[LSJ]Bribery, Collusion or Legal Play?
Ector
in another thread made me doubt in things I've previously considered
"obvious". Let's assume that the tournament organizer declared that
the tournament will have X dollars (or N boosters) as prizes.
1). Is it legal to suggest a deal involving terms of splitting the
prize money or boosters? In other words, can I suggest "please help me
to win, and I will give you half of my prize"? Currently I'm convinced
that it is Cheating: Collusion (or maybe Cheating: Bribery) and should
be penalized by immediate DQ.
2). In what situations players can legally split the prize? I can
believe that splitting prize is legal only if ALL players are agree
with the split, but is it legal during the final game or only PRIOR to
the final game (instead of playing it)?
Thanks in advance,
Ector
Jeroen
> I need a clarification on the very important matter, since some posts
> in another thread made me doubt in things I've previously considered
> "obvious". Let's assume that the tournament organizer declared that
> the tournament will have X dollars (or N boosters) as prizes.
>
> 1). Is it legal to suggest a deal involving terms of splitting the
> prize money or boosters? In other words, can I suggest "please help me
> to win, and I will give you half of my prize"? Currently I'm convinced
> that it is Cheating: Collusion (or maybe Cheating: Bribery) and should
> be penalized by immediate DQ.
I told you what to search for in my answer in that other thread. Yes,
they can. But only in the finals and subject to PTW. search for 'prize
splitting author:LSJ'
BTW, Peter is right about the definition of collusion. Prize-splitting
collusion would be when 2 players have a deal *before the game* begins
to split prizes and make one of them win. Or an on outspoken agreement
with the same effect.
LSJ
> I need a clarification on the very important matter, since some posts
> in another thread made me doubt in things I've previously considered
> "obvious". Let's assume that the tournament organizer declared that
> the tournament will have X dollars (or N boosters) as prizes.
>
> 1). Is it legal to suggest a deal involving terms of splitting the
> prize money or boosters? In other words, can I suggest "please help me
> to win, and I will give you half of my prize"? Currently I'm convinced
> that it is Cheating: Collusion (or maybe Cheating: Bribery) and should
> be penalized by immediate DQ.
This is handled explicitly in the V:EKN Judges' Guide. Section 161 Bribery:
"No player introduces incentives outside the current game such as cash, cards,
or other items. (For example, splitting the prizes would be acceptable.)"
> 2). In what situations players can legally split the prize? I can
> believe that splitting prize is legal only if ALL players are agree
> with the split, but is it legal during the final game or only PRIOR to
> the final game (instead of playing it)?
All players can mutually concede at any time, yes. [VEKN 3.5]
Splitting prizes doesn't require mutual agreement of all players, no.
Tetragrammaton
"Jeroen" <joen...@hotmail.com> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:1185786644....@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> On 30 jul, 09:46, Ector <Ec...@mail.ru> wrote:
>> I need a clarification on the very important matter, since some posts
>> in another thread made me doubt in things I've previously considered
>> "obvious". Let's assume that the tournament organizer declared that
>> the tournament will have X dollars (or N boosters) as prizes.
>>
>> 1). Is it legal to suggest a deal involving terms of splitting the
>> prize money or boosters? In other words, can I suggest "please help me
>> to win, and I will give you half of my prize"? Currently I'm convinced
>> that it is Cheating: Collusion (or maybe Cheating: Bribery) and should
>> be penalized by immediate DQ.
>
> I told you what to search for in my answer in that other thread. Yes,
> they can. But only in the finals and subject to PTW. search for 'prize
> splitting author:LSJ'
To my understand, in the final player are just subject to the PTT (play to
win tournament),
not to the play to win rule. It's legal for the first seed to play just for
one PW, for
example.
best
Emiliano
Ector
> Ector wrote:
> > I need a clarification on the very important matter, since some posts
> > in another thread made me doubt in things I've previously considered
> > "obvious". Let's assume that the tournament organizer declared that
> > the tournament will have X dollars (or N boosters) as prizes.
>
> > 1). Is it legal to suggest a deal involving terms of splitting the
> > prize money or boosters? In other words, can I suggest "please help me
> > to win, and I will give you half of my prize"? Currently I'm convinced
> > that it is Cheating: Collusion (or maybe Cheating: Bribery) and should
> > be penalized by immediate DQ.
>
> This is handled explicitly in the V:EKN Judges' Guide. Section 161 Bribery:
>
> "No player introduces incentives outside the current game such as cash, cards,
> or other items. (For example, splitting the prizes would be acceptable.)"
I can offer $100 from the prize money (if there are at least $100
prize money, of course). Do you see ANY difference between my own
money and prize money? Or between my own boosters and prize boosters,
for instance?
>From my point of view, prize is OUTSIDE the current game, so it cannot
be used as a bribe. Why do you think different? Do you think that
legal bribery is good for the game? As soon as my players will know
that bribery is allowed, VTES would be ruined in Minsk, because we
have a lot of players that value victory over the prize, and we have a
lot of players that value prize over the victory. Thus, allowing
bribery with a prize is a disaster, IMHO, and this must be immediately
fixed!
> Splitting prizes doesn't require mutual agreement of all players, no.
Then, please, describe how this interacts with PTW. Players must try
to get GW or maximum VPs they can, but they CAN accept a bribe. So,
does a players accepting a deal "I will give you XXX, and you won't
block my PTO and Alastors" have a legal deal? I assume that bribes add
nothing to the legality, right? But if you are interested in enforcing
PTW, why are you allowing such tempting reasons for *violating* PTW as
bribes?
Yours,
Ector
Jeroen
> To my understand, in the final player are just subject to the PTT (play to
> win tournament),
> not to the play to win rule. It's legal for the first seed to play just for
> one PW, for
> example.
That's right. But it's semantics, IMO, because it's still a form of
PTW.
Jeroen
> On Jul 30, 1:46 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Ector wrote:
> > > I need a clarification on the very important matter, since some posts
> > > in another thread made me doubt in things I've previously considered
> > > "obvious". Let's assume that the tournament organizer declared that
> > > the tournament will have X dollars (or N boosters) as prizes.
>
> > > 1). Is it legal to suggest a deal involving terms of splitting the
> > > prize money or boosters? In other words, can I suggest "please help me
> > > to win, and I will give you half of my prize"? Currently I'm convinced
> > > that it is Cheating: Collusion (or maybe Cheating: Bribery) and should
> > > be penalized by immediate DQ.
>
> > This is handled explicitly in the V:EKN Judges' Guide. Section 161 Bribery:
>
> > "No player introduces incentives outside the current game such as cash, cards,
> > or other items. (For example, splitting the prizes would be acceptable.)"
>
> If I understand you right, I cannot offer my own $100 as a bribe, but
> I can offer $100 from the prize money (if there are at least $100
> prize money, of course). Do you see ANY difference between my own
> money and prize money?
Of course, the difference being that the prizes are part of the
tournement and your money or boosters aren't.
>Or between my own boosters and prize boosters,
> for instance?>From my point of view, prize is OUTSIDE the current game, so it cannot
>
> be used as a bribe. Why do you think different?
Did you bother to read the thread I linked too? Everything is
explained there.
>Do you think that
> legal bribery is good for the game? As soon as my players will know
> that bribery is allowed, VTES would be ruined in Minsk, because we
> have a lot of players that value victory over the prize, and we have a
> lot of players that value prize over the victory. Thus, allowing
> bribery with a prize is a disaster, IMHO, and this must be immediately
> fixed!
Again with 'the Sky is falling'... Learned nothing the last times you
did this? PTW is still enforced. So you still cannot make a losing
deal in exchange for prizes.
>
> > Splitting prizes doesn't require mutual agreement of all players, no.
>
> Then, please, describe how this interacts with PTW. Players must try
> to get GW or maximum VPs they can, but they CAN accept a bribe. So,
> does a players accepting a deal "I will give you XXX, and you won't
> block my PTO and Alastors" have a legal deal? I assume that bribes add
> nothing to the legality, right? But if you are interested in enforcing
> PTW, why are you allowing such tempting reasons for *violating* PTW as
> bribes?
You cannot violate PTW (as it counts for finals) in exchange for
prizes.
Tetragrammaton
Again, in the final you can just ignore it (and isn't semantic).
In the final, being top seed, as the "first" you can play from the beginning
for a 2/2 split, for instance
(resulting with you not "winning" that round anyhow) that is *not* playing
to win , at least for what's usually intended with the standard "PTW"
definition for a given round.
Emiliano
Ector
>
> Of course, the difference being that the prizes are part of the
> tournement and your money or boosters aren't.
sounds incredibly stupid.
> >Or between my own boosters and prize boosters,
> > for instance?>From my point of view, prize is OUTSIDE the current game, so it cannot
>
> > be used as a bribe. Why do you think different?
>
> Did you bother to read the thread I linked too? Everything is
> explained there.
Surely I did. Nothing is explained there. Again, WHY the prize is
considered to be "in the current game"? Do you bleed with the prize
boosters? Do you play cards that manipulate prizes? Somebody will get
the prizes AFTER the finals, but not earlier.
> >Do you think that
> > legal bribery is good for the game? As soon as my players will know
> > that bribery is allowed, VTES would be ruined in Minsk, because we
> > have a lot of players that value victory over the prize, and we have a
> > lot of players that value prize over the victory. Thus, allowing
> > bribery with a prize is a disaster, IMHO, and this must be immediately
> > fixed!
>
> Again with 'the Sky is falling'... Learned nothing the last times you
> did this? PTW is still enforced. So you still cannot make a losing
> deal in exchange for prizes.
I am a judge, and I'm already have a lot of problems with enforcing
PTW. This will be much more difficult if my players will get a *good
incentive* to violate PTW. A sane person trying to maintain the order
would NEVER allow people to pay for violating the order legally. When
somebody hires a killer, he is considered *more* guilty than the
killer, since he organized the crime. When a VTES player offers a
bribe for violating PTW, he is NOT guilty at all - only the bribed
player can be punished for violating the rules, if a judge manages to
catch him. IMHO, such "laws" are completely impossible to maintain.
>
> You cannot violate PTW (as it counts for finals) in exchange for
> prizes.
Oh. This is almost the same statement as "you cannot take money from
the wallet you've found under your feet" :) Well, some people will try
to find the wallet owner, but most will just take the money.
Similarly, some people will never violate PTW, regardless of the
bribe, but most will at least try to get the bribe. There is
absolutely no sense of allowing the bribery - the game gets nothing
except problems from that.
Yours,
Ector
Jeroen
> "Jeroen" <joen_...@hotmail.com> ha scritto nel messaggionews:1185795587.2...@r34g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
you misunderstand me. I know you have to play to win the tournement.
But that's still a PTW requirement. That's why I added the part
between brackets.
LSJ
> On Jul 30, 1:46 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
>> This is handled explicitly in the V:EKN Judges' Guide. Section 161 Bribery:
>>
>> "No player introduces incentives outside the current game such as cash, cards,
>> or other items. (For example, splitting the prizes would be acceptable.)"
> If I understand you right, I cannot offer my own $100 as a bribe, but
> I can offer $100 from the prize money (if there are at least $100
> prize money, of course). Do you see ANY difference between my own
> money and prize money? Or between my own boosters and prize boosters,
> for instance?
Yes. See the quoted section of the rules, which distinguish between incentives
the player introduces (her own money or boosters) and the incentives which are
part of the tournament (prizes).
>> Splitting prizes doesn't require mutual agreement of all players, no.
> Then, please, describe how this interacts with PTW. Players must try
> to get GW or maximum VPs they can, but they CAN accept a bribe. So,
It is not a bribe. See the section of the rules quoted.
> does a players accepting a deal "I will give you XXX, and you won't
> block my PTO and Alastors" have a legal deal? I assume that bribes add
> nothing to the legality, right? But if you are interested in enforcing
> PTW, why are you allowing such tempting reasons for *violating* PTW as
> bribes?
The PTW aspect is handled differently in the final round.
In the finals, each player is assumed to be playing to win. In the absence of
another infraction, such as real bribery or threats, players are not violating
the rules.
Peter D Bakija
Ector <Ec...@mail.ru> wrote:
> Pheh. My money and my boosters are as good as the prize. So the rule
> sounds incredibly stupid.
The prize for the current game is part of the current game.
If I'm playing a tournament poker game, I can't increase my bid with
money from outside the game, either.
> I am a judge, and I'm already have a lot of problems with enforcing
> PTW. This will be much more difficult if my players will get a *good
> incentive* to violate PTW.
You can't violate PTW, even with good incentive. All the various
arguments about offering folks part of the hypothetical large sum of
prize money are about offering money to folks who no longer are forced
to play to win and are now playing to lose, to play to lose for your
benefit.
> When a VTES player offers a
> bribe for violating PTW, he is NOT guilty at all - only the bribed
> player can be punished for violating the rules, if a judge manages to
> catch him. IMHO, such "laws" are completely impossible to maintain.
No one is discussing, at any point, offering a bribe to violate PTW. As
that is clearly cheating. We are discussing offering a bribe to help
someone else win when you aren't anymore.
Peter D Bakija
pd...@lightlink.com
http://www.lightlink.com/pdb6/vtes.html
Tetragrammaton
> In article <1185798165.7...@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com>,
> Ector <Ec...@mail.ru> wrote:
>
>> Pheh. My money and my boosters are as good as the prize. So the rule
>> sounds incredibly stupid.
>
> The prize for the current game is part of the current game.
>
> If I'm playing a tournament poker game, I can't increase my bid with
> money from outside the game, either.
>
>> I am a judge, and I'm already have a lot of problems with enforcing
>> PTW. This will be much more difficult if my players will get a *good
>> incentive* to violate PTW.
>
> You can't violate PTW, even with good incentive.
You can "ignore" the standard ptw in the final round, however.
