Seating position stats from local social games
Salem
be entered into a database. So far I have only had time/inclination to
enter 36 of them.
XXXXXXXXXX
Number of games recorded
XXXXXXXXXX
count(*)
36
XXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXX
Game sizes
XXXXXXXXXX
Game_size|count(*)
4|26
5|7
3|3
XXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXX
Starting positions
XXXXXXXXXX
Seating_Position|Number_of_Game_Wins|Number_of_VPs
1|11|36.0
2|9|41.0
3|8|41.0
5|3|13
4|0|12.5
XXXXXXXXXX
Moral of the story: going 1st kicks ass. Screw having 4 transfers first
turn, that's for chumps.
--
salem
(replace 'hotmail' with 'gmail' to email)
chedcan
that kind of data analysis interesting.
Salem
> I personnaly wouldn't include the 3 players games in there but I find
> that kind of data analysis interesting.
the database also includes players, deck names, who ousted who, who
survived, etc. it all came about because i started to write down on
scraps of paper how each of my decks was doing and how often i played it
so i would get some idea of what decks needed more tuning/playing, and
just grew from there. plus i wanted to have a dabble at database modeling.
long term it should end up with a nice web interface onto the data, etc.
and include all the games i have recorded (60-ish more to go, plus new
games as we play them).
once live you can include or exclude whatever size games you like. :)
We currently play anywhere from 3- to 7-player games, depending on how
many people turn up and how we're feeling and how late it is.
We try and get 4 or 5 player games where we can, though, as that is the
sweet spot.
for anyone who's interested, here's the schema from SQLite (some columns
aren't used yet. some tables, like Location, also don't exist yet. and
excuse the formatting, i don't know why it went like that. and some of
the columns i forgot to create at the start so added on after. and most
of the primary keys should have been integers, but whatever. basically,
it's a mess. but it works.):
CREATE TABLE deck(
ownr_plyr_id decimal(7,0),
dck_id decimal(7,0),
dck_nm varchar(50),
dck_dscn varchar(200)
);
CREATE TABLE game(gm_id decimal(7,0) primary key, gm_dt date, gm_lctn_id
decimal(7,0), gm_typ varchar(50), gm_nm varchar(50));
CREATE TABLE ousting(plyr_id decimal(7,0), gm_id decimal(7,0),
oustd_plyr_id decimal(7,0), oustd_ordr smallint);
CREATE TABLE player(plyr_id decimal(7,0) primary key, plyr_nm
varchar(50), plyr_eml varchar(50), fav_clan varchar(50));
CREATE TABLE playergame(plyr_id decimal(7,0), gm_id decimal(7,0), dck_id
decimal(7,0), pstn_num smallint, VPs decimal(2,1), srvvd_cd char(1), GW
smallint);
Chris Berger
only 7 5-player games in the dataset, the 5th players did better than
the 33 players that went 4th. That's kind of crazy - 4th should
really be the sweet spot on the table, especially considering that 5th
gets no advantage over 4th to make up for playing after him...
per game averages based on your list:
1st - 1.0 VP / .30 GW
2nd - 1.13 VP / .25 GW
3rd - 1.13 VP / .22 GW
4th - .379 VP / 0.0 GW
5th - 1.86 VP / .43 GW
Which shows 5th position as the statistically best position, despite
being the worst theoretical position.
It would be interesting how well this is born out by increases in the
data set. I suspect that the positions would level out a little bit,
and 5th would probably fall back to the pack. 1st, which is
theoretically the best position, would probably continue to have a
slight edge in GW, but I suspect that the 1.0 VP/game average would
probably stay the same.
My thought is that very fast decks will tend to drive up the VP count
in relation to GW, while "good" decks will drive up the GW count in
relation to VP (good, fast decks would have a sort of balance). And
IMHO, going first doesn't benefit fast decks very much.
loca...@hotmail.de
very often, that somebody with a very strong start is getting ousted
first or at least weakend very soon, because if you appear as a table
thread you soon find yourself playing against the entire table. I've
often experienced, that after haveing a bad start (like 3 copies of
the same vamp in the crypt or an early master or other card jam in the
hand), I find myself in a solid position after an hour of playing
without getting the attention of the table. Never forget the ultimate
v:tes truth: rushing gives you vp's, patience gives you game wins.
Juggernaut1981
Why does 1st position win? They effectively get 5 transfers and 2
masters before anyone near them brings out a vampire (weenie hordes
sold separately).
Why does 5th position win? Their prey gets 3 less transfers after any
full rotation of the table... so you've got a better chance of getting
out someone with some serious clout before your 1st-position prey.
Why does 4th blow chunks? Predator can get out a <7cap vampire
without much difficulty and you can only get an <=8cap out. Most 7 &
8 caps are close-ish in power. Also your prey can get out a <= 8 cap
reliably in the same "circuit of players". So you're stuck between
the two other players who are "best set up".
Seems logical enough to me...
LSJ
> Why does 1st position win? They effectively get 5 transfers and 2
> masters before anyone near them brings out a vampire (weenie hordes
> sold separately).
Solid.
> Why does 5th position win? Their prey gets 3 less transfers after any
> full rotation of the table... so you've got a better chance of getting
> out someone with some serious clout before your 1st-position prey.
Spurious.
There's no in-game magical barrier at "a full rotation".
Kevin M.
> I have a huge pile of social game results recorded on paper,
> waiting to be entered into a database. So far I have only had
> time/inclination to enter 36 of them.
[snip data with lots of X's]
> Moral of the story: going 1st kicks ass.
> Screw having 4 transfers first turn, that's for chumps.
I would suggest that: Since the number of turns in VTES are not
equalized, and since having an "extra" CCG turn is incredibly strong,
and since the earlier position you begin from is directly related to
the highest number of turns per player, therefore "going first wins
more often than the other seating positions."
The game is already long enough, but it would be interesting to see
if equalizing the number of turns per player after the time limit has
expired would shift the balance over to the later-starting positions.
Perhaps changing the (standard) number of transfers to 5 instead of 4
would rebalance this back to the later positions.
Scott, has any serious thought been given to shifting the transfer rules
to 1...2...3...4...5...5...5...? If such a change were ever to be thought
possible, I would think that simply making 5 and not 4 the standardized
transfer amount would be the easiest change to transition to. It would
also solve some of the perceived problems with going 5th, some of the
perceived problems with 9-caps, and would be consistent with what
seems to be the modern trend of increasing the power of larger-capacity
vampires.
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/
jwjbw...@gmail.com
> Scott, has any serious thought been given to shifting the transfer
> rules to 1...2...3...4...5...5...5...?
I'm not sure what purpose that would serve. If the idea is merely to
change the disadvantage of going 5th by allowing 5 transfers for
player 5, then I would think that the 1-2-3-4-5 pattern should be
restricted to 1st turn, and 4 transfers should occur thereafter.
> If such a change were ever
> to be thought possible, I would think that simply making 5 and not
> 4 the standardized transfer amount would be the easiest change to
> transition to. It would also solve some of the perceived problems
> with going 5th, some of the perceived problems with 9-caps, and
> would be consistent with what seems to be the modern trend of
> increasing the power of larger-capacity vampires.
Assuming increasing the power of large vamps was a good idea in the
past, it need not follow that continuing to increase their power will
be a good idea in the future. It only shows that this can be done
without changing the base rules.
LSJ
> On Apr 1, 7:56 pm, "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote:
>> Scott, has any serious thought been given to shifting the transfer
>> rules to 1...2...3...4...5...5...5...?
>
> I'm not sure what purpose that would serve. If the idea is merely to
> change the disadvantage of going 5th by allowing 5 transfers for
> player 5, then I would think that the 1-2-3-4-5 pattern should be
> restricted to 1st turn, and 4 transfers should occur thereafter.
Kevin's suggestion would, for a 5-player table, have a uniform arrangement of
"total transfers"
P1: 1
P2: 2
P3: 3
P4: 4
P5: 5
P1: 6
P2: 7
...
Bumping form 5 back down to 4 would not. But it would maintain the current
plateau, just at different spot:
Official:
P1: 1
P2: 2
P3: 3
P4: 4
P5: 4
P1: 5
P2: 6
P3: 7
P4: 8
P5: 8
P1: 9
P2: 10
...
Bump-5 (and then back to 4):
P1: 1
P2: 2
P3: 3
P4: 4
P5: 5
P1: 5
P2: 6
P3: 7
P4: 8
P5: 9
P1: 9
P2: 10
...
Bump-5 doesn't seem to be enough of a difference to warrant a change, without
even addressing the question as to whether the difference is a good one.
But Straight-5 seems to be a real change and arguably a good one. Until you look
at the four player table:
P1: 1
P2: 2
P3: 3
P4: 4
P1: 6
P2: 7
P3: 8
P4: 9
P1: 11
That's worse on two levels: The gap is greater than 1 and the gap falls on the
benefit of p1, who already has the extra MPA and discard.
So, probably not.
Kevin M.
> On Apr 1, 7:56 pm, "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote:
>> Scott, has any serious thought been given to shifting the transfer
>> rules to 1...2...3...4...5...5...5...?
>
> I'm not sure what purpose that would serve. If the idea is merely to
> change the disadvantage of going 5th by allowing 5 transfers for
> player 5, then I would think that the 1-2-3-4-5 pattern should be
> restricted to 1st turn, and 4 transfers should occur thereafter.
