Deals, deals, again...
Orpheus
question of deals arises again.
From all the discussions I hear, it looks like many people are disgusted of
the importance it takes in the game, and would like to find a solution to
avoid the worst players from ruining a table from a VP.
My question to LSJ and staff is very simple : do you plan to legifere the
deals in any way (including forbidding them, or making a one-line rule, or a
20-pages notebook...) in the time to come ? Or to let the situation
deteriorate until all tournaments are shit and more good players get bored
away from the game ?
-----------------
Orpheus
"We can never know of what we are the seeds
Until we flower."
Lilith
Tetragrammaton
> Well, since this week tournie, on the italian forum and right here,
> the question of deals arises again.
>
Indeed :-)
> From all the discussions I hear, it looks like many people are
> disgusted of the importance it takes in the game, and would like to
> find a solution to avoid the worst players from ruining a table from
> a VP.
>
Yes, i witnessed too much of these situations to not say that
thet've become really a concern when i'm going to judge at tournaments.
> My question to LSJ and staff is very simple : do you plan to legifere
> the deals in any way (including forbidding them, or making a one-line
> rule, or a 20-pages notebook...) in the time to come ? Or to let the
> situation deteriorate until all tournaments are shit and more good
> players get bored away from the game ?
>
This is so very true - almost all the new players here have run from the
game,
feeling too overhelmed by the importance of deals in the game, they just
don't wanted to spend hours discussing about deal, 3 -2 vps split and so on
("hey, i bought the cards, i like to talk and play but.... too much time
discussing
about these damn deals..." "i like the cards and the game but, won't you
eradicate the based vps deal from it?")
More, those players (there are many) that are not so good at conversation,
and so have little persuasive power with words, are disavantaged at the very
beginning in matter of deals (having them all the power to change a game
outcome).
I would like a serious revision of the "rules" about deals.
regards
Emiliano, v:ekn Prince of Rome
Orpheus
> and so have little persuasive power with words, are disavantaged at the
very
> beginning in matter of deals (having them all the power to change a game
> outcome).
Sunday, I asked for a deal in my first game. It is, for me, one of the few
cases where it is a logical conclusion : I had 2 VPs, a predator who could
make some bleeds, and Beast and friends as a prey. I dealt a "you kill prey
and then withdraw" with Beast because I had no hope of killing him before he
seriously maimed all my minions, and that could have benefited either him or
my predator. Beast on the other hand would probably not have survived if I
had bled a lot and then died to my prey. So we withdrawed because both our
decks were strong enough to counter each other.
What I despise *a lot* is when people withdraw because their decks are to
weak to win VPs, but still destroy the table (I still recall a Shambling
doing his work for his prey, left me vomiting on the table...).
Or when it stops good game and makes it become shit. Which is way too often.
> I would like a serious revision of the "rules" about deals.
"There are no rules about deals". LSJ. ;-)
Possible, very easy rules (cumulative or not) :
- No deals can be made involving giving VPs to another player
- A player must optimize his VPs, no matter if he still has the Game Win
- A player must optimize his VPs at any given time, even to the point of
breaking any deal made in other circumstances : if these circumstances are
changed in any way, the deal is de facto considered invalid.
- There can be no deals involving material benefits of any sort, including
money, splitting the price, going to bed with anyone, or getting a signed
picture of LSJ in a wet swimsuit. ;-)
- There are no deals. This is the Jyhad. Kill or die.
-- -----------------
Trey Morita
> Orpheus wrote:
>> Well, since this week tournie, on the italian forum and right here,
>> the question of deals arises again.
>>
Rather than trying to legislate deals, why don't you try handling deals
in a different way as a player? In the DC playgroup, we almost never make
any kind of table-split deals, and that may be because we all know that
deals are not set in stone, and people can and will break deals. Once
deals become less of a sure thing, then table splitting deals should
become less common, simply because what is the point of making a deal
that you know will be broken?
Instead of sweeping deals that determine the outcome of the game, we
make deals about situations that can be resolved immediately or within
a turn, and rarely involve giving someone a VP. The following types
of deals tend to occur often:
"You rescue my vampire and I'll rescue yours, that way there is less
chance the rescues will be blocked."
"You vote for this Kine Resources Contested and I'll call the next one
with 3 points to your prey."
A lot of times we will simply rely on enlightened self-interest instead
of deals:
"I think you should rescue my vampire because all I'm trying to do right
now is survive and deny your prey a VP."
"You can block this hunt if you want but I'm just trying to gain pool
and be a wall for you."
Quite a bit of the talking in our games revolves around manipulating
perception of who is the strongest/weakest, with everyone pointing a
finger at someone else and claiming that is the person who everyone
should be worried about.
So maybe this is just the rambling of an incorrigible deal-breaker, but
I think introducing deal-breaking into your playgroup (and maybe by
playgroup I mean, the European continent) would benefit by seeing a
reduction or elimination of table-splitting deals.
Trey
- I was the first deal-breaker in DC
Orpheus
> >> Well, since this week tournie, on the italian forum and right here,
> >> the question of deals arises again.
> >>
>
> Rather than trying to legislate deals, why don't you try handling deals
> in a different way as a player?
(snip lots of stuff I agree upon)
> So maybe this is just the rambling of an incorrigible deal-breaker, but
> I think introducing deal-breaking into your playgroup (and maybe by
> playgroup I mean, the European continent) would benefit by seeing a
> reduction or elimination of table-splitting deals.
You're quite right. But it is a very big playgroup. ;-) And do you think
there are no such deals in the US, Canada, Australia etc ?
Situational and temporary "deals" (as a matter of fact, more like alliances
for a short while) should be all that happens.
But as some people feel obliged to make deals and keep their words (and give
you a bad rep if you don't), it becomes necessary to make a rule preventing
such deals.
Because it wasn't in the initial conception of the game and is ruining it.
Because, as you said, such deals are not necessary to keep the finesse of
the game : it is up to each to argue to his best interests without having to
make cheap promises.
Authorising VP deals brings nothing to the game and takes a lot (fun,
players, winning spirit...) from it.
Thanks for stating what should be the natural course of a game, with all its
great options.
Reyda
"Orpheus" <orphe...@DEADSPAM.free.fr> a écrit dans le message de
news:4159cff3$0$23943$626a...@news.free.fr...
> - There are no deals. This is the Jyhad. Kill or die.
rock'n'roll !!!
Reyda
> Authorising VP deals brings nothing to the game and takes a lot (fun,
> players, winning spirit...) from it.
actually, some people will tell you that table splitting adds something like
"diplomatics" to the game.
the problem is, at a certain level of play, someplayers will propose table
splits at each of their untap.
players who get used to the split system will divide the table very early
and they will never break such deals, so they can benefit from them in the
future : they are aiming for the long run, and they are right since all the
people i'm thinking about right now are in the top 15 in my country. They
know that if they seat at the same table, they will always be able to manage
a "gentleman agreement" and split the table no matter what happens, since
they are part of the "trustful club".
where does the collusion start ? where does the fun end ? what level of
frustration can it be for players who just came to enjoy a game and get out
of the table under cross table pressure ?
honestly i can't understand how VP gain via table split is a gain in their
mind.
i deeply think it's a loss for the game.
'nuff said.
Damnans
"Orpheus" <orphe...@DEADSPAM.free.fr> escribió en el mensaje
news:4159bb3a$0$23931$626a...@news.free.fr...
> Well, since this week tournie, on the italian forum and right here, the
> question of deals arises again.
>
> From all the discussions I hear, it looks like many people are disgusted
of
> the importance it takes in the game, and would like to find a solution to
> avoid the worst players from ruining a table from a VP.
As I have already pointed out on the Italian forum, deals are not the
problem,
but players and judges:
Players giving up too soon, and therefore not playing to win.
Judges allowing "illegal" deals without taking into account the
reasonable
chances the "losing" player has to win the game.
> My question to LSJ and staff is very simple : do you plan to legifere the
> deals in any way (including forbidding them, or making a one-line rule, or
a
> 20-pages notebook...) in the time to come ? Or to let the situation
> deteriorate until all tournaments are shit and more good players get bored
> away from the game ?
I rather think that judges should be very careful when judging deals
involving VPs.
Illegal deals make games boring, not legal ones.
A player playing to win (and just playing to win) is not boring stuff.
A player not doing his or her best to win is boring stuff, and must not
be allowed to do so.
Regards,
Damnans
Johannes Walch
> deteriorate until all tournaments are shit and more good players get bored
> away from the game ?
Strange. We don´t have these problems around here ...
Andrew Daley
game.
I will make a suggestion. Most VP deals revolve around maximising VPs
to get into the final. I propose a change to the tournament structure.
With the addition of a final-less tournament for small events I have
experienced a change in attitudes. No longer is the drive just to make
the finals, it is actually trying to get as many VPs as you can. On
top of the fact that after the usual 3 games people have to sit out
while only 5 people get to play the last game.
Why not just make tournaments 3+ round events with no finals? Use the
archon to record the scores and look up the results on a final
standing table. If there are ties for positions you use the usual
techniques to distinguish.
What do people think?
Andrew
Curevei
>archon to record the scores and look up the results on a final
>standing table. If there are ties for positions you use the usual
>techniques to distinguish.
>
>What do people think?
It's worth checking out.
I can already see an issue with people doing screwy things once they realize
they can't win or in trying to prevent a situation where they can't win. But,
then, people will always do screwy (and undesirable) things to manipulate the
scoring system.
Another multiplayer CCG had a similar structure as we do with the prelims and
the final table. I was constantly trying to get rid of the final table for
that game. But, that game had ways to reward multiple players such that you
might feel like you accomplished something even when not winning and that
game's final table philosophy was much more egregious as it didn't necessarily
reward success in determining who played for the tournament victory.
If the prize structure is entirely TW-based with the overall winner getting
something extra, it might work out as the people out of running for overall
victory still have an incentive to win their later games. But, the same thing
could be done now with prizes as incentives to winning each game.
I'm sure the arguments I've often heard for final tables will be brought up -
that a final table is more dramatic, that playing against your direct
competition for victory makes for a better tournament finale. Not necessarily
bad, but it's hard to argue one side when the other is never experienced.
Ector
> Strange. We don´t have these problems around here ...
These problems are very common in Minsk, since the level of players
(and their decks) here is very different. Most of our players
(including myself) are newbies, and, IMHO, the main problem isn't the
newbie's frustration from the inevitable loss but his/her inability to
find the way to improve.
If I've lost due to my mistake or lack of some cards, I should avoid
making the mistake and search the needed cards. But what can I do if
several strong players decide to include my head as a part of their
agreement? The true answer is "become strong myself", but it isn't
quite obvious.
If a player feels himself strong, he or she may attempt to break the
offending deal to suggest a more appealing one, and (s)he can also
make another deal with the "sentenced to death" players. The simplest
way to make other players respect your strength is playing a rush
deck... take two Brujah precons and see others trying to make a deal
with you :)
Tetragrammaton
> "Orpheus" <orphe...@DEADSPAM.free.fr> escribió en el mensaje
> news:4159bb3a$0$23931$626a...@news.free.fr...
>> Well, since this week tournie, on the italian forum and right here,
>> the question of deals arises again.
>>
>> From all the discussions I hear, it looks like many people are
>> disgusted of the importance it takes in the game, and would like to
>> find a solution to avoid the worst players from ruining a table from
>> a VP.
>
> As I have already pointed out on the Italian forum, deals are not the
> problem,
> but players and judges:
>
starts to use table splitting deals on regular basis -
being a matter of evaluating the game state, it's pretty subjective:
a single judge could consider losing a position while another not, so
no matter how the judging is, the deals usually ends up screwing
the game for the player(s) that are on the "losing side" of the involved
deal.
We have no real guidelines besides the general "evaluate game state", "go
for
GW, if you can reasonably go for it, then maximize VP, if you can't
reasonably even maximize vps fell free to kill yourself" - those points are
too vague, too open to subjective evaluation to give a real reference.
More, the aspect of deals and their over-power on games outcome,
is at disavantage of all the players that are not good at conversation -
those players usually can't convince anyone of their vision about game
state, and usually always ends up on the losing side of deals.
This aspect was clear in the final of the last italian qualifier:
Stephan got the better english and conversation
at the table, and it was able to convice almost anyone - Mirko tried to
deal with Sebastien, but he was too weak with the international language,
and so the vision of Stephan prevaled over Sebastien ("ehy, don't have
the upveal end up with me as prey of weenie horde, i will not do
the dirt work for you... " :-)).
This way, language is becoming too important in this card game,
ending up somewhat in talking/conversation abuse.
greetins
Emiliano
<snip>
Orpheus
> actually, some people will tell you that table splitting adds something
like
> "diplomatics" to the game.
> the problem is, at a certain level of play, someplayers will propose table
> splits at each of their untap.
> players who get used to the split system will divide the table very early
> and they will never break such deals, so they can benefit from them in the
> future : they are aiming for the long run, and they are right since all
the
> people i'm thinking about right now are in the top 15 in my country. They
> know that if they seat at the same table, they will always be able to
manage
> a "gentleman agreement" and split the table no matter what happens, since
> they are part of the "trustful club".
I beg to differ. I am n° 14 right now, and belong to no such fag club.
And the 16nth is the more notorious deal-breaker in all of France !! He even
once respected a deal with me just to show the contrary, and because it had
no importance in the game any more...
Good players don't need deals to know what they have to do at a table.
Diplomatics and manipulation are in this game even without any type of
mentionned deals, and of course without deals for VPs.
Orpheus
Normal. You german guys are so disciplined... ;-)
But seriously, you've had them. If only in Barcelona last year (I know there
wasn't a german in the finals, but you get my meaning).
Lucky you if your countrymen are more reasonable than the rest of Europe
(only ?) but you'll get these troubles in every EC at least...
Chris Arthur
> More, those players (there are many) that are not so good at conversation,
> and so have little persuasive power with words, are disavantaged at the very
> beginning in matter of deals (having them all the power to change a game
> outcome).
Vtes is a social game. Players without good social skills will not do
as well as those with good social skills, all things being equal. That
is the nature of the game and for one I like it like that. I don't
want to play with introverted nerdy dweebs who can't string a sentence
together.
Chris.
Chris Arthur
> >
> > Rather than trying to legislate deals, why don't you try handling deals
> > in a different way as a player?
>
> (snip lots of stuff I agree upon)
>
> > So maybe this is just the rambling of an incorrigible deal-breaker, but
> > I think introducing deal-breaking into your playgroup (and maybe by
> > playgroup I mean, the European continent) would benefit by seeing a
> > reduction or elimination of table-splitting deals.
>
> You're quite right. But it is a very big playgroup. ;-) And do you think
> there are no such deals in the US, Canada, Australia etc ?
Deals tend to be kept in Oz as far as I have witnessed although
deal-breaking does go on. Reyda says in another response that there
are players in France who can trust each other to come to gentleman's
agreements. We have the same type of players here (of which i am one).
Chris.
Tetragrammaton
I don't understand why points must be extremized to paradoxicals
extents.... :-\
Without going to your extent, i'm saying that the conversational aspect
of the game is becoming too relevant, above all in tournaments -
You can't reasonably accept to loose in front of a table split
only because the other player talks and has better english than you.
Emiliano
Reyda
>
> > actually, some people will tell you that table splitting adds something
> like
> > "diplomatics" to the game.
> > the problem is, at a certain level of play, someplayers will propose
table
> > splits at each of their untap.
> > players who get used to the split system will divide the table very
early
> > and they will never break such deals, so they can benefit from them in
the
> > future : they are aiming for the long run, and they are right since all
> the
> > people i'm thinking about right now are in the top 15 in my country.
They
> > know that if they seat at the same table, they will always be able to
> manage
> > a "gentleman agreement" and split the table no matter what happens,
since
> > they are part of the "trustful club".
>
> I beg to differ. I am n° 14 right now, and belong to no such fag club.
don't tell me you don't deal VP in the prelims ;)
> And the 16nth is the more notorious deal-breaker in all of France !! He
even
> once respected a deal with me just to show the contrary, and because it
had
> no importance in the game any more...
no comment on this one ;)
Reyda
"Tetragrammaton" <no...@usa.com> a écrit dans le message de
news:2rv4jjF...@uni-berlin.de...
> Stephan got the better english and conversation
> at the table, and it was able to convice almost anyone - Mirko tried to
> deal with Sebastien, but he was too weak with the international language,
> and so the vision of Stephan prevaled over Sebastien ("ehy, don't have
> the upveal end up with me as prey of weenie horde, i will not do
> the dirt work for you... " :-)).
> This way, language is becoming too important in this card game,
> ending up somewhat in talking/conversation abuse.
>
> greetins
>
> Emiliano
funny anecdote :
when a french playgroup first came to qualify in england, the only
diplomatic words philippe used were "no, no : no deal !". He was not very
good at english at that time, but it's also the fact we did not want to
split table back then.
It was so funny, though : watching some perfectly polite englishmen trying
to describe him how the table will flow and why he should do this and that
and agree for a deal with such polished sentences. and after 5 minutes of
one side talking, philippe opened his mouth for the sentence : "no, no : i
say no deal !". You cannot imagine the expression of his interlocutor =)
Stefan Ferenci
> Well, since this week tournie, on the italian forum and right here, the
> question of deals arises again.
> From all the discussions I hear, it looks like many people are disgusted of
> the importance it takes in the game, and would like to find a solution to
> avoid the worst players from ruining a table from a VP.
I was not to long ago an avid defender of table splitting deals, but i
do realize that they are bad for the game. and should be reduced in
occurance.
i think with a few simple rules we could stop the rising tide of deals.
1) remove withdrawl from the game. this rule intended to let players
that used up their decks bow out of the game is only abused for
dealmaking. nobody except the dealmakers will miss this rule
2)let only vps made in game wins count for the preliminary standings and
use the vps made in losing efforts only as first tiebrakers.
so someone who won 2 rounds with 4 vps each is ranked higher than
someone who won 1 round with 4 vps,the second with 3 vps and cut a
losing deal for 2 in the final round.