Emiliano
Tetragrammaton
I will try to explain better - with "ptw" is intended to win the currrent
*round*,
since during the all the rounds (but final one) of a tournament you're not
allowed to
base your play on "outside considerations", such as prizes, VP/GW already
earned during the current event and so on.
So it would make more sense to keep things like that (PTW= win the current
round)
*also* for the final round - because,IMHO, it's somewhat conflicting a
situation (final round)
in which players must play the round to win the "tournament" but, on the
other side, are allowed
to play *not* winning the final "round".
best
Emiliano
Peter D Bakija
"Tetragrammaton" <nos...@none.com> wrote:
> You can "ignore" the standard ptw in the final round, however.
I don't think this is the case. Or at least not if we are talking about
the same thing.
In the final round, if I understand the world correctly, you still need
to Play to Win *that game*. If you go in as top seed, playing for a 5
way tie time out is still Playing to Win (as you win in a 5 way tie),
even though it is counterintuitive. But in most instances, you still
need to Play to Win the final round, which means trying your hardest to
get a table win, and if that isn't possible, then trying your hardest to
get maximum VPs, and if that isn't possible, well, then you can do
whatever you want.
Maybe I am misunderstanding you?
LSJ
> In article <jemri.8949$pd1....@tornado.fastwebnet.it>,
> "Tetragrammaton" <nos...@none.com> wrote:
>
>> You can "ignore" the standard ptw in the final round, however.
>
> I don't think this is the case. Or at least not if we are talking about
> the same thing.
>
> In the final round, if I understand the world correctly, you still need
> to Play to Win *that game*.
Only as it suits you. As stated elsewhere, the players in the finals are
automatically assumed to be playing to win (in the absence of bribery or threats
or other illegal activity).
> If you go in as top seed, playing for a 5
> way tie time out is still Playing to Win (as you win in a 5 way tie),
> even though it is counterintuitive. But in most instances, you still
> need to Play to Win the final round, which means trying your hardest to
> get a table win, and if that isn't possible, then trying your hardest to
> get maximum VPs, and if that isn't possible, well, then you can do
> whatever you want.
In the final, play to win is "how do I play this to maximize my outcome" where
"outcome" is whatever goal the player is playing for. Prizes (including splits),
for example.
crispyfloss
> On Jul 30, 1:46 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
> > Ector wrote:
> > This is handled explicitly in the V:EKN Judges' Guide. Section 161 Bribery:
> > "No player introduces incentives outside the current game such as cash, cards,
> > or other items. (For example, splitting the prizes would be acceptable.)"
> If I understand you right, I cannot offer my own $100 as a bribe, but
> I can offer $100 from the prize money (if there are at least $100
> prize money, of course). Do you see ANY difference between my own
> money and prize money? Or between my own boosters and prize boosters,
> for instance?
Sure - with prize money, if you lose, whoever you bribed doesn't get
anything.
> From my point of view, prize is OUTSIDE the current game, so it cannot
> be used as a bribe. Why do you think different? Do you think that
> legal bribery is good for the game?
Bribery only using in-game prizes works as risk mitigation - a player
in a dominant position has a small chance of losing, by luck or
happenstance or other players conspiring against him. By sacrificing
some of the prize, he can reduce that risk. The game more closely
approximates the expected outcome. If you only allow bribing with in-
game resources, then players will tend to only accept bribes from
players that already have a good chance of winning anyway. A bribe
between players when the game is more evenly matched raises serious
PTW concerns.
> As soon as my players will know that bribery is allowed, VTES would
> be ruined in Minsk, because we have a lot of players that value victory
> over the prize, and we have a lot of players that value prize over the
> victory. Thus, allowing bribery with a prize is a disaster, IMHO, and
> this must be immediately fixed!
Could you please elaborate?
atomweaver
news:8fnri.25098$RX.1...@newssvr11.news.prodigy.net:
Can you explain why this is necesary? I'm still unclear as to why you
need something other than the same old Play to Win in the finals. I know
you don't add rules where they aren't needed, but I cannot think of a
circumstance under which anything more or less than "same old PTW" is
needed in a finals.
DZ
LSJ
> LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in
>> In the final, play to win is "how do I play this to maximize my
>> outcome" where "outcome" is whatever goal the player is playing for.
>> Prizes (including splits), for example.
>>
> Can you explain why this is necesary?
"Necessary"? Nothing is "necessary".
It is how it has always been. At least, for the finals.
The preliminary rounds "needed" the addition of "play the game at hand rather
than the tournament". The finals need no such addition, since there is nothing
after the final that would compete with the goal of the final (that being:
finish as best you can).
Can you explain why it would be necessary to add something to the final?
Jeroen Rombouts
"Tetragrammaton" <nos...@none.com> schreef in bericht
news:ejmri.8958$pd1....@tornado.fastwebnet.it...
Well, actually, after reading LSJ's post, I didn't understand correctly. I
thought you still had to play to maximise your final standing in the
tournement. Which turns out to be assumed and not enforced.
LSJ
> LSJ wrote:
>> atomweaver wrote:
>>> LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in
>>>> In the final, play to win is "how do I play this to maximize my
>>>> outcome" where "outcome" is whatever goal the player is playing for.
>>>> Prizes (including splits), for example.
>>>>
>>> Can you explain why this is necesary?
>> "Necessary"? Nothing is "necessary".
>>
>> It is how it has always been. At least, for the finals.
>>
> Lots of rules or cards were changed to a certain point, though
> they always been as the were before the change....
Indeed, it is not an argument, nor is it being used as one.
Just pointing out a flaw in the original question (which assumed that it had
been added).
>> The preliminary rounds "needed" the addition of "play the game at
>> hand rather than the tournament". The finals need no such addition,
>> since there is nothing after the final that would compete with the
>> goal of the final (that being: finish as best you can).
>
> The "goal of the final" is different from the goal of the game, though -
Exactly.
Why force a player to play to a smaller prize when she could get a larger one?
That is antithetical to a tournament final.
> Why 2 or three rounds (the preliminary ones) cannot be played with prize
> offers,
Because those rounds have no prizes to offer.
> and must be played to win (gw, or maximize if you can't go x the gw)
> the actual round, while the final round is different ?
One possible reason: the finals affect only the finalist.
> harmonizing the rounds would result in better consistence, imho.
>> Can you explain why it would be necessary to add something to the
>> final?
>
> Consistence with the goal of the game, that is:
> play to gain the most vp (and then win) = that is, in tournament, you have
> to
> play for the GW, if you can't, then maximize VP as much as you can.
In a tournament final, the goal is to maximize your reward for playing in the
tournament. Players can be assumed to be doing exactly that, since there are no
future considerations that would compete with that goal.
Tetragrammaton
> Tetragrammaton wrote:
>> LSJ wrote:
>>> atomweaver wrote:
>>>> LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in
>>>>> In the final, play to win is "how do I play this to maximize my
>>>>> outcome" where "outcome" is whatever goal the player is playing
>>>>> for. Prizes (including splits), for example.
>>>>>
>>>> Can you explain why this is necesary?
>>> "Necessary"? Nothing is "necessary".
>>>
>>> It is how it has always been. At least, for the finals.
>>>
>> How it has always been, however, shouldn't be an argument.
>> Lots of rules or cards were changed to a certain point, though
>> they always been as the were before the change....
>
> Indeed, it is not an argument, nor is it being used as one.
> Just pointing out a flaw in the original question (which assumed that
> it had been added).
But actually it has been added someway, since it's pretty obviuos that for
several people the assumption was different (that is: you play the final
as much as other rounds / vtes games: trying to get the most vp).
You can't pretend people to play or know things that are not of
public domain -
The tournament rules do not support your statement, in fact (nowhere
is written that players should limit themselves in just "winning" the
tournament
in the final round, and not the round, because of their starting seed in the
final).
>
>>> The preliminary rounds "needed" the addition of "play the game at
>>> hand rather than the tournament". The finals need no such addition,
>>> since there is nothing after the final that would compete with the
>>> goal of the final (that being: finish as best you can).
>>
>> The "goal of the final" is different from the goal of the game,
>> though -
>
> Exactly.
Yes, and this should be somewhat fixed, indeed.
>
> Why force a player to play to a smaller prize when she could get a
> larger one? That is antithetical to a tournament final.
>
>> Why 2 or three rounds (the preliminary ones) cannot be played with
>> prize offers
That doesn't make too much sense to me - prizes are there since the very
start of the tournament.
A player could offer them at first round ("if i'll win the tournament, i'll
give you some boosters
from my prize") as much he/she can offer them during the final ("if i'll win
the tournament,
i'll give you some boosters from my prize").
Whatever the round, there's no guaranteed chanche that the player will be
effectively able to
get prizes (even in the final round, that player can end up in not winning
prizes at all, eg: placing second
with tournament prizes given just to the first player).
>
> Because those rounds have no prizes to offer.
>
To my understand, the "tournament" has prize to offer - not even the final
can
guarantee you that you'll end up getting some prizes (example above).
>> and must be played to win (gw, or maximize if you can't go x the gw)
>> the actual round, while the final round is different ?
>
> One possible reason: the finals affect only the finalist.
>
So ? It should affect the very fundament of the game too ?
>> Consistence with the goal of the game, that is:
>> play to gain the most vp (and then win) = that is, in tournament,
>> you have to
>> play for the GW, if you can't, then maximize VP as much as you can.
>
> In a tournament final, the goal is to maximize your reward for
> playing in the tournament.
Afaik, there's nothing in the tournament rules that support this, however.
>Players can be assumed to be doing exactly
> that, since there are no future considerations that would compete
> with that goal.
Do we play vtes or do we play finals ?
I still can't see the reason why the final round should change
the fundamental game goal (that is: play to get the most vp).
Emiliano
crispyfloss
> LSJ wrote:
> > Tetragrammaton wrote:
> >> LSJ wrote:
> > Why force a player to play to a smaller prize when she could get a
> > larger one? That is antithetical to a tournament final.
>
> start of the tournament.
> A player could offer them at first round ("if i'll win the tournament, i'll
> give you some boosters
> from my prize") as much he/she can offer them during the final ("if i'll win
> the tournament,
> i'll give you some boosters from my prize").
> Whatever the round, there's no guaranteed chanche that the player will be
> effectively able to
> get prizes (even in the final round, that player can end up in not winning
> prizes at all, eg: placing second
> with tournament prizes given just to the first player).
But that creates the possibility of bad incentives. In the final,
every possible motivation is on the table: to win the prize up for
stake in this game.
If players agree at table 1 that if A wins, B gets a cut of the
action, then at the next 2 tables, B will have an incentive to make
sure that A wins. But A isn't at his table, and no one else at the
table knows B's motives, but B would be inclined to do things like,
maybe, make sure a deck that A trumps gets a table sweep. It makes it
more likely that he'll get a cut of the action. I'm sure you
appreciate the problem with a player doing this, since it is
completely disruptive of the game.
If playing for a share of the prize prior to the final round is a
permissible goal, then B's conduct would be legal since he would be
"playing to win" when that term is expanded to mean "maximizing amount
of prize ultimately acquired."
librarian
Does this include maximizing your "Malkavian Wackiness"? "I bleed you
across table, because 'I AM Dolphin Black, and I am Kwaazzy!!'"
"But, but, it will give my prey 6 pool and a VP, and cost you the GW!"
"No matter, I (my character, that is) am kooky, nutty, out to lunch,
wacky, etc etc. It's all about maximizing my goals in this finals game,
haha! And as a Malkavian, I must be loony!!!"
(My most disliked type of player - the role-playing card gamer...)
best -
chris
--
Super Fun Cards
http://stores.ebay.com/superfuncards/
auct...@superfuncards.com
librarian
> LSJ wrote:
>
>>> and must be played to win (gw, or maximize if you can't go x the gw)
>>> the actual round, while the final round is different ?
>> One possible reason: the finals affect only the finalist.
>>
> So ? It should affect the very fundament of the game too ?
>
In English, a fundament is more commonly use to refer to one's anus. In
the usage you are looking for, "foundation" is the more common term.
However, I think that the rule about PTW in the finals is affecting the
anus of the game as well. There's a lot of caca (does that mean the
same thing in Italian as in Spanish?) that needs cleaning up here...
best-
chris
Emiliano, I would have replied directly, but no e-mail addy, sooo...
cro...@gmail.com
> LSJ wrote:
> In a tournament final, the goal is to maximize your reward for playing in the
> tournament. Players can be assumed to be doing exactly that, since there are no
> future considerations that would compete with that goal.
I think the goal of a tournament overall should be to reward players
who play well, promote the game, and encourage people to continue
playing and supporting the game. If you can make a deal to gain more
VP (PtW) and thus gain more prizes, that makes sense in the context of
the game and continuing the play-to-win point of the game and previous
rounds. If you make a deal to make no VP but stonewall your predator
and let your prey sweep the table in exchange for better prizes, you
are going to be rewarded 2nd or 3rd place equivalent prizes for 0 VP
play. This is bribery and collusion in my opinion. If I were the
victim of the former PtW deal, I'd have no issue with it. If I was the
victim of a play-to-lose-but-take-me-out-with-them prize-based deal, I
would be extremely aggravated (and would proceed to torpor).
Offering prize support in a deal is bribery. It's completely
semantical whether you are offering packs from your personal stash,
cash or prize support, a bribe is a bribe. Physical goods for deal
making just doesn't sit well with me because you're no longer
rewarding play-to-win you're potentially rewarding play-to-throw-the-
game for material goods.
My personal feelings, I'd be curious how others feel...
CJay
crispyfloss
> I think the goal of a tournament overall should be to reward players
> who play well, promote the game, and encourage people to continue
> playing and supporting the game.
Interestingly enough, the people whose names appear on final tables
again and again are the short list of people that fit that
description. Despite the legality of bribes.