Why allow the change but then re-restrict it? Seems counterproductive
and overly complicated.
Kevin M.
You could say that, when looking at the 4-player table, player1 has some
kind of advantage, but you could also say that, since that the majority of
tables in competition play are 5-player tables (63%, looking at 35-players
and below) and since the game is already long enough and more transfers
in general would speed it up, perhaps this would be a useful change. That's
basically what I was thinking, even given this new player1-has-even-more-
advantage data.
Perhaps the "standard" number of transfers should be X where X is the
number of players at the table? Easy to remember, solves some problems.
4-player: 1...2...3...4...4...4...
5-player: 1...2...3...4...5...5...5...
Blooded Sand
> LSJ wrote:
With a minimum of 4 preferably, as 3 player tables get hosed by this.
1,2,3,3,3...
Salem
> Why does 1st position win? They effectively get 5 transfers and 2
> masters before anyone near them brings out a vampire (weenie hordes
> sold separately).
> Why does 5th position win? Their prey gets 3 less transfers after any
> full rotation of the table... so you've got a better chance of getting
> out someone with some serious clout before your 1st-position prey.
don't these two perspectives contradict? 1st IS 5th's prey.
gra...@hotmail.com
and subsequently his playgroup, are from Canberra.
And they be dodgey!
:-P
--> J
grail_pbem "at" hotmail.com
http://www.geocities.com/grail_j
Kevin M.
I don't care about a format that doesn't exist. Play anything you want.
carn...@gmail.com
Then don't call it "standard", when a "standard" rulebook game has
from two to as many players as you care to slog through. (In fact, the
_very first sentence_ of the rulebook defines the game as 'two or more
players'.)
If you want it to be the tournament rule, that's fine, but tournament
play is not "standard", merely formalized with a set of rules that
doesn't quite match how the rules tell you to play a 'normal' game.
And lots and lots of players around the world play VTES without ever
participating in a tournament.
If what you mean is "I don't care about a format that I personally
never play", that's fine; but your apparently tournament-only
participation is not the standard by which the rules are written (or
even played most commonly.)
> Kevin M., Prince of Las Vegas
-John Flournoy
carn...@gmail.com
>> 1,2,3,3,3...
> I don't care about a format that doesn't exist. Play anything you want.
Taking it a step further: Even in tournament play, this format exists
and has been officially run on multiple occasions; one previously-used
format for three players is "Rapid Thought."
> Kevin M., Prince of Las Vegas
-John Flournoy
carn...@gmail.com
> be entered into a database. So far I have only had time/inclination to
> enter 36 of them.
>
> turn, that's for chumps.
Additional moral of the story: 36 results with 5 possible outcomes is
a very insignificantly small statistical sample size to make blanket
judgements about.
I'd be interested to see a larger set of results, though.
> salem
> (replace 'hotmail' with 'gmail' to email)
-John Flournoy
carn...@gmail.com
> You could say that, when looking at the 4-player table, player1 has some
> kind of advantage, but you could also say that, since that the majority of
> tables in competition play are 5-player tables (63%, looking at 35-players
> and below) and since the game is already long enough and more transfers
> in general would speed it up, perhaps this would be a useful change. That's
> basically what I was thinking, even given this new player1-has-even-more-
> advantage data.
>
> Perhaps the "standard" number of transfers should be X where X is the
> number of players at the table? Easy to remember, solves some problems.
> 4-player: 1...2...3...4...4...4...
> 5-player: 1...2...3...4...5...5...5...
If your concern is competition play, why is a change necessary?
Competition play already reduces the amount of advantage a player
gains by going first by rotating seating positions between rounds (or
at least attempts to via Archon) so that any advantage gained in one
game by going 1st is reduced by having to sit in a later position in
later rounds (and vice versa)?
Keep in mind that there isn't necessarily _any_ current advantage to
going 1st-3rd in terms of the original statistical analysis; the
sample size stated is so small as to be meaningless in terms of going
'boy, a change to the rules of the game is needed'. Salem's result
pool is, for example, less than the total number of games played in
the two Las Vegas qualifier tournaments in February.
Also, someone else (Matt) pointed out that one current advantage of
going 4th or 5th is in knowing that you can bring out an 8-cap vampire
(which he claims include a number of very strong vampires) before
anyone in 1st-3rd can without their devoting some of their limited
deck resources to accelerating transfers. Allowing 5 transfers shifts
that "I can get him first" to 9-caps, which we've just seen in another
thread are often viewed as substantially weaker.
-John Flournoy
bwr...@mail.com
> Juggernaut1981 wrote:
> > Why does 5th position win? Their prey gets 3 less transfers after any
> > full rotation of the table... so you've got a better chance of getting
> > out someone with some serious clout before your 1st-position prey.
>
> Spurious.
> There's no in-game magical barrier at "a full rotation".
There may not be "a full rotation" barrier, but there certainly is a
full rotation impulse: you get your turn, everyone else does stuff,
you get your next turn to respond. It's a player relative perspective
thing, not an outsider absolute one. This is not the reason that this
argument fails though.
This argument fails because it uses the number of transfers at the end
of the influence phase... which is not really relevant, because you
can't do much after that point. At the start of the 5th player's
turn, player 1 will have had 1 more transfer than player 5 has had in
the game (barring card effects)... which is exactly the same situation
as player 1, 2, and 3. Player 4, on the other hand has had the same
number of transfers as player 5. Meaning that this is why player 4
should "win" ("win" is a bad choice of word, what we're really talking
about is "advantages" of specific seats... how much a particular
advantage can be converted in a specific game situation is going to
vary widely (this one is probably not going to get you much)).
Brent Ross
Juggernaut1981
> > masters before anyone near them brings out a vampire (weenie hordes
> > sold separately).
>
>
> > Why does 5th position win? Their prey gets 3 less transfers after any
> > full rotation of the table... so you've got a better chance of getting
> > out someone with some serious clout before your 1st-position prey.
>
> Spurious.
> There's no in-game magical barrier at "a full rotation".
LSJ: I was looking for a neat way to describe the situation where
every player has taken the same number of turns.
Play1 gets the potential advantage of early actions unblocked or
unblockable due to lack of prey/pred minions.
Play5 gets the potential advantage of having significantly more
powerful vampires ready to block Play1 actions.
Play2 to Play4 all have roughly the same level of advantage with Play3
& Play4 in roughly the worst spots having no real advantage over their
preys.
Salem: Can you cross check those Play1 and Play5 wins to see how many
of them were done by "weenie" crypts? I have a suspicion that those
decks benefit most from being in those two positions more-so than any
other position on the table.
James Coupe
>There may not be "a full rotation" barrier, but there certainly is a
>full rotation impulse: you get your turn, everyone else does stuff,
>you get your next turn to respond.
A player who is worried by this "full rotation impulse" can build a deck
to lessen the effects. Examples:
- they can include bleed bounce
- they can include Wash and Sudden Reversal
- they can include Delaying Tactics
- they can include Direct Intervention, to cancel votes or promote
negotiation
- they can include Eagle's Sight, to interfere cross-table
- they can block their predator or prey, or whatever.
And mountains of other more specific things, by card text.
Obviously, any given deck can ignore all of these things and still do
well - all guns blazing Malk94 being perhaps the most obvious one. And
some decks probably do too much of the above, slowing games down without
making the playing Methuselah win. But if you're worried about having
to wait for your own turn to respond? You absolutely don't have to.
--
James Coupe
PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D YOU ARE IN ERROR.
EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 NO-ONE IS SCREAMING.
13D7E668C3695D623D5D THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.
Kevin M.
>>> With a minimum of 4 preferably, as 3 player tables
>>> get hosed by this. 1,2,3,3,3...
>>
>> I don't care about a format that doesn't exist.
>> Play anything you want.
>
> Then don't call it "standard", when a "standard" rulebook game has
> from two to as many players as you care to slog through. (In fact, the
> _very first sentence_ of the rulebook defines the game as 'two or more
> players'.)
>
> If you want it to be the tournament rule, that's fine, but tournament
> play is not "standard", merely formalized with a set of rules that
> doesn't quite match how the rules tell you to play a 'normal' game.
>
> And lots and lots of players around the world play VTES without ever
> participating in a tournament.
>
> If what you mean is "I don't care about a format that I personally
> never play", that's fine; but your apparently tournament-only
> participation is not the standard by which the rules are written (or
> even played most commonly.)
Sorry. I should have stated that I believe that VTES should never, ever,
for any reason, be played as anything other than a 4- or 5-player game,
for reasons obvious given the current card set and tournament rules, and
that if you don't agree with that (and I know who you are) then my
suggestion was only meant for a tournament environment.
Kevin M.
>>> With a minimum of 4 preferably, as 3 player tables get hosed by
>>> this. 1,2,3,3,3...
>
>> I don't care about a format that doesn't exist. Play anything you
>> want.
>
> Taking it a step further: Even in tournament play, this format exists
> and has been officially run on multiple occasions; one previously-used
> format for three players is "Rapid Thought."
Read Kindred Spirits and you'll see why Rapid Thought, while perhaps
an interesting thought-experiment, should never have been implemented
without a banned list.