3) maybe ban table splitting deals and force a "fight it out" between
the deal partners and issue warnings if someone loses these fight it out
on purpose.
just my 2 cents
stefan
Reyda
if my reponse seemed cryptic, i wish to add something :
i'm not naming a player in, particular because i firmly believe that it's
the deal system, not the players, that gave birth to this vicious "dealing
gentleman circle" where newbies/antideal-individuals are automatically
rejected and serve as sacrificial lambs.
David Cherryholmes
> 1) remove withdrawl from the game. this rule intended to let players
> that used up their decks bow out of the game is only abused for
> dealmaking. nobody except the dealmakers will miss this rule
Well, and anyone who thought about playing Brinksmanship.
> 3) maybe ban table splitting deals and force a "fight it out" between
> the deal partners and issue warnings if someone loses these fight it out
> on purpose.
This is already possible for the judge to do. The problem case I see is
the player who is surely dead, but can get one more VP (either by
withdrawal or oust) in the service to another methuselah. That player
really is maximizing his VPs, yet it screws the table as surely as any
other VP/table split.
--
David Cherryholmes
Johannes Walch
> do realize that they are bad for the game. and should be reduced in
occurance.
> i think with a few simple rules we could stop the rising tide of deals.
That makes me really think ....
> 1) remove withdrawl from the game. this rule intended to let players
> that used up their decks bow out of the game is only abused for
> dealmaking. nobody except the dealmakers will miss this rule
Probably a better idea than I thought in the beginning.
> 2)let only vps made in game wins count for the preliminary standings and
> use the vps made in losing efforts only as first tiebrakers.
> so someone who won 2 rounds with 4 vps each is ranked higher than
> someone who won 1 round with 4 vps,the second with 3 vps and cut a
> losing deal for 2 in the final round.
A new idea. Will probably affect small tournaments a lot more than the large
ones (where you need 2GW anyway).
> 3) maybe ban table splitting deals and force a "fight it out" between
> the deal partners and issue warnings if someone loses these fight it out
> on purpose.
Almost impossible to enforce. How can you say that someone looses
deliberately and not by mistakes? Will you point out the mistakes to him?
That would be rather unfair...
--
johannes walch
Andrew Daley
> >Why not just make tournaments 3+ round events with no finals? Use the
> >archon to record the scores and look up the results on a final
> >standing table. If there are ties for positions you use the usual
> >techniques to distinguish.
> >
> >What do people think?
>
> It's worth checking out.
<SNIP>
> If the prize structure is entirely TW-based with the overall winner getting
> something extra, it might work out as the people out of running for overall
> victory still have an incentive to win their later games. But, the same thing
> could be done now with prizes as incentives to winning each game.
>
> I'm sure the arguments I've often heard for final tables will be brought up -
> that a final table is more dramatic, that playing against your direct
> competition for victory makes for a better tournament finale. Not necessarily
> bad, but it's hard to argue one side when the other is never experienced.
I see your point... there is always an element of mystery when trying
something new. Resistance will always be there when changes are to be
made. :)
I feel that the 'tournament metagame' becomes more complicated when
you remove 'final table'. Everyone now must play for themself. Even if
a shrewed player was to examine the progressive totals round to round,
tournament points could prove to make the difference. You basically
would have to have a calculator to determine positions and if it was a
big event there would be so many outcomes to consider. It makes deals
less appealing when there is so much uncertainty... and again this
would be as the emphasis isn't in making the final table anymore as it
is now trying to win for yourself.
It equally ties in with the new scoring system, if people are that way
inclind. As for prizes, frankly over the past 18 months, the amount
provided by white-wolf has decreased and when people have to start
forking out more money for a chance to win prizes they opt for free
tournements. Though I must confess I would pay for prizes as I like a
competative environment.
My final point I want to raise is that when a player travels so
distance to play, it is disappointing to only play 3 games and then
leave or sit and wait for the final to be over. I think it is fairer
to all if everyone played the same number of games. It would make for
a happier environment as everyone participating would be involved.
They are just my ideas... I honestly believe there does need to be
some sort of change as the vp dealing is an unwanted aspect to our
game. There will always be someone trying to abuse the system, lets
just make it harder for them! :)
Andrew
Jyhad_addict
> Well, since this week tournie, on the italian forum and right here, the
> question of deals arises again.
>
> From all the discussions I hear, it looks like many people are disgusted of
> the importance it takes in the game, and would like to find a solution to
> avoid the worst players from ruining a table from a VP.
>
> My question to LSJ and staff is very simple : do you plan to legifere the
> deals in any way (including forbidding them, or making a one-line rule, or a
> 20-pages notebook...) in the time to come ? Or to let the situation
> deteriorate until all tournaments are shit and more good players get bored
> away from the game ?
>
No rules affecting deals are required, deals are very important in
the game, you can't just provoke the entire table and get away with
it. The will make a deal to go against you.
I am talking about deals which go for 1-3 rounds in the future, not
the kind of deals that some people do at the beggining of the game,
like in a 4-meth game where the 2 meths make a deal from the begining
of the game to oust the 2 others and then solve their differences 1 on
1, these kind of deals are crap, if you ask me, and usually someone
gets screwed. I can analyse why, but i don't want to get into details.
Deals should be straight-forward and once made, everyone involved
must stick to the deal and not back out. After all we are methuselahs
involved in jyhad, but that doesn't mean we are without honor. Me and
everyone in my playgroup always keeps his word, we had 2-3 occurences
in the past, where a meth backed out from a deal, that were dealt in
the appropriate manner.
Deals can screw up the table, if a meth involved is stupid, but
because
jyhad is not for the unintelligent that is not something that cannot
be dealt with.
if meth A is unexperienced and meth B tries to lure him to screw
meth C, then meth C can simply explain to the unexperienced meth A why
he shouldn't do what meth B says, because it is not in his best
interest and will just screw the table. If a meth is just plain stupid
and cannot learn by any means to make deals that are in his interest
and always makes deals that screw the table and the game, then this
meth should be dealt accordingly and if he just can't learn to play
and make deals based on intelligence and keeps screwing games for any
reason, then he must be removed.
No need to remove deals from the game (or deteriorate them),
remove the stupid ones, whose acts are based on stupidity and anger.
Jyhad is not for the stupid, no man can be allowed to ruin a 4-5 or 6
men's game.
Finaly, above i am talking about those meths who can screw a game
out of vengeance or anger. e.g. i had to deal with the following
incident:
We are 4 meths left in a game, me (George playing a
Malkavian-presence-free states rant-sleep of reason), my prey (Kostas
playing a !Nosferatu), his prey (John playing a gangrel deck) and his
prey Petros (who is my predator and plays a Toreador-Magnum-combat
deck).
John with the gangrel deck (who is sitting opposite to me and
supposely is an ally) is screwed, 2 pool, 2 empty minions in torpor,
so he has no minions ready and only 2 pool, his predator (which is my
prey) has 4 ready minions, that means that even if i rescue one of
john's minions from torpor, he won't be able to remain in the game,
because he has no good cards in his hand (the Nosferatu had just
beaten the hell out of both his minions) and 2 pool.
So, it is my turn and john asks me to rescue one of his vampires, i
explain to him, that i only have 2 vampires ready (3 blood on 1 and 2
on the other) and 1 in torpor, so if i rescue his vampire, i will lose
1 action, 2 blood and he will be ousted anyway. He insists and i tell
him to let it go, because there is no way he can convince me to rescue
one of his vampires and screw myself and my chances of wining the
game.
I had a good chance to win the whole table even with my prey
ousting John, that is because i knew how Kosta's !Nosferatu deck
performed in combat, he had played that deck many times before and i
knew what to expect. I also knew how the Toreador-magnum predator of
mine had constructed his deck. So, examining both Kostas and Petros
asheaps i was sure that the !Nosferatu would get beaten by the
Toreador-magnum (my predator), i would oust him and then the Toreador
would be an easy prey for me, if i could just convince Kostas (the
!nosferatu who was my prey, to attack the Toreador).
I had no trouble convincing the !Nosferatu to rush the Toreador's
minions in every possible way (after he had ousted the Gangrel-john),
in return i promised not to attack him for 2-3 rounds and try to send
the Toreador's Alexandra to torpor. So, my plan was the following:
torporize Alexandra and diablerize her, so i would have a table vote
lock, next turn rescue Esau from torpor and play a consaguineous +
voter cap (both were in my hand) to fill esau up. Then i would be
ready to oust both the !Nosferatu and Toreador.
Because it was certain than in these 3 turns (max 1-2 more) the
!Nosferatu would get beaten up ugly, the Toreador would be weakened in
some degree and i would had been preparing to oust them both (i would
even be unharmed by the Toreador trying to defend himself with his 2
minions against the 4 of the !Nosferatu.
I only had to toast my predator's Alexandra, because he had 4 votes
and i couldn't pass a Political action without serious vote boosting
that i couldn't afford all the time (the Toreador had 2 other minions
to defend himself, had 6-7 pool and magnum at each minion, so he would
beat the Nosferatu eitherway, because i knew that that particular deck
played a dozen dodges, enough blurs and the Nosferatu played only from
long distance, no Drawing out the Beasts, only a few Terror Frenzies
all already played), Alexandra is at 1 blood, so i try to send her to
torpor with Aristotele. That is a Sleep of reason at +1 stealth
(aristotele's special), a minion of my predator (the Toreador) tries
to block with +1 intercept.
---Meanwhile, John, the beaten Gangrel, has already packed his deck
and just watches the game, waiting to be ousted by the nosferatu as he
has 2 pool and no ready minion----
I play forgotten labyrinth and get to +4 stealth, the toreador,
plays intercept and gets to +4 intercept, so i play a lost in corwds
and get to a magnificent +6 stealth, the toreador can't block so he
says "ok, i can't block, i have no more intercept", i am
delighted..... and then the asshole-John (which is also a good friend
of mine) screws the table, he taps his rumor mill and his KRCG,
burning 1 pool and gives his prey!!!! +2 intercept to block me and he
does, i play majesty. !!!!!!!!!!
In a few words, the asshole-John gave +2 intercept to his prey!!!
just to get back to me, because i refused to rescue a vampire of his
from torpor, because it was meaningless, he wouldn't be able to defend
himself eitherway.
I call this screwing up the table...
"Anger leads to the stupid side" of jyhad, leave anger and revenge
out of jyhad. Don't act like mortals do, act like the methuselahs you
are.
Sorry for the really long post.
scrote
Stefan Ferenci wrote:
> Orpheus wrote:
>
> > Well, since this week tournie, on the italian forum and right here,
the
> > question of deals arises again.
> > From all the discussions I hear, it looks like many people are
disgusted of
> > the importance it takes in the game, and would like to find a
solution to
> > avoid the worst players from ruining a table from a VP.
>
> I was not to long ago an avid defender of table splitting deals, but
i
> do realize that they are bad for the game. and should be reduced in
> occurance.
> i think with a few simple rules we could stop the rising tide of
deals.
>
> 1) remove withdrawl from the game. this rule intended to let players
> that used up their decks bow out of the game is only abused for
> dealmaking. nobody except the dealmakers will miss this rule
Sounds interesting. Off the top of my head I can't think of any, good,
reasons to keep withdrawals. Not when you consider the benefit of
destroying that annoying habit that some events produce...mutual
withdrawal.
Anyone got reasons for keeping it? I'd be interested to hear 'em.
> 2)let only vps made in game wins count for the preliminary standings
and
> use the vps made in losing efforts only as first tiebrakers.
> so someone who won 2 rounds with 4 vps each is ranked higher than
> someone who won 1 round with 4 vps,the second with 3 vps and cut a
> losing deal for 2 in the final round.
Seems to put a _lot_ of focus on the game win, which I am not sure is
such a good thing.
I don't like the idea of rewarding a player with results of 1GW 3VP,
0,0 over
another that gets 1GW 2VP, 0GW 2VP, 0GW 2VP.
Surely 6VP shows that my deck is consistently more competitve?
> 3) maybe ban table splitting deals and force a "fight it out" between
> the deal partners and issue warnings if someone loses these fight it
out
> on purpose.
How do you judge that a fight is lost on purpose? I can argue that I
didn't play combat card(x) in combat(y) because I was saving (x) for a
later combat(z).
Personally, I am happy to accept table splits as a neccessary part of
the game. Deal-making is a desirable aspect of the game and table
splits are an inevitable bi-product.
Also, table splits servre a purpose in that they can give players
incentive to band together and remove threats to the table.
Two players attacking a weenine vote that is trouncing the table can
negotiate a mutually beneifial outcome based on VP's. The no-split rule
could remove a good deal of the incentive to take these kinds of
actions. The neccessity of removing particularly successful decks (in
the current game) becomes a lot less clear cut.
Example:
Players A, B, C, D.
C is the threat to the table (and refuses to deal), D has the potential
to cripple C. B & A are just some "average" decks.
1.D reasons that he can cripple C such that B can oust him. By doing so
though, D will also fall to B (who will then go on to take the table).
2.Alternatively, D can go madly forward in the hopes of gaining a a VP
(A's) before dying to C (who will then go on to take the table).
A.Currently, D has the option of cutting a deal with B. I'll give you
C, you give me A and we'll withdraw (or fight it out, or whatever).
B. Also, D may choose to deal with A. I'll give you B & C if you fold.
Having no split deals available means that D is forced in to one of the
initial scenarios (1 or 2). 2 is optimal as D at least gets a VP, but
it also sucks because the the threatening deck, that the other players
in this multi-player game of subtlties, diplomacy and intrigue :)
should be working to halt, is left free to rampage the table.
Does that make sense?
I do like the suggestion (someone made) that players should always be
aiming to maximise their VP's, even after the GW is obtained. Removes
the possibility of someone just passing out VP's as they feel like it.
I know it's unlikely, but I don't like the possiblity being there, not
when it could be removed aso easily.
Cheers,
-scrote
LSJ
news:1096462769.9...@k26g2000oda.googlegroups.com...
> Sounds interesting. Off the top of my head I can't think of any, good,
> reasons to keep withdrawals. Not when you consider the benefit of
> destroying that annoying habit that some events produce...mutual
> withdrawal.
>
> Anyone got reasons for keeping it? I'd be interested to hear 'em.
Perhaps this will be the new annual topic, now that the CL debate
has finally gone extinct. :-)
See last September's thread starting at article:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=WO25b.10135%24Ly2.1568556%40cletus.bright.net
--
LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc.
V:TES homepage: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/
Though effective, appear to be ineffective -- Sun Tzu
legbiter
Possibly. But not this particular bit of this particular offshore
island.
would benefit by seeing a
> reduction or elimination of table-splitting deals.
i think you are right. i think our Portsmouth games are technically
better and also better-spirited now that we virtually all break our
deals as soon as it is profitable to do so. Also, the deals are
better.
>
> Trey
> - I was the first deal-breaker in DC
;-) as was i in Portsmouth!
i think there is possibly another factor apart from deals underlying
the current discussion, or at least Orpheus'/Stefan's take on it, and
that is weariness. It is true that finals are often disappointingly
poor games marred by technical and diplomatic errors. In my view this
is because almost no-one can concentrate for 8+ hours without making
bad errors; quite coincidentally, an attempt to quantify this
phenomenon forms part of the current [October 2004] !Gangrel NL. In
that article's parlance both P and x are too high by the time the
final takes place for there to be much expectation of a good game. If
we want to get better finals, my suggestion is that rather than trying
to mess with deals [IMO a TOTAL minefield of unenforceable edicts
guaranteed to satisfy no-one but a rules lawyer] we put the finals on
a different day from the heats and/or allow the finalists to change
their decks for the final.
Stefan Ferenci
or that you just good at dealing. assumingly you know that 1 gw and 6
vps will get you to the finals (as it will in most 20-25/28 player
tourneys) you could just seal your final ticket by offering 2 losing
deals and gain the remaining vps
here is a counter example
who was better?
the guy that sweep once having 1gw and 5 vps
the guy that got one gw with 3 vps and one vp in each of the following
rounds therefore having more TP than the other player?
if you guys want more offense than we should only count the vps in a
gamewin discouraging players from accepting a looseing deal and forcing
them to go for more than just a gamewin.
stefan
stefan
Stefan Ferenci
> "scrote" <mud...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1096462769.9...@k26g2000oda.googlegroups.com...
>
>>Sounds interesting. Off the top of my head I can't think of any, good,
>>reasons to keep withdrawals. Not when you consider the benefit of
>>destroying that annoying habit that some events produce...mutual
>>withdrawal.
>>
>>Anyone got reasons for keeping it? I'd be interested to hear 'em.
>
>
> Perhaps this will be the new annual topic, now that the CL debate
> has finally gone extinct. :-)
>
> See last September's thread starting at article:
> http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=WO25b.10135%24Ly2.1568556%40cletus.bright.net
>
just because it was ignored for such a long time doesn´t make this
proposal less worth considering.
LSJ why not try it out for a limited time as a field test and after e.g.
6 months and some opinions by tourney players and organizers decide if
to keep the withdrawal or sratch it from the rules
stefan
LSJ
news:415ac887$0$12130$3b21...@usenet.univie.ac.at...
> just because it was ignored for such a long time doesn´t make this
> proposal less worth considering.
A correct statement, but it is a non-sequitur and has an invalid
premise to boot.
> LSJ why not try it out for a limited time as a field test and after e.g.
> 6 months and some opinions by tourney players and organizers decide if
> to keep the withdrawal or sratch it from the rules
By all means, experiment with different formats as you like (I do).
If the test runs yield anything interesting, post the findings here.
Stefan Ferenci
>>I was not to long ago an avid defender of table splitting deals, but i
>>do realize that they are bad for the game. and should be reduced in
>
> occurance.
>
>>i think with a few simple rules we could stop the rising tide of deals.