> If you make a deal to make no VP but stonewall your predator
> and let your prey sweep the table in exchange for better prizes, you
> are going to be rewarded 2nd or 3rd place equivalent prizes for 0 VP
> play. This is bribery and collusion in my opinion.
That would really suck. For everyone at the table. If I were the
"victim" of the deal I'd probably be so pissed I'd propose a nuclear
option: split the prize support three ways with my prey and grandprey
if they transfer out to me. It's more than they'd get by playing a
rigged game...
Does it happen that often, though? Should it? I don't know how many
people are so desperate for, say, 12 booster packs, that they would
generate such a huge amount of loathing to get them. Especially since
those booster packs are only really good for... playing more of the
game. And as some are quick to point out in the other thread, it
often costs more to play the game than you can reasonably get back by
winning, anyway.
Now, if you could get $10,000...! That would be something.
Jeroen
>
> Offering prize support in a deal is bribery. It's completely
> semantical whether you are offering packs from your personal stash,
> cash or prize support, a bribe is a bribe. Physical goods for deal
> making just doesn't sit well with me because you're no longer
> rewarding play-to-win you're potentially rewarding play-to-throw-the-
> game for material goods.
While I share many of your views, i do think that there's a difference
between using your own stash as oposed to the prizes. Especially
because the 'buy material' is equal for everyone. If you would allow
people to use their own stash, the richer player would be able to
offer more.
Ector
> In article <1185798165.761426.323...@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com>,
>
> Ector <Ec...@mail.ru> wrote:
>
> If I'm playing a tournament poker game, I can't increase my bid with
> money from outside the game, either.
prize itself. That's why there are so many people AGAINST the large
prizes.
Everybody seems to be happy with the small prizes, until they realize
that some players are poor enough to be bribed even by the small
bribes.
Obviously, fixing the strange rules will allow to play with any
prizes.
> No one is discussing, at any point, offering a bribe to violate PTW. As
> that is clearly cheating. We are discussing offering a bribe to help
> someone else win when you aren't anymore.
Why do you think that "offering a bribe to violate PTW is clearly
cheating"? Nobody will offer a bribe and say: "Now, violate PTW!" :)
If my predator offers me a booster (1 of the 3 prize boosters) to let
him pass Alastor, it would be extremely difficult to determine whether
accepting such deal is a PTW violation of not. Rules don't prohibit
the stupid play. So, the "stupid" player lets Alastor pass, gets
smashed by the Assault Rifle and loses - but he's happy since he's got
a decent share of the prize. Don't you see that allowing such things
to happen is awful?
Besides, what rule did the briber violate? He CANNOT determine was his
deal PTW for the other player or not. So you cannot issue him even a
warning! If you still don't see that the rule about "splitting prizes"
is awful - you deserve the chaos you'll get as a result.
Yours,
Ector
Ector
> Interestingly enough, the people whose names appear on final tables
> again and again are the short list of people that fit that
> description. Despite the legality of bribes.
players, obviously, value good game much more than a relatively small
prize.
>
> Does it happen that often, though? Should it? I don't know how many
> people are so desperate for, say, 12 booster packs, that they would
> generate such a huge amount of loathing to get them. Especially since
> those booster packs are only really good for... playing more of the
> game. And as some are quick to point out in the other thread, it
> often costs more to play the game than you can reasonably get back by
> winning, anyway.
You're talking about the major tournaments. VTES isn't limited by
them.
Some of my players regularly miss the tournaments due to the
participation fee (something like $1). This fee is used to pay for the
prize boosters (usually 3). Isn't it clear that bribery will flourish
here as soon as my players would know about the possibility?
> Now, if you could get $10,000...! That would be something.
Please understand that there are players that appreciate 1-2 boosters
almost as well as your players would appreciate $10,000. There ARE
poor players and poor countries.
Yours,
Ector
Ector
>
> Sure - with prize money, if you lose, whoever you bribed doesn't get
> anything.
his own money after the tournament ends? The judge's rights end with
the tournament.
> > From my point of view, prize is OUTSIDE the current game, so it cannot
> > be used as a bribe. Why do you think different? Do you think that
> > legal bribery is good for the game?
>
> Bribery only using in-game prizes works as risk mitigation - a player
> in a dominant position has a small chance of losing, by luck or
> happenstance or other players conspiring against him. By sacrificing
> some of the prize, he can reduce that risk.
So you admit that bribed players are *less* likely to unite against
him. But that means that they are less likely to do their best to
achieve the largest number of VPs possible or GW. ANY accepted bribe
is trading of prizes for violating PTW, either slightly or seriously.
> > As soon as my players will know that bribery is allowed, VTES would
> > be ruined in Minsk, because we have a lot of players that value victory
> > over the prize, and we have a lot of players that value prize over the
> > victory. Thus, allowing bribery with a prize is a disaster, IMHO, and
> > this must be immediately fixed!
>
> Could you please elaborate?
Easily. We have very different players here, and, unfortunately, there
are many players who consider VTES only a "recreation". There are 4-5
"good" players and 10-15 "players for fun" and newbies. Many players
of the "fun" group are very poor. God knows where they get their
cards, but I assume that at least 30% of our players would happily
violate PTW and even give up for a decent share of the prize.
Obviously, the "good" players want to win much more than to get 1-2
boosters. This creates very serious danger of converting VTES into the
"game of fat wallet".
Yours,
Ector
Peter D Bakija
Ector <Ec...@mail.ru> wrote:
> So, the only difference is: the bribe is limited by the size of the
> prize itself. That's why there are so many people AGAINST the large
> prizes.
> Everybody seems to be happy with the small prizes, until they realize
> that some players are poor enough to be bribed even by the small
> bribes.
Not enough players are poor enough to be brined by even small bribes to
worry about.
> Obviously, fixing the strange rules will allow to play with any
> prizes.
No, no it won't. 'Cause the "strange" rules don't allow anything that
wouldn't be allowed under non "strange" rules--you are allowed to accept
a deal in any game in various situations. Find someone in that
situation, offer them part of the prize for help, and you have a totally
legal deal.
> Why do you think that "offering a bribe to violate PTW is clearly
> cheating"? Nobody will offer a bribe and say: "Now, violate PTW!" :)
> If my predator offers me a booster (1 of the 3 prize boosters) to let
> him pass Alastor, it would be extremely difficult to determine whether
> accepting such deal is a PTW violation of not.
Sure. But no one is going to do that. Or at least few enough people that
it isn't worth worrying about. There is a certain level at which you
can't really buy someone off.
> Rules don't prohibit
> the stupid play. So, the "stupid" player lets Alastor pass, gets
> smashed by the Assault Rifle and loses - but he's happy since he's got
> a decent share of the prize. Don't you see that allowing such things
> to happen is awful?
Someone that stupid is, in most cases, unlikely to be in the finals. And
*most* folks aren't going to be bought off for a couple boosters, as
most folks consider the game itself more important than a handful of
boosters. But as the "handful of boosters" gets bigger and bigger, the
"most folks" gets smaller and smaller.
> If you still don't see that the rule about "splitting prizes"
> is awful - you deserve the chaos you'll get as a result.
You can't prevent it. But mostly, it doesn't come up. If ever,
currently. I have never in my life been in a tournament game that had
any sort of result affected by people splitting prizes. 'Cause I have
never been in a game with prizes that were big enough for anyone to care.
You make the prize big enough, however...
Peter D Bakija
Ector <Ec...@mail.ru> wrote:
> Some of my players regularly miss the tournaments due to the
> participation fee (something like $1). This fee is used to pay for the
> prize boosters (usually 3). Isn't it clear that bribery will flourish
> here as soon as my players would know about the possibility?
No. Man. You have a *really* low opinion of your player base. Still. How
do you play with these people?
> Please understand that there are players that appreciate 1-2 boosters
> almost as well as your players would appreciate $10,000. There ARE
> poor players and poor countries.
Sure. Why do you assume that they will be bought for 1-2 boosters?
Peter D Bakija
Ector <Ec...@mail.ru> wrote:
> So you admit that bribed players are *less* likely to unite against
> him. But that means that they are less likely to do their best to
> achieve the largest number of VPs possible or GW. ANY accepted bribe
> is trading of prizes for violating PTW, either slightly or seriously.
Uh, no, it isn't. If I'm already not doing so hot--my likelyhood of
winning the game, let alone getting 1VP, is questionable. But I can
certainly Rush Arika cross table till she is in torpor. Arika's prey
offers me a couple thousand dollars out of the 1st prize if he wins in
exchange for me killing Arika. I accept, as that gives me a (presumably
based on table situation) reasonably good chance of still not doing so
hot in the game but still walking away with a couple thousand dollars.
That is playing to win, as it increases the level of my outcome (i.e. a
couple thousand dollars and losing the game instead of no dollars and
losing the game).
> Easily. We have very different players here, and, unfortunately, there
> are many players who consider VTES only a "recreation".
VTES is only a recreation. It isn't a job. It isn't a sport. It is a
recreational game.
> This creates very serious danger of converting VTES into the
> "game of fat wallet".
And do you finally see why folks want VTES to *not* have large cash
prizes?
witness1
> In article <1185882743.031831.50...@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com>,
> > If you still don't see that the rule about "splitting prizes"
> > is awful - you deserve the chaos you'll get as a result.
>
> You can't prevent it. But mostly, it doesn't come up. If ever,
> currently. I have never in my life been in a tournament game that had
> any sort of result affected by people splitting prizes. 'Cause I have
> never been in a game with prizes that were big enough for anyone to care.
>
> You make the prize big enough, however...
Sunday evening, my predator offered his predator the prize (Selective
Silence artwork) to help oust me. It didn't alter the results any,
though.
witness1
XZealot
> In article <1185883746.445734.238...@b79g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
>
> Ector <Ec...@mail.ru> wrote:
> > Some of my players regularly miss the tournaments due to the
> > participation fee (something like $1). This fee is used to pay for the
> > prize boosters (usually 3). Isn't it clear that bribery will flourish
> > here as soon as my players would know about the possibility?
>
> No. Man. You have a *really* low opinion of your player base. Still. How
> do you play with these people?
>
> > Please understand that there are players that appreciate 1-2 boosters
> > almost as well as your players would appreciate $10,000. There ARE
> > poor players and poor countries.
>
> Sure. Why do you assume that they will be bought for 1-2 boosters?
I don't know about Byelorussia, but when I was in Moscow in 1991in the
old Soviet Union the "official" exchange rate was 28:1 rubles to
dollars (the actual black market exchange rate was much, much higher
like 100:1). The average person was making about 500 rubles per
month. Now when I went and bought a pack of Marlboro cigarettes in a
hard-currency store for 5 dollars. I had just spent the equivalent of
one month's pay on the 20 cigarettes that were in the pack.
So you might be able to see that a few packs of cards are worth a tidy
sum in 1991 Moscow. I don't know how much has changed, but I am sure
that some of this is similar to the current situaltion over there.
Comments Welcome,
Norman S. Brown, Jr
XZealot
Archon of the Swamp
XZealot
>
> Ector <Ec...@mail.ru> wrote:
> > So you admit that bribed players are *less* likely to unite against
> > him. But that means that they are less likely to do their best to
> > achieve the largest number of VPs possible or GW. ANY accepted bribe
> > is trading of prizes for violating PTW, either slightly or seriously.
>
> Uh, no, it isn't. If I'm already not doing so hot--my likelyhood of
> winning the game, let alone getting 1VP, is questionable. But I can
> certainly Rush Arika cross table till she is in torpor. Arika's prey
> offers me a couple thousand dollars out of the 1st prize if he wins in
> exchange for me killing Arika. I accept, as that gives me a (presumably
> based on table situation) reasonably good chance of still not doing so
> hot in the game but still walking away with a couple thousand dollars.
> That is playing to win, as it increases the level of my outcome (i.e. a
> couple thousand dollars and losing the game instead of no dollars and
> losing the game).
Which violates the rules of sportsmanship, whether it is a penny or
yacht. Using tangibles to alter player's behavior is cheating plain
and simple.
> > Easily. We have very different players here, and, unfortunately, there
> > are many players who consider VTES only a "recreation".
>
> VTES is only a recreation. It isn't a job. It isn't a sport. It is a
> recreational game.
....with unsportsman-like conduct.
> > This creates very serious danger of converting VTES into the
> > "game of fat wallet".
>
> And do you finally see why folks want VTES to *not* have large cash
> prizes?
Peter, I don't think you get what Ector is saying, because you lack
the perspective to understand. If VTES costs TEN TIMES as much as it
does now, then you would understand Ector's perspective, because Ector
has to spend TEN TIMES as much of his income to buy the equivalent
amount that a citizen of the United States would. Ector is already
playing for big money.
Peter D Bakija
XZealot <xze...@cox.net> wrote:
> Which violates the rules of sportsmanship, whether it is a penny or
> yacht. Using tangibles to alter player's behavior is cheating plain
> and simple.
That may or may not be the case, but unfortunately sportsmanship is not
hard and fast--again, using poker as an example, when you get to the
last two players, they often just settle on a split (60/40 or something,
depending on the situation). Is this unsportsmanlike?
> ....with unsportsman-like conduct.
What is or is not unsportsmanlike is certainly something that is
debateable, but I think the game is often already replete with
unsportsmanlike behavior, if unsportsmanlike behavior is defined as
"doing something in the game based on out of game consideration". Like
spite. Which is already one of the great motivators in this game.
> Peter, I don't think you get what Ector is saying, because you lack
> the perspective to understand.
No, no, I do understand what he is saying.
> If VTES costs TEN TIMES as much as it
> does now, then you would understand Ector's perspective, because Ector
> has to spend TEN TIMES as much of his income to buy the equivalent
> amount that a citizen of the United States would. Ector is already
> playing for big money.
And yet he is still apparently playing in an environment where games
aren't being thrown for a couple boosters (as all of his comments
indicate that he is concerned about what will happen when people realize
that they can do this...)
