
> table. This is a bad thing and should be penalized.
>
> Fred
Or you make a positive incentive for finishing the games in a timely
fashion, like giving the Sole Survivor an additional VP for being the
true last man standing. :)
Jeff
Shade
> As you know in LA, all our "casual" games are timed to 2 hours.
We do that as well in Wellington.
> AFAIC, that should be the standard anyway.
I'm not sure about the standard thing but it's a good idea anyway as
it keeps the game moving along. Obviously good practice for building
decks that can oust 2 people in 2 hours but also has a nice side
affect of limiting the pain if you're shut down or hosed :-)
Simon
Frederick Scott
messagenews:1191272632....@y42g2000hsy.googlegroups.com...
> On Oct 1, 4:24 am, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote:
>> <nyst...@cs.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:1191226174.2...@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> So if one or more of your opponents at your table
>> cause(s) a greater than normal risk of a timeout at your table, it makes it
>> harder than it should be for your or anyone else to get a game win at your
>> table. This is a bad thing and should be penalized.
>
> fashion, like giving the Sole Survivor an additional VP for being the
> true last man standing. :)
That's not the same thing, and its contribution towards resolving
games would be questionable. An extra victory point for being the
last man standing is an incentive towards being the last man standing -
only. This doesn't necessarily reward taking risks that well since
an ousted player would never receive the bonus. Likewise, a conservative
player might be in just as good a position as an aggressive player because,
although he is at disadvantage in that his play will frequently prevent
games from resolving, his play will tend to insure he will be around until
the end so when one _does_ resolve, he has a better than average chance of
being the one who receives the bonus. This is at least a somewhat
compensating advantage.
The current system, which just flat out penalizes play that makes it
harder to resolve games, is the better way - albeit still admittedly
flawed.
Fred
nys...@cs.com
> Actually, the Game Win system greatly curtails deal making. When the
> only sole determiner for making the finals was Victory Points than
> every victory point was precious, so you would see people making
> ridiculous deals constantly just to try and squeeze into the finals.
Okay.
> I am saying that your system further encourages deal-making by
> punishing aggressive play.
How? Could you elaborate?
After all, my proposal preserves the "game win" system intact. It
even enforces it more strictly. Under the current system, a player in
a 5-player game can make a deal with his predator for his second oust
in exchange for concessions that will result in his being ousted
simultaneously or immediately afterwards, and both parties to the deal
can still hope for a win. The ousted player (with 2 vp) hopes for a
game win if the game goes to time, and his predator hopes for a game
win if it does not. But under my proposal, the ousted player cannot
agree to the deal without knowing he is sacrificing any hope of a game
win.
XZealot
> On Oct 1, 4:51 pm, XZealot <xzea...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > Actually, the Game Win system greatly curtails deal making. When the
> > only sole determiner for making the finals was Victory Points than
> > every victory point was precious, so you would see people making
> > ridiculous deals constantly just to try and squeeze into the finals.
>
> Okay.
>
> > I am saying that your system further encourages deal-making by
> > punishing aggressive play.
>
> How? Could you elaborate?
Certainly, Let's say I am in a hopeless position. It's down to the
last two players. The other player has two victory points. I have
one victory point. I am fairly sure I can make it to the time out, but
I could also make a mistake and get ousted. With your victory
conditions, what do I do?
1) Do I agressively throw myself at my predator to try and get 3 VP's
for the Game Win?
2) Do I play for time and deny the other player a Game Win, which is
smart for me because less game wins means it will be easier for me to
make the finals with any other games I can win in a tournament.
See here is where subtle favoritism creeps into your model. If I am
playing against a player from a rival playgroup, the I can stall out
figuring that improves not only my, but also my friends chances of
making the finals. If I am playing against a player from my playgroup
then I can make several "fumbles" and hand the game win off. There is
no incentive within the game to stay in it other than to spite other
players.
No judge will ever catch a player making bad plays for a friend, ever.
nys...@cs.com
XZealot wrote:
> Let's say I am in a hopeless position. It's down to the
> last two players. The other player has two victory points. I have
> one victory point. I am fairly sure I can make it to the time out,
> but I could also make a mistake and get ousted. With your victory
> conditions, what do I do?
You say you are in a "hopeless position" and I would assume this means
you have no hope of ousting your prey. Your duty under either system,
is to maximize victory points. If you are fairly sure you can make it
to time out, that's what you should do, under either system.
> 1) Do I agressively throw myself at my predator to try and get 3
> VP's for the Game Win?
Obviously not, since according to you, you have no hope of success.
> 2) Do I play for time and deny the other player a Game Win, [...]
Playing until time-out will not deny the other the Game Win, under
either system. Under the current proposal, he will win 2.5 to 1.5.
Under my proposal, he will win 3 to 2.
> [...] which is
> smart for me because less game wins means it will be easier for me
> to make the finals with any other games I can win in a tournament.
Your only hope of denying him the game win is to oust him. But you
said that was hopeless.
> See here is where subtle favoritism creeps into your model.
I cannot see where. Does it have something to do with your mistaken
idea that, under my system, you can deny your opponent the game win by
playing for time?
> If I
> am playing against a player from a rival playgroup, then I can
> stall out figuring that improves not only my, but also my friends
> chances of making the finals.
You can do this under either system.
> If I am playing against a player from my playgroup
> then I can make several "fumbles" and hand the game win off.
You can do this under either system.
> There is no incentive within the game to stay in it other than to
> spite other players.
Huh? By surviving, you avoid losing victory points (a half point
under the current system, and a whole point under mine). Which, being
that your position is otherwise "hopeless" is exactly what you should
do per tournament rules.
> No judge will ever catch a player making bad plays for a friend,
> ever.
How does the current system make them easier to catch, or give them
less incentive to cheat, than my proposal?
If anything, it is the current system that allows a player to grant
greater help his buddy at another table by sending a game to time
out. If he can cause a game to go to time with 5 players, he deprives
that table of a collective 2.5 vps (a half-point for each player at a
table), making any victory points earned by his buddy at a neighboring
table all that more significant.
nys...@cs.com
nyst...@cs.com wrote:
> Under the current proposal, he will win 2.5 to 1.5. [...]
Sorry ... the above was supposed to be "under the current system"
> [...] Under my proposal, he will win 3 to 2.
nys...@cs.com
the subject of those two Evil Colluders who have split a 5-player
table between them, and who are not trying to decide what to do with
eachother.
Evil Colluder A has 2 ousts; Evil Colluder B has 1 oust. If each
player "plays to win" per tournament rules (meaning a player with no
hope of a game win should instead maximize victory points), the game
will go to time. This will grant A and B 2.5 and 1.5 vp respectively
under the current system, and 3 and 2 vp respectivly under my proposed
system.
On the other hand, B could throw the game to A, granting A a 4 to 1
victory. (Alternatively, A could throw the game to B, granting B a 3
to 2 victory).
This is the real difference between the two systems. Under the
current system, a colluder can hand 1.5 victory points to an opponent
at the cost of 0.5 vps to himself. Under my system, there can only be
a 1 for 1 exchange.
nys...@cs.com
I wrote:
> This is in further reply to XZealot, the Noble Archon of the
> Swamp, on the subject of those two Evil Colluders who have split a
> 5-player table between them, and who are not trying to decide what
> to do with eachother.
Damned typos! "not" should be "now".
Jeff Kuta
> "Jeff Kuta" <jeff.k...@gmail.com> wrote in
> messagenews:1191272632....@y42g2000hsy.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On Oct 1, 4:24 am, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote:
> >> <nyst...@cs.com> wrote in message
>
> >>news:1191226174.2...@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> So if one or more of your opponents at your table
> >> cause(s) a greater than normal risk of a timeout at your table, it makes it
> >> harder than it should be for your or anyone else to get a game win at your
> >> table. This is a bad thing and should be penalized.
>
> > Or you make a positive incentive for finishing the games in a timely
> > fashion, like giving the Sole Survivor an additional VP for being the
> > true last man standing. :)
>
> That's not the same thing, and its contribution towards resolving
> games would be questionable.
Sure, but any contribution of anything towards any other thing is
questionable.
> An extra victory point for being the last man
> standing is an incentive towards being the last man standing - only.
Last man standing only occurs when a game-ending situation occurs for
a single Methuselah. Thus is incentivizes ending games.
> This doesn't necessarily reward taking risks that well since
> an ousted player would never receive the bonus.
It is supposed to reward completing games. Risky behavior may be
encouraged as a side effect.
> Likewise, a conservative
> player might be in just as good a position as an aggressive player because,
> although he is at disadvantage in that his play will frequently prevent
> games from resolving, his play will tend to insure he will be around until
> the end so when one _does_ resolve, he has a better than average chance of
> being the one who receives the bonus. This is at least a somewhat
> compensating advantage.
Sure, and this is a fine thing as well. It almost sounds like you want
to reward a conservative player, which is kind of what nyst's system
does.
> The current system, which just flat out penalizes play that makes it
> harder to resolve games, is the better way - albeit still admittedly
> flawed.
>
> Fred
I think that most players, when faced with a situation where everyone
can be penalized by losing a half VP will take that choice rather than
risk losing it all and being ousted. Misery loves company. Somehow it
seems more fair when everyone gets the same penalty and no one gets
the bonus. There is lots of psychology to support this point of view.
I think this pessimistic mindset is built into the tournament scoring
system and discourages games from going to their full conclusion. I
tend to think of the scoring system for World Cup soccer which used to
only award 2 points for a victory and 1 for a tie and made for some
really boring games. There is a positive incentive now with 3 points
for a victory and teams will fight for those wins.
Adding the bonus VP for Last Man Standing is an attempt to address
this and encourage players to finish games entirely. It has another
small side effect of closing the gap between the worth of 4- and 5-
player tables since there are 5 and 6 VPs at stake instead of 4 and 5.
I don't think it would encourage walls to become the last man standing
because you only earn the VP if the table reaches its conclusion.
Jeff
LSJ
> I think this pessimistic mindset is built into the tournament scoring
> system and discourages games from going to their full conclusion. I
> tend to think of the scoring system for World Cup soccer which used to
> only award 2 points for a victory and 1 for a tie and made for some
> really boring games. There is a positive incentive now with 3 points
> for a victory and teams will fight for those wins.
You describe a system that parallels the current V:EKN system (except that the
V:EKN system provides a larger incentive over time-out), but you label the V:EKN
system as pessimistic and the World Cup as "positive incentive".
World Cup Current: 3-0 to 1-1
V:EKN Current: 2-0 to .5-.5 (equiv: 4-0 to 1-1)
> Adding the bonus VP for Last Man Standing is an attempt to address
> this and encourage players to finish games entirely. It has another
As does the current system, in exactly the same manner. The only difference is
degree.
V:EKN Kuta: 3-0 to 0.5-0.5 (equiv: 6-0 to 1-1)
> small side effect of closing the gap between the worth of 4- and 5-
> player tables since there are 5 and 6 VPs at stake instead of 4 and 5.
