Finals Scoring Variant
John Whelan
determined randomly (and the top-seed seating privilige lost), there
might be inadequate incentive to play to win in preliminary rounds
(ie. the tiebreaker advantage might not be enough). I take no
position on whether this is in fact so, but it did inspire the
following idea.
(Finals seating is determined randomly. Judges need not announce the
preliminary scores or relative standing of the five finalists).
The winner of the tournament is he who scores a GW as currently
defined in the tournament rules (the single highest vp score in a
completed game; at least 2.5 vps in a timed-out game).
If there is no such person, the winner of the tournament is he who
scored the most GWs in preliminary rounds.
If 2 or more persons are tied for such score, the finals vp total is
used as a tie-breaker.
If there is still a tie, preliminary vp totals are used as a second
tie breaker.
(Preliminary round tournament points are a third tie-breaker).
-- John W.
Juggernaut1981
I don't see any real problem with that system.
I suspect that people entering the finals will want to know the
standing of the other finalists (not saying we need to let them know,
but then of course most people know how they did each round and could
'scout it out'). They would find the information more important to
them if they believed the final would time out.
John Whelan
> I don't see any real problem with that system.
It would lead to results that some might consider incongruous. For
instance, a player might be ousted in the finals with 0 vp, and 2
other players might end up tying the game 2 to 2. The ousted player
might end up with the championship just because he had more GWs in the
prelims than the other pair. BUT the ousted player WAS ahead in terms
of actually scoring GWs in that tournament, and if we really are
serious about promoting a GW-or-bust mentality, perhaps that should
trump a few vps -- even finals vps.
> I suspect that people entering the finals will want to know the
> standing of the other finalists (not saying we need to let them know,
> but then of course most people know how they did each round and could
> 'scout it out'). They would find the information more important to
> them if they believed the final would time out.
Sure. But I think the above system might make players (as a whole)
more cutthroat regardless of whether they found out.
Even a player who knew he was ahead on GWs might take risks and go for
the glory in the last 5 minutes of a tournament, since his ouster
might not cost him the tournament as long as no-one else earned a GW
Juggernaut1981
Oh wait... now I see what you mean.
A, B, C, D, E enter. Player E is the 1st Seed for the Finals. A
takes B, D takes out E and the game times out (leaving A: 1.5, B:0 C:
0.5, D: 1.5, E:0) but E wins the tournament? I'd find that a bit
affronting as either A or D. I'd probably amend it to say that
"Ousted Methuselah's in the Final are Ineligible to win the
tournament" (which would then spur on others to kill those with higher
seeding).
The other way to make it more of a bloodbath is: If there is a tie in
the finals, there is no 1st place awarded. Tie-breakers will not be
used and those players will tie for second (including the impact it
will have on their Rankings, etc. A tournament can ONLY be won by a
GW on the final table.
floppyzedolfin
> The winner of the tournament is he who scores a GW as currently
> defined in the tournament rules (the single highest vp score in a
> completed game; at least 2.5 vps in a timed-out game).
Why 2.5 and not "at least 2 and more than others" ?
John Whelan
Sorry. No reason. Just misquoting the actual rule. Ignore
parenthetical please.
John Whelan
> A, B, C, D, E enter. Player E is the 1st Seed for the Finals. A
> takes B, D takes out E and the game times out (leaving A: 1.5, B:0
> C: 0.5, D: 1.5, E:0) but E wins the tournament?
Yes, but only if the top seed ("E") has scored more GWs than A, C or
D. Merely being "top seed" won't do it for him in these
circumstances. For instance, if E and C both have earned 3 GW, and
the rest of the finalists have scored 2 GW, then C will take the
tournament due to his 0.5 vp in the finals.
> I'd probably amend it to say that
> "Ousted Methuselah's in the Final are Ineligible to win the tournament"
I considered that, but I did not want to start with something too
wordy. But I think it would have to be "Ousted methuselahs in the
final with less than 2 vp are ineligible to win the tournament."
> (which would then spur on others to kill those with higher
> seeding).
Well, I don't think killing the higher seed should be the goal.
Killing your prey should be the goal.
This amendment (that ousted meths with <2vp are ineligible) would make
the remaining players less cut-throat once he was ousted, because at
least one of them is more likely to think he can get a tournament win
without a GW.
> The other way to make it more of a bloodbath is: If there is a tie in
> the finals, there is no 1st place awarded. Tie-breakers will not be
> used and those players will tie for second (including the impact it
> will have on their Rankings, etc. A tournament can ONLY be won by a
> GW on the final table.
But what will tournament organizer do with his Prize Support?
John Whelan
> > "Ousted Methuselah's in the Final are Ineligible to win the tournament"
>
> I considered that, but I did not want to start with something too
> wordy. But I think it would have to be "Ousted methuselahs in the
> final with less than 2 vp are ineligible to win the tournament."
I also figured I'd take the "GWs trump everything" idea and run with
it for a while.
Matthew T. Morgan
> Yes, but only if the top seed ("E") has scored more GWs than A, C or
> D. Merely being "top seed" won't do it for him in these
> circumstances. For instance, if E and C both have earned 3 GW, and
> the rest of the finalists have scored 2 GW, then C will take the
> tournament due to his 0.5 vp in the finals.
Seems needlessly complicated, but the real problem is that if I make it to
the final with more GW than anybody else, then all I have to do is make
sure there's no GW at the final. My incentive is now to prevent the GW,
but I can do so without caring if I'm ousted or not.