I think that, like in many discussions involving Ector, he is
extrapolating disasterous end results based on unrealistic belief.
Peter D Bakija
XZealot <xze...@cox.net> wrote:
> So you might be able to see that a few packs of cards are worth a tidy
> sum in 1991 Moscow. I don't know how much has changed, but I am sure
> that some of this is similar to the current situaltion over there.
Sure. But they could have been doing this already (exchanging a couple
boosters for helping someone else win). And yet apparently they haven't
been doing so. Or even trying to do so (as otherwise, this probably
would have come up earlier).
If the price of a couple boosters is such an incentive, you'd think
someone would have already discovered that they can buy people off with
them in game.
atomweaver
news:Xnpri.25122$RX....@newssvr11.news.prodigy.net:
To make the PTW rules congruous throughout the whole event. If you're
going to add a rule to one round but not another, you get additional
complication, because you are operating under two sets of PTW rules.
Adding PTW to all rounds results in only one set of PTW rules.
The simpler rules set is the one which applies to all rounds equally.
DZ
crispyfloss
> On Jul 31, 10:47 am, crispyfloss <crispyfl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> You're talking about the major tournaments. VTES isn't limited by
> them.
> Some of my players regularly miss the tournaments due to the
> participation fee (something like $1). This fee is used to pay for the
> prize boosters (usually 3). Isn't it clear that bribery will flourish
> here as soon as my players would know about the possibility?
Sadly, it isn't clear.
>
> > Now, if you could get $10,000...! That would be something.
>
> Please understand that there are players that appreciate 1-2 boosters
> almost as well as your players would appreciate $10,000. There ARE
> poor players and poor countries.
I appreciate that fact. It's impressive that you have players willing
to sink money into such a game when it's relatively so expensive. If
these prizes are so valuable, though, isn't bribery a good thing?
You have 5 players that won in the previous rounds, and are now
playing the final table for a hugely valuable prize. But, one unlucky
draw or one misstep could cause them to lose, and not get even a
single scrap of the prize that they've already played so hard to
earn. That doesn't seem particularly fair. Isn't it better to let
them share the prizes with the other players, in exchange for
protection if they get a little unlucky?
Tetragrammaton
> Tetragrammaton wrote:
>> LSJ wrote:
>
>>
>>>> and must be played to win (gw, or maximize if you can't go x the
>>>> gw) the actual round, while the final round is different ?
>>> One possible reason: the finals affect only the finalist.
>>>
>> So ? It should affect the very fundament of the game too ?
>>
>
> In English, a fundament is more commonly use to refer to one's anus. In
> the usage you are looking for, "foundation" is the more common
> term.
> However, I think that the rule about PTW in the finals is affecting
> the anus of the game as well. There's a lot of caca (does that mean
> the same thing in Italian as in Spanish?) that needs cleaning up
> here...
>
there's something to be cleared about this matter.
best
Emiliano
Tetragrammaton
reason
why the tournament final has been "ruled" to allow, actually, the players to
ingnore the goal of the game as described in the rulebook.
Emiliano
Tetragrammaton
This could be also because rules seems to have weak points,
and so actual kingmaking (at final round) could be done at the table ?
Emiliano
Ector
> In article <1185885888.727046.93...@o61g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
>
> Ector <Ec...@mail.ru> wrote:
> > So you admit that bribed players are *less* likely to unite against
> > him. But that means that they are less likely to do their best to
> > achieve the largest number of VPs possible or GW. ANY accepted bribe
> > is trading of prizes for violating PTW, either slightly or seriously.
>
> Uh, no, it isn't. If I'm already not doing so hot--my likelyhood of
> winning the game, let alone getting 1VP, is questionable. But I can
> certainly Rush Arika cross table till she is in torpor. Arika's prey
> offers me a couple thousand dollars out of the 1st prize if he wins in
> exchange for me killing Arika. I accept, as that gives me a (presumably
> based on table situation) reasonably good chance of still not doing so
> hot in the game but still walking away with a couple thousand dollars.
> That is playing to win, as it increases the level of my outcome (i.e. a
> couple thousand dollars and losing the game instead of no dollars and
> losing the game).
not GW or VPs. That may not VIOLATE PTW, as in your example, but if
the bribe makes you do something different from the actions you've
planned without the bribe, I'd say that such behaviour is still an
unsportsmanlike conduct. If you do the same you would do without the
bribe, was the bribe really needed?
Thus, I don't think that allowing players to bribe is needed even a
single bit.
> > Easily. We have very different players here, and, unfortunately, there
> > are many players who consider VTES only a "recreation".
>
> VTES is only a recreation. It isn't a job. It isn't a sport. It is a
> recreational game.
This is heresy!!! VTES is a competitive intellectual game like Magic.
At least, at the tournament level.
> > This creates very serious danger of converting VTES into the
> > "game of fat wallet".
>
> And do you finally see why folks want VTES to *not* have large cash
> prizes?
Surely. Just because of this ridiculous rule that is completely
insane.
//-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hey, LSJ and other VTES designers!!! If you insist that your game is
NOT serious, people won't take it seriously. Thus, they would refuse
to purchase your products in large quantities - one can get
"recreation" and "fun" even with a single deck! I don't know who is
author of the "recreational" idea, but the idea is incredibly stupid.
Every CCG producer does his best to pretend that his game is VERY
serious - see the $25.000 prize support for EVE CCG. VTES is rather
complicated game, so nobody can hope to attract a lot of casual
players - and failing to provide a serious game will throw away
serious players. No wonder VTES doesn't provide large profits with
such "clever" marketing!!!
I cannot see any sense in the "prize-splitting" rule. We played 2
years without it and would play much longer. Who needs it, and what
prevents you from removing it? Isn't it obvious that possible
advantages of having such rule are far outweighted by the likely
disadvantages (PTW violations, cheating, etc.)?
Yours,
Ector
Azel
i just love the idea that somewhere out there vtes is going through its
own version of Chess issues with tournament rules. we already had a
ruling to prevent finalist round withdraw deals. i'm just waiting for
our very own Bobby Fisher to rise up and rail against the establishment
about 'play to win.'
and i'm quite amused about the potential corruption that can go on in
russian vtes tourney. i think it's terribly amusing, in a cynical
allegorical respect. what better place to ultimately test the limits of
'legal corruption' in the game than russia? well, perhaps the usa, but
we're often fat and happy and will be apathetic to any crisis until it's
too late. which is also hilariously allegorical!
well, might as well play with the rules as they are and give us a report
back about how badly all the 'legal backroom dealing' affected the
tourney. someone's gotta provide some hard data to this discussion, it
might as well be a populace that can easily show such failures at lower
levels of cost.
ps: is that a rapidly growing vtes playgroup? i'm wondering if we should
set up a donation circle? i know that roughly $40 and you can get a
playgroup set of commons from the Lasombra, around several 1000 cards.
and i'd love to unload some of my commons, as i'm sure others would as
well. it's almost getting to the point that getting critical mass
anywhere for this game is important. with roughly 300+ usa, and 400+ish
in europe, and pockets elsewhere, we're almost looking at a market of
just over 1000 (quite dedicated) players. that's... undead levels.
Ector
> In article <1185889994.699721.315...@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com>,
>
> XZealot <xzea...@cox.net> wrote:
> > Which violates the rules of sportsmanship, whether it is a penny or
> > yacht. Using tangibles to alter player's behavior is cheating plain
> > and simple.
>
> That may or may not be the case, but unfortunately sportsmanship is not
> hard and fast--again, using poker as an example, when you get to the
> last two players, they often just settle on a split (60/40 or something,
> depending on the situation). Is this unsportsmanlike?
money. VTES itself has nothing about money (or even boosters), and
it's played without them. So, any prizes are clearly OUTSIDE the game.
> And yet he is still apparently playing in an environment where games
> aren't being thrown for a couple boosters (as all of his comments
> indicate that he is concerned about what will happen when people realize
> that they can do this...)
All our players currently believe that bribery is cheating and is not
legal.
> I think that, like in many discussions involving Ector, he is
> extrapolating disasterous end results based on unrealistic belief.
Surely I do, since I'm a judge. You know, a person who maintains order
and fair play. For any responsible judge even a single case of
cheating is a disaster, and this rule makes cheating and violating PTW
much easier.
Yours,
Ector
Jeroen
> On Jul 31, 6:39 pm, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote:> In article <1185889994.699721.315...@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com>,
>
> > XZealot <xzea...@cox.net> wrote:
> > > Which violates the rules of sportsmanship, whether it is a penny or
> > > yacht. Using tangibles to alter player's behavior is cheating plain
> > > and simple.
>
> > That may or may not be the case, but unfortunately sportsmanship is not
> > hard and fast--again, using poker as an example, when you get to the
> > last two players, they often just settle on a split (60/40 or something,
> > depending on the situation). Is this unsportsmanlike?
>
> VTES is NOT Poker. Poker is all-about money, and it's played with
> money. VTES itself has nothing about money (or even boosters), and
> it's played without them. So, any prizes are clearly OUTSIDE the game.
Don't mix up what you want with what's true. At the moment prices are,
in fact, considered to be part of the final.
If you don't like the poker example. See also: cycling races. The
people in front regularly make deals for money. And no-one calls them
on it...
>
> > And yet he is still apparently playing in an environment where games
> > aren't being thrown for a couple boosters (as all of his comments
> > indicate that he is concerned about what will happen when people realize
> > that they can do this...)
>
> All our players currently believe that bribery is cheating and is not
> legal.
As the rules stand, it isn't bribery and neither is it cheating. And
it *is* legal. I'm not saying it's an optimal rule, but atm it is the
rule. And has always been the rule.
>
> > I think that, like in many discussions involving Ector, he is
> > extrapolating disasterous end results based on unrealistic belief.
>
> Surely I do, since I'm a judge. You know, a person who maintains order
> and fair play.
By the DCI rules. Not by changing them because you don't like them.
>For any responsible judge even a single case of
> cheating is a disaster, and this rule makes cheating and violating PTW
> much easier.
Let's try this again, because the above sentence makes no sense
whatsoever.
1. PTW in the final is assumed. No matter what someone does, he is
assumed to play to win. Except when he's obviously colluding. So
collusion is the ONLY way of violating PTW in a final. And that's hard
to track anyway, because that means they made some kind of arrangement
before the final starts.
2. Prize splitting is allowed, so it's not cheating. nor, by n° 1
above, is it violating PTW. See why that sentence makes no sense?
I don't like these rules any more than you do, but you cannot act like
they aren't the rules we have.
Jeroen
> On Jul 31, 4:15 pm, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > In article <1185885888.727046.93...@o61g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
>
> > Ector <Ec...@mail.ru> wrote:
> > > So you admit that bribed players are *less* likely to unite against
> > > him. But that means that they are less likely to do their best to
> > > achieve the largest number of VPs possible or GW. ANY accepted bribe
> > > is trading of prizes for violating PTW, either slightly or seriously.
>
> > Uh, no, it isn't. If I'm already not doing so hot--my likelyhood of
> > winning the game, let alone getting 1VP, is questionable. But I can
> > certainly Rush Arika cross table till she is in torpor. Arika's prey
> > offers me a couple thousand dollars out of the 1st prize if he wins in
> > exchange for me killing Arika. I accept, as that gives me a (presumably
> > based on table situation) reasonably good chance of still not doing so
> > hot in the game but still walking away with a couple thousand dollars.
> > That is playing to win, as it increases the level of my outcome (i.e. a
> > couple thousand dollars and losing the game instead of no dollars and
> > losing the game).
>
> That is NOT PTW.
Are you reading this thread or just shouting whatever you feel is
right? read again about PTW being assumed in the finals...In other
words:
THERE IS NO PLAY TO WIN RULE IN THE FINALS!!!!! (barring collusion)
>Please re-read the PTW definition. "Your outcome" is
> not GW or VPs. That may not VIOLATE PTW, as in your example,
Even if it wasn't a final, he could. He has almost no chance at 1 VP,
so he can get 0 vp, in any way he chooses. If that way happens to help
someone, so be it.
>but if
> the bribe makes you do something different from the actions you've
> planned without the bribe, I'd say that such behaviour is still an
> unsportsmanlike conduct.
not necessarily. If he can choose how to get his 0 VP, what's the
difference between talking someone into (not) doing something with
words alone?
>If you do the same you would do without the
> bribe, was the bribe really needed?
> Thus, I don't think that allowing players to bribe is needed even a
> single bit.
It's never needed. and it's a prize split, not a bribe.
>
> > > Easily. We have very different players here, and, unfortunately, there
> > > are many players who consider VTES only a "recreation".
>
> > VTES is only a recreation. It isn't a job. It isn't a sport. It is a
> > recreational game.
>
> This is heresy!!! VTES is a competitive intellectual game like Magic.
> At least, at the tournament level.
What? competititve intellectual cannot be recreational? NO GAME IN THE
WORLD ISN'T RECREATION. Otherwise, it isn't a game.
<snip>
> Hey, LSJ and other VTES designers!!! If you insist that your game is
> NOT serious, people won't take it seriously.
WTF? Not this again. Where are you getting this? Because someone
called your game recreational? *sigh*
Thus, they would refuse
> to purchase your products in large quantities - one can get
> "recreation" and "fun" even with a single deck! I don't know who is
> author of the "recreational" idea, but the idea is incredibly stupid.
So playing V:TES should be hard work? Otherwise it's only fun and
recreation.... Right.... Good luck at making people play a game in
their free time that they don't like, because it's 'serious' and
'intellectual'
> Every CCG producer does his best to pretend that his game is VERY
> serious - see the $25.000 prize support for EVE CCG.
Yes... all those people playing EVE against their will because of the
hard work involved..... WTF?