>
>
> That makes me really think ....
>
>
>>1) remove withdrawl from the game. this rule intended to let players
>>that used up their decks bow out of the game is only abused for
>>dealmaking. nobody except the dealmakers will miss this rule
>
>
> Probably a better idea than I thought in the beginning.
>
>
>>2)let only vps made in game wins count for the preliminary standings and
>>use the vps made in losing efforts only as first tiebrakers.
>>so someone who won 2 rounds with 4 vps each is ranked higher than
>>someone who won 1 round with 4 vps,the second with 3 vps and cut a
>>losing deal for 2 in the final round.
>
>
> A new idea. Will probably affect small tournaments a lot more than the large
> ones (where you need 2GW anyway).
>
i think it does effect the large touneys too.
if there are alot of players in the range of 2gw and 7-9 vps. the way
they got it really counts. the system right now favours the players who
score in each round (giving them better tp)
just compare
one guy has two gamewins with 4 vps each
the other one 2 gw with 3 vps each and one losing deal with 2 vps. this
guy ranks higher than the other guy. so right now the scoring system
favours defensive decks that tend to stay at the table and gain 2-3 vps
each round
>
>>3) maybe ban table splitting deals and force a "fight it out" between
>>the deal partners and issue warnings if someone loses these fight it out
>>on purpose.
>
>
> Almost impossible to enforce. How can you say that someone looses
> deliberately and not by mistakes? Will you point out the mistakes to him?
> That would be rather unfair...
>
i know its a kind of a hard to enforce (stupid?!?) idea, but strict
judging might enforce that fight it out play and players would stop
doing deals which include the obnoxious "and then you can oust me"
phrase. and very often there are cases that can easily be judged! (if
its a good judge)
stefan
> --
> johannes walch
>
>
Stefan Ferenci
> "Stefan Ferenci" <a950n...@unet.s.p.a.m.univie.ac.at> wrote in message
> news:415ac887$0$12130$3b21...@usenet.univie.ac.at...
>
>>just because it was ignored for such a long time doesn´t make this
>>proposal less worth considering.
>
>
> A correct statement, but it is a non-sequitur and has an invalid
> premise to boot.
>
>
>>LSJ why not try it out for a limited time as a field test and after e.g.
>>6 months and some opinions by tourney players and organizers decide if
>>to keep the withdrawal or sratch it from the rules
>
>
> By all means, experiment with different formats as you like (I do).
> If the test runs yield anything interesting, post the findings here.
>
i would wish that the vekn would try it out. (that would create better
results)
stefan
Joshua Duffin
"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message
news:2rvsblF...@uni-berlin.de...
> "scrote" <mud...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1096462769.9...@k26g2000oda.googlegroups.com...
> > Sounds interesting. Off the top of my head I can't think of any,
good,
> > reasons to keep withdrawals. Not when you consider the benefit of
> > destroying that annoying habit that some events produce...mutual
> > withdrawal.
> >
> > Anyone got reasons for keeping it? I'd be interested to hear 'em.
>
> Perhaps this will be the new annual topic, now that the CL debate
> has finally gone extinct. :-)
>
> See last September's thread starting at article:
>
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=WO25b.10135%24Ly2.1568556%40cletus.bright.net
This suggestion is offered for rather different reasons than last
year's, though. This time, the argument is that the withdrawal rule is
bad for the game because it makes it easier for VP-splitting deals to be
made.
The major argument I expect to see for keeping withdrawal is that
Brinksmanship requires it. Of course, personally I think Brinksmanship
is not a good card to have in the game (and never should have worked
outside the central-to-the-game "oust people by reducing their pool to
0" mechanic), so I'm not really swayed by that argument. The other
argument - that the threat of withdrawal forces people to try to oust
their preys - doesn't seem that substantial to me; withdrawal is very
rarely (IME) used in that way and the game does not normally (IMO) lack
incentives for ousting your prey.
Josh
not sure that removing withdrawal from the game would improve the deal
situation all that much, though
LSJ
> i would wish that the vekn would try it out. (that would create better
> results)
If the VEKN tried out every ad hoc variation put forth on this group,
that would create worse results, however.
Geoff
> Orpheus wrote:
>
> 1) remove withdrawl from the game. this rule intended to let players
> that used up their decks bow out of the game is only abused for
> dealmaking. nobody except the dealmakers will miss this rule
Not a bad idea at all. I find the whole rapid 'discard madly as a
table so we can all withdraw for a vp!' routine silly. But it is
logical if thats all they think they can get. Remove the withdrawl
mechanic and force them to fight it out to the last. However, some
special exception will have to be made for brinksmanship decks...
> 2)let only vps made in game wins count for the preliminary standings and
> use the vps made in losing efforts only as first tiebrakers.
> so someone who won 2 rounds with 4 vps each is ranked higher than
> someone who won 1 round with 4 vps,the second with 3 vps and cut a
> losing deal for 2 in the final round.
This is already the case. Gamewins count for more than vps, so the
2gw player ranks above the 1gw player.
> 3) maybe ban table splitting deals and force a "fight it out" between
> the deal partners and issue warnings if someone loses these fight it out
> on purpose.
>
This too is already the case in all but written rule. You must play
to win, so any losing deal is illegal. If you are unable to win, then
a losing deal is already in place as it were. The sticky point is
when more than 1 player might grab that 'losing' last vp I guess.
G
LSJ
news:2s02v5F...@uni-berlin.de...
> >
>
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=WO25b.10135%24Ly2.1568556%40cletus.bright.net
>
> This suggestion is offered for rather different reasons than last
> year's, though. This time, the argument is that the withdrawal rule is
> bad for the game because it makes it easier for VP-splitting deals to be
> made.
VP deals were brought up in that thread, as well, actually.
> The major argument I expect to see for keeping withdrawal is that
> Brinksmanship requires it. Of course, personally I think Brinksmanship
> is not a good card to have in the game (and never should have worked
> outside the central-to-the-game "oust people by reducing their pool to
> 0" mechanic), so I'm not really swayed by that argument. The other
> argument - that the threat of withdrawal forces people to try to oust
> their preys - doesn't seem that substantial to me; withdrawal is very
> rarely (IME) used in that way and the game does not normally (IMO) lack
> incentives for ousting your prey.
Withdrawal is rarely used, period.
When used, it is used in the proactive sense a fair portion of the
time (IMEIEIO :-)
Joshua Duffin
"Curevei" <cur...@aol.commetal> wrote in message
news:20040929023551...@mb-m24.aol.com...
[Andrew Daley wrote]
> >Why not just make tournaments 3+ round events with no finals? Use the
> >archon to record the scores and look up the results on a final
> >standing table. If there are ties for positions you use the usual
> >techniques to distinguish.
> I'm sure the arguments I've often heard for final tables will be
brought up -
> that a final table is more dramatic, that playing against your direct
> competition for victory makes for a better tournament finale. Not
necessarily
> bad, but it's hard to argue one side when the other is never
experienced.
Yes, quite so. I do think it's true that having a final table is more
dramatic, and fun for (a) the finalists (well, assuming that they're not
burned out on playing finals by how final-playing tends to work) and (b)
the spectators, since you get to have the dramatic finish instead of
just everyone being in various games that all end at the same time.
It probably would lead to better final games, as Legbiter mentioned, to
hold the finals on a separate day from the preliminary rounds, since
people wouldn't be as mentally (and often physically :-) exhausted then.
But logistically that's not so simple, since just having people come to
play for eight hours on one day is asking a lot of time commitment; two
days for a single tournament is probably not feasible for anything other
than major championships.
I think it might be an interesting sub-approach here (at least from a
tournament-running standpoint) to try some kind of Swiss system for
tournaments, where each round players would be seeded by standing
against other players with the same kind of record. This would lead to
a de facto finals table at some point, and would make it so that players
who are totally out of the running wouldn't so much be able to "mess up"
the results in games that might determine the winner of the tournament.
There are problems, though: one, it would probably be possible for some
players in the "de facto finals" to already be mathematically unable to
win the tournament while playing the final game (so they *would* end up
lacking incentive to "play to win"). And two, seeding players this way
would mean that you'd play games (except at really large tournaments)
against the same opponents several times, especially if you're on the
"winning" tables. That would probably reduce the fun of the
repeated-opponents players.
But overall, I think trying a "no finals, just three-round standings"
(or four-round standings) approach might be worthwhile, sure. Another
advantage of doing it in three rounds (with no "final" fourth round) is
that the players wouldn't be as fatigued when playing their last game of
the day...
Josh
gets cranky when tired
Johannes Walch
> judging might enforce that fight it out play and players would stop
> doing deals which include the obnoxious "and then you can oust me"
> phrase. and very often there are cases that can easily be judged! (if
> its a good judge)
If something can be done but not in the open it will only increase
collusion.
Then you will still see these kind of "silent deals" but only among buddies.
Is that better ?
--
johannes walch
Curevei
>tournament-running standpoint) to try some kind of Swiss system for
>tournaments, where each round players would be seeded by standing
>against other players with the same kind of record. This would lead to
>a de facto finals table at some point, and would make it so that players
>who are totally out of the running wouldn't so much be able to "mess up"
>the results in games that might determine the winner of the tournament.
>There are problems, though: one, it would probably be possible for some
>players in the "de facto finals" to already be mathematically unable to
>win the tournament while playing the final game (so they *would* end up
>lacking incentive to "play to win"). And two, seeding players this way
>would mean that you'd play games (except at really large tournaments)
>against the same opponents several times, especially if you're on the
>"winning" tables. That would probably reduce the fun of the
>repeated-opponents players.
I don't think seeding players can work. By far the most important thing should
be having players play as many different opponents as possible. One of the
things about Swiss is that you aren't supposed to ever play the same opponent.
There's not enough rounds to make sure seeding actually balances anything.
Success is punished, which is good for people who don't start out well but
doesn't seem fair. I'm sure more problems can be found.
Jay Kristoff
>The major argument I expect to see for keeping withdrawal is that
>Brinksmanship requires it. Of course, personally I think Brinksmanship
>is not a good card to have in the game (and never should have worked
>outside the central-to-the-game "oust people by reducing their pool to
>0" mechanic), so I'm not really swayed by that argument.
I like Brinksmanship. I think it's cool that it offers a new way to win.
I also like the idea of seeing what removing the option to withdraw would
do to touranement play. I think that we could have it both ways, by
removing the withdraw option from the tournament rules, and changing
Brinksmanship's text to introduce the option to withdraw to the table at
which it was put into play, as well as keeping its current text.
Jay
Oh wait, my only VP at the NAC was from withdrawl! :(
Curevei
>of deals:
>"I think you should rescue my vampire because all I'm trying to do right
>now is survive and deny your prey a VP."
>"You can block this hunt if you want but I'm just trying to gain pool
>and be a wall for you."
>
>Quite a bit of the talking in our games revolves around manipulating
>perception of who is the strongest/weakest, with everyone pointing a
>finger at someone else and claiming that is the person who everyone
>should be worried about.
I'm going to ignore the whole dealbreaking element of the post since a) it bogs
things down in something subjective and b) I don't think it relates to these
critical comments above.
Dealmaking isn't necessary. Dealmaking only matters when players don't play
perfectly. Okay, that's all of the time. But, the point is that dealmaking is
contrary to good play. In good play, you help or hurt other people, as Trey
states, out of enlightenend self interest. Dealmaking, then, is a way for
people to capitalize on other players' inability to realize what is in their
best interest.
If it was possible to play with no talking whatsoever, I could see doing it and
people would have to think through their play rather than have people tell them
what they should do and have the game turn into an exercise in personality
management.
I don't think anything can be done about people making deals. If something
could be done, I'd focus on killing deals over VPs. But, as I keep saying, if
you want to have people play the game right, one way is to reward them and the
way to do that with this game is providing prizes strictly on the basis of
table wins. That doesn't completely solve the problem.
I'm actually not clear on why there's such a great problem in the European
tournaments that have been brought up recently. With such large numbers, the
need to play to win should be so high as to kill the desirability for throwing
games. My concerns are mostly on the 2-3 table tournament where throwing games
is perfectly reasonable for getting into the finals.
I've managed to get off focus. Basically, I wanted to point out that
dealmaking is a flaw in play, not some sort of necessary aspect to it.
Curevei
>do realize that they are bad for the game. and should be reduced in
>occurance.
>i think with a few simple rules we could stop the rising tide of deals.
>
>1) remove withdrawl from the game. this rule intended to let players
>that used up their decks bow out of the game is only abused for
>dealmaking. nobody except the dealmakers will miss this rule
This should have been done ages ago, long before the table win method of
scoring came into effect.
Brinksmanship could get errataed to do something different, though I really
don't care if the card ceases to see play. One possibility could be to have it
deal 2 pool loss during a player's untap if that player has no library left.
While that might be good enough to lead to obnoxious deck destruction decks,
the greater good of eliminating withdrawing could be accomplished with less
complaining.
>2)let only vps made in game wins count for the preliminary standings and
>use the vps made in losing efforts only as first tiebrakers.
>so someone who won 2 rounds with 4 vps each is ranked higher than
>someone who won 1 round with 4 vps,the second with 3 vps and cut a
>losing deal for 2 in the final round.
I'm pretty sure this is a bad idea. In theory, isn't it more impressive to
rank as high as possible in every round? Why punish people who accomplished
their VPs without dealmaking for them?
Won't people move away from decks that can only barely get TWs?
And, I'm sure people will come up with ugly deals under this system too.
>3) maybe ban table splitting deals and force a "fight it out" between
>the deal partners and issue warnings if someone loses these fight it out
>on purpose.
Can try to ban deals for VPs, but I don't see it being enforceable. The wink
wink method of play can easily get around not having to clearly express illegal
cooperation.
the_capuchin
> > there are no such deals in the US, Canada, Australia etc ?
>
> Deals tend to be kept in Oz as far as I have witnessed although
> deal-breaking does go on. Reyda says in another response that there
> are players in France who can trust each other to come to gentleman's
> agreements. We have the same type of players here (of which i am one).
Talking as part of the etc. (i.e., Brazil), AFAIK, most players I've
encountered (from my city or not) do take deals in a way too serious
manner.
Once I was misunderstood when joking about it ("You're breaking the
deal?" -"Suuuure, I am!" *ironic face*) and all the table ganged up on
me INSTEAD of ganging on the other side of the deal - a Pander/weenie
vote deck. Final result? The weenie deck won, of course. No matter if
I was "breaking" a poorly made deal ("I can give you two or three
turns", and proceed to oust on turn three after that) and was running
a way weaker deck (a Choir one).
In Sao Paulo, things are worse since the guy who arranged all Friday
nights' games insists on bringing an "honor system" to the Jyhad. He
induced most local players to keep deals above all else, even above
your own ousting. The result is this: though it is not that common to
see table-split deals, they do happen at finals between long-time
friends - most of the time without a word being said. That's
collusion. The "predatory" nature of the game has been thrown in the
background, where it is difficult to be spotted, while everyone plays
a façade of honor that is not applicable to most of them.
And even if you know who they are, there'll always be someone at the
table who is entranced by this façade of honor and falls for stupid
deals. Oh my. So the same people keep winning with the same decks.
That's boring.
And because of that we're losing players to the *tournament scene*
(thank God most players know better than to bring too-competitive
decks for Friday Nights.)
best,
Fabio Sooner
NC for Brazil
Emmanuel Martin
> Possible, very easy rules (cumulative or not) :
>
> - No deals can be made involving giving VPs to another player
Maybe, I dunno
> - A player must optimize his VPs, no matter if he still has the Game Win
I definitely vote for this one
> - A player must optimize his VPs at any given time, even to the point of
> breaking any deal made in other circumstances : if these circumstances are
> changed in any way, the deal is de facto considered invalid.
A very good idea
> - There can be no deals involving material benefits of any sort, including
> money, splitting the price, going to bed with anyone, or getting a signed
> picture of LSJ in a wet swimsuit. ;-)
A nice one, especially when considering the LSJ swimuit
> Orpheus
At least, I thank you for bringing this very interesting topic
Frederick Scott
> Dealmaking isn't necessary. Dealmaking only matters when players
> don't play perfectly. Okay, that's all of the time. But, the
> point is that dealmaking is contrary to good play. In good play,
> you help or hurt other people, as Trey states, out of enlightenend
> self interest. Dealmaking, then, is a way for people to capitalize
> on other players' inability to realize what is in their best
> interest.
> I've managed to get off focus. Basically, I wanted to point out
> that dealmaking is a flaw in play, not some sort of necessary
> aspect to it.
Wow! Suffice to say that such a view is an *incredibly* incomplete,
insufficent summary of the relationship deal-making has to the
concept of quality of play. Though I'd agree that participation in
deals can often be a sign of flawed play, were that the beginning
and end of the situation few or no good players would ever enter
into deals nor even entertain consideration of them. To the
contrary, excellent players are seen to offer and accept deals all
the time and often benefit and win by exercise. How can you
explain this and resolve it with the point of view expressed above?
I don't think you can.
Dealmaking simply involves the trading of short-term interests with
long-term ones. In short, it's offering the medium of future
considerations as currency for current services. The use of this
medium of exchange is both the practice's strength and its weakenss:
it allows two players to engage in activity to the mutual benefit
and welfare of both (at the expense of others at the table) creating
"goodness" out of thin air. But the "currency" is sometimes bogus,
potentially causing a player engaging it far more harm than good.
Like dynamite, it's a tool that can be very helpful or blow up in
your hands. It's risk-taking, hardly to be equated with "flawed
play".
Fred
Frederick Scott
> >Why not just make tournaments 3+ round events with no finals? Use
> >the archon to record the scores and look up the results on a final
> >standing table. If there are ties for positions you use the usual
> >techniques to distinguish.
> >
>
> It's worth checking out.
> I'm sure the arguments I've often heard for final tables will
> against your direct competition for victory makes for a better
> tournament finale. Not necessarily bad, but it's hard to argue
> one side when the other is never experienced.