Imagine: A->B->C->D->E. A got 3 GW in preliminary rounds. Nobody else
did. 10 minutes remain when C ousts D. C will likely oust E in the last
few minutes and get the GW and tournament win with 2.5 VPs. But wait, A
transfers out to give E a VP and now C fails to oust E giving A the win.
A never really tried to oust B and transfered out. Is this the kind of
behavior you want to encourage?
You could say A can't win if he's ousted (as was already suggested). So
then he has to be trickier, but still really doesn't have to go after B
ever. He can just flap his gums a lot, really. It's not an ideal
situation by any stretch. Under the current rules if A plays slowly and
tries to avoid anyone getting ousted, someone might still go down in the
last few minutes and then A loses. You would have him win.
I'm of the opinion that this isn't needed at all. I've participated in
some very exciting finals that go to time. Yes, sometimes players are
dragging their feet and it's basically just boring as heck. Other times
it's just a really strategic game. It would be nice to punish the players
in the former case without punishing those in the latter, but I've yet to
see any good suggestions that don't introduce other problems. But really
the current rules do a pretty good job at punishing the feet-draggers,
because they can't win unless they already have top seed.
John Whelan
> Seems needlessly complicated, [...]
I thought it was quite simple:
Trumping order: Final GWs: Prelim GWs: Final VPs: Prelim VPs; Prelim
TPs
And no more complicated than the current system (unless we need to
access Prelim TPs as a final tie breaker):
Trumping order: Final VPs: Prelim GWs: Prelim VPs: Prelim TPs
Though admittedly, adding a <2vp oust disqualification would make it
more complicated.
> [...]but the real problem is that if I make it to
> the final with more GW than anybody else, then all I have to do is make
> sure there's no GW at the final. My incentive is now to prevent the GW,
> but I can do so without caring if I'm ousted or not.
>
> Imagine: A->B->C->D->E. A got 3 GW in preliminary rounds. Nobody else
> did. 10 minutes remain when C ousts D. C will likely oust E in the last
> few minutes and get the GW and tournament win with 2.5 VPs. But wait, A
> transfers out to give E a VP and now C fails to oust E giving A the win.
> A never really tried to oust B and transfered out. Is this the kind of
> behavior you want to encourage?
Good point!
> You could say A can't win if he's ousted (as was already suggested). So
> then he has to be trickier, but still really doesn't have to go after B
> ever. He can just flap his gums a lot, really. It's not an ideal
> situation by any stretch. Under the current rules if A plays slowly and
> tries to avoid anyone getting ousted, someone might still go down in the
> last few minutes and then A loses. You would have him win.
Okay, but now you're not making a complaint that could not be made
about the current rules.
Under the current rules, there is ALWAYS a player at the table who
would be perfectly happy to let the game time out or tie. But there
are 4 other players working against him. If you increase the stall
incentives for the 1, you also increase the cutthroat incentives for
the other 4. And it's still 4 against 1.
> I'm of the opinion that this isn't needed at all. I've participated in
> some very exciting finals that go to time.
I think LSJ's idea was that an extra incentive was needed to encourage
players with 2 GW under their belt to PTW in the 3rd round of the
tournament.
Daneel
wrote:
> Imagine: A->B->C->D->E. A got 3 GW in preliminary rounds. Nobody else
> did.
A shouldn't be privy to this information.
> 10 minutes remain when C ousts D. C will likely oust E in the last few
> minutes and get the GW and tournament win with 2.5 VPs. But wait, A
> transfers out to give E a VP and now C fails to oust E giving A the win.
> A never really tried to oust B and transfered out. Is this the kind of
> behavior you want to encourage?
...and maybe someone else got 3 GW too with more VPs, and A just lost the
tournament here.
> I'm of the opinion that this isn't needed at all. I've participated in
> some very exciting finals that go to time. Yes, sometimes players are
> dragging their feet and it's basically just boring as heck. Other times
> it's just a really strategic game. It would be nice to punish the
> players in the former case without punishing those in the latter, but
> I've yet to see any good suggestions that don't introduce other
> problems. But really the current rules do a pretty good job at
> punishing the feet-draggers, because they can't win unless they already
> have top seed.
I think that the current system - with all non-winning finalists being
tied for second place - is much better than it used to be. Took a lot of
feet-dragging from the equation. I still think it's not perfect and I
welcome any debate on potential solutions that can strengthen the focus
on playing the game and remove the focus from other stuff (like scouting,
being buddies at a table, secretly pre-talking seating with other
players).
--
Regards,
Daneel
Matthew T. Morgan
> On Wed, 28 Jul 2010 11:19:43 -0500, Matthew T. Morgan <far...@io.com> wrote:
>
>> Imagine: A->B->C->D->E. A got 3 GW in preliminary rounds. Nobody else
>> did.
>
> A shouldn't be privy to this information.
Unless the tournament is truly gigantic, it would be child's play for A to
figure this out. You can't keep information like this a secret very
easily. I mean, it could be as simple as A played all the other players
in the preliminary rounds. Now how are you going to tell A he isn't top
seed?
witness1
> On Jul 28, 12:19 pm, "Matthew T. Morgan" <farq...@io.com> wrote:
> > You could say A can't win if he's ousted (as was already suggested). So
> > then he has to be trickier, but still really doesn't have to go after B
> > ever. He can just flap his gums a lot, really. It's not an ideal
> > situation by any stretch. Under the current rules if A plays slowly and
> > tries to avoid anyone getting ousted, someone might still go down in the
> > last few minutes and then A loses. You would have him win.
>
> Okay, but now you're not making a complaint that could not be made
> about the current rules.