>VTES is rather
> complicated game, so nobody can hope to attract a lot of casual
> players - and failing to provide a serious game will throw away
> serious players. No wonder VTES doesn't provide large profits with
> such "clever" marketing!!!
What? the clever marketing of being a game, and therefore, by its very
definition needs to be fun and recreational?
> I cannot see any sense in the "prize-splitting" rule. We played 2
> years without it and would play much longer.
ignorance is no excuse. The rule existed longer than that.
Jeroen
James Coupe
>That is NOT PTW. Please re-read the PTW definition. "Your outcome" is
>not GW or VPs.
Please re-read LSJ's posts.
The definition of PTW in preliminary rounds is not the same as the
definition used in the final.
>That may not VIOLATE PTW, as in your example, but if
>the bribe makes you do something different from the actions you've
>planned without the bribe, I'd say that such behaviour is still an
>unsportsmanlike conduct.
Agreeing a deal that involves a prize-split is legal in the finals, even
if it wouldn't be in earlier rounds, because the PTW definition is
different.
>> VTES is only a recreation. It isn't a job. It isn't a sport. It is a
>> recreational game.
>This is heresy!!! VTES is a competitive intellectual game like Magic.
>At least, at the tournament level.
No, because it's a multiplayer game. By virtue of it being multiplayer,
straightforward comparisons with Magic are doomed to failure.
Magic does not have any need, for example, for skills such as diplomacy,
subterfuge and camouflage (in the sense of keeping other players from
thinking you're a threat - misleading a player as to your intended move
is found in both), dealing with cross-table idiocy and table hate, and
so on. In Magic, playing the best deck in the strongest way will make
you win, randomness aside. In V:TES, the strongest way will vary so
widely on any given table that it's simply not the case.
V:TES is not a sport. It's a game.
>Hey, LSJ and other VTES designers!!! If you insist that your game is
>NOT serious, people won't take it seriously. Thus, they would refuse
>to purchase your products in large quantities - one can get
>"recreation" and "fun" even with a single deck!
Sure. That's a good thing.
> I don't know who is
>author of the "recreational" idea, but the idea is incredibly stupid.
>Every CCG producer does his best to pretend that his game is VERY
>serious - see the $25.000 prize support for EVE CCG.
No, there are a number of CCG producers that have produced non-serious
games that aren't intended to be taken entirely seriously as a CCG.
Magic: Unglued is one obvious, prominent, fun example. The Changeling
CCG was very often presented as a fun story to tell and a game to play,
despite its CCG mechanics. Rage had, for a very long time, problems
being a "serious" CCG in that it had some rules problems (and card
interactions) that you could drive a bus through. The Monty Python CCG
had some intentionally ridiculous parlour game elements to it. The Star
Trek: TOS card game had some strange notions about giving bonuses to
people who got their cards signed by the appropriate actors - not really
a hallmark of thought-through balance.
Early versions of Magic were not, in fact, intended to be taken
seriously. Richard Garfield estimated that a large collection would be
in the order of 400 cards (that's hundred, not thousand), and that
complete sets would pretty much never happen. (This also led to some
design defects in Magic, which have been somewhat remedied in time, by
it and other CCGs.)
--
James Coupe
PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D YOU ARE IN ERROR.
EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 NO-ONE IS SCREAMING.
13D7E668C3695D623D5D THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.
bluedevil
> Again with 'the Sky is falling'... Learned nothing the last times you
> did this? PTW is still enforced. So you still cannot make a losing
> deal in exchange for prizes.
Nonetheless, I think there are more people than Ector who consider
this to be a problem area and would like to see some changes made.
I'm one of them. My concerns tend to be practical though, and
practically prize-splitting isn't much of a problem at this time. I'm
more concerned about the special win conditions of the finals, since I
think it contributes to bad games (although the recent change in the
dealing rules was a step in the right direction).
--
David Cherryholmes
Peter D Bakija
Ector <Ec...@mail.ru> wrote:
> VTES is NOT Poker. Poker is all-about money, and it's played with
> money. VTES itself has nothing about money (or even boosters), and
> it's played without them. So, any prizes are clearly OUTSIDE the game.
I'm not saying VTES is poker. Yet they are still both multi-player
games. And if VTES is played for big money, they'll have that in common
as well.
And Poker often *isn't* played with money, and any prizes are clearly
OUTSIDE the game--tournament poker does not use money. It uses chips to
determine the winner, and the winner gets a prize that isn't directly
related to the chips they have. Much like playing VTES for a big chunk
of money.
> All our players currently believe that bribery is cheating and is not
> legal.
Cheating *is* cheating. But making legal deals is not.
> Surely I do, since I'm a judge. You know, a person who maintains order
> and fair play. For any responsible judge even a single case of
> cheating is a disaster, and this rule makes cheating and violating PTW
> much easier.
Yes, yes, you are a paragon of order against the waves of chaos. You are
a Vorlon and Donblas all rolled up into one. And the rest of us are
unprincipled, corrupt and feral wild men.
Peter D Bakija
Ector <Ec...@mail.ru> wrote:
> That is NOT PTW. Please re-read the PTW definition. "Your outcome" is
> not GW or VPs.
According to the rules, apparently, you are incorrect.
> That may not VIOLATE PTW, as in your example, but if
> the bribe makes you do something different from the actions you've
> planned without the bribe, I'd say that such behaviour is still an
> unsportsmanlike conduct. If you do the same you would do without the
> bribe, was the bribe really needed?
No, but people make deals all the time that change people's behavior
("rescue my guy from torpor, and I'll help you pass your next vote").
Doing so in exchange for part of the prize is the same thing.
> This is heresy!!! VTES is a competitive intellectual game like Magic.
> At least, at the tournament level.
Yeah, that is helping your "I'm sane" argument...
> Surely. Just because of this ridiculous rule that is completely
> insane.
I don't think that the rules do not prohibit prize splitting have much
impact at all.
bluedevil
> Yes, yes, you are a paragon of order against the waves of chaos. You are
> a Vorlon and *Donblas* all rolled up into one.
OMG, +10 points for a Donblas reference. ;)
--
David Cherryholmes
Jeroen
> On Jul 30, 7:39 am, Jeroen <joen_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Again with 'the Sky is falling'... Learned nothing the last times you
> > did this? PTW is still enforced. So you still cannot make a losing
> > deal in exchange for prizes.
>
> Nonetheless, I think there are more people than Ector who consider
> this to be a problem area and would like to see some changes made.
> I'm one of them.
I never said I wasn't concerned. Ector just goes right over the top
with his reaction and makes any kind of discussion impossible.
>My concerns tend to be practical though, and
> practically prize-splitting isn't much of a problem at this time. I'm
> more concerned about the special win conditions of the finals, since I
> think it contributes to bad games (although the recent change in the
> dealing rules was a step in the right direction).
Price splitting isn't a real concern at the moment, because there are
no prices big enough to be worth throwing a final game over.
Special win conditions for the finals... Depends on your point of
view.
Fr.ex. the player who came in as first seed, can play for a total time-
out and that makes him win the finals and the tournement. Why would he
be forced to play for a GW? More to the point: How can you force him
to play for a GW, except for having no time-limit for finals? But
that's an ever bigger change from the prelims.
Maybe, you could add a special PTW rule for finals: play for the best
outcome possible, but that's just another rule that can't be enforced.
It might make for a -subjective- bad game, but that just an element
that makes the final a different kind of game from the rest.
Ector
> On 1 aug, 11:20, Ector <Ec...@mail.ru> wrote:
>
> Are you reading this thread or just shouting whatever you feel is
> right? read again about PTW being assumed in the finals...In other
> words:
>
> THERE IS NO PLAY TO WIN RULE IN THE FINALS!!!!! (barring collusion)
"assumed" to play to win. A deal for 1 VP in the finals still won't be
legal if the player has reasonable chances to get GW.
> >Please re-read the PTW definition. "Your outcome" is
> > not GW or VPs. That may not VIOLATE PTW, as in your example,
>
> Even if it wasn't a final, he could. He has almost no chance at 1 VP,
> so he can get 0 vp, in any way he chooses. If that way happens to help
> someone, so be it.
Yes, I know that player in the hopeless position can do everything he
wants. But if that player can deal with somebody, then his position
isn't usually so hopeless! Anyway, if players would "bid" shares of
the prize to make a dying Rush deck to assault each other, for
example, that would be simply awful.
> >but if
> > the bribe makes you do something different from the actions you've
> > planned without the bribe, I'd say that such behaviour is still an
> > unsportsmanlike conduct.
>
> not necessarily. If he can choose how to get his 0 VP, what's the
> difference between talking someone into (not) doing something with
> words alone?
Because players are assumed to PTW in the finals. Without the bribe,
each players is assumed to do his best for the best standing. With a
bribe, he can pay no attention to his standing and VPs, and still "win
more" (from his perspective).
> >If you do the same you would do without the
> > bribe, was the bribe really needed?
> > Thus, I don't think that allowing players to bribe is needed even a
> > single bit.
>
> It's never needed. and it's a prize split, not a bribe.
It's a bribe with a portion of the prize. Call it any way you like,
it's still a bribe.
>
>
> > > > Easily. We have very different players here, and, unfortunately, there
> > > > are many players who consider VTES only a "recreation".
>
> > > VTES is only a recreation. It isn't a job. It isn't a sport. It is a
> > > recreational game.
Any game that has tournaments and judges is a sport. Chess is a sport
- as well as a "recreational game". VTES is the same.
> > This is heresy!!! VTES is a competitive intellectual game like Magic.
> > At least, at the tournament level.
>
> What? competititve intellectual cannot be recreational? NO GAME IN THE
> WORLD ISN'T RECREATION. Otherwise, it isn't a game.
Who said that it CANNOT be recreational? I didn't. I just meant that
the "prize splitting rule" is completely inappropriate in any more-or-
less serious game.
> <snip>
>
> > Hey, LSJ and other VTES designers!!! If you insist that your game is
> > NOT serious, people won't take it seriously.
>
> WTF? Not this again. Where are you getting this? Because someone
> called your game recreational? *sigh*
Because I want to keep the last bits of serious intellectual game I
like. And I'm not alone.
> Thus, they would refuse
>
> > to purchase your products in large quantities - one can get
> > "recreation" and "fun" even with a single deck! I don't know who is
> > author of the "recreational" idea, but the idea is incredibly stupid.
>
> So playing V:TES should be hard work? Otherwise it's only fun and
> recreation.... Right.... Good luck at making people play a game in
> their free time that they don't like, because it's 'serious' and
> 'intellectual'
"Hard work"? Where do you get such ideas? Is chess a hard work? Is
Magic a hard work? Both are games of intellect and competition - very
serious competition, but both can be played just for recreation.
> > Every CCG producer does his best to pretend that his game is VERY
> > serious - see the $25.000 prize support for EVE CCG.
> Yes... all those people playing EVE against their will because of the
> hard work involved..... WTF?
Hard work? Really, WTF? EVE fans are going to enjoy the SERIOUS
COMPETITION it offers. Most good games can be just a recreation, but
become very challenging at the higher levels. We're talking about
these higher levels now: having top players bribing each other with a
prize is completely ridiculous. Multi-player nature of the game
doesn't force such rules.
> >VTES is rather
> > complicated game, so nobody can hope to attract a lot of casual
> > players - and failing to provide a serious game will throw away
> > serious players. No wonder VTES doesn't provide large profits with
> > such "clever" marketing!!!
>
> What? the clever marketing of being a game, and therefore, by its very
> definition needs to be fun and recreational?
Please read my sentence once more. The game is too complicated for the
casual players seeking for nothing more but recreation. And,
unfortunately, it isn't serious enough for the players that enjoy
serious competition.
> > I cannot see any sense in the "prize-splitting" rule. We played 2
> > years without it and would play much longer.
>
> ignorance is no excuse. The rule existed longer than that.
So what? Does that mean that the rule is good? Or needed? Or even
often used?
Yours,
Ector
Peter D Bakija
bluedevil <david.che...@gmail.com> wrote:
Blood and souls, baby!
:-)
Peter D Bakija
bluedevil <david.che...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Nonetheless, I think there are more people than Ector who consider
> this to be a problem area and would like to see some changes made.
Oh, sure--I agree that legal prize splitting for deals in the finals of
a tournament of VTES is kind of wonky and something that could use a
tweak. But as noted, unless the prizes get really big, it is unlikely to
be much of an issue, which gets us to a sort of circular position:
We don't need to fix the prize split rules unless prizes get really big.
But if we fix the prize split rules, then prizes could theoretically get
really big. And if they get really big, all sorts of other problems pop
up (qualification rules/player attitude/needing a much stricter judjing
system/etc). So in the end, do we really *want* to fix the prize split
rules? Currently, they are virtually not an issue at all.
Jeroen
> On Aug 1, 2:29 pm, Jeroen <joen_...@hotmail.com> wrote:> On 1 aug, 11:20, Ector <Ec...@mail.ru> wrote:
>
> > Are you reading this thread or just shouting whatever you feel is
> > right? read again about PTW being assumed in the finals...In other
> > words:
>
> > THERE IS NO PLAY TO WIN RULE IN THE FINALS!!!!! (barring collusion)
>
> Are YOU reading it? There IS PTW in the finals, although players are
> "assumed" to play to win. A deal for 1 VP in the finals still won't be
> legal if the player has reasonable chances to get GW.
>From LSJ:
In the final, play to win is "how do I play this to maximize my
outcome" where
"outcome" is whatever goal the player is playing for. Prizes
(including splits),
for example.
So you can LEGALLY trade the getting of 1VP for, say, a part of the
prizes WITHOUT breaking PTW. Read it until it sinks in.
>
> > >Please re-read the PTW definition. "Your outcome" is
> > > not GW or VPs. That may not VIOLATE PTW, as in your example,
>
> > Even if it wasn't a final, he could. He has almost no chance at 1 VP,
> > so he can get 0 vp, in any way he chooses. If that way happens to help
> > someone, so be it.