If 2 is better than 1 for LMS, for both incentivizing and gapclosing, then
3 would be better yet for each. And so on until LMS is the new GW (5 would do it).
Frederick Scott
> On Oct 1, 4:42 pm, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote:
>> "Jeff Kuta" <jeff.k...@gmail.com> wrote in
>> messagenews:1191272632....@y42g2000hsy.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > On Oct 1, 4:24 am, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote:
>> >> <nyst...@cs.com> wrote in message
>>
>> >>news:1191226174.2...@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> >> So if one or more of your opponents at your table
>> >> cause(s) a greater than normal risk of a timeout at your table, it makes it
>> >> harder than it should be for your or anyone else to get a game win at your
>> >> table. This is a bad thing and should be penalized.
>>
>> > Or you make a positive incentive for finishing the games in a timely
>> > fashion, like giving the Sole Survivor an additional VP for being the
>> > true last man standing. :)
>>
>> That's not the same thing, and its contribution towards resolving
>> games would be questionable.
>
> Sure, but any contribution of anything towards any other thing is
> questionable.
The point is, they're not the same things.
>> An extra victory point for being the last man
>> standing is an incentive towards being the last man standing - only.
>
> Last man standing only occurs when a game-ending situation occurs for
> a single Methuselah.
I understand that. It also only occurs for a given player when he
survives.
> Thus is incentivizes ending games.
More correctly, for a given player it incetivizes the union of ending
games AND being the surviving player. The latter is a goal that will
tend to interfere with the former.
>> This doesn't necessarily reward taking risks that well since
>> an ousted player would never receive the bonus.
>
> It is supposed to reward completing games. Risky behavior may be
> encouraged as a side effect.
So is conservative behavior. The overall effect would be murky, IME.
There is already plenty of incentive to be the last man standing.
>> Likewise, a conservative
>> player might be in just as good a position as an aggressive player because,
>> although he is at disadvantage in that his play will frequently prevent
>> games from resolving, his play will tend to insure he will be around until
>> the end so when one _does_ resolve, he has a better than average chance of
>> being the one who receives the bonus. This is at least a somewhat
>> compensating advantage.
>
> Sure, and this is a fine thing as well. It almost sounds like you want
> to reward a conservative player, which is kind of what nyst's system
> does.
I'm not sure what you mean by suggesting that, "(I) want to reward a
conservative player." I want no such thing. I was just evaluating what
I thought the effects would be of implementing your proposal.
>> The current system, which just flat out penalizes play that makes it
>> harder to resolve games, is the better way - albeit still admittedly
>> flawed.
>
> I think that most players, when faced with a situation where everyone
> can be penalized by losing a half VP will take that choice rather than
> risk losing it all and being ousted.
Agreed. That seems intuitive and I see it in actual play, as well.
(And I do exactly that, myself.)
> Misery loves company. Somehow it
> seems more fair when everyone gets the same penalty and no one gets
> the bonus. There is lots of psychology to support this point of view.
> I think this pessimistic mindset is built into the tournament scoring
> system and discourages games from going to their full conclusion.
Well, that's true - but you're forgetting the main issue here: the game
itself frequently tends to lead to these results. If you think about
the mechanics of Jyhad, the cards in the game, and the gameplay you've
experienced, you will notice that many conservative, building-up type
strategies tend to get rewarded better than aggressive, go-for-broke
type strategies. This gets heavily reinforced by the multiplayer
nature of the game which will inevitably punish players who do well
early (or, more accurately, players who _appear_ to do well early) and
rewards players who appear to be near death early on.
The upshot is that the conservative mindset is not necessary, not an
artifact of the scoring system for the most part, and not really
solvable by modifying the scoring system for the most part. I think
the half-point penalty and penalizing of the table its game win if
the table doesn't resolve are good things which grate away at players
who depend too heavily on conservative strategies. But ultimately,
any real solution to the problem would have to involve changing the
game through new cards that reward aggressive play better than it is
currently rewarded.
> I
> tend to think of the scoring system for World Cup soccer which used to
> only award 2 points for a victory and 1 for a tie and made for some
> really boring games. There is a positive incentive now with 3 points
> for a victory and teams will fight for those wins.
Good analogy. And I think you have the same issue: Soccer is an
incredibly conservative game. The only player on the field with the
huge advantage of using his hands is the GOALIE for Christ's sake!!!
And, while you can tinker with the metagame scoring system to encourage
aggressive play a little bit but in the end, only changes in the on-field
rules will make much difference. Until then, I'll continue to use
soccer broadcasts for their correct and only real purpose: as sleep aids.
> Adding the bonus VP for Last Man Standing is an attempt to address
> this and encourage players to finish games entirely. It has another
> small side effect of closing the gap between the worth of 4- and 5-
> player tables since there are 5 and 6 VPs at stake instead of 4 and 5.
> I don't think it would encourage walls to become the last man standing
> because you only earn the VP if the table reaches its conclusion.
We'll have disagree about that. Your refusal to acknowledge the other
part of your incentive (the requirement of survival to qualify for your
bonus) is creating a flaw in your evaluation of its effects, IMHO.
Fred
Jeff Kuta
> Jeff Kuta wrote:
> > I think this pessimistic mindset is built into the tournament scoring
> > system and discourages games from going to their full conclusion. I
> > tend to think of the scoring system for World Cup soccer which used to
> > only award 2 points for a victory and 1 for a tie and made for some
> > really boring games. There is a positive incentive now with 3 points
> > for a victory and teams will fight for those wins.
>
> You describe a system that parallels the current V:EKN system (except that the
> V:EKN system provides a larger incentive over time-out), but you label the V:EKN
> system as pessimistic and the World Cup as "positive incentive".
>
> World Cup Current: 3-0 to 1-1
>
> V:EKN Current: 2-0 to .5-.5 (equiv: 4-0 to 1-1)
But V:EKN Current could also be 2-0 to 1-1-1 (equiv: 2-1 or 1-1) if
there is a table full of withdraws.
> > Adding the bonus VP for Last Man Standing is an attempt to address
> > this and encourage players to finish games entirely. It has another
>
> As does the current system, in exactly the same manner. The only difference is
> degree.
>
> V:EKN Kuta: 3-0 to 0.5-0.5 (equiv: 6-0 to 1-1)
Or 3-0 to 1-1-1 (equiv: 3-0 to 1-1) with a table full of withdraws.
> > small side effect of closing the gap between the worth of 4- and 5-
> > player tables since there are 5 and 6 VPs at stake instead of 4 and 5.
>
> If 2 is better than 1 for LMS, for both incentivizing and gapclosing, then
> 3 would be better yet for each. And so on until LMS is the new GW (5 would do it).
While mutual withdraws are probably less common than regular timeouts,
it is partly because many (most?) players don't consider the absolute
difference between 1/2 and 1 VP to be significant. When you put then
in relative terms compared to the number of VPs required to win a
game, you can see the difference more dramatically.
I see the point your are illustrating taking it to the logical
conclusion, but I also agree that the process of reaching a game's
ultimate conclusion should play some part in its evaluation so each
oust should be worth something still. I suppose if enough people felt
that we should award 5 VPs for LMS that would make it very clear that
finishing a game is of paramount importance.
This makes me think of another alternate tournament scoring system
which we use for youth soccer here. Typically, two flights of four
teams play three opponents in a round robin earning points based on
performance. The top two teams from each flight then play cross-flight
in the championship and consolation finals.
For each game a team earns:
5 points for winning
2 points for tying
1 point for every goal scored (up to four maximum)
1 point for a shutout
-2 points for each red card (player sent off for discipline)
Thus, the maximum number of points earned per game is 10 (5 for
winning, 4+ goals scored, 1 shutout, 0 clean sheet).
This format does away with wins and losses entirely and converts them
to points. Most other soccer formats fall back to goal differential as
a tie-breaker but this one incorporates the number of goals into the
score per game. Something similar could be done with GWs and VPs and
LMS.
I realize that back in the day, VPs were all that mattered and that
system was eliminated in favor of what we have now. I don't want to go
back to that at all. Mainly, I just wanted to point out that if the
VEKN thinks that there are problems with tables timing out (could be
just a local phenomenon), there are other ways to provide incentives
to finishing up games. Tweaking scoring structure is the obvious way
to provide the proper incentives to players.
Jeff
XZealot
> XZealot wrote:
> > Let's say I am in a hopeless position. It's down to the
> > last two players. The other player has two victory points. I have
> > one victory point. I am fairly sure I can make it to the time out,
> > but I could also make a mistake and get ousted. With your victory
> > conditions, what do I do?
>
> You say you are in a "hopeless position" and I would assume this means
> you have no hope of ousting your prey. Your duty under either system,
> is to maximize victory points. If you are fairly sure you can make it
> to time out, that's what you should do, under either system.
>
> > 1) Do I agressively throw myself at my predator to try and get 3
> > VP's for the Game Win?
>
> Obviously not, since according to you, you have no hope of success.
But I have to try and win and maximize VPs. Under your system,
playing smart is just a waste of time. There is no reward for staying
in a game.
> > 2) Do I play for time and deny the other player a Game Win, [...]
>
> Playing until time-out will not deny the other the Game Win, under
> either system. Under the current proposal, he will win 2.5 to 1.5.
> Under my proposal, he will win 3 to 2.
Ah, I didn't see that full VP for a timeout, which pretty much
invalidates the rest of the line of thought.
My only thought that the variable Game Win scenario (3 vs. 2) makes
deal making more powerful as stalling/politicking becomes a method to
deny a Game Win by going to time.
Jeff Kuta
> "Jeff Kuta" <jeff.k...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Depends whether you consider survival to be an offensive or defensive
exercise.
> >> This doesn't necessarily reward taking risks that well since
> >> an ousted player would never receive the bonus.
>
> > It is supposed to reward completing games. Risky behavior may be
> > encouraged as a side effect.
>
> So is conservative behavior. The overall effect would be murky, IME.
> There is already plenty of incentive to be the last man standing.
Murky whether such a change would encourage offensive or defensive
deckbuilding, yes. You know how we play here in SF. It's the land of
timeouts but this does color my perception of what others experience.
I still think complete games could and should be incentivized more.
But again as is clear, the ultraconservative player can almost
singlehandedly rob a table of its game win. While the other players do
want to win the game, someone who takes too much time or stalls or
just plays a slow deck can hamper that. If you make completing the
game REALLY worthwhile (and yeah, a Game Win is worthwhile, but I
don't think enough people see how far behind missing out on a GW
really puts them), then it is very clear what needs to be done at the
table. Of course, some might consider this solution overkill for a
small problem.
> > I
> > tend to think of the scoring system for World Cup soccer which used to
> > only award 2 points for a victory and 1 for a tie and made for some
> > really boring games. There is a positive incentive now with 3 points
> > for a victory and teams will fight for those wins.
>
> Good analogy. And I think you have the same issue: Soccer is an
> incredibly conservative game. The only player on the field with the
> huge advantage of using his hands is the GOALIE for Christ's sake!!!