>
> Under the current rules, there is ALWAYS a player at the table who
> would be perfectly happy to let the game time out or tie. But there
> are 4 other players working against him. If you increase the stall
> incentives for the 1, you also increase the cutthroat incentives for
> the other 4. And it's still 4 against 1.
The problem isn't that someone has incentive to time out the game;
that happens every time someone has at least two vps and limited
prospects for a third. The problem isn't that a player has incentive
to tie the game; that happens quite frequently when the game is down
to two players and one of them doesn't have a VP. These situations
arise naturally out of the normal goals of the game.
The problem is that one player gains an incentive to completely ignore
getting VPs for himself and instead throw them at certain other
players. This is a very bad thing for the predator/prey relationship,
and does far more damage to the idea of the finals being a standard
game of VTES than any amount of scouting could.
-witness1
Matthew T. Morgan
> The problem is that one player gains an incentive to completely ignore
> getting VPs for himself and instead throw them at certain other
> players. This is a very bad thing for the predator/prey relationship,
> and does far more damage to the idea of the finals being a standard
> game of VTES than any amount of scouting could.
Thanks. That's what I was getting at. Currently, if you're looking at
going into a final as 1st seed to time that sucker out, you still have to
seriously consider ousting your prey at some point. With the proposed
change, you really wouldn't. It could be furthest from your mind.
John Whelan
> The problem is that one player gains an incentive to completely ignore
But, as pointed out, this is exactly the same situation as exists
under the current rules. There is always one person at the table who
has (to the same limited degree) an "incentive" to not gain any more
victory points.
> [...] and instead throw them at certain other
> players.
Do you have an example, other than the one offered by Matt Morgan?
John Whelan
> Currently, if you're looking at
> going into a final as 1st seed to time that sucker out, you still have to
> seriously consider ousting your prey at some point.
Currently, if one player has scored one oust, and four players remain,
the leader does not have to consider ousting his prey at any time.
Whereas, under my variant, he must keep pushing for a GW.
Only difference is which person wears the "status quo is fine" hat.
Under the current system, the player interested in delay is more
likely to be a player in a position of power.
Matthew T. Morgan
> On Jul 28, 3:57 pm, "Matthew T. Morgan" <farq...@io.com> wrote:
>> Currently, if you're looking at
>> going into a final as 1st seed to time that sucker out, you still have to
>> seriously consider ousting your prey at some point.
>
> Currently, if one player has scored one oust, and four players remain,
> the leader does not have to consider ousting his prey at any time.
>
> Whereas, under my variant, he must keep pushing for a GW.
Right, in your variant the one guy who went and got something done might
not win.
> Only difference is which person wears the "status quo is fine" hat.
> Under the current system, the player interested in delay is more
> likely to be a player in a position of power.
How do you figure? Your top seed player wins unless another player gets 2
VPs. Seems like a pretty comfortable position to be in. Finals that go
to time with nobody ousted are rare. That means that in the current
system, the top seed player typically has to actually gain a VP to win a
tied game. Under your variant, he has no need or interest in doing so
(assuming the game looks like it will time out).
John Whelan
> On Wed, 28 Jul 2010, John Whelan wrote:
> > On Jul 28, 3:57 pm, "Matthew T. Morgan" <farq...@io.com> wrote:
> >> Currently, if you're looking at
> >> going into a final as 1st seed to time that sucker out, you still have to
> >> seriously consider ousting your prey at some point.
>
> > Currently, if one player has scored one oust, and four players remain,
> > the leader does not have to consider ousting his prey at any time.
>
> > Whereas, under my variant, he must keep pushing for a GW.
>
> Right, in your variant the one guy who went and got something done might
> not win.
Under my variant the guy with more GWs beats the guy with fewer GWs.
Getting a GW is getting something done. Otherwise (if they have equal
GWs), what you say is not true.
> > Only difference is which person wears the "status quo is fine" hat.
> > Under the current system, the player interested in delay is more
> > likely to be a player in a position of power.
>
> How do you figure?
Ousting people suggests a position of power, which can (and should) be
used to oust more people.
Suppose (under my proposal) I am the only player with 3 gw in the
prelims, and know it. I'm feeling "comfortable", and want to sit on
my ass the whole game. My grandpredator (2 gw in prelims) ousts my
predator, gains 6 pool, and sets his sights on me. Do I want to delay
him? You bet! Would I feel differently under the current system?
Hell no!
He feels differently, though. He (under the current system) might be
content to sit on his butt and wait for time out. But now, he is
desperate to oust me; and if he fails in his lunge, and gets ousted by
HIS predator, I find myself in the same position with the next guy.
And meanwhile (with fewer players) the turns are going by faster.
Maybe I should consider ousting someone.
The rules create momentum for those who oust, by granting extra pool.
My variant keeps them hungry too. They know they want 2 ousts, not 1,
before the bell rings, and they will act accordingly. They'll either
get their two ousts or die trying. Either way, my attempt to maintain
the "status quo" is screwed.
> Your top seed player wins unless another player gets 2 VPs.
This is true only of all other players (or all surviving other
players) have fewer GWs in the prelims.
> Seems like a pretty comfortable position to be in. Finals that go
> to time with nobody ousted are rare. That means that in the current
> system, the top seed player typically has to actually gain a VP to win a
> tied game. Under your variant, he has no need or interest in doing so
> (assuming the game looks like it will time out).
As I keep saying, this is ALWAYS true. SOMEONE always has an
incentive to maintain the status quo. Under the current system,
anyone who starts to get ahead grabs the "status quo" hat and starts
sitting on it. Every time the balance of power shifts in favor of a
player, he starts considering the option of using that power to time
out the table.