Kevin M., Prince of Las Vegas
LSJ
> On Apr 2, 9:27 am, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
>> Juggernaut1981 wrote:
>>> Why does 1st position win? They effectively get 5 transfers and 2
>>> masters before anyone near them brings out a vampire (weenie hordes
>>> sold separately).
>> Solid.
>>
>>> Why does 5th position win? Their prey gets 3 less transfers after any
>>> full rotation of the table... so you've got a better chance of getting
>>> out someone with some serious clout before your 1st-position prey.
>> Spurious.
>> There's no in-game magical barrier at "a full rotation".
>
> LSJ: I was looking for a neat way to describe the situation where
> every player has taken the same number of turns.
Yes. And I was looking for a neat way to point out that that is a spurious
concept, as far as the game mechanics are concerned.
> Play1 gets the potential advantage of early actions unblocked or
> unblockable due to lack of prey/pred minions.
> Play5 gets the potential advantage of having significantly more
> powerful vampires ready to block Play1 actions.
No. Consider a game where the players are numbered P2, P3, P4, P5, and P1.
P2 goes first with 2 transfers. Then P3 with 3, P4 with 4, P5 with 4 and then P1
with 5. Then everyone continues with 4.
Now P1 (the last player) has "significantly more powerful vampires" than the
first player (P2). And P1 is in slightly better position than P5.
At least "after one full rotation".
Now, increase P1's advantage slightly by letting him take one of his 5 transfers
before the game even begins (so that he can act with a 1-cap on his first turn
if he chooses). And let him also play a master card before the game. And
mulligan 1 card from his hand.
That's the official game.
So, yes, you could pick a moment in the course of the game where a given player
has just done everything he could to increase his position and before others can
respond to that. And say "at this time, this player has the advantage".
For P1, it's when his turn ends.
Likewise, for P2, it's when P2's turn ends.
Similarly for P3, P4, P5, and again for P1 and so on until the game ends.
LSJ
> carn...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> With a minimum of 4 preferably, as 3 player tables get hosed by
>>>> this. 1,2,3,3,3...
>>> I don't care about a format that doesn't exist. Play anything you
>>> want.
>> Taking it a step further: Even in tournament play, this format exists
>> and has been officially run on multiple occasions; one previously-used
>> format for three players is "Rapid Thought."
>
> Read Kindred Spirits and you'll see why Rapid Thought, while perhaps
> an interesting thought-experiment, should never have been implemented
> without a banned list.
I've read it. I don't see the issue. KS is much less an issue in Rapid Thought
than in 4p or 5p, since ousting your predator in Rapid Thought is nearly
impossible to turn into an advantage.
LSJ
Oh, and it hasn't ever been implemented without a banned list, besides.
Juggernaut1981
>
> - Show quoted text -
Most games last somewhere around 10 turns, from what I can recall.
So assessing table balance at the end of each player's 1st turn is as
valid as assessing it at any point during that 1st turn or during any
other turn by your reasoning.
I am suggesting that assessing the balance of the table after every
Methuselah has had the same number of turns is a valid reference
point. All Methuselahs have had the same number of opportunities as
each other to further their cause.
(Tx = Turn x)
End of T1
P1 is unlikely to have influenced a vampire, but is likely to have
played any game-critical masters that have no vampire-based
requirements (vampire target, clan requirement, etc) and discarded.
P5 has a significant chance to influence out a vampire capable of
using the usual 2 or 3 disciplines included in decks (decks rarely run
more than 3 disciplines and generally are the special reserve of the
Superstar Deck). Except in the case of weenie-swarm decks, players do
not influence out preferring to work on their >6cap vampire with all
needed disciplines at SUP.
P2 & P3 are unlikely to have influenced a vampire unless they are a
Weenie deck.
P4 has the same chance as P5, however P4's Prey (P5) also has this
opportunity.
End of T2 (assuming no influenced vampires and neither P1 or P5 are
weenie decks)
P1 will either bring out a 5cap vampire now (to gain early advantage)
or will have deliberately chosen in T1 to work on an 8cap or 9cap to
be influenced out in T3. They play any relevant masters and may
discard a card. *P1s largest vampire at this stage is 5cap
P5 will have the opportunity to bring out any vampire between 5 and 8
cap. This vampire is likely to have all of the clan requirements and
discipline requirements of the deck. *P5s largest vampire at this
stage is 8cap
P2 & P3 are likely to now have a 6cap and 7cap respectively. If P2 is
playing a fatty crypt, this could see P2 going for a 10cap. Either
this or they now have 2+ vampires of <4 cap.
P4 will have the opportunity to bring out any vampire between 5 and
8cap, exactly the same as their prey.
Start of T3
Assumed Table Position
P5 has a single vampire 6cap or greater
P4 has a single vampire 6cap or greater
P3 has an up to 7cap vampire
P2 has a 5 or 6cap vampire
P1 has either a single 5cap or no vampire at all.
P4 has no real advantage over P5, both have the same number of master
phase opportunities, discard phase opportunities and they both have
one vampire each.
P2 & P3 are roughly evenly matched, but P2 has less pressure than P3
since P1 has either a 5cap or no vampire.
P5 has equivalent power to P4 but P1 has either a 5cap or no vampire.
If P5 has any capability to block actions of P1, then P5 has a
relative positional advantage over every other player (P5 has capable
vampire to apply pressure, P1 has reduced chance of applying pressure
to prey because of P5). Also, P4 has a relative positional
disadvantage over every other player (Prey is equally capable to
predator).
The easiest way to reverse this position is if either P1 or P4 are
playing weenie decks. P1 gains the advantage of an "early start" by
potentially bleeding with a 1cap in T2. P4 gains the advantage of
maximum possibly minions influenced in T1 ready for use in T2 while P5
may not have any minions.
This logic supports the statistical results that most wins come from
P1 & P5. We can debate the statistical validity of a sample of 35
games, but any broad trend would begin to show amongst any sample
greater than 15 in such a situation. Of course the trends will become
more obvious in time.
It may also be good to try get results from spreadsheets such as
Archon for tournaments and compile them to compare the number of VPs &
GWs gained by table position. To be able to allocate any effect
caused by certain archetypes having significant advantage in certain
positions, we would need to have records of broad deck-type associated
with each VP & GW (and this would be difficult to do retrospectively
but probably not too hard prospectively)
LSJ
>> P2 goes first with 2 transfers. Then P3 with 3, P4 with 4, P5 with 4 and then P1
>> with 5. Then everyone continues with 4.
>>
>> Now P1 (the last player) has "significantly more powerful vampires" than the
>> first player (P2). And P1 is in slightly better position than P5.
>>
>> At least "after one full rotation".
>>
>> Now, increase P1's advantage slightly by letting him take one of his 5 transfers
>> before the game even begins (so that he can act with a 1-cap on his first turn
>> if he chooses). And let him also play a master card before the game. And
>> mulligan 1 card from his hand.
>>
>> That's the official game.
>>
>> So, yes, you could pick a moment in the course of the game where a given player
>> has just done everything he could to increase his position and before others can
>> respond to that. And say "at this time, this player has the advantage".
>>
>> For P1, it's when his turn ends.
>> Likewise, for P2, it's when P2's turn ends.
>> Similarly for P3, P4, P5, and again for P1 and so on until the game ends.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> Most games last somewhere around 10 turns, from what I can recall.
Hmm. OK. That's fine.
> So assessing table balance at the end of each player's 1st turn is as
> valid as assessing it at any point during that 1st turn or during any
> other turn by your reasoning.
... and by the rules of the game, yeah.
Not sure what the connection with "10 turns" is, however.
> I am suggesting that assessing the balance of the table after every
> Methuselah has had the same number of turns is a valid reference
> point.
No. It is an artificial reference point that artificially highlights P5's
natural advantage at having just completed his turn.
Your method would show that black has the advantage in chess. They both have had
an equal number of moves, but black gets to plan his move after white has made
his decision.
> All Methuselahs have had the same number of opportunities as
> each other to further their cause.
No. Thanks to the ramp-up system, P1 has had less of an opportunity than P5.
The ramp-up system makes the "opportunity" progress as follows:
1,2,3,4,4,5,6,7,8,8,9,10,11,12...
which you want to artificially segment as
1,2,3,4,4
=> Ah! 4 to 1. Advantage P5.
5,6,7,8,8
=> 8 to 5 for P5.
9,10,11,12,12
=> 12 to 9 for P5
...
See the above example of an alternate rule set with P2 taking the first turn.
Then your artificial segmentation would be:
2,3,4,4,5
=> advantage P1
6,7,8,8,9
=> advantage P1
and so on.
Juggernaut1981
>
> - Show quoted text -
RE: Chess Scenario
Actually my method would suggest that neither player has an advantage
in Chess. Both players have had the opportunity to move one piece
uninterfered by the other player. Each player has the opportunity to
assess the position and potential future position of both their pieces
and their opponents pieces. When players have made the same number of
moves each, the only differentiating factor are their skills and
tactics.
RE: Vampire
I am measuring things relatively. VTES is not about absolute
position, but relative position. Each player wants to maintain an
advantage over their prey and ensure the smallest advantage of their
predator over themselves. Almost everything in this game relies on
relative power and chains of relative power.