> And, while you can tinker with the metagame scoring system to encourage
> aggressive play a little bit but in the end, only changes in the on-field
> rules will make much difference. Until then, I'll continue to use
> soccer broadcasts for their correct and only real purpose: as sleep aids.
>
> > Adding the bonus VP for Last Man Standing is an attempt to address
> > this and encourage players to finish games entirely. It has another
> > small side effect of closing the gap between the worth of 4- and 5-
> > player tables since there are 5 and 6 VPs at stake instead of 4 and 5.
> > I don't think it would encourage walls to become the last man standing
> > because you only earn the VP if the table reaches its conclusion.
>
> We'll have disagree about that. Your refusal to acknowledge the other
> part of your incentive (the requirement of survival to qualify for your
> bonus) is creating a flaw in your evaluation of its effects, IMHO.
>
> Fred
How can I not acknowledge that survival qualifies for the bonus if
that is precisely what gives you the bonus? Are you suggesting I'm
discounting what negative effect this might have on game play toward
an even more careful conservative game? I think it would have quite
the opposite effect and therein lies the disagreement.
Yes, we wouldn't have players necessarily racing out of the gate to
earn their 3 VPs and then run out of gas. I don't see a problem with
that. Logically, you could still be considered to have "lost" the game
if you're not around at the end to enjoy the lack of competition for
ownership of your own World of Darkness. Perhaps those decks would
become *more* robust so they can make it to the end.
I seem to remember a (Swiss?) player posting that they design decks to
take 2 VPs then merely survive so they'll get the Game Win without the
game going to conclusion. That's a pretty poor attitude to take IMO,
but you know, it can win with the current structure. Giving that
little nudge to encourage players to fully finish might eliminate this
sort of strategy from tournaments, or at the very least encourage
aggressive players who do well at the start to keep the pedal to the
metal and finish the game out entirely, rather than coast to the
finish line with a lackey at their back.
Jeff
I just don't believe there will be people out there trying to let
their prey earn 3 VPs and then try to snag last man standing for a 3-3
TIE with no game win.
nys...@cs.com
> Ah, I didn't see that full VP for a timeout, which pretty much
> invalidates the rest of the line of thought.
I'll have to make that clearer next time.
> My only thought that the variable Game Win scenario (3 vs. 2) makes
> deal making more powerful as stalling/politicking becomes a method to
> deny a Game Win by going to time.
Actually, the game win requirements are almost identical to the
current system -- the increase from 2 vp to 3 vp is largely illusory,
if you think about it. The increase was necessary to prevent people
who got only 1.5 vp under the current system from getting game wins
under my proposal. No-one else is effected, except ...
The increase will make a difference in only one situation -- that a
person who gains two ousts and then is ousted himself is denied the
game win, even if the game later goes to time between the remaining
two players.
For purpose of your concerns -- this foils one of the few remaining
attractive table-splitting options. A person who, in exchange for his
second vp, lets himself be ousted by his predator, may do so in the
hope of the game going to time, in which case he will get a game win
(he cannot win if the game finishes). His predator, meanwhile, may
still hope for a 3 vp finish.
XZealot
> On Oct 2, 5:11 pm, XZealot <xzea...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > Ah, I didn't see that full VP for a timeout, which pretty much
> > invalidates the rest of the line of thought.
>
> I'll have to make that clearer next time.
>
> > My only thought that the variable Game Win scenario (3 vs. 2) makes
> > deal making more powerful as stalling/politicking becomes a method to
> > deny a Game Win by going to time.
>
> Actually, the game win requirements are almost identical to the
> current system -- the increase from 2 vp to 3 vp is largely illusory,
> if you think about it. The increase was necessary to prevent people
> who got only 1.5 vp under the current system from getting game wins
> under my proposal. No-one else is effected, except ...
If you consider a 50% increase to be illusory, then I would like you
to use some of your illusions to increase my bonus numbers. :)
> The increase will make a difference in only one situation -- that a
> person who gains two ousts and then is ousted himself is denied the
> game win, even if the game later goes to time between the remaining
> two players.
....and that situation alone makes it bad.
> For purpose of your concerns -- this foils one of the few remaining
> attractive table-splitting options. A person who, in exchange for his
> second vp, lets himself be ousted by his predator, may do so in the
> hope of the game going to time, in which case he will get a game win
> (he cannot win if the game finishes). His predator, meanwhile, may
> still hope for a 3 vp finish.
I don't understand this. Can you elaborate.
I like the Full VP for surviving, but I have yet to understand the
full ramifications.
nys...@cs.com
> On Oct 2, 5:38 pm, nyst...@cs.com wrote:
> > On Oct 2, 5:11 pm, XZealot <xzea...@cox.net> wrote:
> > > My only thought that the variable Game Win scenario (3 vs. 2) makes
> > > deal making more powerful as stalling/politicking becomes a method to
> > > deny a Game Win by going to time.
>
> > Actually, the game win requirements are almost identical to the
> > current system -- the increase from 2 vp to 3 vp is largely illusory,
> > if you think about it. The increase was necessary to prevent people
> > who got only 1.5 vp under the current system from getting game wins
> > under my proposal. No-one else is effected, except ...
>
> If you consider a 50% increase to be illusory, then I would like you
> to use some of your illusions to increase my bonus numbers. :)
Everyone who gets 2.5 vps under the current system (those who survive
or withdraw after two ousts, gets 3 vp under my system, because they
get a full vp rather than a half vp for surviving. Completed games
are unaffected. Hence, the only ones effected are those who would
have gotten 2 vp (and only 2vp) -- ousted players who scored two
ousts.
> > The increase will make a difference in only one situation -- that a
> > person who gains two ousts and then is ousted himself is denied the
> > game win, even if the game later goes to time between the remaining
> > two players.
>
> ....and that situation alone makes it bad.
Depends on whether you think Game Wins should be awarded to predict
the ultimate outcome. In a completed game, an ousted player with 2 vp
can NEVER win. If this ousted person, who cannot gain any more vps,
cannot win if the game finishes, why should he win just because we do
not know which of the two remaining players would have stolen his
crown?
> > For purpose of your concerns -- this foils one of the few remaining
> > attractive table-splitting options. A person who, in exchange for his
> > second vp, lets himself be ousted by his predator, may do so in the
> > hope of the game going to time, in which case he will get a game win
> > (he cannot win if the game finishes). His predator, meanwhile, may
> > still hope for a 3 vp finish.
>
> I don't understand this. Can you elaborate.
>
> I like the Full VP for surviving, but I have yet to understand the
> full ramifications.
5 player table: A ousts B and C with E's help. Then A lets himself be
ousted by E. Three things can happen now:
1) Game goes to time. Score (VEKN system) 2, 0, 0, .5, 1.5. Game Win
to A.
2) E ousts D. Score 2, 0, 0, 0, 3. Game Win to E.
3) D ousts E. Score 2, 0, 0, 2, 1. Tie Game (No Game Win).
Under my proposal, the surviving players in an unfinished game get an
extra half vp, so...
1) Game goes to time. Score (My Proposal) 2, 0, 0, 1, 2. E ties with
A.
2) E ousts D -- E wins
3) D ousts E -- D ties with A.
So actually, under my proposal, A's game win (in an unfinished game)
is foiled by the extra half-victory point granted to the survivors. 2
vp (ousts) + 0vp (non-survival) ties with 1 vp (oust) + 1 vp
(survival).
So even if I leave the Game Win requirements at 2 vp (allowing a Game
Win to a surviving player with a single oust -- providing no other
surviving player has an oust), the ousted player with 2 vp cannot
win.
XZealot
Well, see that is where I have a problem with your system.
Game Wins should be awarded for the player who does the best, period.
If I can lunge to take out 2 preys and then fall victim to my
predator, yet I still outscore everyone else in the game then I should
get the game win. If the other players stall out after I am ousted
then I shouldn't be penalized for playing the best by ousting more
preys than anyone else. That is the major flaw with your new system,
and it is unfairly penalizing a player for upholding the stated
objective of the game. It also shouldn't penalize the player who
ousted two preys, only to lose because a player who only ousted one
prey was able to stall the game out. For those two reasons, I think
that awarding Full Victory points for survival is a bad change.
nys...@cs.com
XZealot wrote:
> Well, see that is where I have a problem with your system.
> Game Wins should be awarded for the player who does the best,
> period.
My proposal does that, exactly the same as in the standard original
rules. If two people tie for "the best" score, then nobody wins,
exactly as under the standard rules. You are correct that I am
denying the game win to the person who did "the best" under the VEKN
rules, but that is circular logic. I am proposing to correct the VEKN
rules, to make them more consistent with the original rules.
> If I can lunge to take out 2 preys and then fall victim to my
> predator, yet I still outscore everyone else in the game then I
> should get the game win.
You did not outscore everyone else in the game. Your predator got the
same score as you. You got 2 vps and he got 2 vps. He scored one
less oust -- but, unlike you, he did not let himself get ousted. That
evens you out exactly.
Had the game continued, he might have ousted D, gaining an extra point
bringing his total to 3; or he might have been ousted by D, thereby
losing a victory point and ending at 1. Since neither of these things
had a chance to happen, he remains at 2, exactly as though he had
withdrawn from the game, or, alternatively, exactly as though D had
withdrawn from the game.
A ousts B, then A ousts C, then E ousts A. That is our story in a
nutshell. Which player is irrelevant to this story? Who does not
even get mentioned? Who neither ousts nor got ousted? That's easy --
Player D. What happens, then if we remove Player D from the picture?
What if this were a 4 player game, and D were not even present? You
got it -- a tie game, 2 to 2.
> If the other players stall out after I am ousted
> then I shouldn't be penalized for playing the best by ousting more
> preys than anyone else.
Why should the other players be penalized and not you? If we must
play the silly blame game, how do we know that it is not your fault
that the game went to time? Why should Player E be the one to get a
half-point deduction for not ousting Player D? You (Player A) were
also a predator to player D, and you also failed to oust Player D.
For all we know, you may have been D's predator for far longer than E
was.
> That is the major flaw with your new system,
> and it is unfairly penalizing a player for upholding the stated
> objective of the game.
I haven't penalized anybody. The stated object of the game is to oust
and not get ousted. He got 2 victory points, you got two victory
points -- the result is a tie -- exactly as though this had been a 4
player game.
If you think the game win should simply go to the player with the most
victory points, then you need to change the original rules.
> It also shouldn't penalize the player who
> ousted two preys, only to lose because a player who only ousted one
> prey was able to stall the game out.
Don't invent facts that are not inherent in the example. The example
does not assume that Player E is more to blame than any other player
for causing the game to go to time. It could just as easily been
either Player D or Player A. Player D neither ousted anyone nor got
ousted. Player A may have been Player D's predator for far longer
than Player E was. E may have ousted A moments before the game went
to time. A may have been the one stalling -- he after all, is the one
with a motive to stall, for he had 2 vps, and was assured the game win
if he could make it to time (which assures his victory under either
system), or by delaying his oust until E did not have enough time left
to oust D (which assures his victory under the current system).
nys...@cs.com
nyst...@cs.com wrote:
> If you think the game win should simply go to the player with the
> most victory points, then you need to change the original rules.