Not so under this variant. Even if I have more GWs in the prelims
than anyone else, I know my opponents are hungry and desperate. I'd
better get a GW for myself before they do it first. Only then will my
position be "comfortable".
John Whelan
Imagine 4 players remaining at a table. Player "A" has scored an
oust. Who, on average, is the most likely to be in a position to
score the next oust? Player "A", of course, first, because he has a
proven ability to oust, and second, because he just gained 6 pool.
My variant tends to give him the incentive to make that oust. The
current system tends to take it away.
"Ought implies can", as Kant said. Conversely, impossibility implies
to duty to try. All the motivation in the world will not help a
player who simply cannot score an oust.
My variant gives the motivation to the player most likely to have the
ability to achieve it. It's more efficient, that way.
John Whelan
> Conversely, impossibility implies
> to duty to try.
That should be "no duty to try", of course.
Juggernaut1981
Modified Rule: Finals cannot be won unless you survive to the end.
Finals can only be won via a GW. Those who do not score a GW and have
equal-highest VPs in the final are treated as equal second for ranking
purposes; there is no 1st place awarded.
Whatever method the Judge/Organiser wants to use for distributing
prize support should be used (I'm assuming they'd just do ranking
based on FGW-FVP-GW-VPs). If you're playing just for prize support it
won't matter how the winner of a final is determined, you'll probably
just play for Max VP/GW anyway to ensure the greatest part of the
prizes.
To win, you must score at least 2.5VPs. Because you must not only
oust two players, but you must also survive to the end. Mere survival
to the end (and getting 0.5VPs) will at most gain you Equal 2nd
(possibly less). You also need to actually survive AND eliminate two
other players. This probably means that at a final, most players will
be going for a 3+ VP haul, rather than just waiting for the game to
end. Everyone on the table has a reason to be very aggressive.
If you're worried about people janking games around by delaying
interminably or by bunkering down for the storm to pass, then this
should end that problem. It should end it because it would give every
player the inventive to go for blood and defend, not just defend.
Once you create a "ousted w/ 2+ VPs" clause, then once the first seed
gets 2+VPs everyone else can just pack up. Removing that ensures that
nobody is allowed to "rest on their laurels" but is prompted to be as
aggressive as they can manage while still ensuring their survival in
the game.
Matthew T. Morgan
> Modified Rule: Finals cannot be won unless you survive to the end.
> Finals can only be won via a GW. Those who do not score a GW and have
> equal-highest VPs in the final are treated as equal second for ranking
> purposes; there is no 1st place awarded.
Great. Now practically every final will time out as players who don't
feel they are in a position to win will attempt to prevent the game win so
that everybody ties for 2nd. I've seen this kind of crap in preliminary
rounds, so don't even dream it wouldn't be a constant problem in finals.
Under the current system, players who are in no position to win have no
incentive to do anything other than take that one-in-a-million shot. With
this rule, they would actively try to time the game out and prevent a win.
> Whatever method the Judge/Organiser wants to use for distributing
> prize support should be used (I'm assuming they'd just do ranking
> based on FGW-FVP-GW-VPs). If you're playing just for prize support it
> won't matter how the winner of a final is determined, you'll probably
> just play for Max VP/GW anyway to ensure the greatest part of the
> prizes.
Uh...well, you didn't get 2.5 VPs so you lose. Here's first prize! That
makes sense. Also note that you are now reintroducing different prizes
for 2nd-5th place and thus reintroducing incentives for finalists to play
for positions other than winning. How does that help?
Matthew T. Morgan
> Imagine 4 players remaining at a table. Player "A" has scored an
> oust. Who, on average, is the most likely to be in a position to
> score the next oust? Player "A", of course, first, because he has a
> proven ability to oust, and second, because he just gained 6 pool.
That's fine in theory. In practice, not so much. Yes, 6 pool helps, but
often in the course of ousting, some resource is spent, typically blood
off vampires, good offensive cards (as opposed to setup stuff, etc). I've
seen it a million times: somebody grabs a VP, runs out of steam, gets
caught in a hunt loop and dies horribly. With some exceptions (real fast
oust, Imbued, War Ghouls/Dragonbound, Smiling Jack, next prey is already
on the ropes) the player who just made an oust is often least able to make
the next one.
> My variant tends to give him the incentive to make that oust. The
> current system tends to take it away.
You give incentive to one player and take it from another. I'd call that
a wash. The current system has no disincentive to oust. You always want
to oust.
> "Ought implies can", as Kant said. Conversely, impossibility implies
> [no] duty to try. All the motivation in the world will not help a
> player who simply cannot score an oust.
Those are interesting thoughts to ponder, but I'm not sure how they relate
here. It's very frustrating to be in a final and to have no hope of
scoring an oust, yet be basically able to hold out for a while. I don't
see either method of final scoring as providing any cure for that.
However, "non-winners tie for 2nd" sure did. With even the slightest
chance for an oust, a smart player will go for it every time. You risk
nothing for everything. Best deal I ever heard of.
> My variant gives the motivation to the player most likely to have the
> ability to achieve it. It's more efficient, that way.
While you disincentivize someone else and create the possibility that
someone will oust the top-seeded player, yet still lose to that player.
Heck, the top seed could play Secret Horde for 30 on turn 1 and still win.
Not seeing the benefit, but the drawback is pretty plain.
John Whelan
> On Wed, 28 Jul 2010, John Whelan wrote:
> > Imagine 4 players remaining at a table. Player "A" has scored an
> > oust. Who, on average, is the most likely to be in a position to
> > score the next oust? Player "A", of course, first, because he has a
> > proven ability to oust, and second, because he just gained 6 pool.