>
> Yes, I know that player in the hopeless position can do everything he
> wants. But if that player can deal with somebody, then his position
> isn't usually so hopeless! Anyway, if players would "bid" shares of
> the prize to make a dying Rush deck to assault each other, for
> example, that would be simply awful.
With the rules for PTW in the final in mind: what's the difference in
dying and becomming 5th without any prices and dying, becomining 5th
with a part of the prize? So, again, no problem with the PTW rules.
>
> > >but if
> > > the bribe makes you do something different from the actions you've
> > > planned without the bribe, I'd say that such behaviour is still an
> > > unsportsmanlike conduct.
>
> > not necessarily. If he can choose how to get his 0 VP, what's the
> > difference between talking someone into (not) doing something with
> > words alone?
>
> Because players are assumed to PTW in the finals. Without the bribe,
> each players is assumed to do his best for the best standing.
nope. not standing, 'outcome' which is not the same.
>With a
> bribe, he can pay no attention to his standing and VPs, and still "win
> more" (from his perspective).
win more, yes. Like prizes....
>
> > >If you do the same you would do without the
> > > bribe, was the bribe really needed?
> > > Thus, I don't think that allowing players to bribe is needed even a
> > > single bit.
>
> > It's never needed. and it's a prize split, not a bribe.
>
> It's a bribe with a portion of the prize. Call it any way you like,
> it's still a bribe.
nope. Because price splitting (atm) is legal, bribing isn't.
>
>
>
> > > > > Easily. We have very different players here, and, unfortunately, there
> > > > > are many players who consider VTES only a "recreation".
>
> > > > VTES is only a recreation. It isn't a job. It isn't a sport. It is a
> > > > recreational game.
>
> Any game that has tournaments and judges is a sport. Chess is a sport
> - as well as a "recreational game". VTES is the same.
you cried heresy because someone called V:TES recreational. Chess also
isn't a sport.
>
> > > This is heresy!!! VTES is a competitive intellectual game like Magic.
> > > At least, at the tournament level.
>
> > What? competititve intellectual cannot be recreational? NO GAME IN THE
> > WORLD ISN'T RECREATION. Otherwise, it isn't a game.
>
> Who said that it CANNOT be recreational? I didn't.
You flew of the handle when it was mentioned.
>I just meant that
> the "prize splitting rule" is completely inappropriate in any more-or-
> less serious game.
So what's that rant about recreational vs serious doing in your
previous post?
>
> > <snip>
>
> > > Hey, LSJ and other VTES designers!!! If you insist that your game is
> > > NOT serious, people won't take it seriously.
>
> > WTF? Not this again. Where are you getting this? Because someone
> > called your game recreational? *sigh*
>
> Because I want to keep the last bits of serious intellectual game I
> like. And I'm not alone.
????
>
> > Thus, they would refuse
>
> > > to purchase your products in large quantities - one can get
> > > "recreation" and "fun" even with a single deck! I don't know who is
> > > author of the "recreational" idea, but the idea is incredibly stupid.
>
> > So playing V:TES should be hard work? Otherwise it's only fun and
> > recreation.... Right.... Good luck at making people play a game in
> > their free time that they don't like, because it's 'serious' and
> > 'intellectual'
>
> "Hard work"? Where do you get such ideas? Is chess a hard work? Is
> Magic a hard work? Both are games of intellect and competition - very
> serious competition, but both can be played just for recreation.
You mean, just like V:TES? Only with bigger prices. And neither are
multi-players, which makes a HUGE difference.
>
> > > Every CCG producer does his best to pretend that his game is VERY
> > > serious - see the $25.000 prize support for EVE CCG.
> > Yes... all those people playing EVE against their will because of the
> > hard work involved..... WTF?
>
> Hard work? Really, WTF? EVE fans are going to enjoy the SERIOUS
> COMPETITION it offers.
You're doing it again. Why can't recreation and serious competition co-
exist?
>Most good games can be just a recreation, but
> become very challenging at the higher levels. We're talking about
> these higher levels now: having top players bribing each other with a
> prize is completely ridiculous. Multi-player nature of the game
> doesn't force such rules.
your point?
>
> > >VTES is rather
> > > complicated game, so nobody can hope to attract a lot of casual
> > > players - and failing to provide a serious game will throw away
> > > serious players. No wonder VTES doesn't provide large profits with
> > > such "clever" marketing!!!
>
> > What? the clever marketing of being a game, and therefore, by its very
> > definition needs to be fun and recreational?
>
> Please read my sentence once more. The game is too complicated for the
> casual players seeking for nothing more but recreation. And,
> unfortunately, it isn't serious enough for the players that enjoy
> serious competition.
For the 10000000000th times, it can be both! and simultaneously!
>
> > > I cannot see any sense in the "prize-splitting" rule. We played 2
> > > years without it and would play much longer.
>
> > ignorance is no excuse. The rule existed longer than that.
>
> So what? Does that mean that the rule is good? Or needed? Or even
> often used?
no-one said the rule was optimal. But you're having a spasm about
something that's been in the game for years. Never saw a price split
in the 13 years i've been playing this game. no use having yet another
fit about it. (bad for your health, Ector)
In the end, it's only a game. Even when played seriously.
bluedevil
> I never said I wasn't concerned. Ector just goes right over the top
> with his reaction and makes any kind of discussion impossible.
Well, if you really wanted to you could just engage the hyperbole
filters, but that kinda takes away half the point of Usenet.
> Price splitting isn't a real concern at the moment, because there are
> no prices big enough to be worth throwing a final game over.
I think Ector's story highlights that "worth" is a relative concept.
It would be better to resolve this issue without appealing to the size
of the prize. I'd rather see arguments developed based on what's
right or wrong, or in the spirit of the game, or consistency, or
something like that.
> Special win conditions for the finals... Depends on your point of
> view.
>
> Fr.ex. the player who came in as first seed, can play for a total time-
> out and that makes him win the finals and the tournement. Why would he
> be forced to play for a GW? More to the point: How can you force him
> to play for a GW, except for having no time-limit for finals? But
> that's an ever bigger change from the prelims.
He would be "forced" to play for a GW (as opposed to a tournament win)
if a GW was required for a TW. Currently, as you said, there's
nothing to make him do so. I think that is a flaw, as I think it
contributes to stagnant finals that tend to time out more than I would
like.
> Maybe, you could add a special PTW rule for finals: play for the best
> outcome possible, but that's just another rule that can't be enforced.
What's wrong with just playing for a GW: 2 VP at least and more than
anyone else? Seems like if everyone knew they had to carve out two at
a minimum there'd be a clear incentive to keep the game moving
forward.
> It might make for a -subjective- bad game, but that just an element
> that makes the final a different kind of game from the rest.
Then why don't we just change the win conditions for all games to
"more than anybody else?" Oh right, because it would suck. Why some
people seem to insist it doesn't suck in the most important game of a
long day's playing is beyond me.
--
David Cherryholmes
LSJ
> Are YOU reading it? There IS PTW in the finals, although players are
> "assumed" to play to win. A deal for 1 VP in the finals still won't be
> legal if the player has reasonable chances to get GW.
Yes, it would, because players can be assumed to be playing to win in
the final.
If he makes the deal for 1 VP, then that is, for him, playing to win
(unless other, illegal, activity has occured, like threats or bribery
-- and note, again, that offering to split the prize is not bribery).
Tetragrammaton
> On 1 aug, 14:51, bluedevil <david.cherryhol...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Jul 30, 7:39 am, Jeroen <joen_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Again with 'the Sky is falling'... Learned nothing the last times
>>> you did this? PTW is still enforced. So you still cannot make a
>>> losing deal in exchange for prizes.
>>
>> Nonetheless, I think there are more people than Ector who consider
>> this to be a problem area and would like to see some changes made.
>> I'm one of them.
>
> I never said I wasn't concerned. Ector just goes right over the top
> with his reaction and makes any kind of discussion impossible.
>
>> My concerns tend to be practical though, and
>> practically prize-splitting isn't much of a problem at this time.
>> I'm more concerned about the special win conditions of the finals,
>> since I think it contributes to bad games (although the recent
>> change in the dealing rules was a step in the right direction).
>
> Price splitting isn't a real concern at the moment, because there are
> no prices big enough to be worth throwing a final game over.
>
> Special win conditions for the finals... Depends on your point of
> view.
>
the final round "win" conditions are different from those
of other rounds; and are *not* those intended in the
object of the game (that is, "gain the most vps").
> Maybe, you could add a special PTW rule for finals: play for the best
> outcome possible, but that's just another rule that can't be enforced.
>
I think that keeping the game goal/object as stated in the rulebook ("gain
the most vps")
and as enforced in the other rounds with the ptw would suffice - no need to
adress some
"special" rule for the final round, in this sense.
> It might make for a -subjective- bad game, but that just an element
> that makes the final a different kind of game from the rest.
Anything that takes the players away from what's intended with the
game's object should be considered "bad" enough, imho.
best
Emiliano
Jeroen Rombouts
"bluedevil" <david.che...@gmail.com> schreef in bericht
news:1185981978.5...@l70g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> On Aug 1, 9:28 am, Jeroen <joen_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I never said I wasn't concerned. Ector just goes right over the top
>> with his reaction and makes any kind of discussion impossible.
>
> Well, if you really wanted to you could just engage the hyperbole
> filters, but that kinda takes away half the point of Usenet.
How can Ector ever learn that the sky isn't falling (again) if no-one calls
him on it?
>
>> Price splitting isn't a real concern at the moment, because there are
>> no prices big enough to be worth throwing a final game over.
>
> I think Ector's story highlights that "worth" is a relative concept.
> It would be better to resolve this issue without appealing to the size
> of the prize. I'd rather see arguments developed based on what's
> right or wrong, or in the spirit of the game, or consistency, or
> something like that.
But we're discussing 2 things here:
- PTW in the finals: i can see that the finals are a unique kind of game,
needing specific rules.
- prize splitting: i don't see the use of this, but it is so. Ector's
reasoning that it isn't aside.
>
>> Special win conditions for the finals... Depends on your point of
>> view.
>>
>> Fr.ex. the player who came in as first seed, can play for a total time-
>> out and that makes him win the finals and the tournement. Why would he
>> be forced to play for a GW? More to the point: How can you force him
>> to play for a GW, except for having no time-limit for finals? But
>> that's an ever bigger change from the prelims.
>
> He would be "forced" to play for a GW (as opposed to a tournament win)
> if a GW was required for a TW. Currently, as you said, there's
> nothing to make him do so. I think that is a flaw, as I think it
> contributes to stagnant finals that tend to time out more than I would
> like.
but you cannot say you need a GW, without getting rid of the time limit....
>
>> Maybe, you could add a special PTW rule for finals: play for the best
>> outcome possible, but that's just another rule that can't be enforced.
>
> What's wrong with just playing for a GW: 2 VP at least and more than
> anyone else?
Time limit or 2-2-1. game ends without GW. And if you keep the tie breaker,
the 1st seed player is not forced to get a GW, but prevent the rest from
getting one.
Seems like if everyone knew they had to carve out two at
> a minimum there'd be a clear incentive to keep the game moving
> forward.
>
>> It might make for a -subjective- bad game, but that just an element
>> that makes the final a different kind of game from the rest.
>
> Then why don't we just change the win conditions for all games to
> "more than anybody else?" Oh right, because it would suck. Why some
> people seem to insist it doesn't suck in the most important game of a
> long day's playing is beyond me.
Because it's a timed(*) one-off game (**) and I think that final standings
in the prelims should matter in the finals. It's the culmination of the
other 3 games you played, so you should get something of a return out of
fr.ex 3 GWs in the prelims.
(*) timed, so can end w/o GW or even VPs
(**) meaning that the result aren't used somewhere else. It IS a different
game as the prelims.
Tetragrammaton
> In article <1185960026.0...@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
> Ector <Ec...@mail.ru> wrote:
>
>> That is NOT PTW. Please re-read the PTW definition. "Your outcome" is
>> not GW or VPs.
>
> According to the rules, apparently, you are incorrect.
>
on occasions.
Tournament rules, actually, do not tell final round from previous
ones in the respect of game's goal/object -
apart mentioning that prizes can be offered, there's nothing in the
tournament
rules suggesting that players should not have to play for GW/most vp in the
final -
that it's an LSJ statmentent, afaik.
best
Emiliano
bluedevil
wrote:
> But we're discussing 2 things here:
> - PTW in the finals: i can see that the finals are a unique kind of game,
> needing specific rules.
I can see that it is slightly different, but still a game of V:TES.
It's super-outstanding-one-of-a-kindness is not a very persuasive
argument (to me) for injecting elements that actually make that game
worse.
> - prize splitting: i don't see the use of this, but it is so. Ector's
> reasoning that it isn't aside.
I agree that it is so, but I remember that *I* just realized it was so
a few years ago, and I was not happy about it then and I'm still not.
> but you cannot say you need a GW, without getting rid of the time limit....
I'm happy with declaring no winner, a tie, or whatever. If the top
five people who, de facto, were able to achieve significant amounts of
game wins in the three preliminary rounds somehow can consistently not
manage to swing it in the final.... well, it looks obvious to me whose
fault that is.
> Time limit or 2-2-1. game ends without GW.
That's a tie and they split the prize support. No problem. But there
will be none of this "I got 0.5 and was top seed.... winner!"
lameness.
--
David Cherryholmes
Kushiel
> > if a GW was required for a TW. Currently, as you said, there's
> > nothing to make him do so. I think that is a flaw, as I think it
> > contributes to stagnant finals that tend to time out more than I would
> > like.
>
> but you cannot say you need a GW, without getting rid of the time limit....
Why not?