P5 gains an interference advantage by potentially having a vampire
more capable of using the cards in the library before P1. It is a
relative power.
P1 gains a relative power over P2 where P1s strategy relies on speed/
early moving. If P1 is playing a strategy that does not rely upon
speed of influencing/early gaining the edge, etc... then they gain no
advantage from being P1.
What I'm trying to make the central point is that P4 is actually the
worst position because they will have a predator and prey with
relatively comparable power at all times. P2 is a hit-and-miss
position where having a slow predator is an advantage but a fast
predator is a distinct disadvantage. Similarly for P3.
Arbitrarily taking the transfers position to be that P1 can play a
master, discard and replace a card from their hand, have 5 transfers
and play last... means that P1 would have an advantage over P2 when
comparing the positions of P1 & P2 relatively. But P1 & P5 have a
comparable position (since in effect P1 has had two full turns
compared to P5).
LSJ
> RE: Vampire
> I am measuring things relatively. VTES is not about absolute
> position, but relative position. Each player wants to maintain an
> advantage over their prey and ensure the smallest advantage of their
> predator over themselves. Almost everything in this game relies on
> relative power and chains of relative power.
OK. That's fine.
> P5 gains an interference advantage by potentially having a vampire
> more capable of using the cards in the library before P1. It is a
> relative power.
> P1 gains a relative power over P2 where P1s strategy relies on speed/
> early moving. If P1 is playing a strategy that does not rely upon
> speed of influencing/early gaining the edge, etc... then they gain no
> advantage from being P1.
And P1 has exactly the same advantage over P5 (only augmented by the "free" MPA
and discard of the virtual first turn).
That is, selecting the "end of round around the table" as the stop-and-check
point is artificial.
1,2,3,4,4,5,6,7,8,8,... has no such breaks.
1 gets 1 before anyone.
2 gets 2 before anyone.
3 gets 3 before anyone.
4 and 5 get 4 before anyone else.
1 gets 6 before anyone.
2 gets 7 before anyone.
...
> What I'm trying to make the central point is that P4 is actually the
> worst position because they will have a predator and prey with
> relatively comparable power at all times. P2 is a hit-and-miss
> position where having a slow predator is an advantage but a fast
> predator is a distinct disadvantage. Similarly for P3.
No. At the end of p4's first turn, he has 4 while p5 has 0.
P4 is always in a better-or-equal state to p5. P5 is the worst position.
P2's predator is no slower than P1's predator.
> Arbitrarily taking the transfers position to be that P1 can play a
> master, discard and replace a card from their hand, have 5 transfers
> and play last... means that P1 would have an advantage over P2 when
> comparing the positions of P1 & P2 relatively. But P1 & P5 have a
> comparable position (since in effect P1 has had two full turns
> compared to P5).
No. P1's advantage over P5 is the same as P2's over P1.
Likewise, P1's advantage over P2 is the same as P3's over P4.
henrik
> I've read it. I don't see the issue. KS is much less an issue in Rapid Thought
> than in 4p or 5p, since ousting your predator in Rapid Thought is nearly
> impossible to turn into an advantage.
Why?
You oust your predator and then your prey, which gives you a game
win.
You'll get help if you oust your predator, and the 6 pool your prey
gains isn't really important for a KS deck (assuming it's one of the
evil ones, ofc).
3 player games results in backousting more often than not in our
playgroup, since the important thing is to get someone ousted as soon
as possible right from the start.
Juggernaut1981
Then if that is true, what is your explanation for why P5 and P1 have
significantly better results than P4? Because considering the data-
set is skewed towards 4-player games, it clearly shows that P1 is the
best table seating and there is approximately a 43% chance of a GW in
P5 (3 of 7) and 0% chance of a GW from P4.
If P4 is theoretically the strongest, what is that reason? And why
should there not be a comparable 40+% GW rate out of the 4play games
for P4? (Roughly 10GWs).
The data set as presented suggests that most P2 & P3 wins come with
between 4 & 5 VPs, which suggests P2 & P3 most commonly sweep. P1 has
an average of 3VPs:1GW suggesting P1s rarely full-sweep but instead
most commonly take 2 and are the last player alive (and statistically
gets 1VP every game on average). P5 has a 4 to 5VP to 1GW again
suggesting P5 sweeps more often than not. P4 will take out their prey
12.5 times out of 33 or roughly 1VP per 2.5 Games.
Why should there be such a drop in VPs per game from the "theoretical
best" position on the table?
Kevin M.
> Oh, and it hasn't ever been implemented
> without a banned list, besides.
Correct. My bad.
Kevin M.
> Kevin M. wrote:
>> an interesting thought-experiment, should never have been implemented
>> without a banned list.
>
> I've read it. I don't see the issue. KS is much less an issue in
> Rapid Thought than in 4p or 5p, since ousting your predator in
> Rapid Thought is nearly impossible to turn into an advantage.
???
You *ARE* kidding, right? C'mon, Scott, this is a joke, right? :)
To wit:
KS backwards for the 2-1-0 win nearly every time in RT. Easily.
Rhetorical Question:
How does that not win more than anything else in RT?
Kevin M.
> "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote:
>> You could say that, when looking at the 4-player table, player1 has
>> some kind of advantage, but you could also say that, since that the
>> majority of tables in competition play are 5-player tables (63%,
>> looking at 35-players and below) and since the game is already long
>> enough and more transfers
>> in general would speed it up, perhaps this would be a useful change.
>> That's basically what I was thinking, even given this new
>> player1-has-even-more- advantage data.
>>
>> Perhaps the "standard" number of transfers should be X where X is
>> the number of players at the table? Easy to remember, solves some
>> problems. 4-player: 1...2...3...4...4...4...
>> 5-player: 1...2...3...4...5...5...5...
>
> If your concern is competition play, why is a change necessary?
Because in the best of worlds, it is possible for the good ideas
to become even better with some kind of improvment.
> Competition play already reduces the amount of advantage a player
> gains by going first by rotating seating positions between rounds (or
> at least attempts to via Archon) so that any advantage gained in one
> game by going 1st is reduced by having to sit in a later position in
> later rounds (and vice versa)?
True. But given what I said, above, it is still a worthy thing to discuss.
> Also, someone else (Matt) pointed out that one current advantage of
> going 4th or 5th is in knowing that you can bring out an 8-cap vampire
> (which he claims include a number of very strong vampires) before
> anyone in 1st-3rd can without their devoting some of their limited
> deck resources to accelerating transfers. Allowing 5 transfers shifts
> that "I can get him first" to 9-caps, which we've just seen in another
> thread are often viewed as substantially weaker.
My thought was that changing to (something like) 'X is the standard number
of transfers where X is the number of players at the table' would solve
several issues, the '9-caps have always been weak' issue being one of them.
Kevin M.
> Consider a game where the players are numbered P2, P3, P4, P5,
> and P1. P2 goes first with 2 transfers. Then P3 with 3, P4 with 4, P5 with
> 4
> and then P1 with 5. Then everyone continues with 4.
>
> Now P1 (the last player) has "significantly more powerful vampires"
> than the first player (P2). And P1 is in slightly better position
> than P5.
> At least "after one full rotation".
>
> Now, increase P1's advantage slightly by letting him take one of his
> 5 transfers before the game even begins (so that he can act with a
> 1-cap on his first turn if he chooses). And let him also play a
> master card before the game. And mulligan 1 card from his hand.
>
> That's the official game.
>
> So, yes, you could pick a moment in the course of the game where a
> given player has just done everything he could to increase his
> position and before others can respond to that. And say "at this
> time, this player has the advantage".
> For P1, it's when his turn ends.
> Likewise, for P2, it's when P2's turn ends.
> Similarly for P3, P4, P5, and again for P1 and so on until the game
> ends.
(No need to turn this into another thread, I don't think.)
Scott,
Has there ever been a thought to equalize the number of turns when
time is called? I would actually prefer this to changing the standard
number of transfers; although both changes feel like they would be
positive changes, I have very little data either way.
Salem
> Salem: Can you cross check those Play1 and Play5 wins to see how many
> of them were done by "weenie" crypts? I have a suspicion that those
> decks benefit most from being in those two positions more-so than any
> other position on the table.
ummm....i can try. but the deck info isn't too specific at the moment....
[...code code code...]
ok, this is what i've got:
Seating_Position Deck_Name
---------------- --------------------------
1 !Gangrel anarch Blade Clot
1 !Malk Bleed
1 Agaitas Beast
1 Assamites Feed
1 Aus Weenie
1 Ayo
1 Celerity weenies
1 Nephandi
1 Setite Bleed
1 Setite Corruption
1 Tremere Intercept
5 Corrupt Construction
5 Malk Prince
5 Ravnos
The Ravnos deck _might_ be a weenie-ish one. The Setite Corruption is
for sure. So....say...3.5 weenie decks vs a lot of mid-large cap decks.
--
Salem
> All Salem's statistics have to be taken with a grain of salt..... he,
> and subsequently his playgroup, are from Canberra.
>
> And they be dodgey!
> :-P
Hey! So far John "what's a grouping rule?" A-C hasn't even made it to a
social game at my place since we've been recording stats!