>
> That's fine in theory. In practice, not so much. Yes, 6 pool helps, but
> often in the course of ousting, some resource is spent, typically blood
> off vampires, good offensive cards (as opposed to setup stuff, etc). I've
Let me clarify. All I am saying is that the player with the most
ousts has a relatively higher likelihood of being the player with the
most oust power. This seems intuitively correct to me. If you
dispute it, I'm not sure what more I can say.
For illustration: Suppose my proposition were that, on a 4 player
table, the player with 1 oust had a 34% chance of being the player
with the most oust power, whereas each of the 3 remaining players had
a 22% chance each of being the player with the most oust power
(instead of, say, an even 25% chance each). All the anecdotes and
counter-examples in the world would not disprove this model, since the
model predicts that such counter-examples will exist 66% of the time.
If you do continue to dispute it, I just say this: Fine, but this
proposal is still no worse than the current system. One player has a
"status quo" incentive, but all the others have a GW as their goal,
which makes him outnumbered. If he can't beat them, he had better
join them, and finish the game on his own terms.
> You give incentive to one player and take it from another. I'd call that
> a wash.
Okay. Let's assume my "oust power" idea is wrong, and I have merely
given the "status quo" hat to another player with equal oust power.
Let's assume it is, in that narrow sense a "wash".
First problem is, this was the basis of one of your criticisms. If
you concede it is a "wash", then your criticism goes "poof". You
concede that this feature is no different from the current system.
But it is a "wash" only in a very narrow sense. Looking at the
broader picture, it ignores my claim that it better incentivises GWs
in the final prelim round. Is that not a plus?
It also reorients the "incentive" towards obtaining a GW in the final,
and not merely on getting the most vps in the final. (As before, one
of the five players will not share this incentive, but he is
outnumbered 4 to 1). Is this reorientation not also a plus?
It ignores the possibility that the leader might be uncertain of his
relative standing, giving even the GW leader an incentive for a GW.
Is that not a plus?
> It's very frustrating to be in a final and to have no hope of
> scoring an oust, yet be basically able to hold out for a while. I don't
> see either method of final scoring as providing any cure for that.
> However, "non-winners tie for 2nd" sure did. With even the slightest
> chance for an oust, a smart player will go for it every time. You risk
> nothing for everything. Best deal I ever heard of.
My proposal does not change this feature. It merely re-orients it
(except as to 1 player) toward getting a GW rather than towards
getting an oust. As you concede, the dissent of the top seed did not
stop this from being effective. Why should this be less true in the
case of my proposal.
My proposal gives all players (except one) a reason to take risks
sooner and to collapse the table sooner. And I think even the one
player who is an exception will be swept along, because he probably
knows he cannot stop the other 4 except by winning himself.
> > My variant gives the motivation to the player most likely to have the
> > ability to achieve it. It's more efficient, that way.
>
> While you disincentivize someone else and create the possibility that
> someone will oust the top-seeded player, yet still lose to that player.
I thought were now discussing the "oust disqualifier" variant. I
thought I already conceded that giving the tournament win to ousted
players with 0 vp or 1 vp in the final might be slightly problematic.
> Heck, the top seed could play Secret Horde for 30 on turn 1 and still win.
I said your earlier example, of a last-minute self-oust, was a good
objection. But this first-minute self-oust example is just silly.
First, the top seed would lose by this method, unless he had more GWs
than any other player, and would risk losing unless he was certain of
his status. Second, even if he were certain that no other player had
an equal # of GWs, collapsing the table on turn 1, handing a vp to
your predator in the process, is a lousy way to make sure the game
does not go to time or result in a GW for someone else. Thirdly, is
this not blatantly illegal?
John Whelan
> Unless the tournament is truly gigantic, it would be child's play for A to
> figure this out. You can't keep information like this a secret very
> easily. I mean, it could be as simple as A played all the other players
> in the preliminary rounds. Now how are you going to tell A he isn't top
> seed?
I don't think this point helps your case much. Here's why.
You apparently postulate (for example) a small 3R+F tournament, where
a player has met all 4 fellow finalists in the preliminary rounds. He
knows he scored 3 GW, therefore he knows they all scored 2 GW at
most. He is therefore in a position to take advantage of this
knowledge, rather than playing to win in the final as (ideally) he
ought to.
My question is, if he has already beaten all 4 of his opponents fair
and square, why should I worry overmuch about his unfair advantage.
This example almost makes me wonder why we don't just skip the final,
declare the top seed the winner, and go home early. (Note: I said
ALMOST -- I can think of reasons why not).
I have, in other contexts, argued that the difference between first
seed and second seed, or even first seed and fifth seed, is not
necessarily great, and that we should give them an even playing
field. But in the context of THIS precise situation, I am not even
sure I care about the top seed ousting himself in the last 5 minutes
to prevent a GW for another player. This example almost makes me
wonder if these four other losers even deserve a chance -- even an
unequal one -- to revenge themselves on the top seed.
Matthew T. Morgan
> Let me clarify. All I am saying is that the player with the most
> ousts has a relatively higher likelihood of being the player with the
> most oust power. This seems intuitively correct to me. If you
> dispute it, I'm not sure what more I can say.
Well, I think it could be broken down into two cases. In one, a player
has a lot of momentum and the table is right. That player is going to
just take VPs and basically steamroll the table. There's nothing that
needs to be changed here because the expected and likely outcome is that
the player gets a table win.