Oh dang! I meant "the most ousts" of course.
XZealot
> XZealot wrote:
> > Well, see that is where I have a problem with your system.
> > Game Wins should be awarded for the player who does the best,
> > period.
>
> My proposal does that, exactly the same as in the standard original
> rules. If two people tie for "the best" score, then nobody wins,
> exactly as under the standard rules. You are correct that I am
> denying the game win to the person who did "the best" under the VEKN
> rules, but that is circular logic. I am proposing to correct the VEKN
> rules, to make them more consistent with the original rules.
You are specifically creating rules that structurally create ties to
deny Game Wins against players who try to win. This is self-
defeating.
> > If I can lunge to take out 2 preys and then fall victim to my
> > predator, yet I still outscore everyone else in the game then I
> > should get the game win.
>
> You did not outscore everyone else in the game. Your predator got the
> same score as you. You got 2 vps and he got 2 vps. He scored one
> less oust -- but, unlike you, he did not let himself get ousted. That
> evens you out exactly.
So your system rewards inactivity and turtling, which goes against the
nature of the game. VTES is a game of aggression not defense.
> Had the game continued, he might have ousted D, gaining an extra point
> bringing his total to 3; or he might have been ousted by D, thereby
> losing a victory point and ending at 1. Since neither of these things
> had a chance to happen, he remains at 2, exactly as though he had
> withdrawn from the game, or, alternatively, exactly as though D had
> withdrawn from the game.
Woulda, Coulda, Shoulda, So you are rewarding timeouts and punishing
players who achieve ousts. Bad Idea.
> A ousts B, then A ousts C, then E ousts A. That is our story in a
> nutshell. Which player is irrelevant to this story? Who does not
> even get mentioned? Who neither ousts nor got ousted? That's easy --
> Player D. What happens, then if we remove Player D from the picture?
> What if this were a 4 player game, and D were not even present? You
> got it -- a tie game, 2 to 2.
That's no way to encourage people to play the game.
> > If the other players stall out after I am ousted
> > then I shouldn't be penalized for playing the best by ousting more
> > preys than anyone else.
>
> Why should the other players be penalized and not you? If we must
> play the silly blame game, how do we know that it is not your fault
> that the game went to time? Why should Player E be the one to get a
> half-point deduction for not ousting Player D? You (Player A) were
> also a predator to player D, and you also failed to oust Player D.
> For all we know, you may have been D's predator for far longer than E
> was.
Yet, I am the one who is trying to achieve the stated goal of the game
"OUST YOUR PREY" while the other players are rewarded for doing the
exact opposite.
> > That is the major flaw with your new system,
> > and it is unfairly penalizing a player for upholding the stated
> > objective of the game.
>
> I haven't penalized anybody. The stated object of the game is to oust
> and not get ousted.
See this is where you are wrong. The game doesn't reward you for not
being ousted. It only rewards you for being last man standing. You
need to read the rules again. I'll help you out and copy them for
you.
Object of the Game
Your goal is to accumulate the most victory points by destroying the
influence held by rival Methuselahs. You accomplish this goal by using
your influence to gain control of younger vampires and using those
vampires to take actions to reduce the influence of rival Methuselahs.
Influence is represented by pool counters (see Equipment Needed, sec.
1.2), the main currency of the game. When a Methuselah runs out of
pool counters, she* is bereft of influence and ousted from the game.
As Methuselahs are ousted, players earn victory points; the winner is
the player with the most victory points at the end of the game
> If you think the game win should simply go to the player with the most
> victory points, then you need to change the original rules.
See again, you are not Richard Garfield. You are messing with the
fundamental underlying game mechanic that you must play aggressively
or you will lose. This is not a sit on your thumbs and wait game.
> > It also shouldn't penalize the player who
> > ousted two preys, only to lose because a player who only ousted one
> > prey was able to stall the game out.
>
> Don't invent facts that are not inherent in the example.
I am inventing nothing that you have not already proposed. This is
exactly the kind of loophole in your rules that will be exploited.
Smart players who can't win will seek to deny victory to other
players. Your Alternate solution provides players with a way to
destroy the ability of another player to win, which is bad because it
encourages an alternate strategy other than the goal stated in the
rulebook.
nys...@cs.com
XZealot wrote:
> See this is where you are wrong. The game doesn't reward you for
> not being ousted. It only rewards you for being last man
> standing.
You forgot withdrawal.
Everyone who has not been ousted gains a victory point. This is not
merely the last man standing, but also anyone who has withdrawn.
Under the rules, the game does not end until all players but one have
withdrawn or been ousted. The standard rules do not tell you how to
score uncompleted games. Hence, my system extrapolates from the
original rules, and preserves the principle, intended by Richard
Garfield, that Jyhad be a "zero sum game", wherein the number of
victory points distributed always equals the number of methuselahs
playing.
If there are 2 players left, and the last player withdraws, and you
let him, why do you earn glory? It is certainly not for ousting him.
Why does the withdrawn player earn glory? It is certainly not for
ousting. That last victory point is simply the reward for not letting
oneself be ousted, because jyhad is a zero sum game, wherein every
point you earn must be siezed from a rival methuselah who loses
exactly what you gain.
XZealot
> XZealot wrote:
> > See this is where you are wrong. The game doesn't reward you for
> > not being ousted. It only rewards you for being last man
> > standing.
>
> You forgot withdrawal.
Which is nearly impossible to do, but your system gives the same
reward for a timeouts which effectively obsoletes that rule,
congraulations on your first non-sequitur.
Again, you have not addressed the point. The game does not reward
survival, it rewards ousting your prey as the path to victory. You
system subverts the various anti-inertia designs (the edge, 6 pool and
a VP for ousting). Since your system reward the "do nothing" path to
victory, it encourages table politics and deal making, which are an
interesting facet of the game but not more important than the predator-
prey relationship.
Frederick Scott
> On Oct 2, 8:58 am, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote:
>> The upshot is that the conservative mindset is not necessary, not an
>> artifact of the scoring system for the most part, and not really
>> solvable by modifying the scoring system for the most part. I think
>> the half-point penalty and penalizing of the table its game win if
>> the table doesn't resolve are good things which grate away at players
>> who depend too heavily on conservative strategies. But ultimately,
>> any real solution to the problem would have to involve changing the
>> game through new cards that reward aggressive play better than it is
>> currently rewarded.
>
> But again as is clear, the ultraconservative player can almost
> singlehandedly rob a table of its game win. While the other players do
> want to win the game, someone who takes too much time or stalls or
> just plays a slow deck can hamper that. If you make completing the
> game REALLY worthwhile (and yeah, a Game Win is worthwhile, but I
> don't think enough people see how far behind missing out on a GW
> really puts them), then it is very clear what needs to be done at the
> table. Of course, some might consider this solution overkill for a
> small problem.
Obviously, from how I've argued my disputes with "nystulc", whoever this
person is, I have no love of ultraconservative play. But playing to
be LMS is simply not the same thing as playing to oust. In many cases,
I'm sure the same incentives would incentize both goals but in some
cases it would not. And even if I agreed with you about the clarity of
the incentives, I just don't think incentives are really the problem,
here.
>> > Adding the bonus VP for Last Man Standing is an attempt to address
>> > this and encourage players to finish games entirely. It has another
>> > small side effect of closing the gap between the worth of 4- and 5-
>> > player tables since there are 5 and 6 VPs at stake instead of 4 and 5.
>> > I don't think it would encourage walls to become the last man standing
>> > because you only earn the VP if the table reaches its conclusion.
>>
>> We'll have disagree about that. Your refusal to acknowledge the other
>> part of your incentive (the requirement of survival to qualify for your
>> bonus) is creating a flaw in your evaluation of its effects, IMHO.
>
> How can I not acknowledge that survival qualifies for the bonus if
> that is precisely what gives you the bonus? Are you suggesting I'm
> discounting what negative effect this might have on game play toward
> an even more careful conservative game?
Um, in a word: yes.
> I think it would have quite
> the opposite effect and therein lies the disagreement.
OK. I stand corrected in that sense.
> Yes, we wouldn't have players necessarily racing out of the gate to
> earn their 3 VPs and then run out of gas. I don't see a problem with
> that.
I'm not sure I think there's a big problem with it. It bothers me
that IMHO it disincentizes situations where a person has to decide
between making a lunge for a second VP while fearing that the
lunge will ultimately get him ousted, even if he succeeds. You
can jigger with the various odds to decide how to treat it with
game theory: raise and lower the chance of succeeding with the
lunge, the chance the player will be ousted if the lunge fails,
and the chance the player will be ousted even if the lunge succeeds
and he has six more pool to work with. Ultimately, people in this
situation will tend to be more oriented towards being LMS instead
of getting ousts when and where they can. I note that it would not
rob the ousted guy with 2 VP of his game win if the game doesn't
not resolve, unlike nystulc's proposal. That makes your suggestion
superior to his in my eyes. But even so, game wins from being LMS
become worth relatively more (you get an additional VP along with
your LMS GW) and thus it's relatively more worth to pass up the
chance at a payoff from lunging for a second VP. I'm afraid that
makes it a loser as far as encouraging games to resolve, so thus
I'd be opposed to it.
> I seem to remember a (Swiss?) player posting that they design decks to
> take 2 VPs then merely survive so they'll get the Game Win without the
> game going to conclusion. That's a pretty poor attitude to take IMO,
> but you know, it can win with the current structure. Giving that
> little nudge to encourage players to fully finish might eliminate this
> sort of strategy from tournaments, or at the very least encourage
> aggressive players who do well at the start to keep the pedal to the
> metal and finish the game out entirely, rather than coast to the
> finish line with a lackey at their back.
I don't think so. It's a nudge, but I don't think it's hard enough
nudge in that situation. Someone with 2 VPs and the ability to
survive would be risking his GW to play over aggressively. Thus, I
think the extra VP incentive is not going to enter his thinking as
nearly as much as the person who has no GW and is just deciding
whether to lunge at a second - or even at a first - VP.
> I just don't believe there will be people out there trying to let
> their prey earn 3 VPs and then try to snag last man standing for a 3-3
> TIE with no game win.
No. Agreed, that scenario doesn't bother me. I'm not sure what brought
this up, however.
Fred
Frederick Scott
news:1191364694.5...@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com...
> Actually, the game win requirements are almost identical to the
> current system -- the increase from 2 vp to 3 vp is largely illusory,
> if you think about it. The increase was necessary to prevent people
> who got only 1.5 vp under the current system from getting game wins
> under my proposal. No-one else is effected, except ...
>
> The increase will make a difference in only one situation -- that a
> person who gains two ousts and then is ousted himself is denied the
> game win, even if the game later goes to time between the remaining
> two players.
In fact, in all "normal" situations I can think of (i.e. no unusual
VP-affecting cards, simultaneous ousts, or withdrawals), the change
should _only_ deprive that person of his GW if the game later goes to
time, I believe. When a game doesn't go to time, someone else in the
game should have gathered at least 2 VPs under the current system,
anyway.