We play under an iron fist here at my place. No takebacks! Well, ok,
maybe 1. per game. but boy will we rib you about it. ;)
Salem
> On Apr 1, 6:31 am, Salem <kella...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> I have a huge pile of social game results recorded on paper, waiting to
>> be entered into a database. So far I have only had time/inclination to
>> enter 36 of them.
>>
>> Moral of the story: going 1st kicks ass. Screw having 4 transfers first
>> turn, that's for chumps.
>
> Additional moral of the story: 36 results with 5 possible outcomes is
> a very insignificantly small statistical sample size to make blanket
> judgements about.
yeah i am not so sure i was being particularly serious given my turns of
phrase, but sure. at the very least, it gives me a little ammo to throw
at those who bitch and moan 'aw, i'm going first?!?! i hate going
first!' when we determine seating. it's all a piss-take, though. so no
stressing about significance testing and confidence intervals and
degrees of freedom, etc. or i'll be forced to show you my posterior
distribution. ;)
> I'd be interested to see a larger set of results, though.
me too. sadly, my data entry enthusiasm isn't exactly bubbling over. no
wonder we hire non-ongoing and/or part time employees to do that kind of
crap at my work. its boring as all hell! :)
--
Kevin M.
> Salem <kella...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> I have a huge pile of social game results recorded on paper,
>> waiting to be entered into a database. So far I have only had
>> time/inclination to enter 36 of them.
>>
>> Moral of the story: going 1st kicks ass. Screw having 4 transfers
>> first turn, that's for chumps.
>
> Additional moral of the story: 36 results with 5 possible outcomes
> is a very insignificantly small statistical sample size to make blanket
> judgements about.
>
> I'd be interested to see a larger set of results, though.
This is from everything that I have ever done in the last 10 years.
1. All finals were counted as a 5-player game.
2. Draft and Constructed games were treated equally.
3. Percentages were adjusted *slightly* for rounding.
PRE-GAME WIN RULE
=================
5-player games (38 total)
--------------------------
P1 wins: 7 (18.5%)
P2 wins: 7 (18.5%)
P3 wins: 2 (5%)
P4 wins: 7 (18.5%)
P5 wins: 7 (18.5%)
It's a Tie: 8 (21%)
Other than a weird oddity in P3 numbers, about equal.
4-player games (27 total)
-------------------------
P1 wins: 4 (16%)
P2 wins: 5 (18%)
P3 wins: 8 (30%)
P4 wins: 5 (18%)
It's a Tie: 5 (18%)
Seems that P3 wins more often than any other.
Although, both of these are very small sample sizes.
POST-GAME WIN RULE
==================
5-player games (510 total)
-------------------------
P1 wins: 78 (15%)
P2 wins: 72 (14%)
P3 wins: 87 (17%)
P4 wins: 70 (14%)
P5 wins: 75 (15%)
It's a Tie: 128 (25%)
4-player games (183 total)
-------------------------
P1 wins: 42 (23%)
P2 wins: 39 (21%)
P3 wins: 38 (21%)
P4 wins: 38 (21%)
It's a Tie: 26 (14%)
I think this data says a lot.
a. There isn't really any space on either a 4- or 5-player table
that you'd choose to sit, nowadays. So, just sit down and play.
b. Going from a 4- to a 5-player table almost doubles the chances
of the table tying. So, talk less, play fast, and play Obfuscate.
c. Tying the table is the most likely outcome for a 5-player table.
So, if Ben Peal isn't there, talk less, play fast, and play Obfuscate.
d. 1-in-7 four-player tables tie vs. 1-in-4 five-player tables. Since
most of the games played (74%) are 5-player tables, then...
e. My suggestions about changing the Transfer rules are most
likely not needed. Sigh. :(
James Coupe
>Has there ever been a thought to equalize the number of turns when
>time is called? I would actually prefer this to changing the standard
>number of transfers; although both changes feel like they would be
>positive changes, I have very little data either way.
The "Finish your action" rules were thrown away some time back. They
could cause some issues. In particular, they could cause problem with
voters, where the negotiations could be lengthy. Having several more
whole turns to play is going to get bad. Consider a tournament at a
convention where you have to leave by 6pm to make way for another event,
or to close the venue, or whatever. Not fun.
Also, equalising the number of turns is difficult. Reversal of Fortunes
is the obvious card that causes problems here. Also, Last Stand. A
skipped First Tradition turn might be considered a turn taken or not,
since you had a choice in the matter, but Last Stand pretty clearly
isn't.
You might then want to have the table go round an equal number of times,
but Reversal of Fortunes still gums that up and some complex multi-oust
Last Stand situations can do weird things to that too.
But logistically, this seems like it's going to go badly.
LSJ
> On Apr 3, 1:39 am, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
>
>> I've read it. I don't see the issue. KS is much less an issue in Rapid Thought
>> than in 4p or 5p, since ousting your predator in Rapid Thought is nearly
>> impossible to turn into an advantage.
>
> Why?
>
> You oust your predator and then your prey, which gives you a game
> win.
Ah. I didn't see the "and then oust your prey" text on KS.
How does using KS to oust your predator (and give your prey a free ride, plus an
eventual 6 pool) help you oust your prey?
> You'll get help if you oust your predator, and the 6 pool your prey
> gains isn't really important for a KS deck (assuming it's one of the
> evil ones, ofc).
> 3 player games results in backousting more often than not in our
> playgroup, since the important thing is to get someone ousted as soon
> as possible right from the start.
Eh?
You don't benefit from "ousting someone". You benefit from ousting your prey and
from having a predator who spends resources on things other than ousting you.
LSJ
> Scott,
> Has there ever been a thought to equalize the number of turns when
> time is called? I would actually prefer this to changing the standard
> number of transfers; although both changes feel like they would be
> positive changes, I have very little data either way.
No. With the ramp-up, there's no reason to add an artificial break.
And besides, that would make the round interminable. THe VEKN already thought
about something similar and chose in the other direction ("end now" when time is
called instead of "finish the turn" or even "finish the action").
Salem
cups, I've broken it down by game size for him:
3 players:
Seating_Position Number_of_Game_Wins Number_of_VPs
---------------- ------------------- -------------
3 2 5
1 1 4
2 0 0
4 players:
Seating_Position Number_of_Game_Wins Number_of_VPs
---------------- ------------------- -------------
2 9 37.0
1 9 27.5
3 5 27.5
4 0 8.5
5 players:
Seating_Position Number_of_Game_Wins Number_of_VPs
---------------- ------------------- -------------
5 3 13
3 1 8.5
1 1 4.5
2 0 4
4 0 4
ps: i learned how to set sensible column sizes in the output
Salem
> henrik wrote:
> How does using KS to oust your predator (and give your prey a free ride,
> plus an eventual 6 pool) help you oust your prey?
>
>> You'll get help if you oust your predator, and the 6 pool your prey
>> gains isn't really important for a KS deck (assuming it's one of the
>> evil ones, ofc).
>> 3 player games results in backousting more often than not in our
>> playgroup, since the important thing is to get someone ousted as soon
>> as possible right from the start.
>
> Eh?
>
> You don't benefit from "ousting someone". You benefit from ousting your
> prey and from having a predator who spends resources on things other
> than ousting you.
I'm with Scott. If your deck can oust your prey when the prey has an
additional 6 pool, why the hell don't you just oust it _before_ it gets
that 6 pool?
If you're a combat deck, however, sure. i can see how going upstream can
work (unless, of course, YOUR prey has a kindred spirits deck and then
they decide to oust you be....oohhh.....so in your (henrik's) play
group, you see a lot of combat predators in 3 player games?
Salem
> POST-GAME WIN RULE
> ==================
> 5-player games (510 total)
> -------------------------
>
> 4-player games (183 total)
> -------------------------
wow.
your data > my data
:(
but at least i made someone post real useful data! :D
henrik
> >> I've read it. I don't see the issue. KS is much less an issue in Rapid Thought
> >> than in 4p or 5p, since ousting your predator in Rapid Thought is nearly
> >> impossible to turn into an advantage.
>
> > Why?
>
> > You oust your predator and then your prey, which gives you a game
> > win.
>
> Ah. I didn't see the "and then oust your prey" text on KS.
Because it isn't there.
> How does using KS to oust your predator (and give your prey a free ride, plus an
> eventual 6 pool) help you oust your prey?
The way I see it (and most people in my playgroup) is that when
there's 3 players left in the game, you have to oust one of them fast.
3 player games will in most cases end up with 2 players against 1 (I
don't have any statistical numbers to throw in here, just
experience).
If you're not one of the 2, you'll be forced to play against the 2.
Which sucks, unless your deck really is that good (and according to
Jesse, your deck sucks).
> > You'll get help if you oust your predator, and the 6 pool your prey
> > gains isn't really important for a KS deck (assuming it's one of the
> > evil ones, ofc).
> > 3 player games results in backousting more often than not in our
> > playgroup, since the important thing is to get someone ousted as soon
> > as possible right from the start.
>
> Eh?
>
> You don't benefit from "ousting someone". You benefit from ousting your prey and
> from having a predator who spends resources on things other than ousting you.
You do benefit "ousting someone", since you won't have to play against
the 2 other players who's teaming up against you.
Of course, the best would be to trick your predator into backousting,
but that's not always an option (especially if you're a KS deck).