I asked LSJ why the final-less tournament rule was restricted to
one-table tournaments. His answer was that it was considered
desirable to require that the top players face each other directly
in order to determine the outcome of a tournament.
(Don't necessarily agree or disagree myself. Just FYI.)
Fred
Orpheus
> > > know that if they seat at the same table, they will always be able to
> > manage
> > > a "gentleman agreement" and split the table no matter what happens,
> since
> > > they are part of the "trustful club".
> >
> > I beg to differ. I am n° 14 right now, and belong to no such fag club.
>
> don't tell me you don't deal VP in the prelims ;)
I try to avoid it. And I sure as hell don't belong in any "trustful" club.
I'm a Giovanni, remember ? ;-)
--
-----------------
Orpheus
"We can never know of what we are the seeds
Until we flower."
Lilith
Orpheus
play
> perfectly. Okay, that's all of the time. But, the point is that
dealmaking is
> contrary to good play. In good play, you help or hurt other people, as
Trey
> states, out of enlightenend self interest. Dealmaking, then, is a way for
> people to capitalize on other players' inability to realize what is in
their
> best interest.
This is the perfect wording to express my exact thoughts. Really.
> If it was possible to play with no talking whatsoever, I could see doing
it and
> people would have to think through their play rather than have people tell
them
> what they should do and have the game turn into an exercise in personality
> management.
You'll be able to do that in any Silent of Death tournie (including the one
in Heidelberg the day of the EC).
To Legbiter (who still didn't visited my Domain...) :
> i think there is possibly another factor apart from deals underlying
> the current discussion, or at least Orpheus'/Stefan's take on it, and
> that is weariness.
Although we have yet to hear Stefan's official opinion on this, I think we
all have to agree on this. Andrea, who threw the towel when he possibly
could have won, said it was in no small part due to tiredness. In many 3rd
rounds or finals (especially after a long and tiring trip) I've done or seen
mistakes due to fatigue.
> It is true that finals are often disappointingly
> poor games marred by technical and diplomatic errors. In my view this
> is because almost no-one can concentrate for 8+ hours without making
> bad errors; quite coincidentally, an attempt to quantify this
Agreed.
> phenomenon forms part of the current [October 2004] !Gangrel NL. In
> that article's parlance both P and x are too high by the time the
> final takes place for there to be much expectation of a good game. If
> we want to get better finals, my suggestion is that rather than trying
> to mess with deals [IMO a TOTAL minefield of unenforceable edicts
> guaranteed to satisfy no-one but a rules lawyer] we put the finals on
> a different day from the heats and/or allow the finalists to
Not very feasible most of the time. Imagine, sunday, we went to Italy, it
would have been a mess if we had to wait for the finalist one more day.
Plus, when tournies last 2 days, you skip work if you're in finals ? It
would be a good thing, but I think it's utopic.
3 rounds without finals wouldn't pose this problem. I think it could be an
alternative official format.
change
> their decks for the final.
I'm all against it. And it would be worse for tiredness : at least, the
other deck you've played all day long, you should have it in mind better
than any other.
Orpheus
> the game,
Purely subjective. I would agree or not depending on what you call "deals".
> you can't just provoke the entire table and get away with
> it. The will make a deal to go against you.
Without deals, good players will also act to the best of their interests.
They can also show "the way" to people if necessary.
> I am talking about deals which go for 1-3 rounds in the future, not
Ok about these : they are an interesting part of the game. You don't have to
honour them, though.
> the kind of deals that some people do at the beggining of the game,
> like in a 4-meth game where the 2 meths make a deal from the begining
> of the game to oust the 2 others and then solve their differences 1 on
> 1, these kind of deals are crap, if you ask me, and usually someone
> gets screwed. I can analyse why, but i don't want to get into details.
Agreed on the "they are crap" part. Even in THE example case of the decks
that "can't win" if they don't deal, nominally 2 combat decks sitted as
predator / prey, I am sure that there are other solutions then dealing
together, and the games I have witnessed / played / judged have often proved
me right on that point.
> Deals should be straight-forward and once made, everyone involved
> must stick to the deal and not back out.
NEVER !! There is absolutely no valid reason for that. And read LSJ' lips :
"There are no rules for deals". Which is part of the problem (there should
be rules *against* deals). But you cannot be forced to respect something
which doesn't exist, right ?
> After all we are methuselahs
> involved in jyhad, but that doesn't mean we are without honor. Me and
If you want to take examples from the roleplaying pov, please explain to me
why a !Brujah would respect his word, or why even a Ventrue would hesitate
to breakdeal with a lowly Sabbat ? The plans of the Methuselahs are not
stopped by such a petty thing as honour. The only things that must be
endorsed are the boons, represented by some cards with precise effects.
> everyone in my playgroup always keeps his word, we had 2-3 occurences
> in the past, where a meth backed out from a deal, that were dealt in
> the appropriate manner.
You killed the meth and burned his house to the ground ? Did you remember to
drown his goldfish ?
> Deals can screw up the table, if a meth involved is stupid, but
> because
> jyhad is not for the unintelligent that is not something that cannot
> be dealt with.
I fail to get your point.
> if meth A is unexperienced and meth B tries to lure him to screw
> meth C, then meth C can simply explain to the unexperienced meth A why
> he shouldn't do what meth B says, because it is not in his best
> interest and will just screw the table. If a meth is just plain stupid
> and cannot learn by any means to make deals that are in his interest
> and always makes deals that screw the table and the game, then this
> meth should be dealt accordingly
Again with these Giovanni methods ? Want any tips from an expert ?
> and if he just can't learn to play
> and make deals based on intelligence and keeps screwing games for any
> reason, then he must be removed.
From the game ? Your playgroup ? The city ? This plane of existence ?
> No need to remove deals from the game (or deteriorate them),
> remove the stupid ones, whose acts are based on stupidity and anger.
> Jyhad is not for the stupid, no man can be allowed to ruin a 4-5 or 6
> men's game.
Yeah, let's kill all stupid players !! We'll get some Blood Brothers to do
it...
Now let's be serious two seconds (one... one and a half...)
Good players don't need deals to do what they must.
Bad players don't need deals to screw a table.
But deals certainly encourage making wrong decisions and ruining some games
for one meager VP.
Deals for 1 VP should never exist : the deck making the "winning deal"
should be able to win without the deal (if not, it would be illegal, right
?) ; the deck making the "losing deal" should just die painfully and not
take the other players' potential for VPs away.
(rest of post snipped because it's another subject completely)
Orpheus
> removing the withdraw option from the tournament rules, and changing
> Brinksmanship's text to introduce the option to withdraw to the table at
> which it was put into play, as well as keeping its current text.
Yes, if necessary.
> Jay
>
> Oh wait, my only VP at the NAC was from withdrawl! :(
LOL. Bad boy, you've been !!
(and only one VP ?! what, didn't get any sleep the night before ? what's the
name of the sportive girl ?)
Reyda
"Frederick Scott" <dont...@mymail.com> a écrit dans le message de
news:GPD6d.1507$mS1.378@fed1read05...
> it allows two players to engage in activity to the mutual benefit
> and welfare of both (at the expense of others at the table) creating
> "goodness" out of thin air.
you mean creating boreness and tireness for others =)
> But the "currency" is sometimes bogus,
> potentially causing a player engaging it far more harm than good.
> Like dynamite, it's a tool that can be very helpful or blow up in
> your hands. It's risk-taking, hardly to be equated with "flawed
> play".
>
> Fred
it's absolutely no risk taking since the "gentleman agreement"/"honor
system" is here to ensure the dealers they risk nothing =)
Chris Arthur
> Chris Arthur wrote:
> >> More, those players (there are many) that are not so good at
> >> conversation, and so have little persuasive power with words, are
> >> disavantaged at the very beginning in matter of deals (having them
> >> all the power to change a game outcome).
> >
> > Vtes is a social game. Players without good social skills will not do
> > as well as those with good social skills, all things being equal. That
> > is the nature of the game and for one I like it like that. I don't
> > want to play with introverted nerdy dweebs who can't string a sentence
> > together.
> >
>
> I don't understand why points must be extremized to paradoxicals
> extents.... :-\
> Without going to your extent, i'm saying that the conversational aspect
> of the game is becoming too relevant, above all in tournaments -
> You can't reasonably accept to loose in front of a table split
> only because the other player talks and has better english than you.
>
Our situations are obviously different as i live and play in an
english speaking country which is a long way from anywhere and
therefore does not attract foreign vtes players (with the occasional
exception). English language proficiency is not a problem at
tournaments. I am happy that social skills are important because it
makes for more enjoyable games to play with people who have skill in
interacting with one another. I don't know how to solve your problem
of english language proficiency at tournaments.
Chris.
Jyhad_addict
> "Stefan Ferenci" <a950n...@unet.s.p.a.m.univie.ac.at> wrote in message
> news:415accaf$0$12130$3b21...@usenet.univie.ac.at...
> > i would wish that the vekn would try it out. (that would create better
> > results)
>
>
> If the VEKN tried out every ad hoc variation put forth on this group,
> that would create worse results, however.
I couldn't agree more, usualy experiments on a possible new rule are
being made, before implementing the new rule and this is the correct
thing to do.
If you implement a new rule, before playtesting it first, then there
will be some that will complain and some who will be in favor, afterwards
if the new rule proves to be ineffective and you withdraw it, then again
there will be some who complain and some who will be in favor. So, you end
up having disturbed the peace of mind of many players and the games of more.
That is why you first playtest (experiment with) every new rule and
implement it after, if it proves to be effective for a purpose.
Jyhad_addict
>
> Without deals, good players will also act to the best of their interests.
> They can also show "the way" to people if necessary.
>
exactly, but if you deteriorate the deal-making procedure by making
rules that allow some deals and ban some others, then it will be
difficult to rule which deal is according with the rules and which is
not.
This would make players fight over which deal is legal and which is
not and
they will start using their lawyer skills to support their case,
instead of playing the game. In the end, all will get bored and
dissapointed of such a procedure, the deals will die.
e.g. Yesterday we were playing, again. We play 4-5 times a week!
So, my setite predator had an Ivory Bow on Qufur, he tried to
"lure" 1 of my Warghouls and Velya intercepted him, so i tell him:
"Don't use the Ivory Bow and i won't deal aggravated damage to you
either". It wasn't in my best interest to have Velya torporized and
send Qufur to torpor and it wasn't in his best interest to have Qufur
torporized and be left with only Count Ormonde. So he accepted the
deal... a mistake!, because a wise/experienced player would also add
the following to the deal "...and you will also not rush me with your
Warghouls for 1-2 rounds".
He didn't propose this (which i would have accepted), so in my turn
i rushed him with 2 warghouls, i torporized his ivory bow-holding
Qufur and finaly i got the game win and he got nothing. Because by
torporizing him i had only one minion to watch for (his Count
Ormonde), so i just left Velya untapped to guard my 5 pool and had
"The Rose", "Little Tailor", 3 Warghouls and the gregory winter making
actions to oust my prey and my next prey.
> > I am talking about deals which go for 1-3 rounds in the future, not
>
> Ok about these : they are an interesting part of the game. You don't have to
> honour them, though.
>
i know, but i am talking about the ethical aspect, if everyone
starts breaking the deals, then people will cease making deals and
then this good part of the game will cease to exist.
> > the kind of deals that some people do at the beggining of the game,
> > like in a 4-meth game where the 2 meths make a deal from the begining
> > of the game to oust the 2 others and then solve their differences 1 on
> > 1, these kind of deals are crap, if you ask me, and usually someone
> > gets screwed. I can analyse why, but i don't want to get into details.
>
> Agreed on the "they are crap" part. Even in THE example case of the decks
> that "can't win" if they don't deal, nominally 2 combat decks sitted as
> predator / prey, I am sure that there are other solutions then dealing
> together, and the games I have witnessed / played / judged have often proved
> me right on that point.
>
I am mostly talking about regular, fun play and not tournaments. My
point was that i like best the deals that are made in the duration of
the game that concern little "things" that come up in the proccess,
like "rescue me from torpor and i will rescue you from torpor, so the
99+raven spy-holding cailean cannot intercept us rescuing our vampires
from torpor". An not the kind of deals that define a certain combined
strategy since turn 1.
> > Deals should be straight-forward and once made, everyone involved
> > must stick to the deal and not back out.
>
> NEVER !! There is absolutely no valid reason for that. And read LSJ' lips :
> "There are no rules for deals". Which is part of the problem (there should
> be rules *against* deals). But you cannot be forced to respect something
> which doesn't exist, right ?
>
Again i am talking about non-tournament play, i gain fun and pleasure
winning a game that i have managed to win by my skill, good-deck
building and clever dealmaking, not by fooling another meth in a deal
and not keeping my part of the deal.
Do you find pleasure in luring your prey to tap all his minions
("don't worry, i won't bleed you this turn, rush your prey...") and
then in your turn play a Palla Grande and oust him ????? i surely
don't!
If the other players know that there is good chance that you won't
keep
your word, then in a situation like the above described, your prey
will never rush his prey, because he will be afraid of your 4-8
!toreador and a Palla Grande. Thus he will just play defense, rush you
or block you, beat you, his prey will remain unharmed and will have a
great chance of winning the game!
And all these just because you are known not to keep the deals you
are making and your prey left his prey unharmed due to fear of you
breaking the deal. How about that, would you like that to happen ?
If you make him a deal not to bleed him and let him weaken his
prey and he knows that you can be trusted, then he can do it and you
will both gain from the deal, as afterwards, after letting him weaken
his prey, you can surely find a turn in which he recklessly tapped a
minion he shouldn't have tapped.
And thus oust him and oust easier your new (and his former) prey,
that he had the chance to weaken.
> > After all we are methuselahs
> > involved in jyhad, but that doesn't mean we are without honor. Me and
>
> If you want to take examples from the roleplaying pov, please explain to me
> why a !Brujah would respect his word, or why even a Ventrue would hesitate
> to breakdeal with a lowly Sabbat ? The plans of the Methuselahs are not
> stopped by such a petty thing as honour. The only things that must be
> endorsed are the boons, represented by some cards with precise effects.
>
i am not talking about the roleplaying aspect of the game, i am
talking about wining due to skill, clever dealmaking and deck
superiority and not wining due to deal-breaking. Do you want to be
praised of your skills in jyhad or of your skills in betrayal.
> > everyone in my playgroup always keeps his word, we had 2-3 occurences
> > in the past, where a meth backed out from a deal, that were dealt in
> > the appropriate manner.
>
> You killed the meth and burned his house to the ground ? Did you remember to
> drown his goldfish ?
>
i ate it, AND... in a game afterwards, a fewllow player screwed the
traitor in the same manner that the traitor had screwed me. He said
"you are free to diablerize this vampire i will not use my votes to
burn you..." and he did! he burned the traitor... And i never had told
him to do it...
After he voted to burn the traitor's Gratiano, he said... "this will
teach you to keep your word and if you don't, then don't expect from
others to keep theirs..."
i believe this is fair enough...
> > Deals can screw up the table, if a meth involved is stupid, but
> > because
> > jyhad is not for the unintelligent that is not something that cannot
> > be dealt with.
>
> I fail to get your point.
>
If a meth is stupid then i (and everyone else) can convince him to
rush my prey, by fabricating a stupid reason. Like, look!!! my prey
has 4 minions, he will win the whole game, we have to rush him!! or
something more stupid...
If he is stupid he will fall for this and he will help me win the
game and deprive from my prey the pleasure of playing... Which is the
most important thing in jyhad, the pleasure of playing the game you
love...
> > if meth A is unexperienced and meth B tries to lure him to screw
> > meth C, then meth C can simply explain to the unexperienced meth A why
> > he shouldn't do what meth B says, because it is not in his best
> > interest and will just screw the table. If a meth is just plain stupid
> > and cannot learn by any means to make deals that are in his interest
> > and always makes deals that screw the table and the game, then this
> > meth should be dealt accordingly
>
> Again with these Giovanni methods ? Want any tips from an expert ?
>
why not, give me some tips... and i will give you some in return,
e.g. how you can burn down a traitor's house...
"The familia will never tolerate any kind of betrayal..."
> > and if he just can't learn to play
> > and make deals based on intelligence and keeps screwing games for any
> > reason, then he must be removed.
>
> From the game ? Your playgroup ? The city ? This plane of existence ?
>
From the Jyhad...
Do you know a methuselah (in the World of Darkness) that participates
in the eternal jyhad and he/she is stupid ??? I don't know any
either...
> > No need to remove deals from the game (or deteriorate them),
> > remove the stupid ones, whose acts are based on stupidity and anger.
> > Jyhad is not for the stupid, no man can be allowed to ruin a 4-5 or 6
> > men's game.
>
> Yeah, let's kill all stupid players !! We'll get some Blood Brothers to do
> it...
>
no need to take such measures.. We can just convince the stupid
ones that
they are realy vampires and that will remain unharmed if they are run
over by a truck or bus. This will do the trick... don't you agree ?
> Now let's be serious two seconds (one... one and a half...)
>
> Good players don't need deals to do what they must.
>
disagree, if another good player convinces 2 more stupid ones, and
all 3 work against the 1, then the 1 shall fall even if he is the most
skillful.
> Bad players don't need deals to screw a table.
>
yes, but they can screw the table better and more often, if they are
lured in making every kind of ridiculous deal by the other players.
> But deals certainly encourage making wrong decisions and ruining some games
> for one meager VP.
>
i agree, this is what must be wiped out.
> Deals for 1 VP should never exist : the deck making the "winning deal"
> should be able to win without the deal (if not, it would be illegal, right
> ?) ; the deck making the "losing deal" should just die painfully and not
> take the other players' potential for VPs away.
>
> (rest of post snipped because it's another subject completely)
> --
it is a similar subject, but i forgive you...
By the way, do you happen to own a goldfish ???? I would really like
to know... <evil grin>
Orpheus
> > > people to capitalize on other players' inability to realize what is in
> > their
> > > best interest.