Fred
nys...@cs.com
XZealot wrote:
> On Oct 3, 1:07 am, nyst...@cs.com wrote:
> > XZealot wrote:
> > > See this is where you are wrong. The game doesn't reward you
> > > for
> > > not being ousted. It only rewards you for being last man
> > > standing.
> >
> > You forgot withdrawal.
>
So? All the "exceptions" disprove your rule -- that only ousting
counts. Every time a game ends, and a player has not been ousted,
that player earns a victory point. This reward is not applied it is
certain that the player will keep the point, because Garfield does not
want to complicate things with adding and subtracting victory points.
But the end result is always exactly the same as though the player had
brought a vp with him to the table, and then lost it to an opponent
when and if ousted.
> [...] but your system gives the same
> reward for a timeouts which effectively obsoletes that rule,
The rule -- that a winner is not determined until the game ends, is
"obsoleted" no matter how you look at it. Garfield's game ends rules
tend to make tie games unlikely, but a game called at 2 hours with 5
players remaining is a tie game whether you give the tied players 0
vp, .5 vp or 1 vp.
> congraulations on your first non-sequitur.
Oh .. go to hell.
> Again, you have not addressed the point. The game does not reward
> survival, it rewards ousting your prey as the path to victory.
(sigh) The game rewards both survival and ousting -- to the exact
same extent. Of course, you need more ousts than survivals, because
you can only survive once. Therefore, ousting is collectively more
important. Why are you pretending you don't know what I'm talking
about?
5 players get ousted simultaneously with s single Ancilla
Empowerment. All have one oust, but none have survived, all get one
vp. Final score 1, 1, 1, 1, 1.
4 players withdraw from the game, and one is last man standing. Final
score 1, 1, 1, 1, 1.
In the first, all ate, but they all got eaten too; in the second all
neither ate, nor got eaten. The result in both cases is the same.
In a 4 player game, you score two ousts, and your last opponent scores
one oust. You ate twice, but got eaten. He ate once, but did not get
eaten. Score, 2 to 2.
It always follows this pattern.
> You
> system subverts the various anti-inertia designs (the edge, 6 pool
> and a VP for ousting).
Incorrect. The game win requirements are the same as under the
original rules. They require ousting.
> Since your system reward the "do nothing" path to
> victory, [...]
My system requires 2 ousts for a victory, the only exceptions being
those that exist currently in finished games. You know this perfectly
well.
I am tired of this nonsense. Do you think that if you shout "the sky
is green" long enough it will make it true?
> [...] it encourages table politics and deal making, which are an
> interesting facet of the game but not more important than the
> predator- prey relationship.
You have completely failed to show how it does this. All your
examples merely showed you did not know how my system worked.
XZealot
> XZealot wrote:
> > On Oct 3, 1:07 am, nyst...@cs.com wrote:
> > > XZealot wrote:
> > > > See this is where you are wrong. The game doesn't reward you
> > > > for
> > > > not being ousted. It only rewards you for being last man
> > > > standing.
>
> > > You forgot withdrawal.
>
> > Which is nearly impossible to do, [...]
>
> So? All the "exceptions" disprove your rule -- that only ousting
> counts. Every time a game ends, and a player has not been ousted,
> that player earns a victory point. This reward is not applied it is
> certain that the player will keep the point, because Garfield does not
> want to complicate things with adding and subtracting victory points.
> But the end result is always exactly the same as though the player had
> brought a vp with him to the table, and then lost it to an opponent
> when and if ousted.
You again have failed to address the point.
> > [...] but your system gives the same
> > reward for a timeouts which effectively obsoletes that rule,
>
> The rule -- that a winner is not determined until the game ends, is
> "obsoleted" no matter how you look at it. Garfield's game ends rules
> tend to make tie games unlikely, but a game called at 2 hours with 5
> players remaining is a tie game whether you give the tied players 0
> vp, .5 vp or 1 vp.
Again, you have failed to address the point.
> > congraulations on your first non-sequitur.
>
> Oh .. go to hell.
It's October 3rd and its 95 degrees outside and 110 degrees inside;
where do you think I am writing this from?
> > Again, you have not addressed the point. The game does not reward
> > survival, it rewards ousting your prey as the path to victory.
>
> (sigh) The game rewards both survival and ousting -- to the exact
> same extent. Of course, you need more ousts than survivals, because
> you can only survive once. Therefore, ousting is collectively more
> important. Why are you pretending you don't know what I'm talking
> about?
No, it does not. You are completely wrong. It does not reward
survival. You need to read the rules again.
> 5 players get ousted simultaneously with s single Ancilla
> Empowerment. All have one oust, but none have survived, all get one
> vp. Final score 1, 1, 1, 1, 1.
>
> 4 players withdraw from the game, and one is last man standing. Final
> score 1, 1, 1, 1, 1.
No, they don't. They get .5, .5, .5, .5 and 1
> In the first, all ate, but they all got eaten too; in the second all
> neither ate, nor got eaten. The result in both cases is the same.
>
> In a 4 player game, you score two ousts, and your last opponent scores
> one oust. You ate twice, but got eaten. He ate once, but did not get
> eaten. Score, 2 to 2.
>
> It always follows this pattern.
See above, it doesn not.
> > You
> > system subverts the various anti-inertia designs (the edge, 6 pool
> > and a VP for ousting).
>
> Incorrect. The game win requirements are the same as under the
> original rules. They require ousting.
No your game win rule has a sliding scale which certainly is not the
same as the original.
> > Since your system reward the "do nothing" path to
> > victory, [...]
>
> My system requires 2 ousts for a victory, the only exceptions being
> those that exist currently in finished games. You know this perfectly
> well.
Yes, and that is exactly why I am telling you it is a bad system.
Your changes invalidate victory conditions as well as encourage non-
action.
> I am tired of this nonsense. Do you think that if you shout "the sky
> is green" long enough it will make it true?
I am not talking about the sky. I am talking about these changes,
which are bad for the reasons I have listed that you have failed to
address.
> > [...] it encourages table politics and deal making, which are an
> > interesting facet of the game but not more important than the
> > predator- prey relationship.
>
> You have completely failed to show how it does this. All your
> examples merely showed you did not know how my system worked.
Incorrect, since you haven't address the points I have raised, then I
will have to raise them again.
1) [the assuption that timeouts should reward an entire VP based on
the assumption that they were going to oust their prey] Not everyone
ousts their prey so to reward players on that assumption by giving
them a whole VP by going to time makes dragging the game out equally
valuable as ousting your prey. This creates inertia which encourages
players not to put pressure on their prey.
2) [timeouts should reward an entire VP] You are specifically creating
rules that structurally create ties by going to time to deny Game Wins
against players who try to win. This is self-defeating.
3) [time outs should requard an entire VP]
The game doesn't reward you for not being ousted. It only rewards you
for being last man standing. You need to read the rules again. I'll
help you out and copy them for
you.
Object of the Game
Your goal is to accumulate the most victory points by destroying the
influence held by rival Methuselahs. You accomplish this goal by using
your influence to gain control of younger vampires and using those
vampires to take actions to reduce the influence of rival Methuselahs.
Influence is represented by pool counters (see Equipment Needed, sec.
1.2), the main currency of the game. When a Methuselah runs out of
pool counters, she* is bereft of influence and ousted from the game.
*****AS METHUSELAHS ARE OUSTED, players earn victory points; the
winner is
the player with the most victory points at the end of the game *****
This is to encourage aggressive play and prevent overly defensive
strategies from dominating the game.
4) [2vps for a GW in a completed game versus 3vps in a game that timed
out] This is blatantly unfair to deny a player who has ousted 2
players the game win only because he was then ousted and the game went
to time. This overly punishes aggressive play and foils the original
intent of the designer to keep players acting aggressively against
their prey. It also creates a mechanic where other players can
engineer denying a GW to the player who has earned by timing out a
game.
If you would like to address those points then please go ahead.
nys...@cs.com
> <nyst...@cs.com> wrote in message
> news:1191364694.5...@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com...
> > Actually, the game win requirements are almost identical to the
> > current system -- the increase from 2 vp to 3 vp is largely illusory,
> > if you think about it. The increase was necessary to prevent people
> > who got only 1.5 vp under the current system from getting game wins
> > under my proposal. No-one else is effected, except ...
>
> > The increase will make a difference in only one situation -- that a
> > person who gains two ousts and then is ousted himself is denied the
> > game win, even if the game later goes to time between the remaining
> > two players.
>
> In fact, in all "normal" situations I can think of (i.e. no unusual
> VP-affecting cards, simultaneous ousts, or withdrawals), the change
> should _only_ deprive that person of his GW if the game later goes to
> time, I believe.
I am fairly sure that [A ousts B, then ousts C, then gets ousted by E,
leaving E & D to survive til time out] is the *only* situation where a
person who would get a game win under the current system would not get
one under mine.
There are exotic situations where one could get a game win under my
system where you could not have done under the current system. I
believe they all involve a player avoiding the half-point withdrawal
penalty of the current rules, in a finished game. For instance
A ousts B, A withdraws, an ancilla empowerment ousts the remaining
players simultaneously, A wins with 2, 0, 1, 1, 1 (he would have got
only 1.5 under the current system, denying him a game win).
> When a game doesn't go to time, someone else in the
> game should have gathered at least 2 VPs under the current system,
> anyway.
Yes, usually you need 3 vp to win. If no-one has scored an oust when
you leave the game with 2 vp (possible if you withdraw following an
oust -- except under the current system that gets you 1.5 rather than
2), then there is a possibility that the remaining players will tie 1,
1, 1 -- and you win (or would were it not for the half-point discount
on withdrawal).
But you left the game with 2 vp, and someone has scored an oust (by
ousting you) then there are NO situations (exotic or otherwise) that
can preserve the game win for you. An ousted player with 2 vps has no
hope of a game win whatsoever -- not even a theoretical one. This is
because 3 players have left the table, taking 2 vp with them, and the
remaining 2 players are fighting over the last 3 vp.
Frederick Scott
> On Oct 3, 3:36 am, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote:
>> <nyst...@cs.com> wrote in message
>> news:1191364694.5...@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com...
>> > person who gains two ousts and then is ousted himself is denied the
>> > game win, even if the game later goes to time between the remaining
>> > two players.
>>
>> In fact, in all "normal" situations I can think of (i.e. no unusual
>> VP-affecting cards, simultaneous ousts, or withdrawals), the change
>> should _only_ deprive that person of his GW if the game later goes to
>> time, I believe.
>> When a game doesn't go to time, someone else in the
>> game should have gathered at least 2 VPs under the current system,
>> anyway.
>
> Yes, usually you need 3 vp to win. If no-one has scored an oust when
> you leave the game with 2 vp (possible if you withdraw following an
> oust -- except under the current system that gets you 1.5 rather than
> 2), then there is a possibility that the remaining players will tie 1,
> 1, 1 -- and you win (or would were it not for the half-point discount
> on withdrawal).