And the point is that a KS deck is very, very good for backousting
(it's rather fast and you gain 1 pool for each bleed action). Also,
the 6 pool your prey gains isn't that much of an issue since you'll
take it away with 2 actions (KS+Confusion).
So at a 3 player table, "ousting someone" is beneficial in most cases
(again, experience without any numbers to back it up).
And of course, this assumes that your KS deck is good and that you'll
be able to beat your prey afterwards so with some decks you might be
forced to another deal.
Salem
I believe DCI had something like "finish the current turn, up to a
maximum of 5 (or 1?) minutes".
It made people dick around a lot more than they do now at the end of the
round, and is obviously not 'fair' when a person's turn involves
decisions and activities by all players, not just themselves.
henrik
> I'm with Scott. If your deck can oust your prey when the prey has an
> additional 6 pool, why the hell don't you just oust it _before_ it gets
> that 6 pool?
Because if you start attacking your prey too hard (which you will if
you're a KS deck), your prey will most likely team up with your
predator and they'll oust you.
> If you're a combat deck, however, sure. i can see how going upstream can
> work (unless, of course, YOUR prey has a kindred spirits deck and then
> they decide to oust you be....oohhh.....so in your (henrik's) play
> group, you see a lot of combat predators in 3 player games?
I usually don't see a lot of combat predators. Most people here play
competative, ousting oriented decks, and combat usually lacks in that
area (this'll probably get me bashed, but I find it sad but true).
LSJ
> On Apr 3, 11:25 am, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
>> How does using KS to oust your predator (and give your prey a free ride, plus an
>> eventual 6 pool) help you oust your prey?
>
> The way I see it (and most people in my playgroup) is that when
> there's 3 players left in the game, you have to oust one of them fast.
> 3 player games will in most cases end up with 2 players against 1 (I
> don't have any statistical numbers to throw in here, just
> experience).
> If you're not one of the 2, you'll be forced to play against the 2.
> Which sucks, unless your deck really is that good (and according to
> Jesse, your deck sucks).
Ah. Perhaps yes, in a sea of players playing unreasonably, it may be appealing
to play unreasonably.
But even in the situation you describe, helping your unreasonable prey oust your
predator doesn't, of itself, increase your chances of winning. It ony increases
your chances of not being the next player ousted, while at the same time
decreasing your chances of increasing your VP accmulation.
The better plan would be to help the unreasonable players see reason.
henrik
> > The way I see it (and most people in my playgroup) is that when
> > there's 3 players left in the game, you have to oust one of them fast.
> > 3 player games will in most cases end up with 2 players against 1 (I
> > don't have any statistical numbers to throw in here, just
> > experience).
> > If you're not one of the 2, you'll be forced to play against the 2.
> > Which sucks, unless your deck really is that good (and according to
> > Jesse, your deck sucks).
>
> Ah. Perhaps yes, in a sea of players playing unreasonably, it may be appealing
> to play unreasonably.
>
> But even in the situation you describe, helping your unreasonable prey oust your
> predator doesn't, of itself, increase your chances of winning. It ony increases
> your chances of not being the next player ousted, while at the same time
> decreasing your chances of increasing your VP accmulation.
>
> The better plan would be to help the unreasonable players see reason.
How is it unreasonable to play 2 vs 1 instead of 1 vs 2?
LSJ
You aren't playing for 2 vs 1 instead of 1 vs 2.
You're either playing for 2 vs 1 instead of 3 vs 0 (that's the case that assumes
you can still oust your prey after giving him a free ride to the first VP+6p)
Or you're playing for 0 vs 3 instead of either 0 vs 3 or 0 vs 2-1 (that's the
case that assumes you can't oust your prey now and certainly not after
increasing his standing by giving him a free ride to the first VP+6p)
Now, of course, individual decks vary. So it may occasionally happen that you
have an easy prey for your deck but a predator that has all the answers to your
deck. In those unusual circumstances (they'll certainly happen less than half
the time, no matter what assumptions you make on the field), it may be to your
benefit to help your prey oust your predator so that, even strengthened, your
prey is still no match for your deck.
henrik
> henrik wrote:
> > On Apr 3, 12:11 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
> >> The better plan would be to help the unreasonable players see reason.
>
> > How is it unreasonable to play 2 vs 1 instead of 1 vs 2?
>
> You aren't playing for 2 vs 1 instead of 1 vs 2.
>
> You're either playing for 2 vs 1 instead of 3 vs 0 (that's the case that assumes
> you can still oust your prey after giving him a free ride to the first VP+6p)
>
> Or you're playing for 0 vs 3 instead of either 0 vs 3 or 0 vs 2-1 (that's the
> case that assumes you can't oust your prey now and certainly not after
> increasing his standing by giving him a free ride to the first VP+6p)
Let's say I play 3 vs 0 then. And when it becomes obvious that I'll
oust my prey before I get ousted by my predator, or before my prey
ousts his/her prey.
Would it be unreasonable for my prey to backoust me?
I think not. And my point is that a situation like that will come up
for one of the 3 players, making it rather likely that 2 of them will
team up against the last 1.
A 3 player table is a deal waiting to happen. You can be a part of the
deal or a victim of it.
And yes, the best would be to trick your predator into backousting.
But second best will, more often than not, be to backoust your
predator.
> Now, of course, individual decks vary. So it may occasionally happen that you
> have an easy prey for your deck but a predator that has all the answers to your
> deck. In those unusual circumstances (they'll certainly happen less than half
> the time, no matter what assumptions you make on the field), it may be to your
> benefit to help your prey oust your predator so that, even strengthened, your
> prey is still no match for your deck.
I'm assuming that playing against the 2 other players will be a
hassle. If you can oust them both rather smoothly (even after they've
ganged up against you) then there's no problem at all for you.
LSJ
> On Apr 3, 1:03 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
>> henrik wrote:
>>> On Apr 3, 12:11 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
>>>> The better plan would be to help the unreasonable players see reason.
>>> How is it unreasonable to play 2 vs 1 instead of 1 vs 2?
>> You aren't playing for 2 vs 1 instead of 1 vs 2.
>>
>> You're either playing for 2 vs 1 instead of 3 vs 0 (that's the case that assumes
>> you can still oust your prey after giving him a free ride to the first VP+6p)
>>
>> Or you're playing for 0 vs 3 instead of either 0 vs 3 or 0 vs 2-1 (that's the
>> case that assumes you can't oust your prey now and certainly not after
>> increasing his standing by giving him a free ride to the first VP+6p)
>
> Let's say I play 3 vs 0 then. And when it becomes obvious that I'll
> oust my prey before I get ousted by my predator, or before my prey
> ousts his/her prey.
> Would it be unreasonable for my prey to backoust me?
No. Once he's lost he can lose as he chooses. He can choose to take the 0 part
of a 2-1-0 table or the 0 part of a 3-0 table, as I describe above.
> I think not. And my point is that a situation like that will come up
> for one of the 3 players, making it rather likely that 2 of them will
> team up against the last 1.
Sure, everyone should make a deal either with their prey or with their predator.
So, then, you should choose to make a deal with your predator. Your predator
helps you oust your prey, then you play heads up.
Why choose the deal with your prey, which (normally) leads to your finishing with 0?
> A 3 player table is a deal waiting to happen. You can be a part of the
> deal or a victim of it.
> And yes, the best would be to trick your predator into backousting.
> But second best will, more often than not, be to backoust your
> predator.
How is that 0 better than regular 0 to make it second best?
henrik
> > Let's say I play 3 vs 0 then. And when it becomes obvious that I'll
> > oust my prey before I get ousted by my predator, or before my prey
> > ousts his/her prey.
> > Would it be unreasonable for my prey to backoust me?
>
> No. Once he's lost he can lose as he chooses. He can choose to take the 0 part
> of a 2-1-0 table or the 0 part of a 3-0 table, as I describe above.
You're not reading me right, or I'm not writing clear enough.
I'm not saying he'll be the 0 part of a 2-1-0 table. Or the 0 part of
a 3-0 table. He could be, but I'm not saying he'll get 0 vp. You added
that, I believe.
After backousting there's nothing that says he won't win the duel.
That depends on how fast he makes the deal with his prey, which
depends on how good he can read the table and understand what will
happen in the end.
I'm just putting him in a position where he has 2 things to pick from:
1) Get ousted by me.
2) Deal with his prey and backoust me.
And I'm saying that it's very likely that one of the 3 players will
end up in that situation (might not be "me" that's about to oust them,
but I think you'll get my point).
> > I think not. And my point is that a situation like that will come up
> > for one of the 3 players, making it rather likely that 2 of them will
> > team up against the last 1.
>
> Sure, everyone should make a deal either with their prey or with their predator.
>
> So, then, you should choose to make a deal with your predator. Your predator
> helps you oust your prey, then you play heads up.
>
> Why choose the deal with your prey, which (normally) leads to your finishing with 0?
Because it's easy to get that deal from the start. And with a KS deck
it's very easy to uphold the deal.
And, of course, you shouldn't do that deal if you think it'll leave
you with 0 vp (that'd be illegal and all).
A KS deck (I'm talking about the small kind with Midget, Jackie and
those) will normally get a 2-1-0 win out of that deal.
> > A 3 player table is a deal waiting to happen. You can be a part of the
> > deal or a victim of it.
> > And yes, the best would be to trick your predator into backousting.