The other case is a much closer game where anybody could fall and there's
no clear favorite. Much of the time in a game like that, it's very
important to pick the right time to take a VP. Misjudge the table and you
could be victim to the table's wrath. You could overextend and have no
friends to bail you out. It's fairly common for the first to oust to be
the second ousted. This occurred in two of the finals I played in at this
year's Origins, I believe. It's common enough in my experience that I
wouldn't say it's safe to assume that a player who's just gotten an oust
is in the best position to have another.
Did you know there's an actually school of thought in vtes where it's best
if your grandprey dies first? I've seen some very successful players
employ this strategy.
> For illustration: Suppose my proposition were that, on a 4 player
> table, the player with 1 oust had a 34% chance of being the player
> with the most oust power, whereas each of the 3 remaining players had
> a 22% chance each of being the player with the most oust power
> (instead of, say, an even 25% chance each). All the anecdotes and
> counter-examples in the world would not disprove this model, since the
> model predicts that such counter-examples will exist 66% of the time.
Suppose you invented some numbers that could be neither supported nor
debunked with available information. Looks like you did. What of it?
> If you do continue to dispute it, I just say this: Fine, but this
> proposal is still no worse than the current system. One player has a
> "status quo" incentive, but all the others have a GW as their goal,
> which makes him outnumbered. If he can't beat them, he had better
> join them, and finish the game on his own terms.
We already agreed I win ties so if it's a wash, that's good enough for
argument's sake.
>> You give incentive to one player and take it from another. I'd call that
>> a wash.
>
> Okay. Let's assume my "oust power" idea is wrong, and I have merely
> given the "status quo" hat to another player with equal oust power.
> Let's assume it is, in that narrow sense a "wash".
>
> First problem is, this was the basis of one of your criticisms. If
> you concede it is a "wash", then your criticism goes "poof". You
> concede that this feature is no different from the current system.
No, I don't. I concede that it is a wash in terms of who has incentive to
maintain the status quo. The problem with your plan is you now have a
player who is completely disincentivized from ever ousting his prey.
> But it is a "wash" only in a very narrow sense. Looking at the
> broader picture, it ignores my claim that it better incentivises GWs
> in the final prelim round. Is that not a plus?
No. The current system already does this. Remember my first post in this
thread where I said being top seed is awesome and you chimed in to say I
was being silly because everyone already agreed top seed was awesome? Top
seed is awesome. There is already full incentive to make preliminary
round game wins. Any player who is not fully incentivized to win every
possible preliminary round game is a fool.
> It also reorients the "incentive" towards obtaining a GW in the final,
> and not merely on getting the most vps in the final. (As before, one
> of the five players will not share this incentive, but he is
> outnumbered 4 to 1). Is this reorientation not also a plus?
It is only if you care about winning a tournament with 2.5 VPs in the
final versus winning with 1.5 VPs in the final. I don't care about that.
I'm fine with the 1.5 VP win. It was often hard fought. Finals sometimes
go slowly despite ones best efforts and 1.5 is all a player can do in two
hours. I don't want to punish the table's go-getter.
> It ignores the possibility that the leader might be uncertain of his
> relative standing, giving even the GW leader an incentive for a GW.
> Is that not a plus?
I just can't imagine the leader not being aware of his standing. It's too
easy to put that together. I've been to a lot of tournaments where
players keep track of relative seeding throughout the day and know who the
finalists will be and how they will be seeded.
>> It's very frustrating to be in a final and to have no hope of
>> scoring an oust, yet be basically able to hold out for a while. I don't
>> see either method of final scoring as providing any cure for that.
>> However, "non-winners tie for 2nd" sure did. With even the slightest
>> chance for an oust, a smart player will go for it every time. You risk
>> nothing for everything. Best deal I ever heard of.
>
> My proposal does not change this feature. It merely re-orients it
> (except as to 1 player) toward getting a GW rather than towards
> getting an oust. As you concede, the dissent of the top seed did not
> stop this from being effective. Why should this be less true in the
> case of my proposal.
>
> My proposal gives all players (except one) a reason to take risks
> sooner and to collapse the table sooner. And I think even the one
> player who is an exception will be swept along, because he probably
> knows he cannot stop the other 4 except by winning himself.
Everyone already has this incentive. At all times during the game there's
only one player who is winning should time be called. The others need to
make VPs or they lose. Period.
>>> My variant gives the motivation to the player most likely to have the
>>> ability to achieve it. It's more efficient, that way.
>>
>> While you disincentivize someone else and create the possibility that
>> someone will oust the top-seeded player, yet still lose to that player.
>
> I thought were now discussing the "oust disqualifier" variant. I
> thought I already conceded that giving the tournament win to ousted
> players with 0 vp or 1 vp in the final might be slightly problematic.
Okay. Never mind that then.
>> Heck, the top seed could play Secret Horde for 30 on turn 1 and still win.
>
> I said your earlier example, of a last-minute self-oust, was a good
> objection. But this first-minute self-oust example is just silly.
> First, the top seed would lose by this method, unless he had more GWs
> than any other player, and would risk losing unless he was certain of
> his status. Second, even if he were certain that no other player had
> an equal # of GWs, collapsing the table on turn 1, handing a vp to
> your predator in the process, is a lousy way to make sure the game
> does not go to time or result in a GW for someone else. Thirdly, is
> this not blatantly illegal?
It becomes illegal if an ousted player can't win the final. Otherwise,
self-ousting to victory is a venerated tradition in vtes. You'll never
succeed in taking it away from us.
Matthew T. Morgan
> Matthew T. Morgan wrote:
>> Unless the tournament is truly gigantic, it would be child's play for A to
>> figure this out. You can't keep information like this a secret very
>> easily. I mean, it could be as simple as A played all the other players
>> in the preliminary rounds. Now how are you going to tell A he isn't top
>> seed?