>
> But you left the game with 2 vp, and someone has scored an oust (by
> ousting you) then there are NO situations (exotic or otherwise) that
> can preserve the game win for you. An ousted player with 2 vps has no
> hope of a game win whatsoever -- not even a theoretical one. This is
> because 3 players have left the table, taking 2 vp with them, and the
> remaining 2 players are fighting over the last 3 vp.
I was talking about "under the current system" in the last paragraph
of my previous post. The point was to correct the part where you
stated, "that a person who gains two ousts and then is ousted himself
is denied the game win, *EVEN* if the game later goes to time between
the remaining two players" - emphasizing your choice of the word "even".
"Even" should be replace by "only" if you accept the limitation of
non-exotic situations. (I think...correct me if I missed something...)
Fred
nys...@cs.com
> On Oct 3, 7:01 am, nyst...@cs.com wrote:
> > XZealot wrote:
> > > On Oct 3, 1:07 am, nyst...@cs.com wrote:
> > > > XZealot wrote:
> > > > > See this is where you are wrong. The game doesn't reward
> > > > > you for
> > > > > not being ousted. It only rewards you for being last man
> > > > > standing.
> >
> > > > You forgot withdrawal.
> >
> > > Which is nearly impossible to do, [...]
> >
> > So? All the "exceptions" disprove your rule -- that only ousting
> > counts. Every time a game ends, and a player has not been
> > ousted, that player earns a victory point. This reward is not
> > applied it is certain that the player will keep the point,
> > because Garfield does not want to complicate things with adding
> > and subtracting victory points. But the end result is always
> > exactly the same as though the player had brought a vp with him
> > to the table, and then lost it to an opponent when and if ousted.
>
> You again have failed to address the point.
I thought I just addressed your point. Garfield does not tell us how
to score uncompleted games. It is an extremely cheap shot for you to
accuse me of violating his intention just because I try to score
uncompleted games. My disagreement is with the way the current VEKN
rules score uncompleted games, not with Richard Garfield.
> > > [...] but your system gives the same
> > > reward for a timeouts which effectively obsoletes that rule,
> >
> > The rule -- that a winner is not determined until the game ends,
> > is "obsoleted" no matter how you look at it. Garfield's game
> > ends rules tend to make tie games unlikely, but a game called at
> > 2 hours with 5 players remaining is a tie game whether you give
> > the tied players 0 vp, .5 vp or 1 vp.
>
> Again, you have failed to address the point.
To the extent that I understood your point, I have addressed it.
> > > Again, you have not addressed the point. The game does not
> > > reward survival, it rewards ousting your prey as the path to
> > > victory.
> >
> > (sigh) The game rewards both survival and ousting -- to the
> > exact same extent. Of course, you need more ousts than
> > survivals, because you can only survive once. Therefore,
> > ousting is collectively more important. Why are you pretending
> > you don't know what I'm talking about?
>
> No, it does not. You are completely wrong. It does not reward
> survival. You need to read the rules again.
I don't think I do.
> > 5 players get ousted simultaneously with s single Ancilla
> > Empowerment. All have one oust, but none have survived, all get
> > one vp. Final score 1, 1, 1, 1, 1.
> >
> > 4 players withdraw from the game, and one is last man standing.
> > Final score 1, 1, 1, 1, 1.
>
> No, they don't. They get .5, .5, .5, .5 and 1
I am pretty sure we were discussing the standard rulebook, since the
whole issue was whether my rules preserved the reward structure of the
standard rulebook. I even remember Richard Garfield's name coming
up. Under the standard rulebook -- both Garfield's original version
and the current version (and under my system) they get 1, 1, 1, 1, 1.
> > In the first, all ate, but they all got eaten too; in the second
> > all neither ate, nor got eaten. The result in both cases is the
> > same.
> >
> > In a 4 player game, you score two ousts, and your last opponent
> > scores one oust. You ate twice, but got eaten. He ate once,
> > but did not get eaten. Score, 2 to 2.
> >
> > It always follows this pattern.
>
> See above, it doesn not.
Under the standard rulebook, it always follows this pattern. If you
disagree, please provide an example.
> > > You
> > > system subverts the various anti-inertia designs (the edge, 6
> > > pool and a VP for ousting).
> >
> > Incorrect. The game win requirements are the same as under the
> > original rules. They require ousting.
>
> No your game win rule has a sliding scale which certainly is not
> the same as the original.
My scale is exactly the same as the original (by which I mean both the
current and former versions of the standard rules, as distinct from
the current tournament rules). One vp every time you oust, plus one
point if you have not been ousted. The latter point is granted when
it is determined you will not be ousted (either when you withdraw, or
when the game ends). The time out system
> > > Since your system reward the "do nothing" path to
> > > victory, [...]
> >
> > My system requires 2 ousts for a victory, the only exceptions
> > being those that exist currently in finished games. You know
> > this perfectly well.
>
> Yes, and that is exactly why I am telling you it is a bad system.
> Your changes invalidate victory conditions as [...]
If your only complaint is that it is different from the VEKN system,
then I concede -- it has made a change from the victory conditions of
the VEKN system. However it is not a change from the standard rules,
which do not tell us how to score uncompleted games.
> well as encourage non-action.
You have yet to explain how it does this.
> > I am tired of this nonsense. Do you think that if you
> > shout "the sky
> > is green" long enough it will make it true?
>
> I am not talking about the sky. I am talking about these changes,
> which are bad for the reasons I have listed that you have failed to
> address.
I have addressed all your points. You keep shouting "the sky is
green", I point out that it is in fact blue, and even provide
laborious explanations as to why it is blue and not green. You insist
that it is green and accuse me of failing to address your point. What
am I to say? I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on the color of
the sky.
> > > [...] it encourages table politics and deal making, which are
> > > an interesting facet of the game but not more important than
> > > the predator- prey relationship.
> >
> > You have completely failed to show how it does this. All your
> > examples merely showed you did not know how my system worked.
>
> Incorrect, since you haven't address the points I have raised,
> then I will have to raise them again.
As far as I can tell, the "points" you raise below, at least as
applied to the encouragement of deal-making and table splitting, are
being raised for the first time. It is the first time I recall being
given the opportunity to correct the new false claims you are now
making.
> 1) [the assuption that timeouts should reward an entire VP based on
> the assumption that they were going to oust their prey]
False. My system does not assume they will oust their prey, it merely
grants the victory point he would have gotten in a deadlock under
Garfield's rules -- simulating either him withdrawing or his opponent
withdrawing. It grants him the vp Garfield grants merely for not
being ousted when the game ends.
5 player game. A ousts B, A ousts C, A ousts D. A runs out of cards,
A tries to withdraw, E lets him. E gets a victory point.
If E is not gaining the vp for not being ousted, what's he getting it
for? What else has he accomplished? Nothing.
Only in the marginal sense is it a "reward". E is clearly a loser.
The winner of the game is clearly A. He has merely, by losing with 1
vp, lost a little less spectacularly than the other 3 losers, who all
lost with 0 -- because they were ousted.
> Not everyone
> ousts their prey so to reward players on that assumption by giving
> them a whole VP by going to time makes dragging the game out
> equally valuable as ousting your prey.
False. If he ousts his prey, instead of going to time, he gets an
additional victory point. As an additional incentive, he may even get
a game win he would not have gotten otherwise.
4 player game. A ousts B, C ousts D. If the game goes to time, under
my proposal, they tie 2 to 2, and neither gets the game win. If one
ousts the other, then the final score is 3 to 1. The prize is an
extra vp and a game win.
> This creates inertia which encourages
> players not to put pressure on their prey.
Bait and switch. I thought your claim was that it encouraged deal-
making. If you cannot come up with concrete examples of my system
encouraging deal-making, then please have the decency to concede the
point, and stop shouting "the sky is green."
But moving on to your other point -- that it encourages inertia -- it
does not do this in any the examples you have provided, nor any I have
provided. The ball is now in your court. Provide some
counterexamples. Who knows? Perhaps you will succeed in finding an
example. However, the only examples I can think of provide the same
incentives under the current systsm.
> 2) [timeouts should reward an entire VP] You are specifically
> creating rules that structurally create ties by going to time to
> deny Game Wins against players who try to win. This is self-
> defeating.
I have no idea what you are talking about. Please provide a concrete
example.
If you are referring to the ousted player with 2 vp, yes ... my system
denies him the game win and grants him a tie instead -- which is the
best he could have hoped for in a completed game under garfields
rules. It does not punish him for trying to win ... it punishes him
for getting ousted.
Not getting ousted takes effort and energy. Generally, it means
hurrying to oust your prey before you can get ousted yourself by your
predator (since the passage of time tends to result in the reduction
of all resources == blood, pool, cards).
You accuse my system of forcing him to defend himself to preserve his
game win. (You seem to think defense is always bad, because it could
lead to time outs). But under the current system, he need not even do
that. After scoring 2 vps, he can just say "my minions are'nt going
to do anything for the rest of the game -- I'm going out for coffee"
and he will win provided he is correctly confident the the game will
goes to time between the remaining 2 players. If my system rewards
defening yourself (which you call "doing nothing" then the current
system rewards "doing less than nothing".
Under my system, yes, his only goal might be to survive to game end.
Under the current system, his goal might be the same, except that he
need not even be alive at the end. Under my system, survival might be
his only goal; but under the current system, stalling might be his
only goal.
My system may not be perfect, but it is an improvement.
> 3) [time outs should requard an entire VP]
> The game doesn't reward you for not being ousted. It only rewards
> you for being last man standing.
You omitted withdrawal again, which, under the standard rules, also
grants a WHOLE victory point. Fine. Have it your way. Garfields
game NEVER awards a whole victory point for survival EXCEPT under the
following circumstances: 1) last unousted player remaining after all
other players have been ousted or have withdrawn ("last man standing";
and 2) players who legally leave the game without being ousted
("withdrawn").
You are right. In all those OTHER situations where a person finishes
a game without having been ousted, they get nothing. Problem is,
there ARE no other situations -- not in completed games. Garfield
never told us, and the standard rules still don't tell us, how to
score incompleted games.
> You need to read the rules again. I'll
> help you out and copy them for
> you.
You know, this condescending crap is really annoying. I am VERY
tempted to tell you where you can shove that rulebook. But fine, I
will read VERY VERY carefully.
> Object of the Game
> Your goal is to accumulate the most victory points by destroying
> the influence held by rival Methuselahs. You accomplish this goal
> by using your influence to gain control of younger vampires and
> using those vampires to take actions to reduce the influence of
> rival Methuselahs. Influence is represented by pool counters (see
> Equipment Needed, sec. 1.2), the main currency of the game. When a
> Methuselah runs out of pool counters, she* is bereft of influence
> and ousted from the game. *****AS METHUSELAHS ARE OUSTED, players
> earn victory points; the winner is the player with the most
> victory points at the end of the game *****
WOW!!! You are totally right. NOWHERE in this paragraph does it say
anything about granting an extra victory point for being the last
person remaining in the game. NOWHERE does it say anything about
receiving a victory point on successful withdrawal. Clearly,
according to this paragraph, ousting is the ONLY thing that gets you a
victory point -- the ONLY thing that is considered when determining a
game win. NOTHING else is rewarded.