John Eno
bluedevil
> That's a tie and they split the prize support. No problem. But there
> will be none of this "I got 0.5 and was top seed.... winner!"
> lameness.
Sorry for replying to my own post, but I see that I wrote something
inconsistent and would like to correct it. If you can tie at 2 VP's
then you could tie at 0.5 VP's. I'm not sure what the right system
would be yet (maybe we could hash that out with further discussion),
I'm just sure that I don't like the one we've got.
--
David Cherryholmes
Damnans
[...]
>
> In the final, play to win is "how do I play this to maximize my outcome" where
> "outcome" is whatever goal the player is playing for. Prizes (including splits),
> for example.
No. "Outcome" is the player's final standing at the tournament. Prizes
have nothing to do with "outcome" (or should not, if you consider they
do).
Players in a final must play to win the tournament. If they can't win
the tournament they must aim for the 2nd place, and so on.
--
Damnans
http://www.almadrava.net/damnans
http://www.vtes.net
http://es.groups.yahoo.com/group/vteshispania/
http://iuturna.sorcery.net (IRC channel: #vtes)
witness1
>
> I'm happy with declaring no winner, a tie, or whatever. If the top
> five people who, de facto, were able to achieve significant amounts of
> game wins in the three preliminary rounds somehow can consistently not
> manage to swing it in the final.... well, it looks obvious to me whose
> fault that is.
>
> > Time limit or 2-2-1. game ends without GW.
>
> That's a tie
What about 1.5 - 0.5 - 0.5 - 0.5? There's no "Game Win" here, and
clearly no tie.
> and they split the prize support. No problem.
How do you go about "splitting" a piece of artwork? No problem?
> But there
> will be none of this "I got 0.5 and was top seed.... winner!"
> lameness.
Witness1
Matthew T. Morgan
> That's a tie and they split the prize support. No problem. But there
> will be none of this "I got 0.5 and was top seed.... winner!"
> lameness.
I think you're putting the blame in the wrong place there. If someone
wins with .5 VPs, it's because nobody else tried to win. Rather than
change the rules, we need to retrain ourselves. If you're 5th seed (or
even 4th, 3rd or arguably 2nd) and it looks like the table might time out,
you should just close your eyes and go balls-to-the-wall forward. Try to
get a VP. Try to win the game. Too often a low-seed player is just glad
he's not getting ousted when a lunge is probably the correct play. Even
if there's only a 5% chance for success. Even if there's a 0.00001%
chance for success. That's better than getting half a VP and being 5th
seed anyway. Plus, if you're prey to anyone but the top-seeded guy, then
suddenly he's looking at not winning the game, because you're probably
gonna get killed in your valiant (but futile) attempt to win.
That's how to shake it up.
Matt Morgan
bluedevil
> I think you're putting the blame in the wrong place there. If someone
> wins with .5 VPs, it's because nobody else tried to win. Rather than
> change the rules, we need to retrain ourselves. If you're 5th seed (or
> even 4th, 3rd or arguably 2nd) and it looks like the table might time out,
> you should just close your eyes and go balls-to-the-wall forward. Try to
> get a VP. Try to win the game. Too often a low-seed player is just glad
> he's not getting ousted when a lunge is probably the correct play. Even
> if there's only a 5% chance for success. Even if there's a 0.00001%
> chance for success. That's better than getting half a VP and being 5th
> seed anyway. Plus, if you're prey to anyone but the top-seeded guy, then
> suddenly he's looking at not winning the game, because you're probably
> gonna get killed in your valiant (but futile) attempt to win.
>
> That's how to shake it up.
I appreciate the perspective, but I don't think it's sufficient. For
one thing, even if you are right, whatever incentives are already
present are demonstratively not enough[1]. Second, since you can win
the final with 1 VP regardless of your seeding as long as nobody else
gets one, there's still lots of incentive from several angles to sit
there, do nothing, and wait for somebody to screw up. Getting two
that way, in the time allotted, is more difficult.
--
David Cherryholmes
bluedevil
> What about 1.5 - 0.5 - 0.5 - 0.5? There's no "Game Win" here, and
> clearly no tie.
See, my point is that I would be perfectly OK with saying nobody won,
no prizes, save 'em for next year... whatever.
> How do you go about "splitting" a piece of artwork? No problem?
I'm not sure, but I don't think it's an intractable problem. I think
final games being overly dull and cautious is a real, immediate
problem, though (although obviously not all finals are like that).
--
David Cherryholmes
crispyfloss
> On Aug 1, 1:04 pm, "Jeroen Rombouts" <jeroen.rombou...@telenet.be>
> wrote:
> > but you cannot say you need a GW, without getting rid of the time limit....
>
> I'm happy with declaring no winner, a tie, or whatever. If the top
> five people who, de facto, were able to achieve significant amounts of
> game wins in the three preliminary rounds somehow can consistently not
> manage to swing it in the final.... well, it looks obvious to me whose
> fault that is.
Blind luck? I would expect the better the players and the better the
decks, the more likely the game approaches stalemate. Barring random
misfortune, like a rock-to-my-scissors situation.
> > Time limit or 2-2-1. game ends without GW.
>
> That's a tie and they split the prize support. No problem. But there
> will be none of this "I got 0.5 and was top seed.... winner!"
> lameness.
Sounds great to me to light a fire under the players. I've seen some
spectacular finals, but unfortunately quite a few drawn-out creative
deliberation competitions. I'd like something that motivates people
to play the game.
Is that what this proposal does? Under play to game win, you still
motivate people by the prospect of prize support, but you only let
them get it if they get a game win (assuming winner-takes). Otherwise
it's split. So if someone does game win, they get it all, but if they
don't, they get a share.
This seems to shift the incentive from having one player pushing for a
time-out while the others try to disrupt that situation, to having an
incentive for four people to time-out while one player tries to
disrupt that. In the former situation it's the top-seed that has the
incentive to do nothing, in the latter it's the four worst-positioned
decks that try to do that. You just don't know who they are until the
game has gotten some momentum. This almost sounds like building-in a
prize split deal: when one player starts pulling ahead, you'd better
keep his prey alive or you risk losing prize support that's otherwise
yours. It's a pretty tough argument to make that keeping someone
alive, even if it's your predator, is unambiguously not playing to
win, under any standard.
If you want to see balls-to-the-walls games where people take daring
risks, sometimes pulling it off and sometimes failing, why not give
equal prize support for making the finals, with nothing for final
placement in the tournament?
You know, like in the good ol' days, before it was about the money,
before everything went all corporate...
Damnans
> On Jul 30, 5:14 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
> [...]
>
>
>
> > In the final, play to win is "how do I play this to maximize my outcome" where
> > "outcome" is whatever goal the player is playing for. Prizes (including splits),
> > for example.
>
> No. "Outcome" is the player's final standing at the tournament. Prizes
> have nothing to do with "outcome" (or should not, if you consider they
> do).
>
> Players in a final must play to win the tournament. If they can't win
> the tournament they must aim for the 2nd place, and so on.
Scott: I should also remind you of this post of yours:
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/e18a1e53971876ac?hl=en&
"David Cherryholmes" <david.cherryhol...@duke.edu> wrote in message
news:3adgmrF...@individual.net...
> David Cherryholmes wrote:
> > This is incorrect. Playing to win that game usually coincides with
> > winning the tournament. But if they are somehow at odds, you must play
> > to win that game.
> I have been corrected. LSJ has clearly stated that you do not have to
> play to win the final game, if not playing to win will win you the
> tournament, citing Jared Strait's 2002 NAC win. This is spectacularly
> retarded and inconsistent, but there it is.
Incorrect.
You do have to play to win. In the finals, "winning" is determined
by number of VPs, with ties on VPs broken by rank going into the final
(unlike in the preliminary rounds, where ties remain unbroken and are
simply ties).
This is spectacularly logical and consistent.
--
LSJ (vtesrepS...@TRAPwhite-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep (Remove spam trap
to reply).
V:TES homepage: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/
Though effective, appear to be ineffective -- Sun Tzu
witness1
I don't actually think it's that much of a problem, even though I've
been in some long finals. I mean, a person only got to be top-seed by
earning more GW/VP than everybody else. Maybe the fact that he can't
do it in the finals has more to do with the level of competition there
than it does with perverse incentives.
witness1
Tetragrammaton
> On Aug 1, 8:16 pm, Damnans <damnansv...@ono.com> wrote:
>> On Jul 30, 5:14 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
>> [...]
>>
>>
>>
>>> In the final, play to win is "how do I play this to maximize my
>>> outcome" where "outcome" is whatever goal the player is playing
>>> for. Prizes (including splits), for example.
>>
>> No. "Outcome" is the player's final standing at the tournament.
>> Prizes have nothing to do with "outcome" (or should not, if you
>> consider they do).
>>
>> Players in a final must play to win the tournament. If they can't win
>> the tournament they must aim for the 2nd place, and so on.
>
> Scott: I should also remind you of this post of yours:
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/e18a1e53971876ac?hl=en&
>
I think that Scott just rebated that position with different words - nothing
new
actually.
Anyway, that statement is still flawed, imho.
Final round should been played as any other rounds and as any other vtes
game,
that is: trying to accomplish the object of the game as it's presented in
the rulebook.
That would change nothing in the respect of "trying to win the tournament",
since
having to play to"GWin" the (final) round would just result in trying to win
the tournament.
Emiliano
Jeroen Rombouts
"librarian" <auct...@superfuncards.com> schreef in bericht
news:HIuri.42319$6K3....@newsfe10.phx...
> LSJ wrote:
>> Peter D Bakija wrote:
>>> "Tetragrammaton" <nos...@none.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> You can "ignore" the standard ptw in the final round, however.
>>>
>>> I don't think this is the case. Or at least not if we are talking about
>>> the same thing.
>>>
>>> In the final round, if I understand the world correctly, you still need
>>> to Play to Win *that game*.
>>
>> Only as it suits you. As stated elsewhere, the players in the finals are
>> automatically assumed to be playing to win (in the absence of bribery or
>> threats or other illegal activity).
>>
>>> If you go in as top seed, playing for a 5 way tie time out is still
>>> Playing to Win (as you win in a 5 way tie), even though it is
>>> counterintuitive. But in most instances, you still need to Play to Win
>>> the final round, which means trying your hardest to get a table win, and
>>> if that isn't possible, then trying your hardest to get maximum VPs, and
>>> if that isn't possible, well, then you can do whatever you want.
>>
>> In the final, play to win is "how do I play this to maximize my outcome"
>> where "outcome" is whatever goal the player is playing for. Prizes
>> (including splits), for example.
>>
>
> across table, because 'I AM Dolphin Black, and I am Kwaazzy!!'"
>
> "But, but, it will give my prey 6 pool and a VP, and cost you the GW!"
>
> "No matter, I (my character, that is) am kooky, nutty, out to lunch,
> wacky, etc etc. It's all about maximizing my goals in this finals game,
> haha! And as a Malkavian, I must be loony!!!"
>
> (My most disliked type of player - the role-playing card gamer...)
>
How did he get into the finals?
Jeroen Rombouts
> On Aug 1, 1:04 pm, "Jeroen Rombouts" <jeroen.rombou...@telenet.be>
> wrote:
>
>> But we're discussing 2 things here:
>> - PTW in the finals: i can see that the finals are a unique kind of game,
>> needing specific rules.
>
> I can see that it is slightly different, but still a game of V:TES.
> It's super-outstanding-one-of-a-kindness is not a very persuasive
> argument (to me) for injecting elements that actually make that game
> worse.
PTW in the prelims is the special case, actually. It's nowhere in the rule
book, iirc.
But, IMO, having to play to GW makes for an even worse game. See below.
>
>> - prize splitting: i don't see the use of this, but it is so. Ector's
>> reasoning that it isn't aside.
>
> I agree that it is so, but I remember that *I* just realized it was so
> a few years ago, and I was not happy about it then and I'm still not.
>
>
>> but you cannot say you need a GW, without getting rid of the time
>> limit....
>
> I'm happy with declaring no winner, a tie, or whatever. If the top
> five people who, de facto, were able to achieve significant amounts of
> game wins in the three preliminary rounds somehow can consistently not
> manage to swing it in the final.... well, it looks obvious to me whose
> fault that is.
problem is, if you need a GW, that a GW is easily converted in a tie by
other players. So instead of 1 person playing for a time-out (until someone
gets a VP), you get 2 or 3 people dealing AGAINST a GW at that table. That's
even worse than a time out in my book.
Now I come to think about it: if you have to play for a GW, you will
probable HAVE to bribe 1 or 2 players to not engage in 'GW-blocking' AAAARGH
imagine the kind of horrible dealings going on in such a final. (yes, even
without table splitting)
>
>> Time limit or 2-2-1. game ends without GW.
>
> That's a tie and they split the prize support. No problem. But there
> will be none of this "I got 0.5 and was top seed.... winner!"
> lameness.
>
another problem: so no-one is FR.ex. American Champion this year? and if
someone wins, is he the Champion and are all the others 2nd?
Jeroen Rombouts
"Kushiel" <invisibl...@gmail.com> schreef in bericht
news:1185991102....@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...
without a winner?
Jeroen Rombouts
"Tetragrammaton" <nos...@none.com> schreef in bericht
news:FM2si.12787$pd1...@tornado.fastwebnet.it...
> Anything that takes the players away from what's intended with the
> game's object should be considered "bad" enough, imho.
>
Intended? PTW isn't in the rulebook. Time limits are not in the rulebook. So
the finals should be played without time-limit and for the most VPs, because
that's 'intended'?
Jeroen Rombouts
we've come up with so far. :-)
librarian
Because in the prelims, he had to play to advance to the finals, or
specifically, to play to win that specific game itself. And since he
had a Malkavian deck, probably wasn't too hard.
best -
chris
--
Super Fun Cards
http://stores.ebay.com/superfuncards/
auct...@superfuncards.com
librarian
Since you are referring to a "finals", sounds like you mean a tournament.