>
You can use that skill without having to deal for VPs.
> > This is the perfect wording to express my exact thoughts. Really.
>
> Hard cases make bad law is a good old saying amongst the legal
> fraternity, and here i think you are both in danger of throwing the
> baby out with the bathwater. Deals, politics and social interaction
> are completely integral to the VTES game and the World of Darkness
> background; some such interactions are actually MANDATED by the cards
> [eg games/pranks, politics, auctions of various kinds and the Succubus
> club]. It's an aspect of VTES which i personally like; YMMV but if it
> does you have to accept that a HUGE chunk of VTES is going to have to
> be ditched to achieve your aims.
I love this aspect of the game too, as long as it doesn't get overly
simplified / reduced by the deals for VPs. In the W.O.D., alliances change
and shift all the time, depending on the evolution of one's interest, and
that has always been my vision of the CCG too.
> However, i do understand the frustration with table-splitting cliques
> and i sympathise with the wish to break them up, because like the
> other posters here i think this would be good for the game in the long
> term. The issue is how to achieve this. Should we go for an American,
> individualistic, bottom-up solution as Trey proposes, or for a
> European, legalistic, top-down solution a la Orpheus? On this issue i
> am for the American way because i do not think the European way would
> work, and i know the American way does work. It's awfully easy. Just
> go along with the deals, and then break them when you see that by
> doing so you can win.
LOL. Love your analysis. So, Old Continent Vs New it is, eh ? :-)
Seriously, the difference is that you can break deals all you want, if
you're alone all you'll gain will be an accusation of (how dire ! do I dare
say it ?) dealbreaker. And you'll throw some of your games away, in favor of
the guys who will take profit from it. It's like with AR or Smiling Jack :
everyone knows they've got to be removed, but no one want to bother doing
it.
Hence my suggestion of a precise ruling (if only : gotta optimize your VPs
at all time during the game : it doesn't even mention deals, and is quite
clear anyway).
> > > If it was possible to play with no talking whatsoever, I could see
doing
> > it and
> > > people would have to think through their play rather than have people
tell
> > them
> > > what they should do and have the game turn into an exercise in
personality
> > > management.
It would, I think, take away one of the aspects you prefer in the game.
> > You'll be able to do that in any Silent of Death tournie (including the
one
> > in Heidelberg the day of the EC).
>
> Interesting concept! What about signing? Is that allowed?
You mean singing I suppose ?
MADNESS OF THE BARD !!!
> > To Legbiter (who still didn't visited my Domain...) :
>
> But i DID drink a LOT of pastis in your honour in Corsica!
Ok, so maybe you'll be forgiven this time. Last chance next year. After that
I send the Shamblings.
> > > we want to get better finals, my suggestion is that rather than trying
> > > to mess with deals [IMO a TOTAL minefield of unenforceable edicts
> > > guaranteed to satisfy no-one but a rules lawyer] we put the finals on
> > > a different day from the heats and/or allow the finalists to
> >
> > Not very feasible most of the time. Imagine, sunday, we went to Italy,
it
> > would have been a mess if we had to wait for the finalist one more day.
> > Plus, when tournies last 2 days, you skip work if you're in finals ? It
> > would be a good thing, but I think it's utopic.
>
> Right, though maybe it could work at the bigger conventions.
> >
> > 3 rounds without finals wouldn't pose this problem. I think it could be
an
> > alternative official format.
>
> i think that's a good idea and could be the solution if coupled with
> seeding. Another possibility would be to cut the heats to 1 hour, or
> 1.5 hours, maybe standardising on 4-player tables.
Humm, I'm quite sure i wouldn't like that. 4-players isn't half as
interesting as 5, and 2 hours is necessary for many decktypes, which would
then get penalised. And probably some of the most interesting and less
archetypal.
> > change
> > > their decks for the final.
> >
> > I'm all against it. And it would be worse for tiredness : at least, the
> > other deck you've played all day long, you should have it in mind better
> > than any other.
>
> You're right, that was a fairly crap idea.
LOL. I love people who recognize their mistakes. KNow when they're right,
know when they've been wrong.
Me, I wouldn't know : I'm always right. ;-)
Cheers from the depths of my Mausoleum.
Orpheus
Damnans
Tetragrammaton wrote:
> Damnans wrote:
[...]
>>As I have already pointed out on the Italian forum, deals are not the
>>problem,
>>but players and judges:
>>
>
> As i pointed there too, you can't just expect good things if the players
> starts to use table splitting deals on regular basis -
As long as the player takes the GW, and the other is maximizing his VPs...
> being a matter of evaluating the game state, it's pretty subjective:
> a single judge could consider losing a position while another not, so
> no matter how the judging is, the deals usually ends up screwing
> the game for the player(s) that are on the "losing side" of the involved
> deal.
V:TES has a default subjectivity factor which can be seen in issues
like collusion, playing to win, stalling, etc.
Judges are there to give a final word on those subjective issues. And
judges must be educated enough to be as less subjective as possible.
Notwithstanding, I also think (as others have suggested on this thread)
that forcing players not only to get the game win but to maximize their
victory points as well, would be a good way to avoid many subjective
situations involving table-splitting deals.
If there the rules enforce maximizing your VPs, then it will be illegal
for you to give them away (in the case you have reasonable chances to
get them).
> We have no real guidelines besides the general "evaluate game state", "go
> for
> GW, if you can reasonably go for it, then maximize VP, if you can't
> reasonably even maximize vps fell free to kill yourself" - those points are
> too vague, too open to subjective evaluation to give a real reference.
That's why players don't have the final word about them, but judges.
> More, the aspect of deals and their over-power on games outcome,
> is at disavantage of all the players that are not good at conversation -
> those players usually can't convince anyone of their vision about game
> state, and usually always ends up on the losing side of deals.
All players should know that English is the official language in V:TES
international tournaments. Therefore, if they want to play in such
events at the same level as other players, they must speak English
fluently. Otherwise they'd better play autistic decks >:-)
> This aspect was clear in the final of the last italian qualifier:
> Stephan got the better english and conversation
> at the table, and it was able to convice almost anyone - Mirko tried to
> deal with Sebastien, but he was too weak with the international language,
> and so the vision of Stephan prevaled over Sebastien ("ehy, don't have
> the upveal end up with me as prey of weenie horde, i will not do
> the dirt work for you... " :-)).
> This way, language is becoming too important in this card game,
> ending up somewhat in talking/conversation abuse.
English should be counted among a V:TES player's strategic skills. If a
V:TES lacks that particular skill, well, then that player is flawed.
Turning V:TES into a mute game (as others have suggested) is contrary
to the game itself, where table talk is an inherent factor.
Greetings,
Damnans
--
James Coupe
> NEVER !! There is absolutely no valid reason for that. And read LSJ' lips :
> "There are no rules for deals". Which is part of the problem (there should
> be rules *against* deals). But you cannot be forced to respect something
> which doesn't exist, right ?
If we assume that that premise is true (which I'm not commenting on
for now), how would you propose to rule against deals?
As LSJ pointed out recently, there are many different kinds of deals
and the ones which seem to cause most problems are the ones that are
perceived as spoiling other people's "fun, or somesuch".
Additionally, it's intrinsic to some facets of the game - politics
particularly - that deals of some kind will have to be struck. If I
don't split my KRC three to my prey and one to your prey (perhaps, on
a five player table, you're my grand-prey and he's my grand-predator),
you're going to vote it down, particularly if you're suspecting that
(say) I'm going to Cryptic Rider it. At least you get something out
of it this way.
I'll leave to one side the problem of situations where I do sacrifice
something short term, but for a similarly short term gain e.g. I'll
pass that KRC for you, even though it does hurt me a bit now, but it
lines me up for a kill on my prey. Or even "Okay, I'll give you those
votes." But... it's worth bearing in mind that some of these can be
seen as deals, and if you want to draw a line between a "deal" and
cross-table negotiation, you're going to need to start drawing general
principles for some judgement-oriented help. Where does that line get
drawn?
So, as two political decks, we're going to need to have some sort of
long term negotiations. Now, you could say that a good player would
be including Closed Session (or similar) - but that's not necessarily
the point. Perfectly reasonable situations can occur where two people
are, in fact, playing largely contradictory styles. Say, we're both
playing a 1/2 Ventrue Law Firm. We may well need to co-operate over
votes, we may well need to co-operate over who brings out which
vampires. "Hey, is that Arika? She's got nine blood on her. It's
just I have two vamps here, and one's Queen Anne and the other's Arika
and I don't want to contest or waste my transfers."
Of course, the other VLF player can lie through their teeth and try
and screw me over (or feign innocence - the "Bugger, I've been
transferring to the wrong vampire" face is worth practising). But if
he doesn't - and he's possibly of the opinion that working together
where it's mutually beneficial is better than clash of the titans -
then we have a long term negotiating point going on.
The point of all this setup is... Is that a deal that spoils other
people's fun, or is that a deal which doesn't, or is it a deal in the
first place? After all, repeated negotiation may *not* be a deal.
(The above strikes me as good play, totally valid. But that's just my
opinion.)
Would it make any difference if the two of us were playing, say,
Euro-ish-Brujah and I negotiated to bring out Donal and Anvil, and you
to bring out Constanza and Volker? Would it make a difference if we
started negotiating over which targets to take out? Perhaps you and I
are both playing the Euro-Brujah and my prey/your predator is being
particularly troublesome. Perhaps he's killing us in diablerie Blood
Hunt situations. (Perhaps we're trying to keep each other alive in
them, rather than just burning each other's vamps to mutual
destruction.) Perhaps he's brought The Slow Withering into play and
it's annoying the hell out of us and we need him gone. Or perhaps
he's just brought Recalled to the Founder into play and I want to
bring another Brujah into play, but have some weenies doing other work
for me. (If it helps, pretend it's a multi-rush deck, Fatima style,
and my weenie-types are some of the same clan as me.) I want him
dead, so I want to get rid of that vampire - but I want to know if you
can oust him next turn, or if I need to wait to bring out Volker.
Is what I've just described a deal? We really are setting out to
spoil someone else's fun now - by ousting him, with the two of us
ganging up to destroy him. But if we don't, we're going to get
screwed over a barrel.
Now, these things could be set-up as open deals. But is the
difference between a discussed long-term deal any different from a
repeated negotiation - or just two experienced players with an
unvoiced understanding, because they're both smart cookies. "Look,
he's going to kill us, right? So let's see if we can avoid that." No
explicit deal made.
So where can you rule against these "deals" in general?
> Good players don't need deals to do what they must.
>
> Bad players don't need deals to screw a table.
I think these are both invalid premises, in that they're generalised
principles which fail to take into account individual situations.
I'm on a table playing, say, a Baltimore Purge deck. Eat vampires,
destroy them. Now, this is going to incur the wrath of the whole
table most likely (save for a few ally decks, but leave that out of it
- it's very unlikely, but it's still a remote possibility). So you
could say that as a "good" player, I shouldn't have played that deck.
But, move on to a far more innocuous deck. It just happens that it's
the antithesis of my predator and prey - for a casual example, let's
say I'm playing a very fast combat deck, and they can't deal with it
at all. So they need to get me ousted. First, is that a deal from
their point of view? As the prey, I really, really, really don't care
that my grand-predator gets a VP out of this - I need that deck off
the table, RIGHT NOW.
Here, we can't really say that it's my fault per se. As a good
player, I just happened to have picked a deck and two average players
(though their skill doesn't necessarily come into it) happen to have
decks that are very vulnerable to it. So two players really need me
off the table.
It would seem churlish - counter-productive, even - to prevent those
two players from doing so. Situations in which a judge is going to
say "Yes, I know you both need this to happen. Yes, I appreciate
you're probably going to die if you don't. No, you can't do it," are
going to end with much flouncing, pouting and acrimony.
But then I, the good player, am really going to need some help to
survive. Two people battering me as hard and fast as they can is
really going to kill me. I can take one, but not two. I might want
to go to my grand-predator and point out that he doesn't want me dead,
or else his prey will have six pool more to get through. I might also
point out that with my prey going backwards a lot, my grand-prey (my
grand-predator's predator) is going to have an easy ride and be a lot
stronger at ousting him.
So, we seem to have a situation where the following things seem to be
true. (Feel free to break the assumptions if I'm wrong.)
1) As a player, I'm playing a deck that wouldn't ordinarily incur the
wrath of the entire table but which, against these players,
exploits particular holes in their decks. This might be, for
instance, an event deck (or a deck with at least some events) that
just really screws their deck a lot. (I have some reservations
about some events, but there are certainly some mostly innocuous
events that would happen to annoy certain decks. Or some master
cards that do similar - some strategy altering/hosing type cards,
say.) So it's not that I'm a "bad player" who's picked the wrong
deck. I'm a good player who picked a deck, aiming to do everything
myself.
2) It can reasonably be seen that - for my prey - it is in his
interests to have me killed. (Pick any other player on the table,
if necessary.) He needs me dead to survive. Similarly, my
predator wants me dead - perhaps for similar reasons, perhaps not.
But I now have two players who really, really, really want me dead.
I don't think that - so far - that's my fault. So I'm not being a bad
player.
I also don't think that - so far - we can really blame either of the
other players. Every deck has holes, right? You only have 90 cards,
12 or so vampires, and 7 cards in hand at once. You can't cope with
EVERYTHING properly. Some things will need to be dealt with in
different ways - like being able to destroy a vampire with a combat
deck, if you don't have bleed bounce in that combat deck, or whatever.
Creative use of what's at your disposal to deal with general
situations of badness that would otherwise kill you. Which seems
reasonable, anyway.
3) Those two players may have a deal, or they may not. In either
event, it would seem weird to have some sort of rule that stopped
them from co-operating, overtly discussed or understood, or just
simply co-operating by both killing me, even though they haven't
planned who's doing what or anything like that. It's in both their
interests to kill me, so they are playing to win. My predator
wants his VP. My prey wants to survive.
I don't think this is an uncommon situation. We've all sat down next
to a deck we just want to kill because it's destroying our ability to
play.
An alternative situation might be a Malkavian Dementation deck, going
backwards round the table. I still have two people who want me to
die, only this time there's no deal AT ALL.
4) I now have two people trying to screw me over. As a "good player"
(for the purposes of the example), am I really expected to be able
handle two decks both trying to oust me at once? Obviously, my
prey will sometimes hit back at me in any situation - but two decks
properly trying to oust me at once is a different level to that.
It seems perfectly reasonable to say that I am very likely to die.
(Sure, they could get hand jam and do unthinkably stupid things. But
it's very likely I'm going to die.)
5) If my prey isn't killing me then there's a very good chance he's
doing something wrong, because his deck needs mine to die.
Bear in mind that you didn't specify that my *prey* needed to be a
good player - just that good players don't need deals to win. So
we're both allowing for the fact that other people can be bad players,
clearly. He could've made the wrong deck.
But also, he could be a bad player in general. You can't legislate
against bad play. Perhaps he does have a way to survive that doesn't
involve going backwards at me, but there's not a hope of convincing
him of that. (Perhaps he misjudges odds, or doesn't know how likely
or unlikely something is, or doesn't realise (and can't be convinced
of) what a strong position his grand-predator, my predator, will be in
once I'm dead too, with him on six extra pool and fewer resources dead
than he should have. Whatever.)
6) But for whatever reason, I now have two people going against me.
What "good play" would you suggest I use that allows me to do what
I want that *doesn't* involve a deal. Invent any scenario you want
but the crucial points are that two other people on the table want
me dead either because my deck will neuter them/destroy them first
or one of them is my predator and the other my prey who has no
other defence to the particular strategy I've enacted. (He's got
bleed bounce, combat defence and vote cancellation, but I'm playing
nasty vampire stealing with Mind Rape or Obeah or something.) Bad
play from one of the other players involved is also an acceptable
option, or someone waiting to move in with a Dramatic Upheaval is
also a possibility, as is the Dementation back-bleed above. But if
you want to stick to people doing things for 'good play' reasons,
rather than necessarily having an off-the-wall deck, that's fine
too.
Now, there are many sorts of deal here. Obviously, getting my
grand-predator to help is a possibility (as detailed above). Or going
for threats on my prey ("I'm going to die, but I'm going to make sure
you die first") is also a sort of deal - not all deals are made
because both sides are sweetness and light about it all, but because
players are forced into it. Which can get nasty. Various threats can
go around the place, getting people to back off, help them out
temporarily, or whatever. These all result in deals of a sort -
they're just not the "Well, you do this, I do that and we both win,
isn't spring pretty and don't you look FABULOUS today, dahlink?" sort
of deal.
> But deals certainly encourage making wrong decisions and ruining some games
> for one meager VP.
It can. But what about the situations where the *right* decision is
to go with that deal? How do you propose to stop people winning
through good play?
> Deals for 1 VP should never exist : the deck making the "winning deal"
> should be able to win without the deal (if not, it would be illegal, right
> ?) ; the deck making the "losing deal" should just die painfully and not
> take the other players' potential for VPs away.
No, this isn't true in either respect. (There may be some situations
where it is - probably lots - but it's not universally true.)
The classic example of this has often been two hard combat decks
sitting next to each other. (Indeed, this was one of the situations
that brought about the Table Win rulings, based on much bitching about
such situations. The TW rule provides incentives for both of the
combat decks to want to be on the 4 side of that deal, however, which
may make the deal harder to broker.)
I have a combat deck, you (my prey) also have a combat deck. I need
to bleed through you, and to do that, I want to destroy your vampires.
(There's nothing wrong so far, this is classic rush deck stuff.)
However, to destroy your vampires, I need to go into combat. You can
hit back. You probably will hit back.
Now, assuming that we're both playing a combat deck that's largely
offense with only a little defence, it could work out that we'll
mutually annihilate each other. (The canny Gangrel fortitude player
may be in a very different situation, of course.) Say, it's two (very
different) Brujah combat decks that are going to destroy each other.