>
> I don't think this point helps your case much. Here's why.
The 3 GW guy who beat all other finalists was an extreme example. You
could just as easily stand up to go to the toilet and see a future
finalist sitting with his cards packed up looking sad, clearly ousted
early on.
> You apparently postulate (for example) a small 3R+F tournament, where
> a player has met all 4 fellow finalists in the preliminary rounds. He
> knows he scored 3 GW, therefore he knows they all scored 2 GW at
> most. He is therefore in a position to take advantage of this
> knowledge, rather than playing to win in the final as (ideally) he
> ought to.
>
> My question is, if he has already beaten all 4 of his opponents fair
> and square, why should I worry overmuch about his unfair advantage.
> This example almost makes me wonder why we don't just skip the final,
> declare the top seed the winner, and go home early. (Note: I said
> ALMOST -- I can think of reasons why not).
Because this is vtes and anything can happen, of course. A few years back
I was doing well in a fairly large tournament. I was likely headed to the
final with two game wins under my belt. Then in the third round I sat
next to a deck that was able to simply crush mine. And it did. And that
player had a game win already. This second win would put him in the final
with me, likely at a higher seed, where he could choose to prey on me and
destroy me. But then a miracle happened and his predator pulled of a
perfect lunge and ousted him. That deck didn't make it to the final and I
won.
This kind of thing happens constantly. I cringe a little when you talk
about the "Best Player" and stuff because there's so much luck involved in
seating, what decks you come up against, etc. Maybe that guy should've
been the "Best Player" that day, but he wasn't because somebody else (who
had few other VPs all day) pulled out a perfect lunge. This is just the
kind of stuff that happens in a multiplayer game. I like it.
So the guy who won all his preliminary rounds might've had a lot of help.
Say a rush deck smooshes the Arika deck at the table, then somebody else
bleeds right through both decks to get the win. He also won his other
tables. The Arika deck won the other two tables, but didn't get the 3rd
one because, basically, the rush deck decided to rush left instead of
right. This doesn't mean our hero can deal just as easily with the Arika
deck when nobody is there to rush her. It doesn't mean he can't. The
point of the final is basically to let these two take another crack at one
another.
> I have, in other contexts, argued that the difference between first
> seed and second seed, or even first seed and fifth seed, is not
> necessarily great, and that we should give them an even playing
> field. But in the context of THIS precise situation, I am not even
> sure I care about the top seed ousting himself in the last 5 minutes
> to prevent a GW for another player. This example almost makes me
> wonder if these four other losers even deserve a chance -- even an
> unequal one -- to revenge themselves on the top seed.
Seems like a snap judgment to me. You are leaving out the other nine
players who had the opportunity to affect the outcome of those games. If
you're right, then the final should be over nice and fast.
John Whelan
> Suppose you invented some numbers that could be neither supported nor
> debunked with available information. Looks like you did.
Yes. That's exactly what I did.
> What of it?
I used them in a hypothetical to illustrate a point, the validity of
which point obviously did not depend on the precise numbers chosen.
But you already knew that, right?
I think we're pretty much done now.
John Whelan
> The 3 GW guy who beat all other finalists was an extreme example. You
> could just as easily stand up to go to the toilet and see a future
> finalist sitting with his cards packed up looking sad, clearly ousted
> early on.
It would be hilarious if someone were, under the original version of
my proposal, to self-oust based on such a clue, based on such a "clue"
only to discover to his surprise that he had misread the evidence.
> > My question is, if he has already beaten all 4 of his opponents fair
> > and square, why should I worry overmuch about his unfair advantage.
> > This example almost makes me wonder why we don't just skip the final,
> > declare the top seed the winner, and go home early. (Note: I said
> > ALMOST -- I can think of reasons why not).
>
> Because this is vtes and anything can happen, of course.
You are answering the wrong question -- the one where I heavily hinted
"this is not my position -- please don't give me an argument about
it."
Kevin M.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!
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
Please visit VTESville daily! http://vtesville.myminicity.com/
Please bid on my auctions! http://shop.ebay.com/kjmergen/m.html
John Whelan
incentive for another player to eliminate the top seed cross table.
So this only eliminates the problem noted by Matt Morgan (the self-
oust example) by replacing it with unsportsmanlike behavior that is
arguably worse, and much less conducive to the goal of finding the
better player.
Matthew T. Morgan
> Matthew T. Morgan wrote:
>> The 3 GW guy who beat all other finalists was an extreme example. You
>> could just as easily stand up to go to the toilet and see a future
>> finalist sitting with his cards packed up looking sad, clearly ousted
>> early on.
>
> It would be hilarious if someone were, under the original version of
> my proposal, to self-oust based on such a clue, based on such a "clue"
> only to discover to his surprise that he had misread the evidence.
Sure, that would be a gas. I'm not really worried about players
overthinking the situation and doing something really dumb. That happens
all the time in vtes and will with the proposed change or not. It's a
complicated game. It's just like the old "okay, Anarchist Uprising will
oust two players and leave me at 1 pool, but I'll gain 6 and can take the
last guy in the duel. Sounds good! Okay, master phase, I'll play this
Jake Washington...." I digress.
>>> My question is, if he has already beaten all 4 of his opponents fair
>>> and square, why should I worry overmuch about his unfair advantage.
>>> This example almost makes me wonder why we don't just skip the final,
>>> declare the top seed the winner, and go home early. (Note: I said
>>> ALMOST -- I can think of reasons why not).
>>
>> Because this is vtes and anything can happen, of course.