IIR, probably not correctly, both PTW and Time Limits are in the VEKN
rulebook, which governs "official" tournament play.
Tetragrammaton
> "bluedevil" <david.che...@gmail.com> schreef in bericht
> news:1185991076....@o61g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>> On Aug 1, 1:04 pm, "Jeroen Rombouts" <jeroen.rombou...@telenet.be>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> But we're discussing 2 things here:
>>> - PTW in the finals: i can see that the finals are a unique kind of
>>> game, needing specific rules.
>>
>> I can see that it is slightly different, but still a game of V:TES.
>> It's super-outstanding-one-of-a-kindness is not a very persuasive
>> argument (to me) for injecting elements that actually make that game
>> worse.
>
> PTW in the prelims is the special case, actually. It's nowhere in the
> rule book, iirc.
Not really - as the object of the game it's to "score the most VPS".
On the other side, in the final, as you're the first seed, you could play
just for not scoring anything, and being still the winner in the end.
That is in contrast with the object of the game as it's written, while
for the prelimins the pt(g)w makes perfect sense considering the
object of the game as it's presented in the rulebook.
Emiliano
Tetragrammaton
I was clearly referring to the goal of the game as it's presented in the
rulebook.
(besides, PTW is implied in any game/competition, i think)
And tournament rules should not allow to ignore that goal
Emiliano
Jeroen Rombouts
Jeroen Rombouts
> Jeroen Rombouts wrote:
>> "Tetragrammaton" <nos...@none.com> schreef in bericht
>> news:FM2si.12787$pd1...@tornado.fastwebnet.it...
>>
>>> Anything that takes the players away from what's intended with the
>>> game's object should be considered "bad" enough, imho.
>>>
>> Intended? PTW isn't in the rulebook. Time limits are not in the
>> rulebook. So the finals should be played without time-limit and for
>> the most VPs, because that's 'intended'?
>
> I was clearly referring to the goal of the game as it's presented in the
> rulebook.
Yes. And the rule book bases its assumption on: no time limit. So there is
no need to define a GW.
> (besides, PTW is implied in any game/competition, i think)
Yes, but not in the exact terms we have for tournement games.
> And tournament rules should not allow to ignore that goal
>
And you would fix that how? Without creating a whole lot of new problems?
Jeroen Rombouts
> Jeroen Rombouts wrote:
>> "Tetragrammaton" <nos...@none.com> schreef in bericht
>> news:FM2si.12787$pd1...@tornado.fastwebnet.it...
>>
>>> Anything that takes the players away from what's intended with the
>>> game's object should be considered "bad" enough, imho.
>>>
>> Intended? PTW isn't in the rulebook. Time limits are not in the rulebook.
>> So the finals should be played without time-limit and for the most VPs,
>> because that's 'intended'?
>
> Since you are referring to a "finals", sounds like you mean a tournament.
>
> IIR, probably not correctly, both PTW and Time Limits are in the VEKN
> rulebook, which governs "official" tournament play.
>
for all intends and purposes, doesn't count in the finals. I can see why,
because enforcing PTW there creates more problems than it solves.
Salem
> In article <1185972692.8...@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
> bluedevil <david.che...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Nonetheless, I think there are more people than Ector who consider
>> this to be a problem area and would like to see some changes made.
>
> Oh, sure--I agree that legal prize splitting for deals in the finals of
> a tournament of VTES is kind of wonky and something that could use a
> tweak. But as noted, unless the prizes get really big, it is unlikely to
> be much of an issue, which gets us to a sort of circular position:
>
> We don't need to fix the prize split rules unless prizes get really big.
> But if we fix the prize split rules, then prizes could theoretically get
> really big. And if they get really big, all sorts of other problems pop
> up (qualification rules/player attitude/needing a much stricter judjing
> system/etc). So in the end, do we really *want* to fix the prize split
> rules? Currently, they are virtually not an issue at all.
i thought the point about prize splitting was:
say A offers B the first prize (say it's a single booster pack) to have
B help A win.
If B could already win, then presumably they'd just say 'no', and win
themselves, and bingo, they have the booster pack.
If B couldn't win anyway, then they're not really doing anything wrong.
They're not violating what we'd consider PTW, because they already can't.
or something.
--
salem
(replace 'hotmail' with 'yahoo' to email)
XZealot
wrote:
> "Tetragrammaton" <nos...@none.com> schreef in berichtnews:7y6si.13066$pd1....@tornado.fastwebnet.it...
>
> > Jeroen Rombouts wrote:
> >> "bluedevil" <david.cherryhol...@gmail.com> schreef in bericht
> >>news:1185991076....@o61g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> >>> On Aug 1, 1:04 pm, "Jeroen Rombouts" <jeroen.rombou...@telenet.be>
> >>> wrote:
>
> >>>> But we're discussing 2 things here:
> >>>> - PTW in the finals: i can see that the finals are a unique kind of
> >>>> game, needing specific rules.
>
> >>> I can see that it is slightly different, but still a game of V:TES.
> >>> It's super-outstanding-one-of-a-kindness is not a very persuasive
> >>> argument (to me) for injecting elements that actually make that game
> >>> worse.
>
> >> PTW in the prelims is the special case, actually. It's nowhere in the
> >> rule book, iirc.
>
> > Not really - as the object of the game it's to "score the most VPS".
> > On the other side, in the final, as you're the first seed, you could play
> > just for not scoring anything, and being still the winner in the end.
> > That is in contrast with the object of the game as it's written, while
> > for the prelimins the pt(g)w makes perfect sense considering the
> > object of the game as it's presented in the rulebook.
>
> So the problem is the time limit?
Yep
Shade
> On Aug 1, 2:30 pm, "Matthew T. Morgan" <farq...@io.com> wrote:
>
> > I think you're putting the blame in the wrong place there. If someone
> > wins with .5 VPs, it's because nobody else tried to win. Rather than
> > change the rules, we need to retrain ourselves.
> > That's how to shake it up.
> I appreciate the perspective, but I don't think it's sufficient. For
> one thing, even if you are right, whatever incentives are already
> present are demonstratively not enough[1]. Second, since you can win
> the final with 1 VP regardless of your seeding as long as nobody else
> gets one, there's still lots of incentive from several angles to sit
> there, do nothing, and wait for somebody to screw up. Getting two
> that way, in the time allotted, is more difficult.
I have to agree with Matt here I think.
Everyone knows the situation at the start of the final so surely if
too many finals are timing out then the players have to look at how
they're playing the game. Yes once a player has a VP in a final then
it could be in their interests to chill out for a bit. On the flip
side, there is now a lot of incentive for three other players to also
get a VP and if those three players continue to chill out then, in my
view, the fault lies with those players and not with the rules.
Giving players that go into the final as top seed a small advantage
seems reasonable to me, it's not much of one and it's not like the
other four players don't know what they have to do.
Simon
Kevin M.
> Sorry for replying to my own post, but I see that I wrote something
> inconsistent and would like to correct it. If you can tie at 2 VP's
> then you could tie at 0.5 VP's. I'm not sure what the right system
> would be yet (maybe we could hash that out with further discussion),
> I'm just sure that I don't like the one we've got.
How about some kind of "sudden death" option, where if there are no VPs
earned after the final's time limit hits, then a non-removeable Smiling
Jack comes into play.
That would certainly get things moving. ;)
Kevin M., Prince of Las Vegas
"Know your enemy, and know yourself; in one-thousand battles
you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, *The Art of War*
"Contentment... Complacency... Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier
Peter D Bakija
Salem <salem_ch...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> i thought the point about prize splitting was:
>
> say A offers B the first prize (say it's a single booster pack) to have
> B help A win.
>
> If B could already win, then presumably they'd just say 'no', and win
> themselves, and bingo, they have the booster pack.
>
> If B couldn't win anyway, then they're not really doing anything wrong.
> They're not violating what we'd consider PTW, because they already can't.
I was responding to the notion that the rules about prize splitting
should be changed--some folks seem to want to make prize splitting
illegal at all, i.e. that when playing in the finals, players need to
pretend there are no prizes at all (and by doing so, remove the issue of
prize sharing for help all together, as they can't offer to share the
prize in the game).
What you mention above is certainly an issue, but not necessarily the
issue I was talking about.
Peter D Bakija
pd...@lightlink.com
http://www.lightlink.com/pdb6/vtes.html
librarian
> bluedevil <david.che...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Sorry for replying to my own post, but I see that I wrote something
>> inconsistent and would like to correct it. If you can tie at 2 VP's
>> then you could tie at 0.5 VP's. I'm not sure what the right system
>> would be yet (maybe we could hash that out with further discussion),
>> I'm just sure that I don't like the one we've got.
>
> How about some kind of "sudden death" option, where if there are no VPs
> earned after the final's time limit hits, then a non-removeable Smiling
> Jack comes into play.
>
> That would certainly get things moving. ;)
>
I like that.
Tetragrammaton
Care to explain why ? It does not create problems in the previous rounds,
so why it should on the final one ?
Emiliano
Tetragrammaton
> "Tetragrammaton" <nos...@none.com> schreef in bericht
> news:mB6si.13071$pd1....@tornado.fastwebnet.it...
>> Jeroen Rombouts wrote:
>>> "Tetragrammaton" <nos...@none.com> schreef in bericht
>>> news:FM2si.12787$pd1...@tornado.fastwebnet.it...
>>>
>>>> Anything that takes the players away from what's intended with the
>>>> game's object should be considered "bad" enough, imho.
>>>>
>>> Intended? PTW isn't in the rulebook. Time limits are not in the
>>> rulebook. So the finals should be played without time-limit and for
>>> the most VPs, because that's 'intended'?
>>
>> I was clearly referring to the goal of the game as it's presented in
>> the rulebook.
>
> Yes. And the rule book bases its assumption on: no time limit. So
> there is no need to define a GW.
I don't think this is supported by facts at all - i can't read anywhere in
the rulebook
that the game should be played without time limit - that's implied in every
game such
as a CCG (time limit for a given round, playing to win the game, buying the
cards to build
your deck, and so on).
>
>> (besides, PTW is implied in any game/competition, i think)
>
> Yes, but not in the exact terms we have for tournement games.
>
The principle is there, of course. What's implemented in the tournament
rules should reflect what's stated in the game rulebook - with pt(g)w
clearly
the object of the game is well implemented - with "win the tournament" for
the
final round it is not (though i can see the reason behind such rule).
>> And tournament rules should not allow to ignore that goal
>>
> And you would fix that how? Without creating a whole lot of new
> problems?
I don't see how having the players to play for the game win (as in the
previous ones)
would be a problem in the final round.
Emiliano
Jeroen
> Jeroen Rombouts wrote:
> > "librarian" <aucti...@superfuncards.com> schreef in bericht
PTW and the introduction of the GW solve (deal making) problems in the
previous rounds that we used to have. Implementing it in the finals
wouldn't make much sense, because it would have adverse effects. Look
at crispyfloss' post for a better explanation.
Jeroen
> Jeroen Rombouts wrote:
> > "Tetragrammaton" <nos...@none.com> schreef in bericht
> >news:mB6si.13071$pd1....@tornado.fastwebnet.it...
> >> Jeroen Rombouts wrote:
> >>> "Tetragrammaton" <nos...@none.com> schreef in bericht
> >>>news:FM2si.12787$pd1...@tornado.fastwebnet.it...
>
> >>>> Anything that takes the players away from what's intended with the
> >>>> game's object should be considered "bad" enough, imho.
>
> >>> Intended? PTW isn't in the rulebook. Time limits are not in the
> >>> rulebook. So the finals should be played without time-limit and for
> >>> the most VPs, because that's 'intended'?
>
> >> I was clearly referring to the goal of the game as it's presented in
> >> the rulebook.
>
> > Yes. And the rule book bases its assumption on: no time limit. So
> > there is no need to define a GW.
>
> I don't think this is supported by facts at all -
I'm just saying: time limits and game wins are not in the rulebook.
That's a fact.
>i can't read anywhere in
> the rulebook
> that the game should be played without time limit - that's implied in every
> game such
> as a CCG (time limit for a given round, playing to win the game, buying the
> cards to build
> your deck, and so on).
How can the rulebook take things into account that aren't mentioned
anywhere?
>
>
>
> >> (besides, PTW is implied in any game/competition, i think)
>
> > Yes, but not in the exact terms we have for tournement games.
>
> The principle is there, of course. What's implemented in the tournament
> rules should reflect what's stated in the game rulebook - with pt(g)w
> clearly
> the object of the game is well implemented
yes. But that doesn't suddenly make it 'the intended object of the
game', it makes it the 'intended object of a prelimenary round'
>- with "win the tournament" for
> the
> final round it is not (though i can see the reason behind such rule).
Why implement the GW in the final? What would it solve? Why isn't it
worse? You are not giving any reasons except for: 'because it should
be'
>
> >> And tournament rules should not allow to ignore that goal
>
> > And you would fix that how? Without creating a whole lot of new
> > problems?
>
> I don't see how having the players to play for the game win (as in the
> previous ones)
> would be a problem in the final round.
So you would like 3 people playing against a GW, instead of 1 player
winning when the game times out?
Jeroen
> Kevin M. wrote:
> > bluedevil <david.cherryhol...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Sorry for replying to my own post, but I see that I wrote something
> >> inconsistent and would like to correct it. If you can tie at 2 VP's
> >> then you could tie at 0.5 VP's. I'm not sure what the right system
> >> would be yet (maybe we could hash that out with further discussion),
> >> I'm just sure that I don't like the one we've got.
>
> > How about some kind of "sudden death" option, where if there are no VPs
> > earned after the final's time limit hits, then a non-removeable Smiling
> > Jack comes into play.
>
> > That would certainly get things moving. ;)
>
> I like that.
>