> > But second best will, more often than not, be to backoust your
> > predator.
>
> How is that 0 better than regular 0 to make it second best?
That's not what you're chosing between.
LSJ
> On Apr 3, 1:34 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
>>> Let's say I play 3 vs 0 then. And when it becomes obvious that I'll
>>> oust my prey before I get ousted by my predator, or before my prey
>>> ousts his/her prey.
>>> Would it be unreasonable for my prey to backoust me?
>> No. Once he's lost he can lose as he chooses. He can choose to take the 0 part
>> of a 2-1-0 table or the 0 part of a 3-0 table, as I describe above.
>
> You're not reading me right, or I'm not writing clear enough.
>
> I'm not saying he'll be the 0 part of a 2-1-0 table. Or the 0 part of
> a 3-0 table. He could be, but I'm not saying he'll get 0 vp. You added
> that, I believe.
> After backousting there's nothing that says he won't win the duel.
> That depends on how fast he makes the deal with his prey, which
> depends on how good he can read the table and understand what will
> happen in the end.
>
> I'm just putting him in a position where he has 2 things to pick from:
> 1) Get ousted by me.
> 2) Deal with his prey and backoust me.
And either way, the most probable outcome is 0 VP for him.
Anyway, carry the mind game to its logical conclusion.
A teams up with his B to oust C.
So now C is in the same position as A was a second ago.
C, being no fool, thinks: anything (even, apparently, a 0 finish on a 2-1-0
table) is better than this, so he offers a deal with A to oust B.
A likes this deal much more than the previous deal, since it actually improves
A's chances.
Now B is in the same position as A was at the start of this thought experiment.
So he offers a deal to C to oust A.
And 'round she goes.
>> So, then, you should choose to make a deal with your predator. Your predator
>> helps you oust your prey, then you play heads up.
>>
>> Why choose the deal with your prey, which (normally) leads to your finishing with 0?
>
> Because it's easy to get that deal from the start. And with a KS deck
> it's very easy to uphold the deal.
> And, of course, you shouldn't do that deal if you think it'll leave
> you with 0 vp (that'd be illegal and all).
If that were the case, we wouldn't be here, since the deal you keep espousing is
a "wind up with 0" kind of deal.
But such deals are legal when "wind up with 0" is PTW.
> A KS deck (I'm talking about the small kind with Midget, Jackie and
> those) will normally get a 2-1-0 win out of that deal.
How does having your predator help you oust your prey "normally" lead to you
losing with 1 in a 2-1-0 table?
The KS deck is "normally" sitting as the predator of a badly-built or
badly-functioning deck?
henrik
> > I'm just putting him in a position where he has 2 things to pick from:
> > 1) Get ousted by me.
> > 2) Deal with his prey and backoust me.
>
> And either way, the most probable outcome is 0 VP for him.
>
> Anyway, carry the mind game to its logical conclusion.
>
> A teams up with his B to oust C.
>
> So now C is in the same position as A was a second ago.
>
> C, being no fool, thinks: anything (even, apparently, a 0 finish on a 2-1-0
> table) is better than this, so he offers a deal with A to oust B.
>
> A likes this deal much more than the previous deal, since it actually improves
> A's chances.
>
> Now B is in the same position as A was at the start of this thought experiment.
>
> So he offers a deal to C to oust A.
>
> And 'round she goes.
Sure, if the dealing is brought to the table before any real playing
has started it might be true.
And then there are other factors to add, such as which of the two are
most likely to uphold their part of the deal, which of the two am I
most likely to win against if we end up in the duel.
Before we keep going here, I'd like to add that I'm not saying that
one _always_ should propose a deal like this or that one _always_ will
win by doing that.
I'm just saying that in a 3 player game, chances are rather big that
(at a certain point) 2 players will team up against 1 player. Unless
the 3 decks and players are very balanced against each other, that
situation will most likely occur (according to my experience).
> >> So, then, you should choose to make a deal with your predator. Your predator
> >> helps you oust your prey, then you play heads up.
>
> >> Why choose the deal with your prey, which (normally) leads to your finishing with 0?
>
> > Because it's easy to get that deal from the start. And with a KS deck
> > it's very easy to uphold the deal.
> > And, of course, you shouldn't do that deal if you think it'll leave
> > you with 0 vp (that'd be illegal and all).
>
> If that were the case, we wouldn't be here, since the deal you keep espousing is
> a "wind up with 0" kind of deal.
>
> But such deals are legal when "wind up with 0" is PTW.
No, it's not.
> > A KS deck (I'm talking about the small kind with Midget, Jackie and
> > those) will normally get a 2-1-0 win out of that deal.
>
> How does having your predator help you oust your prey "normally" lead to you
> losing with 1 in a 2-1-0 table?
It doesn't. I've never said it does. You're putting words in my mouth.
It feels like you're actually trying to misinterpret what I'm saying.
> The KS deck is "normally" sitting as the predator of a badly-built or
> badly-functioning deck?
Depends on the playgroup. But yes, most decks are badly-functioning
when hunting or being hunted by a KS deck.
It's very rare for a deck like that not to oust it's first prey.
LSJ
>>> A KS deck (I'm talking about the small kind with Midget, Jackie and
>>> those) will normally get a 2-1-0 win out of that deal.
>> How does having your predator help you oust your prey "normally" lead to you
>> losing with 1 in a 2-1-0 table?
>
> It doesn't. I've never said it does. You're putting words in my mouth.
> It feels like you're actually trying to misinterpret what I'm saying.
You said the KS deck "normally" gets a 2-1-0 win out of the deal with his prey
to oust the other guy.
That means that his prey "normally" gets a 1 VP finish (a loss) when having his
KS deck predator help him oust the other guy.
>> The KS deck is "normally" sitting as the predator of a badly-built or
>> badly-functioning deck?
>
> Depends on the playgroup. But yes, most decks are badly-functioning
> when hunting or being hunted by a KS deck.
> It's very rare for a deck like that not to oust it's first prey.
I would say the same (well, not "very rare", but at least "it's quite
conceivable that a deck like that can oust its first prey"), but only because
when I see a deck like that, it's actually trying to oust its first prey, not
directing its resources to ousting its predator.
Besides, your original reason for the KS deck making the deal was that it
couldn't oust its first prey (to wit: if it tried, it would be ganged up upon
and then be ousted before it could get the prey).
henrik
> You said the KS deck "normally" gets a 2-1-0 win out of the deal with his prey
> to oust the other guy.
>
> That means that his prey "normally" gets a 1 VP finish (a loss) when having his
> KS deck predator help him oust the other guy.
Ah. I didn't realise you started talking about the other player.
> Besides, your original reason for the KS deck making the deal was that it
> couldn't oust its first prey (to wit: if it tried, it would be ganged up upon
> and then be ousted before it could get the prey).
Or at least ganged up enough to not being able to get the GW.
So we have this: A plays the KS deck, and the other players are B
(prey) and C (predator).
B is in a bad position (most likely he'll be ousted before getting a
vp). This would be true for most decks in that situation, I'd say.
A is offering him a deal: he'll get 1 vp and a shot at the duel.
A can rather easily uphold his part of the deal (due to the card text
of KS). A also gains pool while backousting, so the deal isn't
terrible for him. Also, if that deal fails (for other reasons than A
breaking it while getting a 3-0), B will have gotten help which might
make able to beat C in the duel. C can also hope that A will spend
enough resources on backousting that he'll be an easy target in the
duel.
C can possibly offer B a similar deal, but it would be worse. It
wouldn't include an as safe vp. It wouldn't have an as good backup
plan.
This all depends on the deck C (and B) plays, of course, but I'm
assuming that none of their decks can easily trump the KS deck.
Anyway, this all started with you saying that KS was less of an issue
in 3player tables since it was nearly impossible to turn backousting
into an advantage. I'm saying that not backousting can get you into
such a disadvantage, and even if you don't agree with how common that
is, I don't think you can say that it's a "near impossibility".
And I still stand by the statement that in a 3player game, it's a
benefit to oust anyone asap. As a general rule. The chances that such
a game won't end up with a 2 vs 1 situation is slim in my experience,
so unless you're fast and cheap you're likely alone.
bwr...@mail.com
> bwr...@mail.com wrote:
> >There may not be "a full rotation" barrier, but there certainly is a
> >full rotation impulse: you get your turn, everyone else does stuff,
> >you get your next turn to respond.
>
> A player who is worried by this "full rotation impulse" can build a deck
> to lessen the effects. Examples:
[clip]
> But if you're worried about having
> to wait for your own turn to respond? You absolutely don't have to.
You seem to have confused things a bit (probably more my fault than
yours).
First off... this was tied to the argument about comparing transfers.
In that simple argument, what was relevant was relative transfers as a
measure of an advantage over prey. For that, what matters is the
resources you have actively available. The faulty argument used
transfers at the end of turn... really, a measure of passive strength
vs other players, which should be compared to the seat's predator, not
the prey. In that comparison, seat 4 also has the advantage... player
number 5 is the only one that doesn't have a transfer advantage over
their predator... meaning that everone else can bring out a bigger
blocker than their predator can use against them.
(However, the comparison doesn't matter much. The overall effect of
this is only pertinent to the early game, where it may on rare
occasions put someone in a position where that are more likely to get
a VP. Once the game gets going a little bit, things like Governing
down will make the comparison completely pointless.)