You're playing Euro-Brujah mostly, I'm doing something fun with Group
3, say. Or Brujah vs Tzimisce - we both have a little damage
prevention/avoidance floating around (e.g. Sideslip, various little
bits of Vicissitude), but we're both conscious that the deck probably
doesn't have a whole lot.
However, the specific example doesn't matter too much - we can both
find situations where combat decks next to each other will annihilate
each other. Now, if they're the last two decks on the table, it's
likely that one will last a little longer than the other and find
itself able to bleed out the other player with a copy of Hasina Kesi
over multiple turns and a well-timed copy of Fame.
But on a five player table, both of us will probably die and my
predator will destroy me, then you. 0 VPs each. And you probably
can't get a single VP because I'm killing your vampires.
So, we're both in a situation of 0 VP. (This can happen.)
If I can convince you to take the deal whereby you oust your prey,
then I sweep the table, I'm playing for a TW. You can't get a TW, so
the deal still allows you to maximise your VPs. (Of course, someone
else might be able to offer you a *better* deal - but you're not
obliged to take it, if you think they're lying etc.)
So, from 0 VPs you get 1 VP. From 0 VPs, I get a TW and 4 VPs.
Classically, it gets split 3-2 (you get the rest of the table and roll
over for me to get my pound of flesh), but various reasons might
convince you to take my deal, which is still an improvement on 0.
You don't have to take the deal, but if we allow that we're both
pretty sure we're going to kill each other (small tournament, played
each other before, single table tournament etc.) which is far from
impossible with two meaty combat decks, the deal isn't illegal.
And - as above - you try explaining to the player that he can't get a
TW that way, and has to get 0 VP instead, even though an in-game,
non-collusive piece of play allows him to do so without requiring
another player to worsen their expected outcome based on the table at
hand.
Also, hello and stuff.
--
James Coupe
Stefan Ferenci
>>I was not to long ago an avid defender of table splitting deals, but i
>>do realize that they are bad for the game. and should be reduced in
>>occurance.
>>i think with a few simple rules we could stop the rising tide of deals.
>>
>>1) remove withdrawl from the game. this rule intended to let players
>>that used up their decks bow out of the game is only abused for
>>dealmaking. nobody except the dealmakers will miss this rule
>
>
> This should have been done ages ago, long before the table win method of
> scoring came into effect.
>
> Brinksmanship could get errataed to do something different, though I really
> don't care if the card ceases to see play. One possibility could be to have it
> deal 2 pool loss during a player's untap if that player has no library left.
> While that might be good enough to lead to obnoxious deck destruction decks,
> the greater good of eliminating withdrawing could be accomplished with less
> complaining.
>
>
>>2)let only vps made in game wins count for the preliminary standings and
>>use the vps made in losing efforts only as first tiebrakers.
>>so someone who won 2 rounds with 4 vps each is ranked higher than
>>someone who won 1 round with 4 vps,the second with 3 vps and cut a
>>losing deal for 2 in the final round.
>
>
> I'm pretty sure this is a bad idea. In theory, isn't it more impressive to
> rank as high as possible in every round? Why punish people who accomplished
> their VPs without dealmaking for them?
>
people claimed the wanted more offense in the game, so this would
enforce offense. this rule would not suit my play style, because i am a
defense first player (ask any predator of mine) but i think it would
enforce offense in the game and make GW愀 more important and discourage
players to accept a losing deal.
stefn
Derek Ray
geo...@for.auth.gr (Jyhad_addict) mumbled something about:
> Do you find pleasure in luring your prey to tap all his minions
>("don't worry, i won't bleed you this turn, rush your prey...") and
>then in your turn play a Palla Grande and oust him ????? i surely
>don't!
> If the other players know that there is good chance that you won't
>keep
>your word, then in a situation like the above described, your prey
>will never rush his prey, because he will be afraid of your 4-8
>!toreador and a Palla Grande. Thus he will just play defense, rush you
>or block you, beat you, his prey will remain unharmed and will have a
>great chance of winning the game!
Then your prey is a fool who is not attempting to win, and your deck is
inferior because it did not include a means of dealing with a prey who
chooses to leave all his minions untapped -- such as Pentex Subversion,
Anarch Troublemaker, Mind Numb, etc.
You cannot legislate against poor play; and you do not require a deal in
order to win from this situation. You just need to build your deck in a
fashion that it can WIN.
> And all these just because you are known not to keep the deals you
>are making and your prey left his prey unharmed due to fear of you
>breaking the deal. How about that, would you like that to happen ?
I call this collusion, and think players who do this are weak and
unskilled. You should learn to play, not learn to cheat.
>> > everyone in my playgroup always keeps his word, we had 2-3 occurences
>> > in the past, where a meth backed out from a deal, that were dealt in
>> > the appropriate manner.
>>
>> You killed the meth and burned his house to the ground ? Did you remember to
>> drown his goldfish ?
>>
> i ate it, AND... in a game afterwards, a fewllow player screwed the
>traitor in the same manner that the traitor had screwed me. He said
>"you are free to diablerize this vampire i will not use my votes to
>burn you..." and he did! he burned the traitor... And i never had told
>him to do it...
Collusion, clear and obvious. I would call you out on it on the spot.
If you can't win on your own, get your friends to help you cheat? I
don't think this is the proper way to play V:TES, and that's all there
is to it. You and the other player cheated and colluded.
> After he voted to burn the traitor's Gratiano, he said... "this will
>teach you to keep your word and if you don't, then don't expect from
>others to keep theirs..."
> i believe this is fair enough...
I believe you are all a bunch of colluders, in violation of the rules.
-- Derek
a host is a host from coast to coast
and no one will talk to a host that's close
unless the host that isn't close
is busy, hung, or dead
legbiter
> >>> Dealmaking, then, is a way for
> > > > people to capitalize on other players' inability to realize what is in
> > > their
> > > > best interest.
> >
> > Which, it seems to me, is a good skill to have/acquire.
>
> You can use that skill without having to deal for VPs.
No argument there. What worries people like me and Chris is that if you
try to get the judges ruling on what is and isn't an allowable deal to
the extent that you seem to believe is necessary, you will reduce this
aspect of the game and make it less fun. You will also, i believe, fail
to address the real problem you have identified.
>
<snip>
Deals, politics and social interaction
> > are completely integral to the VTES game and the World of Darkness
> > background; some such interactions are actually MANDATED by the cards
> > [eg games/pranks, politics, auctions of various kinds and the Succubus
> > club]. It's an aspect of VTES which i personally like
<snip>
>
> I love this aspect of the game too, as long as it doesn't get overly
> simplified / reduced by the deals for VPs. In the W.O.D., alliances change
> and shift all the time, depending on the evolution of one's interest, and
> that has always been my vision of the CCG too.
It's that "overly" which is the crucial point of difference between us.
We both know what it means. But i do not think you or i or anyone can
define it well enough to prevent the abuses you are worried about. To do
so one would need a watertight definition of acceptable and unacceptable
table talk and deal making for every conceivable situation. This is
impossible, and even if it were possible it is undesirable, because it
would be a check on people's creativity and freedom.
>
> > However, i do understand the frustration with table-splitting cliques
> > and i sympathise with the wish to break them up, because like the
> > other posters here i think this would be good for the game in the long
> > term. The issue is how to achieve this. Should we go for an American,
> > individualistic, bottom-up solution as Trey proposes, or for a
> > European, legalistic, top-down solution a la Orpheus? On this issue i
> > am for the American way because i do not think the European way would
> > work, and i know the American way does work. It's awfully easy. Just
> > go along with the deals, and then break them when you see that by
> > doing so you can win.
>
> LOL. Love your analysis. So, Old Continent Vs New it is, eh ? :-)
;-) Maybe a bit of old Europe versus New, also - see Nikolaj Wendt's
post elsewhere. Actually one of the ironies here is that when French
people first came to Britain to play Jyhad they were APPALLED at the
extent of our table-dealing. But, being the clever adaptable chaps and
chappesses they are, and judging by Reyda's comments, they obviously
beetled off back to France and became MUCH better at it than we ever
were. Additionally, the British scene has in the meantime pretty much
completely moved away from the table-split. Something similar to what
happened over railways, really.
>
> Seriously, the difference is that you can break deals all you want, if
> you're alone all you'll gain will be an accusation of (how dire ! do I dare
> say it ?) dealbreaker.
You won't be alone for long, if you pick the right moments to break your
deals. And the accusation you DON'T want is not "dealbreaker" but "broke
deal and STILL lost", cos that just makes you look STUPID.
And you'll throw some of your games away, in favor of
> the guys who will take profit from it.
<snip>
Yes you will, but you will become a better player and you will have more
fun. Understand that i am NOT saying "break your deals and win more
tourneys". In the old days when i used to table split and deal i was on
paper a better player than i am now [British number 2, at one point].
But whatever the ratings say, the fact is i am now a better, more
careful and more creative player than i was then, and consequently i
have more fun. Thinking about it i guess that the meta-problem here is
ratings. No-one should care about them but people do. And getting rid of
them, or even tinkering with them, is also IMO not the answer, because
we need a tourney system and that element of competition to act as
window dressing for the game.
>
> Hence my suggestion of a precise ruling (if only : gotta optimize your VPs
> at all time during the game : it doesn't even mention deals, and is quite
> clear anyway).
i think this would have no effect at all on the phenomena you describe.
The only ruling that might achieve the effect you want is to make table
wins the only relevant factor in determining tourney success. Actually i
think that would not work either, but i really don't want to get dragged
into an argument about this because i think Trey's way is the right way.
>
> > > > If it was possible to play with no talking whatsoever, I could see
> doing
> > > it
<snip>
>
> > > You'll be able to do that in any Silent of Death tournie (including the
> one
> > > in Heidelberg the day of the EC).
> >
> > Interesting concept! What about signing? Is that allowed?
>
> You mean singing I suppose ?
No, i really do mean signing. Sign language, like deaf people and poker
cheats do.
<snip>
> > > To Legbiter (who still didn't visited my Domain...) :
> >
> > But i DID drink a LOT of pastis in your honour in Corsica!
>
> Ok, so maybe you'll be forgiven this time. Last chance next year. After that
> I send the Shamblings.
;-) we get those whenever term starts. i will check the cheap flights to
Marseilles the moment i have finished this reply.
>
<snip>
> > >
> > > 3 rounds without finals wouldn't pose this problem. I think it could be
> an
> > > alternative official format.
> >
> > i think that's a good idea and could be the solution if coupled with
> > seeding. Another possibility would be to cut the heats to 1 hour, or
> > 1.5 hours, maybe standardising on 4-player tables.
>
> Humm, I'm quite sure i wouldn't like that. 4-players isn't half as
> interesting as 5,
Indeed, in fact it is 6/10ths as interesting as 5 [6 possible dyad
interactions for a 4-player, 10 for a five player].
and 2 hours is necessary for many decktypes, which would
> then get penalised. And probably some of the most interesting and less
> archetypal.
Any reform has a cost, a fact that our cheap and intellectually debased
political debate tends not to acknowledge. But fortunately we are not
doing politics on this forum, so this is something that has to be
thought about whenever a reform is proposed, and that is what i am doing
here. How bad is the abuse? Not too bad is my judgement, and likely to
ameliorate still further. What are the downsides of any proposed reform
that might address the abuse? Considerable, i suggest, but largely
unforseeable.
i recognise the phenomenon you are talking about but i think it is only
a stage in the evolution of your Jyhad scene; the evidence for this view
is that such things used to occur here, and now they pretty much don't.
If i'm right this will happen because players will follow Trey's model,
and you will not have to implement any reform whatsoever, so you will
incur no downside costs.
<snip further merry badinage>
--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
legbiter
>
> Also, hello and stuff.
Hey, brother! Good to have you back!
XZealot
> traitor in the same manner that the traitor had screwed me. He said
> "you are free to diablerize this vampire i will not use my votes to
> burn you..." and he did! he burned the traitor... And i never had told
> him to do it...
>
> After he voted to burn the traitor's Gratiano, he said... "this will
> teach you to keep your word and if you don't, then don't expect from
> others to keep theirs..."
> i believe this is fair enough...
That is such a sack of raw horseshit, it makes me want to vomit. If
you are going to give someone the shaft then do it. Don't be Polly
Pretentious, and after you have given them the shaft give them a
lesson in morality. It was a risk; he took it; he got burned. That
sort of attitude would drive players away from a playgroup. No one
likes a player who is condescending to them.
Just because this is a gentleman's game (i.e. no money involved), it
doesn't mean you have to play like a gentleman.
--
Comments Welcome,
Norman S. Brown, Jr.
XZealot
Archon of the Swamp
legbiter
> "Johannes Walch" <joha...@scram.de> wrote in message news:<cjd0a7$462$1...@stu1id2.ip.tesion.net>...
>
> > Strange. We don´t have these problems around here ...
>
> These problems are very common in Minsk, since the level of players
> (and their decks) here is very different. Most of our players
> (including myself) are newbies, and, IMHO, the main problem isn't the
> newbie's frustration from the inevitable loss but his/her inability to
> find the way to improve.
> If I've lost due to my mistake or lack of some cards, I should avoid
> making the mistake and search the needed cards. But what can I do if
> several strong players decide to include my head as a part of their
> agreement? The true answer is "become strong myself", but it isn't
> quite obvious.
> If a player feels himself strong, he or she may attempt to break the
> offending deal to suggest a more appealing one, and (s)he can also
> make another deal with the "sentenced to death" players. The simplest
> way to make other players respect your strength is playing a rush
> deck... take two Brujah precons and see others trying to make a deal
> with you :)
Interesting! And further fodder for my belief that this is a playgroup
evolution thing. But i think you might live to regret giving new
players rush decks. VERY strong forward decks would be my INFINITELY
preferred solution!
legbiter
if everyone
> starts breaking the deals, then people will cease making deals and
> then this good part of the game will cease to exist.
>
Not so, brother. Rather, people will make better deals, relying not on
trust but on mutual benefit. Try it! You'll be pleasantly surprised.
Matthew T. Morgan
This has been my experience playing in deal-breaking DC. We make deals
all the time. We don't break them very often, but we consider
deal-breaking to be an acceptable way to win.
I had the experience recently of a player being shocked to learn that I'm
not above breaking a deal here or there (or as I prefer to think of it,
I'm above refusing to break deals). This player loudly (but not unkindly)
spoke of how I should never be trusted and there would be no deals...
...and then proceded to make a mutually beneficial deal with me about 10
minutes later.
Matt Morgan
freakdrivr
>
> > > everyone in my playgroup always keeps his word, we had 2-3 occurences
> > > in the past, where a meth backed out from a deal, that were dealt in
> > > the appropriate manner.
> >
> > You killed the meth and burned his house to the ground ? Did you remember to
> > drown his goldfish ?
> >
> i ate it, AND... in a game afterwards, a fewllow player screwed the
> traitor in the same manner that the traitor had screwed me. He said
> "you are free to diablerize this vampire i will not use my votes to
> burn you..." and he did! he burned the traitor... And i never had told
> him to do it...
>
> After he voted to burn the traitor's Gratiano, he said... "this will
> teach you to keep your word and if you don't, then don't expect from
> others to keep theirs..."
> i believe this is fair enough...
Boy you sure taught him a lesson?
Do we NEED to put in the rulebook that the game is supposed to be FUN?
anyway lighten up.
your games might be a little more fun to play.
i'm also jealous that you get to play so often.
*anxiously awaiting CCG workshop's version*
jds
David Zopf
"legbiter" <legb...@mailandnews.com> wrote in message
news:2b7d6dca022d9b4e397...@mygate.mailgate.org...
> <snip lengthy and elegant exposition of stuff i agree with>
> >
> > Also, hello and stuff.
Yeah, what's this I see before my eyes???!!!! A post from The Dreaded
Coupe, Under Whose Irod Shod Boot the Kindred of England Formerly Groaned?
Post more, old friend... You've been missed. We haven't had anyone except
Derek to properly take people to task since you left for university... ;-)
How goes the pursuit of a higher intellect?
DaveZ
Atom Weaver
Reyda
"legbiter" <legb...@mailandnews.com> a écrit dans le message de
news:2b7d6dca022d9b4e397...@mygate.mailgate.org...
> <snip lengthy and elegant exposition of stuff i agree with>
> >
> > Also, hello and stuff.
>
> Hey, brother! Good to have you back!
What the ... ? Who opened that coffin in the first place !? =D
Nikolaj Wendt
> No rules affecting deals are required, deals are very important in
> it. The will make a deal to go against you.
>
> like in a 4-meth game where the 2 meths make a deal from the begining
> of the game to oust the 2 others and then solve their differences 1 on
> 1, these kind of deals are crap, if you ask me, and usually someone
>
Deals are necesary (and quite essential for the game). Its just the VP
deals that blow chunks, and should be changed/disallowed in some
way... or just broken more regularly..
Maybe just disallow deals where its clear that the guy will selfoust
afterwards. Then if the players after fullfilling the deal stops
blocking the other guys minions or taps out every turn but only hunts
when he could have bled etc. etc a judge could be called and force the
player to actually play to win.
Or maybe change the "you are allowed to keep a deal that was legal
when made even though honoring it doesnt maximize your vps now".
Forcing people to break the deal if they suddenly get a chance to
actually win the game, would drastically lower the sick vp deals...
and the vp deals that actually survive would make more sense.
Example: In a 3 player end game i let my prey kill my predator. If he
still has no chance of ousting me he should off course be allowed to
honor the deal and kill himself, since it wont make a difference..
only a matter of time.
BUT if the 6 pool and other circumstances makes it possible for him to
oust me now, he should be forced to do so by the rules.
Lord of the Betrayers (<--- my new nickname around here)
Prince of Copenhagen
Frederick Scott
news:415b4a3c$0$22258$79c1...@nan-newsreader-06.noos.net...