Clearly I was wrong. My memory must be getting faulty in my old age.
I was *sure* I remembered something about full vps for withdrawal and
last man standing.
The person with the most victory points wins. It really is that
simple. 4 player game A ousts B and C, gets ousted by D. A wins, 2
ousts to 1 oust. You are TOTALLY right. THANK YOU, oh noble sir, for
showing me the error of my ways.
> 4) [2vps for a GW in a completed game versus 3vps in a game that
> timed out] This is blatantly unfair to deny a player who has
> ousted 2 players the game win only because he was then ousted and
> the game went to time.
Game going to time has nothing to do with it. He was denied the game
win because he let himself be ousted without first scoring a third
victory point. Period. Once ousted, then no matter how the game
ends, in a completed game, he is a loser -- under Garfields Rules,
under the Current Standard Rules, under Current Tournament.
It is the CURRENT tournament rules that reward a player with a GAme
Win he could not have otherwise achieved, merely because the game goes
to time. Under the CURRENT rules, if you have 2 vp, and you can make
the game go to time, you win, even if you get ousted in the last
minute.
> This overly punishes aggressive play and
> foils the original intent of the designer to keep players acting
> aggressively against their prey.
I don't see how it does that at all. You seem fond of making
unsupported conclusory statements, as a substitute for argument.
> It also creates a mechanic where
> other players can engineer denying a GW to the player who has
> earned by timing out a game.
This is simply incorrect. How does it do this? Lets recap the
example under discussion (which is the only example possible):
A ousts B, then ousts C, then gets ousted by D. E and D remain in the
game.
The remaining possibilities are:
1) Time out, Score (my system): 2, 0, 0, 1, 2 -- No game win.
(VEKN system): 2, 0, 0, .5, 1.5 -- A wins.
2) E ousts D: Score: 2, 0, 0, 0, 3 -- E wins.
3) D ousts E: Score: 2, 0, 0, 2, 1 -- No game win.
4) E withdraws: Score (my system): 2, 0, 0, 1, 2 -- No game win
Score (VEKN system): 2, 0, 0, 1, 1.5 -- A wins.
5) D withdraws: Score (my system): 2, 0, 0, 1, 2 -- No game win.
(VEKN system): 2, 0, 0, .5, 2 -- no game win.
Are you saying that E and D deliberately timed out the game instead of
agreeing to let E withdraw, because they did not want A to get a game
win? Because if the game ends any other way, A will not get the game
win anyway -- under ANY system. Seems to me that, under my system, E
and D have every incentive to try oust eachother.
> If you would like to address those points then please go ahead.
Seems to me that I am laboriously addressing all your points. I note
that no-where did you support your still-unsupported claim that my
system promotes deal-making. You merely switched gears and made other
unsupported and/or false accusations against my proposal.
nys...@cs.com
Frederick Scott wrote:
> I was talking about "under the current system" in the last
> paragraph of my previous post. The point was to correct the part
> where you stated, "that a person who gains two ousts and then is
> ousted himself is denied the game win, *EVEN* if the game later
> goes to time between the remaining two players" - emphasizing your
> choice of the word "even". "Even" should be replace by "only" if
> you accept the limitation of non-exotic situations. (I
> think...correct me if I missed something...)
Hmm. You are right ... I think (my brain hurts).
Including exotic situations, it should be corrected as follows:
The increase will make a difference in only two closly related
situations: 1) a person who gains two ousts and then is ousted
himself is denied the game win he would have gotten had the game went
to time with the 2 remaining players; and 2) a person who gains two
ousts and then is ousted himself is denied the game win he would have
gotten had the person ousting him ended the game by withdrawing.
In any event, the only person effected is the person is the person
who, in a 5 player game earns 2 ousts and is ousted leaving 2 players
remaining.
LSJ
Correct.
The (basic) game doesn't reward you for "not be ousted" per se.
It rewards you for only three things:
1. your prey is ousted
2. being the last one left in the game.
3. successfully withdrawing.
(and note that 2 and 3 are mutually exclusive)
So "not being ousted" is actually only rewarded as "not being ousted when all
other players have been ousted or have withdrawn."
The current V:EKN tournament rules add a new reward: half a VP for not being
ousted when the time limit is reached (as well as reducing the reward for
successful withdrawal).
The basic rules exactly mimic an "ante" system, where each player antes a VP to
the pot (or to their position) at the start of the game to be awarded as above.
Maintaining that paradigm is definitely a good idea. I like the principle
involved in any effort toward that goal.
But there are other good ideas that compete with that goal, which is why, I
presume, the DCI implemented a reduced reward for time-outs (see the World Cup
parallel) which the V:EKN kept.
Frederick Scott
news:d%7Ni.315$lE2...@newssvr22.news.prodigy.net...
> nys...@cs.com wrote:
>> I thought I just addressed your point. Garfield does not tell us how
>> to score uncompleted games. It is an extremely cheap shot for you to
>> accuse me of violating his intention just because I try to score
>> uncompleted games. My disagreement is with the way the current VEKN
>> rules score uncompleted games, not with Richard Garfield.
>
> Correct.
>
> The (basic) game doesn't reward you for "not be ousted" per se.
> It rewards you for only three things:
> 1. your prey is ousted
> 2. being the last one left in the game.
> 3. successfully withdrawing.
>
> (and note that 2 and 3 are mutually exclusive)
>
> So "not being ousted" is actually only rewarded as "not being ousted when all other players have been ousted or have withdrawn."
>
> The current V:EKN tournament rules add a new reward: half a VP for not being ousted when the time limit is reached (as well as
> reducing the reward for successful withdrawal).
This point is important and exposes the weakness in the previous poster's
thinking in extending the conservation-of-victory-points ideology to the
scoring system where timeouts are concerned. It's a much different thing
surviving to the end of a game because one has ousted all of one's opponents
vs. surviving to the end of a timed-out game. The former requires a distinct
form of offense - the latter does not. Building and playing to survive to
time is much easier than building and playing to be last man standing.
Fred
talonz
> I have not been a regular poster here for a while, so forgive if the
> following issue has been discussed before. I am proposing a
> tournament scoring system that seems to be an improvement over the
> current one, and I am interested in feedback and counterarguments.
>
> THE PROPOSED SYSTEM
We already have far too many timed out games as it is. Your system
would only encourage this, making it a bad system imho. Sorry for the
short reply, but this system is horribly flawed.
G
Jeff Kuta
> "LSJ" <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message
And that's why it should be incentivized! :)
Award a bonus VP for LMS so you don't have people dragging their feet
because doing nothing is the easy thing to do.
Jeff
LSJ
And that's why it is incentivized.
> Award a bonus VP for LMS so you don't have people dragging their feet
> because doing nothing is the easy thing to do.
They already get a bonus for not dragging their feet: the oust gets them a bonus
and LMS gets a bonus over standing-at-time.
XZealot
Barring your prey withdrawing, LMS already gets 2 VPs (they have to
oust their prey).
XZealot
There is no such thing as uncompleted games under Garfield's rules.
He lists only three goals to earn Victory Points. If you do not
fulfill those goals you don't earn victory points. The logical
extension of Garfield's rules are that no VPs of any kind are awarded
for timeouts. The game goes to time and players leave with the amount
of victory points they have scored. The current rules reward a player
for not sandbagging a game when it becomes evident that they won't
oust their prey before time is called.
> > > > [...] but your system gives the same
> > > > reward for a timeouts which effectively obsoletes that rule,
>
> > > The rule -- that a winner is not determined until the game ends,
> > > is "obsoleted" no matter how you look at it. Garfield's game
> > > ends rules tend to make tie games unlikely, but a game called at
> > > 2 hours with 5 players remaining is a tie game whether you give
> > > the tied players 0 vp, .5 vp or 1 vp.
>
> > Again, you have failed to address the point.
>
> To the extent that I understood your point, I have addressed it.
Apparently, What is harder, achieving 1 VP for withdrawal conditions
or having a game go to time? We both know it is easier to go to time,
so therefore your changes have obsolesced the withdrawal rule.
> > > > Again, you have not addressed the point. The game does not
> > > > reward survival, it rewards ousting your prey as the path to
> > > > victory.
>
> > > (sigh) The game rewards both survival and ousting -- to the
> > > exact same extent. Of course, you need more ousts than
> > > survivals, because you can only survive once. Therefore,
> > > ousting is collectively more important. Why are you pretending
> > > you don't know what I'm talking about?
>
> > No, it does not. You are completely wrong. It does not reward
> > survival. You need to read the rules again.
>
> I don't think I do.
Well, you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink. You
get VP's for 3 things: Ousting your prey, withdrawing, or being Last
Man Standing. Thats it. Survival doesn't mean anything outside the
context of those three goals.
> > > 5 players get ousted simultaneously with s single Ancilla
> > > Empowerment. All have one oust, but none have survived, all get
> > > one vp. Final score 1, 1, 1, 1, 1.
>
> > > 4 players withdraw from the game, and one is last man standing.
> > > Final score 1, 1, 1, 1, 1.
>
> > No, they don't. They get .5, .5, .5, .5 and 1
>
> I am pretty sure we were discussing the standard rulebook, since the
> whole issue was whether my rules preserved the reward structure of the
> standard rulebook. I even remember Richard Garfield's name coming
> up. Under the standard rulebook -- both Garfield's original version
> and the current version (and under my system) they get 1, 1, 1, 1, 1.
There is a reason that rule was changed. Players would make a deal to
withdraw prior to the timeout to earn the full victory point. If you
didn't know why this was changed, then now you do. This is an example
of encouraging table politics to maximize the VP outcomes of a game.
> > > > You
> > > > system subverts the various anti-inertia designs (the edge, 6
> > > > pool and a VP for ousting).
>
> > > Incorrect. The game win requirements are the same as under the
> > > original rules. They require ousting.
>
> > No your game win rule has a sliding scale which certainly is not
> > the same as the original.
>
> My scale is exactly the same as the original (by which I mean both the
> current and former versions of the standard rules, as distinct from
> the current tournament rules). One vp every time you oust, plus one
> point if you have not been ousted.
There is no reward for not being ousted. The closest thing is being
Last Man Standing which is not the same. This is where your system is
flawed, it is overly generous for time outs.
> > > > Since your system reward the "do nothing" path to
> > > > victory, [...]
>
> > > My system requires 2 ousts for a victory, the only exceptions
> > > being those that exist currently in finished games. You know
> > > this perfectly well.
>
> > Yes, and that is exactly why I am telling you it is a bad system.
> > Your changes invalidate victory conditions as [...]
>
> If your only complaint is that it is different from the VEKN system,
> then I concede -- it has made a change from the victory conditions of
> the VEKN system. However it is not a change from the standard rules,
> which do not tell us how to score uncompleted games.
My complaint is that rewarding a whole VP for a timeout is the same as
rewarding inaction. that is because it makes defensive tactics
(inaction) more viable, which in turn make offensive tactics less
viable, by default. If you make it more difficult for someone to
single handedly oust their prey, then the solution within the context
of a multi player game is for two players to oust a single prey. Two
players teaming up requires politics therefore your change to the
standard rule increases the amount of table politics in the game.
nys...@cs.com
> The (basic) game doesn't reward you for "not be ousted" per se.