>
> You are answering the wrong question -- the one where I heavily hinted
> "this is not my position -- please don't give me an argument about
> it."
You still posed the question. "Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I ask
that when you consider your verdict, that you not consider the completely
untrue charge that the defendant molests sheep. Just because everybody I
know swears he molests sheep doesn't make it true. We shouldn't even talk
about the way he probably molests poor, innocent, cute, cuddly sheep all
the freaking time all day while he collects unemployment checks and sticks
gum on subway seats. Because as far as I know, he doesn't do that and
I'll continue to insist he doesn't do any of those things, even though
nobody else in the world agrees with me."
John Whelan
> You still posed the question.
Fine. In that case, I concede that we should not skip the final
entirely.
Matthew T. Morgan
That's a really good point. Wish I'd made it. I think you'll have a lot
of problems any time you aren't awarding the win to whomever got the most
(or tied for the most) VPs in the final. Any time you can win with 0.5
with others actually getting ousted, you're going to encourage cross-table
ousts.
Matthew T. Morgan
Well, that's good. It seemed to me that your rhetorical point was that a
player who scored three GW in the preliminary round and played against all
other finalists in the preliminary rounds is so likely to clean up in the
final that we don't have to worry about non-PTW activity in the final that
leads to the tournament win (technically this wouldn't be non-PTW, but
ignoring ones prey in favor of a cross-table oust isn't the sort of
behavior either of us want to encourage).
That is the point I was disagreeing with, not "we shouldn't have finals."
Obviously someone with that view wouldn't be arguing new ways to seat and
score finals.
John Whelan
> Well, that's good. It seemed to me that your rhetorical point was that a
> player who scored three GW in the preliminary round and played against all
> other finalists in the preliminary rounds is so likely to clean up in the
> final that we don't have to worry about non-PTW activity in the final that
> leads to the tournament win (technically this wouldn't be non-PTW, but
> ignoring ones prey in favor of a cross-table oust isn't the sort of
> behavior either of us want to encourage).
No. My rhetorical point was that if that if Player A plays 2 games
against Player B (one in the prelims, the other the final), and Player
A wins the first game and Player B wins (or ought to win) the second
game, I'm not going to lose too much sleep over the fact that, on some
rare and unusual occasion, the first game, and not the second game,
will actually turn out to determine the tournament winner.
You can argue that Player B probably would have won the final, if not
for A's unsportsmanlike conduct, but that still leaves them (probably)
tied 1 game to 1 game, at best. It's not exactly an obvious case of
injustice.
Matthew T. Morgan
> No. My rhetorical point was that if that if Player A plays 2 games
> against Player B (one in the prelims, the other the final), and Player
> A wins the first game and Player B wins (or ought to win) the second
> game, I'm not going to lose too much sleep over the fact that, on some
> rare and unusual occasion, the first game, and not the second game,
> will actually turn out to determine the tournament winner.
So basically "it's vtes - crap happens." That's how I look at it. No
sense in changing the rules then.
John Whelan
> So basically "it's vtes - crap happens." That's how I look at it. No
> sense in changing the rules then.
???
John Whelan
> That's a really good point. Wish I'd made it. I think you'll have a lot
> of problems any time you aren't awarding the win to whomever got the most
> (or tied for the most) VPs in the final. Any time you can win with 0.5
> with others actually getting ousted, you're going to encourage cross-table
> ousts.
Well, I've come up with a 3rd variant, which seems to overcome most
issues (that I see). If I don't think better of it, maybe I'll let
you have a go at shooting it down too, if you're still interested.
Matthew T. Morgan
> Well, I've come up with a 3rd variant, which seems to overcome most
> issues (that I see). If I don't think better of it, maybe I'll let
> you have a go at shooting it down too, if you're still interested.
I'd be glad to!
Daneel
wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Jul 2010, Daneel wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 28 Jul 2010 11:19:43 -0500, Matthew T. Morgan <far...@io.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Imagine: A->B->C->D->E. A got 3 GW in preliminary rounds. Nobody
>>> else did.
>>
>> A shouldn't be privy to this information.
>
> Unless the tournament is truly gigantic, it would be child's play for A
> to figure this out. You can't keep information like this a secret very
> easily. I mean, it could be as simple as A played all the other players
> in the preliminary rounds. Now how are you going to tell A he isn't top
> seed?
Without going into the specifics of the seating too deeply... In 3 rounds
of 5-player games you will face a maximum of 12 adversaries. If you assume
a 20-player tournament (I assume that's not "truly gigantic")... I'd wager
that despite my rusty statistics the chances of you having played all the
other finalists (ignoring e.g. that you taking 3 GW means your opponents
are less likely to make the finals) wouldn't be significantly higher than
(12/19)ˇ4 (15.9%).
And remember, we're talking about the case when someone made 3 GW. The
chances of that happening at a tournament this size is not too high
(simply because there are so few games). So overall I don't feel that
the point you raise - while being valid - is really significant enough
to serve as a counter-argument.
--
Regards,
Daneel
Juggernaut1981
It creates a stronger incentive for the player behind the first seed
to oust the first seed. If they're gone, they can't rely on their
prior wins to 'bail them out'. That's the point of the 'oust
disqualifier', to prevent top seeds from being able to 'coast' their
way to victory. Yes, everyone has a reason to oust them, but if
winning criteria is Finals GW or bust, then everyone's motivations
should be stronger for ousting their prey (whomever it is) instead of
ousting the first seed X-table.
salem
It also creates the undesirable outcome of someone getting 3vps, and then
getting ousted, not actually winning the tournament.
Unless I am misinterpreting the exclusion on ousting proposed modification?
--
salem