>
> "Frederick Scott" <dont...@mymail.com> a écrit dans le message de
> news:GPD6d.1507$mS1.378@fed1read05...
>
>
> > it allows two players to engage in activity to the mutual benefit
> > and welfare of both (at the expense of others at the table)
> > creating "goodness" out of thin air.
>
> you mean creating boreness and tireness for others =)
I suppose you can call it "boring". All a defeated player can
do is go off to the bathroom, get something to eat, or watch the
rest of the game in sullen silence. Heh.
> > But the "currency" is sometimes bogus,
> > potentially causing a player engaging it far more harm than good.
> > Like dynamite, it's a tool that can be very helpful or blow up in
> > your hands. It's risk-taking, hardly to be equated with "flawed
> > play".
>
> it's absolutely no risk taking since the "gentleman
> agreement"/"honor system" is here to ensure the dealers they
> risk nothing =)
If players choose to maintain a reputation, that's true. Doesn't
mean there's no risk. Your partner might choose this moment to
let it go (as Mike Curtois did during the Southwest Qualifier in
order to insure himself of a qualification position). In any event,
even if there's no risk in breaking the deal, there's always a
risk to someone agreeing to do something later on down the road
that circumstances will change considerably from how he envisioned
the game going - making his agreement much more harmful to him
to keep. There's _always_ risk to dealing.
Fred
Tetragrammaton
> Tetragrammaton wrote:
>
>> Damnans wrote:
> [...]
>
>>> As I have already pointed out on the Italian forum, deals are not
>>> the problem,
>>> but players and judges:
>>>
>>
>> As i pointed there too, you can't just expect good things if the
>> players starts to use table splitting deals on regular basis -
>
> As long as the player takes the GW, and the other is maximizing his
> VPs...
>
is acting to take the gw..." etc it s always doable for sure.
That involves also playing style taste, and a judge can't be
really objective about that.
> V:TES has a default subjectivity factor which can be seen in issues
> like collusion, playing to win, stalling, etc.
>
> Judges are there to give a final word on those subjective issues. And
> judges must be educated enough to be as less subjective as possible.
>
You really can't educate for the best with a general guideline such as
"evaluate the game"... that's is too generic, too open to
subjective vision of the game state, metagame and style of play.
> Notwithstanding, I also think (as others have suggested on this
> thread) that forcing players not only to get the game win but to
> maximize their victory points as well, would be a good way to avoid
> many subjective situations involving table-splitting deals.
I think almost the same and already proposed some time ago here,
but that proposed new goal (maximizing anyway vps)
was defined "spurious" :-)
>
> If there the rules enforce maximizing your VPs, then it will be
> illegal for you to give them away (in the case you have reasonable
> chances to
> get them).
Yes, i completely agree here
<snip>
> English should be counted among a V:TES player's strategic skills. If
> a V:TES lacks that particular skill, well, then that player is flawed.
>
Sorry, i think i didn't explained well my point - i'm talking of general
skill language, not about using international idioms to be understood
by foreign people at (big) tournament - i was saying "english"
just because is the common language on this NG -
A player that is good at conversation may just manipulate other
average (at conversation) player in agreeing in a table split deal, and so
on.
greets
Emiliano
Frederick Scott
news:20040930050153...@mb-m16.aol.com...
> >> Dealmaking isn't necessary. Dealmaking only matters when
> >> players don't play perfectly. Okay, that's all of the time.
> >> But, the point is that dealmaking is contrary to good play.
> >> In good play, you help or hurt other people, as Trey states,
> >> for people to capitalize on other players' inability to realize
> >> what is in their best
> >> interest.
> >> I've managed to get off focus. Basically, I wanted to point out
> >> that dealmaking is a flaw in play, not some sort of necessary
> >> aspect to it.
> >
> >Wow! Suffice to say that such a view is an *incredibly*
> >incomplete, insufficent summary of the relationship deal-making
> >has to the concept of quality of play. Though I'd agree that
> >participation in deals can often be a sign of flawed play, were
> >that the beginning and end of the situation few or no good
> >players would ever enter into deals nor even entertain
> >consideration of them. To the contrary, excellent players are
> >seen to offer and accept deals all the time and often benefit and
> >win by exercise. How can you explain this and resolve it with
> >the point of view expressed above? I don't think you can.
>
> First, to get it out of the way, dealmaking and cooperation aren't
> the same thing. Dealmaking is a formalization of cooperation.
Such a distinction doesn't seem meaningful. The alternative to
"formalized cooperation" - which must necessarily reference any
deals made verbally and deliberately - would be tacit cooperation,
such as a predator refraining from bleeding a prey in order to allow
him to bleed his prey (the predator's grandprey) when both clearly
view the latter as the major threat in the game. While this
happens occasionally, it's hardly worth noting for purposes of
this discussion, as far as I can see. It seems unlikely that
there'd be any confusion about such a point.
> Say you end up doing what you wanted to do in the absence of a
> deal. Then, there was no reason to have a deal to formalize
> whatever cooperation you and another player may have come up with.
Sure there is. Sometimes you can threaten an opponent with some
other behavior and affect his play, gaining you something in the
process. You can sometimes do this and gain from it because in
some situations: 1) he can't be sure that you'd decided to do what
you've chosen to do but haven't acted on yet; and 2) the deal seems
worthwhile to him given his imperfect knowledge of the state of
the game. (He may not know that, for instance, you're not holding
that Sensory Deprivation you're threatening him with and that you
possess no more of them in the deck.)
> So, a deal is only relevant when it changes behavior. But, why
> would you want to change behavior when you think you are doing
> what's in your best interests all of the time in the first place?
> On the face of it, it would seem obvious that you make deals to
> change the complexion of a game that's going against you.
Since your premise seems faulty, I assert that your conclusion is
faulty.
> You may have equal options and the way to resolve which to choose
> is by offers tendered. Except, once you assume the people
> tendering the offers are doing what is in their best interest,
> what to do should be solvable again without having to worry
> about whether a deal is in place.
Again, faulty premise ==> faulty conclusion. The attractiveness
of options will vary depending on what positive and negative
consequences are attached to each option. These, in turn - at
least sometimes - vary depending on what effects they will have
on the future behaviors of other players. Which in terms depend
on negotiations: what you can get them to agree to and/or what
each will threaten as implications of your actions. In turn
once again, this may well depend on what they reckon they can
acheive by affecting your behavior through threats and offers
in terms of their current and future behavior. "Doing what is
in their best interest" is highly dependent on the outcome of
verbal bargaining - not just the other way around.
> What is dealing but an opportunity to distort their strategy?
The question seems posed to beg a particular answer. "Distorting"
strategy, if I understand your meaning correctly, affects what is
in your best interests and the potential gain. I think you are
oversimplifying by pretending there isn't a payback loop in
operation here.
> >Dealmaking simply involves the trading of short-term interests
> >with long-term ones. In short, it's offering the medium of future
> >considerations as currency for current services.
>
> There are no short term interests to the rational player. Every
> decision has to come back to "how do I achieve my game goal?" - a
> long term interest.
I think you're mistaking my meaning here. Of course short term
interests (or "short term goals" if you will) are stepping stones
to long term interest. I meant that you sacrafice your near term
progress towards your overall goal in hopes of gaining more progress
in the long run. Or you may offer something to another player that
down the road will assist him in his long term interest (thus
ultimately harming yours at that point) in exchange for something
you need immediately that you deem more important in the long
term.
The way you're defining "short term" above is ultimately meaningless
and (deliberately or not) is an attempt to sabotage my point
through semantics. By defining it as you do, you obviate any need
to ever consider the short term vs. long term. Assuming you don't
think that's silly (and I don't think you do), the true meaning
of a player's "short term interest" and how it can sometimes be
reasonably exchanged in one direction or another with his "long
long term interest" ought to be clear.
> The point of cooperation is to help yourself. For, if you aren't
> helping yourself, why engage in the behavior. Similarly, it has
> to be assumed that a rational partner is also cooperating to
> achieve something in his or her best interests. So, why formalize
> it?
Well, for one thing you do so because clearly players are seldom
going to automatically agree on what is in one another's best
interests such that cooperation can eternally be tacit in nature.
You don't know what is in one another's libraries, crypts, and
hands (unknown information). You may each reckon differently in
terms of what third parties will do when confronted by a given
set of circumstances. Other differences in perspective.
A much BETTER reason, however, is that although the benefits of
cooperation in a certain respect may be clear to both parties, it
frequently requires each player make choices to do so at discrete
points in time. Even if the questions of trust and shared
perspective don't exist, both players still may need assurances
that the other views their cooperation in the same light and that
the nature of the mutually advantageous behavior is understood to
be the same by both parties. This is formalizing cooperation: aka
"dealmaking" by your own definition.
> You formalize cooperation because of information inequities or
> because some players aren't (always) rational. To some extent,
> the former is unavoidable as opponents won't know how you built
> your deck or what you have in hand. But, quite a bit of the
> inequity comes from the difference in ability of players to
> read the game state. By capitalizing on that difference, you
> make the formalization of cooperation relevant and produce flawed
> play on the part of the person who shouldn't have made the deal.
> And, obviously, irrational players produce flawed play.
Although I obviously agree with some of your conclusions above, I
don't agree with your overall conclusion. The issue is hardly
comes down to "flawed play" because: 1) both players may well
benefit from the cooperation; and 2) even if it turns out to be
a mistake on the part of one player due to lack of knowledge he
can't possibly have (what's in other players' deck and how each
deck is ordered), that's hardly what I would call "flawed".
Sometimes a bad deal is due to the result of a poor choice on the
part of one or even both players. I would say that isn't the
rule.
> What I'm getting at is that good play removes any need to
> formalize cooperation since it's ... good play. Having a
> deal in place to do what you should have been doing in the first
> place is redundant. Having a deal in place to do what you
> shouldn't be doing is flawed play on someone's part.
I disagree. It seems clear to me that players can and often
do increase their chances of winning through explicit cooperation
and furthermore, they do so in ways that are *not* zero sum in
nature. That is, both players increase their chances of winning
in the end. Thus, such explicit cooperation cannot be termed
"flawed".
Fred
Jyhad_addict
> In message <c6a50f81.04093...@posting.google.com>,
> geo...@for.auth.gr (Jyhad_addict) mumbled something about:
>
>
> inferior because it did not include a means of dealing with a prey who
> chooses to leave all his minions untapped -- such as Pentex Subversion,
> Anarch Troublemaker, Mind Numb, etc.
>
Pentex Subversion, Anarch Troublemaker, Mind Numb, e.t.c. mean
nothing in the long run, they can give you a small "edge", not oust a
prey who is devoted to play defensively due to fear of mass 0-stealth
bleeding. i am talking about general strategy, if you can ever
understand what this is.
> You cannot legislate against poor play; and you do not require a deal in
> order to win from this situation. You just need to build your deck in a
> fashion that it can WIN.
>
I know how to build a good deck, i don't think you can teach me.
Dealmaking should be based on intelligence not on back-stabbing.
> I call this collusion, and think players who do this are weak and
> unskilled. You should learn to play, not learn to cheat.
>
cheat????????????? can you explain WHAT facts are supporting
this conclusion of yours ? That is because if you can't support this
claim of yours, then you are just a plain, pathetic slanderer.
> >>
> > i ate it, AND... in a game afterwards, a fewllow player screwed the
> >traitor in the same manner that the traitor had screwed me. He said
> >"you are free to diablerize this vampire i will not use my votes to
> >burn you..." and he did! he burned the traitor... And i never had told
> >him to do it...
>
> Collusion, clear and obvious. I would call you out on it on the spot.
>
Oh my god, you are so stupid, you are one of those stupid ones i
was refering to, that is why you are so offensive and unfair with
me....
Everybody involved in the above incident is very good friend to
each other, we usually play for fun and it was during fun play and not
tournament play... So, none had colluded with any other, we all had a
laugh after the game and all your above accusations are fabrications
of your twisted thing you call "brain".
You should apologize to me for all the false accusations you have
sent against me in your posting, i never did anything to provoke your
childish behaviour. Then i will also apologize for calling you stupid,
even when i am sure that you are.
> If you can't win on your own, get your friends to help you cheat? I
> don't think this is the proper way to play V:TES, and that's all there
> is to it. You and the other player cheated and colluded.
>
You continue to falsly accuse me, based on the incident i have
described, which incident involved me and my close-friends during fun
play and not tournament play. You are so stupid you didn't got it,
right ?
> > After he voted to burn the traitor's Gratiano, he said... "this will
> >teach you to keep your word and if you don't, then don't expect from
> >others to keep theirs..."
> > i believe this is fair enough...
>
> I believe you are all a bunch of colluders, in violation of the rules.
>
Again, i shall only say that we are all friends, it was NOT
tournament play, just ordinary-everyday-fun play, none had colluded
with anyone else, we all had a laugh in the end and you continue to be
stupid and crappy.
Finaly and seriously, my conclusion is that you totaly
misunderstood my posting, maybe you are not clever enough to
understand what i was talkig about or maybe you are jumping on
conclusions or maybe you just were in a mood to pick a fight.
I am never in the mood of picking a fight, don't continue this
"fight" and just know that i have responded in this manner to you,
because i get furious when someone i don't know accuses me falsly of
thing he has no knowledge of.-
Jyhad_addict
we are all (the 4 playing) close-friends, it was an
ordinary-fun-play and not tournament play and we had a laugh
afterwards.
If you break your deals often, then you should expect that others
who contact deals with you will break them, too.
I don't see anything wrong with this...
Finaly, i never expected that i would be criticized, because i keep
my word when i conduct my deals.
Me and my playgroup are the only people playing jyhad in
Thessaloniki, we have devoted a lot of time and more money in jyhad
and we have decided to keep our word when we make a deal, because we
like the game best this way.
We don't have to play like a gentleman does, bu because we are, we
do.
It's that simple... i don't cticisize you people that break your
deals, do what you like, but it is outrageous to criticize me and my
playgroup for being honest one to another when making deals. So,
please stop.
Jyhad_addict
Yeah, i have already thought of it, but i didn't want to mention,
because
i am in favour of keeping a deal.
Additionaly this is not the case each time, e.g. an imaginary
example, 3 players left in a game, each with one minion, so meth A
torporizes meth's B minion and asks meth C, will you abstain at the
forecoming blood-hunt if i diablerize meth's B minion ? meth C
responds "yes". meth A diablerizes, then meth C "breaks" the deal and
votes in favour of the destruction of meth's A only minion, so he
wins...
meth A and meth C had mutual benefit of the removal of meth B, but
meth C had an additional benefit of the removal of both minions, so he
could have won (if this wasn't an imaginary example) by betrayal...
What do you think ?
Frederick Scott
news:c6a50f81.04093...@posting.google.com...
> "Orpheus" <orphe...@DEADSPAM.free.fr> wrote in message
news:<415b2f7a$0$6620$626a...@news.free.fr>...
> > > occurences in the past, where a meth backed out from a deal,
> > > that were dealt in the appropriate manner.
> >
> > You killed the meth and burned his house to the ground ? Did you
> > remember to drown his goldfish ?
> >
> i ate it, AND... in a game afterwards, a fewllow player screwed
> the traitor in the same manner that the traitor had screwed me.
> He said "you are free to diablerize this vampire i will not use my
> votes to burn you..." and he did! he burned the traitor... And i
> never had told him to do it...
Had this been a VEKN tournament, this would be an indisputably
clear case of collusion and (were I the judge) at least your friend
and - if you had appeared to put him up to it or encourage it in
any way - you would have been ejected. In fact, even had YOU
been the one to screw the guy over again in a later game for no
good "in-game" reason, you would be at risk of that penalty.
(At lest that is my understanding of the collusion-to-alter-the-
results-of-a-game rule.) Of course, that would be all dependent on
making it clear that the reason for burning the traitor had to do
with retribution and was not done for "in-game" reasons. IMHO,
the declaration he made would be more than ample evidence of it,
however.
I only point this out FYI. I suppose if your playgroup chooses
to play that way and thinks it's OK, who are we to say you can't.
It always seems bad to me to practice in environments that are
substantially different than the standard tournament environment.
Fred
Jyhad_addict
Remember that i am talking about fun-play and not tournament play,
why spoil the game of 2 or more people by breaking a deal when you
play just for fun... If in a playgroup deal-breaking is common, then
i suppose that everyone has gotten used to it (be a stinkin traitor)
and no harm is done.
Personaly if this was the case with my playgroup, i would get
angry, wouldn't make any deals and construct nasty Malkavian-dominate
bleed decks to oust each and everyone just for fun.
So, maybe that would teach some people, that when playing for fun,
you should avoid behaviours that deprive the game's fun from others.
As my Malkavian-dominate bleed deck, would oust in 5-6 turns my Brujah
prey and deprive him of the fun of playing his deck, a meth breaking a
deal and betraying me just to win a fun game, when i have never
betrayed anyone would get me going...
Remember it is a game, it is all about fun...
That is why i don't like tournament play... i like everyday-fun-games
better...
Jyhad_addict
> >
> >
> > After he voted to burn the traitor's Gratiano, he said... "this will
> > teach you to keep your word and if you don't, then don't expect from
> > others to keep theirs..."
> > i believe this is fair enough...
>
> Boy you sure taught him a lesson?
>
> Do we NEED to put in the rulebook that the game is supposed to be FUN?
>
> anyway lighten up.
>
> your games might be a little more fun to play.
>
> i'm also jealous that you get to play so often.
>
> *anxiously awaiting CCG workshop's version*
You misunderstood me... I didn't do anything, another guy betrayed
the "traitor" that had betrayed me in a previous game...
We are all good friends and we had a laugh afterwards...
Derek Ray
>"fight" and just know that i have responded in this manner to you,
>because i get furious when someone i don't know accuses me falsly of
>thing he has no knowledge of.-
Cheater.
Colluder.
I hope I never play with you.
Jyhad_addict
Your point of view is respected, but it was everyday-fun-gameplay and not
a tournament. Something like this would never happen in a tournament.