> It rewards you for only three things:
> 1. your prey is ousted
> 2. being the last one left in the game.
> 3. successfully withdrawing.
>
> (and note that 2 and 3 are mutually exclusive)
Sure. Of course, one could think of the latter two as two mutually
exclusive ways of "not being ousted" -- one determined at the end of
the game, the other before. In each case, the victory point is
granted when it is determined, for certain, that the player will never
be ousted.
> So "not being ousted" is actually only rewarded as "not being ousted when all
> other players have been ousted or have withdrawn."
Sure, except that one can think of withdrawal as an additional "not
being ousted" scenario, in which case, it would be more accurate to
say that "not being ousted" is only rewarded at the point in the game
where it can be determined that you will not be ousted.
> The current V:EKN tournament rules add a new reward: half a VP for not being
> ousted when the time limit is reached (as well as reducing the reward for
> successful withdrawal).
>
> The basic rules exactly mimic an "ante" system, where each player antes a VP to
> the pot (or to their position) at the start of the game to be awarded as above.
>
> Maintaining that paradigm is definitely a good idea. I like the principle
> involved in any effort toward that goal.
>
> But there are other good ideas that compete with that goal, which is why, I
> presume, the DCI implemented a reduced reward for time-outs (see the World Cup
> parallel) which the V:EKN kept.
Yes, but, originally, when the DCI implemented the reduced award, the
"Game Win" system was not yet in place. It is possible that the Game
Win system (which my proposal preserves) already serves whatever
function the DCI originally had in mind.
Imagine a 4 player game, where the last 2 players (A and C), each with
a victory point, duke it out. Under the former VEKN rules, each of
these players anticipates the following awards:
Time-Out Tie: +0.5 vp, +0.5 vp (total 1.5 vp, 1.5 vp)
Other Deadock (withdrawal): +1.0 vp, +1.0 vp (total 2.0 vp, 2.0 vp)
A ousts C: +2.0 vp, +0 vp (total 3.0 vp, 1.0 vp)
A player gets 4 times as much for winning as he does for tying the
game.
Imagine the same game under my proposal:
Time-Out Tie: +1 vp, +1 vp (total 2.0 vp, 2.0 vp)
Other Deadlock (withdrawal): +1, +1 (total 2.0, 2.0)
A ousts C: +2.0 vp & +1 gw (total 3.0 vp & 1 gw, 1.0 vp)
It is hard, under the current game win system, to measure the value of
a victory point versus the value of a game win. But if I assume that
a game win award is at least as valuable as 2 vps* then A is still
getting at least 4 times as much for winning as he is for tying the
game.
On the other hand, under the current VEKN system, which introduced the
game win system while keeping the half-point system (and also
introduces half points for withdrawals):
Time-Out: +0.5 vp, +0.5 vp (total 1.5 vp, 1.5 vp)
Other Deadock (withdrawal by A): +0.5 vp, +1 vp & 1 gw (total 1.5 vp,
2 vp & 1 gw)
A ousts C: +2 vp & +1 gw, +0 vp (total 3 vp & 1gw, 1 vp)
If we assume the game win award is (at least) worth 2 vp, we now have
a situation where the reward for winning is at least 8 times the
reward for a tie game. Whatever functions the win bonus serves, might
not this be overkill?
(Incidentally, under the current system one can have the bizarre
situation where a person caught in a deadlock with his opponent --
such as all vamps in torpor with no prospect of either player rescuing
them -- uses the deadlock-breaking mechanism of withdrawal to throw a
half victory point and a game win at his opponent at no cost to
himself).
* This seems reasonable -- even conservative. It is possible, in a 3
preliminary round tournament, for a person with 6 vp and 3 gws to beat
someone with 12 vp and 2 gws -- so it is theoretically possible to
have situations where 1 extra gw trumps 6 extra vps; an if you object
that this example hardly matters because both people are sure to make
the final round in any event, one still can have a situation where a
person with 2 vp and 1 gw beats someone with 6 vp and 0 gw -- 1 extra
gw trumping 4 extra vp. If you further object that 2 vp game wins are
rare, we can still have situations where a person with 3 vp and 1 gw
beats someone with 6 vp and 0 gw -- 1 extra gw trumping 3 extra vp.
LSJ
Garfield's basic rules pretty clearly parallel the ante concept.
In which case, players who left before game end (e.g., time limit) would simply
take their ante with them.
nys...@cs.com
> It rewards you for only three things:
> 1. your prey is ousted
> 2. being the last one left in the game.
> 3. successfully withdrawing.
>
> (and note that 2 and 3 are mutually exclusive)
Sure. Of course, one could think of the latter two as two mutually
exclusive ways of "not being ousted" -- one determined at the end of
the game, the other before. In each case, the victory point is
granted when it is determined, for certain, that the player will never
be ousted.
> So "not being ousted" is actually only rewarded as "not being ousted when all
> other players have been ousted or have withdrawn."
Sure, except that one can think of withdrawal as an additional "not
being ousted" scenario, in which case, it would be more accurate to
say that "not being ousted" is only rewarded at the point in the game
where it can be determined that you will not be ousted.
> The current V:EKN tournament rules add a new reward: half a VP for not being
> ousted when the time limit is reached (as well as reducing the reward for
> successful withdrawal).
>
> The basic rules exactly mimic an "ante" system, where each player antes a VP to
> the pot (or to their position) at the start of the game to be awarded as above.
>
> Maintaining that paradigm is definitely a good idea. I like the principle
> involved in any effort toward that goal.
>
> But there are other good ideas that compete with that goal, which is why, I
> presume, the DCI implemented a reduced reward for time-outs (see the World Cup
> parallel) which the V:EKN kept.
Yes, but, originally, when the DCI implemented the reduced award, the
XZealot
That is not how an ante system works, at least not the way I learned
it. The ante is the cost of entering the game. You only leave the
table with your winnings. If you leave before the game is over then
you forfeit your ante. The ante is to keep players in the game and
create a value over which the game is fought. It is what the players
must risk to participate.
If, as you say, VTES is based upon the ante system, then a player does
not reclaim their ante at the end of the game, but only leave with
their winnings (earned VPs). I can't think of a game that uses the
ante system and a timing system other than VTES. As far as I know,
the only way to reclaim an ante is to win the game, in either VTES or
any other game.
nys...@cs.com
> Well, you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink.
I am not your horse.
> There is a reason that rule was changed. Players would make a deal to
> withdraw prior to the timeout to earn the full victory point. If you
> didn't know why this was changed, then now you do.
I did ask you to put a lid on the condescending crap, didn't I?
XZealot
> On Oct 4, 6:07 pm, XZealot <xzea...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > Well, you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink.
>
> I am not your horse.
But apparently you are being lead.
> > There is a reason that rule was changed. Players would make a deal to
> > withdraw prior to the timeout to earn the full victory point. If you
> > didn't know why this was changed, then now you do.
>
> I did ask you to put a lid on the condescending crap, didn't I?
The funny thing is your inability to respond to the actual points of
the discussion rather than the transition that separates one point
from another. I am not being critical of you, but rather reflecting
on why you are not engaging the points that I am making. If you would
respond to the actual points I am making rather than the fluff around
the points then this won't dissolve into a flame war. So is this the
totality of your response?
XZealot
> ante system and a timing system other than VTES. As far as I know,
> the only way to reclaim an ante is to win the game, in either VTES or
> any other game.
What happens when a game of poker (an ante system game) ends without a
clear winner then the house keeps the pot and the antes that make it
up. So it is a clear win or lose situation. If you do not win the
game then the default is that you lose the game.
Jeff Kuta
Yes, this is true. But part of the discussion came from the fact that
if a Meth ousts three successive preys then is ousted themselves, they
still get 3 VPs and the GW, even though they're not the LMS. This
wasn't part of Garfield's plan and is something that the VEKN
instituted to encourage a variety of deck archetypes, rather than only
those which are capable of sweeping within time constraints.
IMO, this "lunge at the finish time" mentality is causing some
stalling/slow play problems at tournaments. I was just proposing ways
to make it even more important to finish a game completely to minimize
this problem. To what degree the VEKN feels this is an issue will of
course affect if any changes are made or are necessary (and of course,
this isn't quite the same discussion that nyst has initiated because
he has a different problem he set out to address.
Jeff
Frederick Scott
news:1191535768....@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...
> On Oct 4, 8:52 am, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
>> The current V:EKN tournament rules add a new reward: half a VP for not being
>> ousted when the time limit is reached (as well as reducing the reward for
>> successful withdrawal).
>>
>> The basic rules exactly mimic an "ante" system, where each player antes a VP to
>> the pot (or to their position) at the start of the game to be awarded as above.
>>
>> Maintaining that paradigm is definitely a good idea. I like the principle
>> involved in any effort toward that goal.
>>
>> But there are other good ideas that compete with that goal, which is why, I
>> presume, the DCI implemented a reduced reward for time-outs (see the World Cup
>> parallel) which the V:EKN kept.
>
> Yes, but, originally, when the DCI implemented the reduced award, the
> "Game Win" system was not yet in place. It is possible that the Game
> Win system (which my proposal preserves) already serves whatever
> function the DCI originally had in mind.
Yes, but the thing you don't explain is why this matters. If you comprehend that
the game win artifact was put into place to compensate for failings in the
previous (inherited-from-the-DCI system), you seem to accept that there were
reasons for making this change. Why then would you assert that the 1/2 VP
penalty could have been obsolesced at that moment but that no one would think to
eliminate it as the Game Win was instituted? Presumably, if it had become truly
obsolete, it would have been. It wasn't. This point exposes all this historical
conjecture for what I think it is: manufacturing a convenient justification.
"Ooops! See here, this should have done this in 2001 but they forgot!" We
didn't forget. I was one of the ones talking about the original table win
proposal back in 2001. Although a lot of different criteria were discussed at
the time, and although the tournament rule just magically showed up in the
2002 tournament rules without discussion as to who's proposal exactly was used
to create the final criteria for the game win (doesn't really matter -
it was as close to a collective act of creativity as I've ever seen in truth),
I can say that the criteria were being discussed in terms of number of _ousts_
required, with no one that I saw particularly felt like survival to the game's
end should make a difference. The main contention was over such nuances as,
"Should a table win be split if two players both scored 2+ VPs."
One critical point to consider in this discussion: With as much interest as there
was with fixing the perceived shortcomings of the system in 2001 and at various
periods since (Succubus Club eventually got updated and then eventually banned;
the two seat-switching cards likewise got banned), no one until you has ever
stood up and said, "Gee, it's a problem that people are getting penalized by
only getting 1/2 VP in timeouts." The tournament rules have even been changed
to make withdrawals equal in reward to time outs - rather than the other way
around - in that period. You seem to be quite unique in your perception that
this is a problem. It's certainly not because others are uninterested in the
subject.
Fred