Jyhad_addict
>
> Deals are necesary (and quite essential for the game). Its just the VP
> deals that blow chunks, and should be changed/disallowed in some
> way... or just broken more regularly..
>
you are right about the Vp deals, but one can't really "judge" a deal,
because one would be really subjective and inspire a lot of complaining.
> Maybe just disallow deals where its clear that the guy will selfoust
> afterwards. Then if the players after fullfilling the deal stops
> blocking the other guys minions or taps out every turn but only hunts
> when he could have bled etc. etc a judge could be called and force the
> player to actually play to win.
>
maybe in some way, inspire offensive game by some means.
> Or maybe change the "you are allowed to keep a deal that was legal
> when made even though honoring it doesnt maximize your vps now".
> Forcing people to break the deal if they suddenly get a chance to
> actually win the game, would drastically lower the sick vp deals...
> and the vp deals that actually survive would make more sense.
>
> Example: In a 3 player end game i let my prey kill my predator. If he
> still has no chance of ousting me he should off course be allowed to
> honor the deal and kill himself, since it wont make a difference..
> only a matter of time.
> BUT if the 6 pool and other circumstances makes it possible for him to
> oust me now, he should be forced to do so by the rules.
>
>
It is very difficult to "rule" if one is possible to oust another.
There's always a chance, some times marginal, but i am sure that you as I
and as many others have witnessed some near miraculous ousts, that seemed
impossible but was made. As if it was a Direct Intervention of God or Caine...
Flux
I am somewhat surprised to see all the calls of collusion regarding this
event. Collusion means intentionally playing to the benefit of another
player in detriment of your own position.
From the description, I fail to see how this example qualifies, the
'avenging' player lost nothing by burning the 'traitor'.
In fact in most cases it is a good idea to burn a diablerist at the blood
hunt: you get rid of two opposing minions at no cost to you (and remember
that even your current 'allies' are your future prey).
OTOH, there are two main reasons not to do it: to maintain some kind of
'table balance', and to extract some kind of reward from the diablerist
later on (even if it is not formalized as a deal). If the diablerist is a
known deal-breaker, that's one less reason to keep him alive.
I think one problem is: the rules say you can only make play decisions based
on the current game, but it is unavoidable that the character of your
opponents influences your decisions. This applies to deals most clearly, but
also to other play decisions.
Flux
Decebalus
> Finaly, i never expected that i would be criticized, because i keep
> my word when i conduct my deals.
> It's that simple... i don't cticisize you people that break your
> deals, do what you like, but it is outrageous to criticize me and my
> playgroup for being honest one to another when making deals. So,
> please stop.
I think you are critisized because you feel superior because you dont
break deals. If you betray someone because you want to win, its in
the goal of the rules. If you betray someone because you want to
punish him for breaking a deal (the last game, a year ago), its
unsportsmanlike behaviour.
Decebalus
Absolutely right.
Write it on the walls: Dealbreaking is good for the game.
Decebalus
> Remember that i am talking about fun-play and not tournament play,
> why spoil the game of 2 or more people by breaking a deal when you
> play just for fun...
Because most dirty deals arent fun for the other players. They are
mostly impossible with the possibility of deal breaking. The most
extreme example is the succubus club deal, to switch all vampires and
the club every round with your ally. Thats the most dirty deal
possible, its really NO fun for teh other players. And it is not
possible, if you cannot trust the other player absolutely.
Players that dont break deals ruin the game by making the most dirty
deals possible.
Decebalus
Good example. Lets see two diffenrent cases:
1st. Absolutely trustful players. A will diablerize B. No fun for B.
2nd. Backstabbing players. A will not agree with the deal, because he
will fear to be betrayed. So B is not diablerized and can play.
What is the better case.
Decebalus
> deals that blow chunks, and should be changed/disallowed in some
> way... or just broken more regularly..
Even VP Deals are sometimes necessary.
Remember my first game in the Barcelona EC. I had Nosferatu/FOR
combat, my prey Truejah. After two fights with him playing Lapse, me
Skin of steel, we should have made a table splitting deal. We didnt,
so Orpheus with Powerbleed won the table.
Will you really disallow such a deal.
> Maybe just disallow deals where its clear that the guy will selfoust
> afterwards. Then if the players after fullfilling the deal stops
> blocking the other guys minions or taps out every turn but only hunts
> when he could have bled etc. etc a judge could be called and force the
> player to actually play to win.
Abolish Withdrawing and some strange deals arent longer possible. Or
tehy will not have the same points like regular play.
BTW. We are judges, not gods. We can not force players to win, and we
cannot play their game.
> Or maybe change the "you are allowed to keep a deal that was legal
> when made even though honoring it doesnt maximize your vps now".
> Forcing people to break the deal if they suddenly get a chance to
> actually win the game, would drastically lower the sick vp deals...
You cannot force a player to make a deal, you cannot force him to
break it. Sorry to say it, but its an absurd proposition.
> Example: In a 3 player end game i let my prey kill my predator. If he
> still has no chance of ousting me he should off course be allowed to
> honor the deal and kill himself, since it wont make a difference..
> only a matter of time.
> BUT if the 6 pool and other circumstances makes it possible for him to
> oust me now, he should be forced to do so by the rules.
Rules that cannot be forced, should not exist.
James Coupe
> Yeah, what's this I see before my eyes???!!!! A post from The Dreaded
> Coupe, Under Whose Irod Shod Boot the Kindred of England Formerly Groaned?
> Post more, old friend... You've been missed. We haven't had anyone except
> Derek to properly take people to task since you left for university... ;-)
> How goes the pursuit of a higher intellect?
Actually, it was a course change (English to Computer Science) to one
where I had to pay attention that screwed things up mostly.[0]
Then trying to catch up on a year of rgt-cj in a vaguely sane fashion
is similarly fun. Good lord, you did have some fun arguments, didn't
you?
And I moved to London a couple of weeks a go and got a job and things.
--
James Coupe
[0] This is, in fact, a partial lie. But that's not important right
now.
legbiter
i've actually done almost exactly this [Meth B was Michael Eichler and
Meth A was Rob Treasure], thereby winning a storyline tournament.
Actually it was still a five-player table at that point and the
diablerie was done by Amaranth, but these technical details need not
obscure the main point. So, the answer to your question is that i
think it can be a jolly good idea. Furthermore, Michael and Rob are
amongst my very best vampiric friends, which is not to say that there
wasn't the TEENSIEST little hiccup in our brotherliness over that
particular piece of treachery ;-)
legbiter
> "Matthew T. Morgan" <far...@io.com> wrote in message news:<Pine.LNX.4.44.040930...@hagbard.io.com>...
> > On 30 Sep 2004, legbiter wrote:
> >
> > > <snip>
> > >
> > > if everyone
> > > > starts breaking the deals, then people will cease making deals and
> > > > then this good part of the game will cease to exist.
> > > >
> > > Not so, brother. Rather, people will make better deals, relying not on
> > > trust but on mutual benefit. Try it! You'll be pleasantly surprised.
> >
> > This has been my experience playing in deal-breaking DC. We make deals
> > all the time. We don't break them very often, but we consider
> > deal-breaking to be an acceptable way to win.
> >
> > I had the experience recently of a player being shocked to learn that I'm
> > not above breaking a deal here or there (or as I prefer to think of it,
> > I'm above refusing to break deals). This player loudly (but not unkindly)
> > spoke of how I should never be trusted and there would be no deals...
> >
> > ...and then proceded to make a mutually beneficial deal with me about 10
> > minutes later.
> >
>
> Remember that i am talking about fun-play and not tournament play,
> why spoil the game of 2 or more people by breaking a deal when you
> play just for fun...
Because if you break deals, the standard of play and of deal-making
will both rise. Better games = more fun for all.
If in a playgroup deal-breaking is common, then
> i suppose that everyone has gotten used to it (be a stinkin traitor)
> and no harm is done.
Yep, there is a kinetic barrier to cross but the teritory beyond is
worth attaining.
> Personaly if this was the case with my playgroup, i would get
> angry, wouldn't make any deals and construct nasty Malkavian-dominate
> bleed decks to oust each and everyone just for fun.
> So, maybe that would teach some people, that when playing for fun,
> you should avoid behaviours that deprive the game's fun from others.
> As my Malkavian-dominate bleed deck, would oust in 5-6 turns my Brujah
> prey and deprive him of the fun of playing his deck, a meth breaking a
> deal and betraying me just to win a fun game, when i have never
> betrayed anyone would get me going...
The other players would build better decks and crush your nasty deck.
More fun for all!
>
> Remember it is a game, it is all about fun...
>
> That is why i don't like tournament play... i like everyday-fun-games
> better...
TOTALLY with you on this one, except that i like my fun games to be
utterly ruthless and treacherous with the world's best players in
tip-top form fielding their fiercest decks. Exception: it isn't
desirable that everyone play cutthroat when testing new deck concepts,
so if we are doing that we tend to spell it out in advance.
legbiter
> "legbiter" <legb...@mailandnews.com> wrote in message
> news:2b7d6dca022d9b4e397...@mygate.mailgate.org...
> > <snip lengthy and elegant exposition of stuff i agree with>
> > >
> > > Also, hello and stuff.
>
> Yeah, what's this I see before my eyes???!!!! A post from The Dreaded
> Coupe, Under Whose Irod Shod Boot the Kindred of England Formerly Groaned?
<nitpick> that would be The Hated Coupe, Under Whose Iron Heel the
Kindred of Central England Nightly Groan <end nitpick>
> Post more, old friend... You've been missed.
Indeed!
We haven't had anyone except
> Derek to properly take people to task since you left for university... ;-)
Ooooh boy .... and there are SOOO many new people on here now ....
legbiter
That's no coffin - it's a Fully Armed and Operational Deathstar!!!!!!
James Coupe
> I am somewhat surprised to see all the calls of collusion regarding
> this event. Collusion means intentionally playing to the benefit of
> another player in detriment of your own position.
No, it doesn't.
Collusion is:
"Players agree to alter, predetermine, or otherwise illegally
establish the results of a game."
This *does not* mean that they have to play to their detriment,
necessarily. However, it can be extremely difficult to detect
collusion if it isn't in such a fashion. After all, two players
working well together to mutual benefit can look like perfectly
reasonable play, whereas if I go hell for leather to give you all my
pool and minions, it's going to be a little more obvious.
Now, the difficult thing is whether "establish the results" can be
applied to an interim thing, or just "Make that player lose" or even
"Teach that player a lesson."
The judge, of course, has discretion to rule on these things and may
feel that outside conspiring to take retribution on a player for
previous behaviour might constitute collusion.
However, a player intentionally playing to oust someone other than his
prey because (e.g.) he has a personal grudge against him of a serious
nature (stole his girlfriend, killed his dog, whatever) would, to me,
be more like Unsportsmanlike Conduct.
By extension, I would be tempted to rule that a multiple player
version of such would still be Unsportsmanlike Conduct - Major.
Example C is "refuses to play a game", this seems to be about the same
level particularly given the co-operative (even if not necessarily
collusive) nature of it.
Obviously, a given situation would demand handling it based on the
situation at the time. But, if challenged, I'd be unsure about being
able to defend a Collusion allegation, whereas I would be much more
certain of an Unsportsmanlike Conduct ruling.
--
James Coupe
Derek Ray
x5m...@gmx.de (Decebalus) mumbled something about:
And, he's bragging about his unsportsmanlike behavior. Screwing one of
your friends in a later game to "punish" him for breaking a deal, even
if you weren't the one hurt by the dealbreak,... that's just weak, and
it's lame, and it's all bad. And he pretends that it is the best thing
ever and should be enforced by the rules? Oh, hell no. Someone does
that to me, I probably never play with that person again, EVER. It's
one thing to backstab me in a game to gain a VP; it's another thing
entirely to front-stab me in a LATER game and say "It is because of what
you did last Tuesday!"... and then pretend you have some moral high
ground. Plleeeeeeease.
Let's get perspective, folks. It's a game in a gothic, dark setting,
about ancient vampires, intrigue, treachery, and betrayal. It is NOT a
suitable game for those who must be Pillars of Honour(tm).
And finally, we can look at Succubus Club: "...None are enforced by the
rules." How much more clear can you be? Deal-breaking is encouraged.
Derek Ray
James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> mumbled something about:
>Flux <fl...@netc.pt> writes:
>
>> I am somewhat surprised to see all the calls of collusion regarding
>> this event. Collusion means intentionally playing to the benefit of
>> another player in detriment of your own position.
>
>No, it doesn't.
>
>Collusion is:
>
>"Players agree to alter, predetermine, or otherwise illegally
>establish the results of a game."
And in this case, there is clearly a predetermined agreement in place
that "people who break deals will be punished by the table in later
games, even at the cost of someone's own position, and then lectured
about it."
I feel quite justified in my assessment of 'collusion'. And I don't
care if this happened in a tournament or in friendly play; I'd consider
it to be WORSE in friendly play, because I, ya know, like to keep my
friends and don't like pulling petty revenge out of my hat just because
one of them made a good play to win.
James Coupe
> >Collusion is:
> >
> >"Players agree to alter, predetermine, or otherwise illegally
> >establish the results of a game."
>
> And in this case, there is clearly a predetermined agreement in place
> that "people who break deals will be punished by the table in later
> games, even at the cost of someone's own position, and then lectured
> about it."
As I say, I'm merely worried about the term "results".
It is perfectly arguable that "We will make him lose" is just as valid
a collusive plan as "We will let you win and share the money when you
win the final."
I'd be extremely unlikely to really quibble over the finer points of
the discipline with another judge who ruled that way, I might merely
be a little more cautious in my own ruling.
Of course, were it truly blatant rigging ("We will make him lose")
rather than something a little more "We'll take a few pops at him, to
show him what's what and how we do things round here", I'd probably
move much more happily towards a ruling of collusion as the term
"results" would clearly figure in my response.
--
James Coupe
PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D Who's ever heard of that, though!
EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 Designing a deck that just calls votes.
13D7E668C3695D623D5D That's crazy talk, there.
XZealot
I think it is great that you play with your friends. I honestly hope you
build your group. The problem is that by socially rewarding and socially
punishing players for plays in the last game is overt manipulation not
related to the game itself. Let me ask you, if you don' t mind, how many
new players do you have?
> Finaly, i never expected that i would be criticized, because i keep
> my word when i conduct my deals.
If you didn't think you were going to be criticized, then shouldn't have
piped up here. ;P
But in all seriousness, maintaining strick adherance to deals and punishing
"dealbreakers" creates a culture that is actually anti-"new player" or
"visiting player". When you play with people from other playgroups, you
trust your own playgroup's players more than you do the other playgroup's
players. Intentional or not, this is a form of collusion.
> Me and my playgroup are the only people playing jyhad in
> Thessaloniki, we have devoted a lot of time and more money in jyhad
> and we have decided to keep our word when we make a deal, because we
> like the game best this way.
I think that is good that you enjoy the game. I think you would enjoy it
more and would grow your group if you took that gentleman's rule and tossed
it out the window.
> We don't have to play like a gentleman does, bu because we are, we
> do.
> It's that simple... i don't cticisize you people that break your
> deals, do what you like, but it is outrageous to criticize me and my
> playgroup for being honest one to another when making deals. So,
> please stop.
Can't....stop....must....
The problem is that I am more than willing to take any criticism you can
dish out about being a "dealbreaker", but in the light pseudo-honesty that
you espouse, I must be critical, because my silence could be construed as an
endorsement of your position.
--
Comments Welcome,
Norman S. Brown, Jr.
XZealot
Archon of the Swamp
Flux
> In message <3yhdpe7...@newred.gradwell.net>,
> James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> mumbled something about:
>
>>Flux <fl...@netc.pt> writes:
>>
>>
>>>I am somewhat surprised to see all the calls of collusion regarding
>>>this event. Collusion means intentionally playing to the benefit of
>>>another player in detriment of your own position.
>>
>>No, it doesn't.
>>
>>Collusion is:
>>
>>"Players agree to alter, predetermine, or otherwise illegally
>>establish the results of a game."
Right, I apologise for the error, I was thinking from a pratical point of
view only.
LSJ:
>>>>>
Collusion is, in my estimation, making pre-game deals or making
"losing" deals.
>>>>>
As you stated in your post, it is very hard to prove collusion when none of
the players sacrifice anything by the deal, so in pratice most cases of
collusion are judged by my definition above.
> And in this case, there is clearly a predetermined agreement in place
> that "people who break deals will be punished by the table in later
> games, even at the cost of someone's own position, and then lectured
> about it."
There was no predetermined agreement. The action was taken unilaterally by a
single player, the remaining players had no weight no that decision.
Another LSJ quote:
>>>>>
> >Making (and honoring) deals (or not) based on some idea
> >of trustworthiness of a given player (which may be
> >impacted by a reputation as a deal-breaker)? Yes.
>
> So that what happens in a game is not just based upon the game itself,
> it is also based upon conversations which took place prior to that
> game. Collusion.
Incorrect. There is no a priori arrangement => no collusion.
At any rate, it is impossible (not merely difficult) to regulate
how players evaluate trustworthiness of other players, assuming
one would want to (which, IMO, is a bad idea to begin with).
>>>>>
This seems to be the case here: one player broke a deal based on his idea of
untrustworthiness of another player.
It may be ruled unsportsmanlike in some cases, but given that the player
most likely got some game advantage out of his actions, I don't think even
in a tournament setting you could clearly call this play illegal. I
certainly don't see how you can be sure of that judgement from the posted
description.
> I feel quite justified in my assessment of 'collusion'. And I don't
> care if this happened in a tournament or in friendly play; I'd consider
> it to be WORSE in friendly play, because I, ya know, like to keep my
> friends and don't like pulling petty revenge out of my hat just because
> one of them made a good play to win.
And what makes you assume the original play was a 'good play to win' and the
repeat wasn't?
Flux