Second: You seem to be confusing what I mean by "respond". Sorry, it
was probaby a bad choice of word. I'm not talking about passive
reacting (like your examples), I'm talking about "responding" with
impulse. Which is responding in the sense that at the start of your
turn, you're passed a game state (which you may have maintained with
some passive reacting), and because you have impulse you have the
ability to take that state and change it back to the direction you
want, from where ever the other players have dragged it. It's not
really "responding" to the other players except in the sense that your
next Master and Minion phases come after the opponents have had the
opportunity to do things between your turns, thus changing the game...
so you respond to the change with your new Master and Minion phases.
Of course, that "response" might not involve addressing anything the
other players have done... you might be perfectly happy with the game
state when it comes back around, and so you might play a master or
take actions that changes the course of the game to be even better for
you. Yeah, so "respond" was a poor choice... probably better put as
"you get control back". What you do with it depends... what matters
is that you'll be deciding what's happening and other players will
have to either accept or deal with that.
Note that even wall decks use need this: they need to bring out
vampires, set the up, and bring out their weapon (typically Smiling
Jack). Things that require your turn to do. Then you hope that you
can maintain and control that state by reacting to the other players.
But when that fails and Smiling Jack gets removed or a key vampire
goes down (torp/Pentex), you need impulse to come around again to
actively respond to that change (unless you can convince an ally to
use theirs to fix it).
Working with impulse and responding out-of-turn are not opposite or
exclusonary things... a deck that really wants to use impulse[1] will
still need to give up control and go passive at some point (unless
it's a Turbo deck or Freak-Una and has hit its sweet spot). Passive
defense is useful for pretty much any deck, but it does not win games
alone. Only active play can be relied on to win games. Sure, a
bounce deck could win a VP because of the passive play, but against a
predator that's heavy vote or a Choir deck, that passiveness becomes
more of a curse, because the game isn't doing what you need and
bouncing isn't an active strategy (ie one that doesn't rely on
anything from the opponent). A full-on oust mode Malk94 deck will
probably get that VP (the strength of an active approach over a
passive one), but is should be noted that it also can't actively
respond so well... all it does is oust forwards, and if something
makes it practically impossible for the deck to go forward it has
little it can do (Dementation Malks, on the other hand, have Kindred
Spirits, allowing them the option of going backwards or even cross
table).
Now, if you really want to minimize the effect of losing impulse, your
approach doesn't quite stand up. One way to do it is certainly a wall
deck... once Smiling Jack has been around a couple turns, other
players will feel the crunch as they end up having to stop playing
their game to play yours. You might not be doing much with your
initiative, but you'll by pwning theirs.
A example of a card that can control impulse: The First Tradition.
Another way is weenie combat. Rush most of their vampires into
torpor, and they'll be forced into the position of having to try an
salvage their position on their turn instead of doing things. Again,
the key here isn't reactions (although you'll probable have some),
it's getting into a position where you can do stuff on your turn and
the opponent has to respond to you with theirs. You effectively have
control of the game on their turn... that's impulse control.
Brent
[1] And most do, because impulse ("initiative" in Chess, "sente" in
Go, etc) is a basic principle that is strong across many games.
Getting control of it and making people respond to you is typically a
better position than vice-versa... other players cannot be relied on
to steer a game where you want to go.
jwjbw...@gmail.com
> jwjbwhe...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Apr 1, 7:56 pm, "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote:
> >> Scott, has any serious thought been given to shifting the transfer
> >> rules to 1...2...3...4...5...5...5...?
>
> > I'm not sure what purpose that would serve. If the idea is
> > merely to
> > change the disadvantage of going 5th by allowing 5 transfers for
> > player 5, then I would think that the 1-2-3-4-5 pattern should be
> > restricted to 1st turn, and 4 transfers should occur thereafter.
>
> Kevin's suggestion would, for a 5-player table, have a uniform
> arrangement of "total transfers"
> P1: 1
> P2: 2
> P3: 3
> P4: 4
> P5: 5
> P1: 6
> P2: 7
> ...
Sure ... but, as I see it, the even progression breaks down anyway
after P5. On P1's second turn, he has not only 1 transfer more than
the last player, but also an extra Master Phase Action, an extra
Discard Phase Action, and a possible extra Minion Phase Action.
> Bumping form 5 back down to 4 would not. But it would maintain the
> current plateau, just at different spot:
>
> Official:
> P1: 1
> P2: 2
> P3: 3
> P4: 4
> P5: 4
> P1: 5
> P2: 6
> P3: 7
> P4: 8
> P5: 8
> P1: 9
> P2: 10
> ...
And as you point out later on, the unevenness becomes even more
pronounced between P5 and second P1 becomes, if you consider the other
EXTRAs (master phase actions, discard phase actions, possible extra
minion phase action).
> Bump-5 (and then back to 4):
> P1: 1
> P2: 2
> P3: 3
> P4: 4
> P5: 5
> P1: 5
> P2: 6
> P3: 7
> P4: 8
> P5: 9
> P1: 9
> P2: 10
> ...
In this case, the "plateau" between P5 and 2nd P1 is balanced by
others extras gained at that point (as you seem to acknowledge).
> Bump-5 doesn't seem to be enough of a difference to warrant a
> change, without even addressing the question as to whether the
> difference is a good one.
>
> But Straight-5 seems to be a real change and arguably a good one.
> Until you look at the four player table:
I don't assume either change is necessarily worth making. The clear
disadvantage of being a seat 5 player is already solved by having
seating order determined randomly.
However, it seems to me that what you call "Bump-5" is better than
"Straight-5" in terms of creating a more-even progression of general
advantages, wherein player 5 is less clearly disadvantaged.
Meanwhile, the 4-player table is no more uneven than it was before.
> P1: 1
> P2: 2
> P3: 3
> P4: 4
> P1: 6
> P2: 7
> P3: 8
> P4: 9
> P1: 11
>
> That's worse on two levels: The gap is greater than 1 and the gap
> falls on the benefit of p1, who already has the extra MPA and
> discard.
Right. The standard should be whether there is a relatively even
progression of general advantages -- not merely of transfers.
Reyda !
> Kevin M. wrote:
> > carne...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>> With a minimum of 4 preferably, as 3 player tables get hosed by
> >>>> this. 1,2,3,3,3...
> >>> I don't care about a format that doesn't exist. Play anything you
> >>> want.
> >> Taking it a step further: Even in tournament play, this format exists
> >> and has been officially run on multiple occasions; one previously-used
> >> format for three players is "Rapid Thought."
>
> > Read Kindred Spirits and you'll see why Rapid Thought, while perhaps
> > an interesting thought-experiment, should never have been implemented
> > without a banned list.
>
> I've read it. I don't see the issue. KS is much less an issue in Rapid Thought
> than in 4p or 5p, since ousting your predator in Rapid Thought is nearly
> impossible to turn into an advantage.
I totally agree with LSJ on this one.
I always thought that the deck with greater advantage in rapid
thoughts were AUS decks, because they have less minion to "watch
after" and are able to block pred and prey at the same time. Not to
mention telemisdi and my enemy's enemy which are strong in a 3 meth
battle.
I really like this format and don't understand how Kindred spirits
should be "da cheatorz wallhax" in a 3 player game, providing the
decks were built for this format specifically.
if you cannot prove it's broken, then it's ok.
Reyda !
> LSJ wrote:
> > Kevin M. wrote:
> >> Scott,
> >> Has there ever been a thought to equalize the number of turns when
> >> time is called? I would actually prefer this to changing the standard
> >> number of transfers; although both changes feel like they would be
> >> positive changes, I have very little data either way.
>
> > No. With the ramp-up, there's no reason to add an artificial break.
>
> > And besides, that would make the round interminable. THe VEKN already
> > thought about something similar and chose in the other direction ("end
> > now" when time is called instead of "finish the turn" or even "finish
> > the action").
>
> I believe DCI had something like "finish the current turn, up to a
> maximum of 5 (or 1?) minutes".
It would be nice to *complete the curren action* when the time limit
bell rings. That would be fair. I can't recount how many games where
the prey of the acting player was down to one or two pools and the
game just end when the bleed is declared.
Besides, it would not be so difficult to handle.
Johann von Doom
> It would be nice to *complete the curren action* when the time limit
> bell rings. That would be fair. I can't recount how many games where
> the prey of the acting player was down to one or two pools and the
> game just end when the bleed is declared.
> Besides, it would not be so difficult to handle.
Or you could just play very slightly faster, with the same results as
what you're asking for here.
John Eno
Reyda !
thank you for assuming that i am making a stupid statement in a
desperate need to be original.
if i never saw a game ending with a 1 pool prey, i would not be
posting in this thread.
really, i assure you i saw players just trying to delay the game in
the last few minutes, with incredibly long dialogues.
"-ok, you're at one pool... i bleed you with my first untapped vamp...
-mmm ok, it's a bleed for 2 or 1 ? just want to be sure... ok... mmm i
have to block...
-can't you play faster ?
-it's a difficult decision, i'm down to one pool, you know, it would
be stupid to make a goof juste because you are in a hurry... ok, i
block with this one.
-well, faceless night.
-oh one stealth, then he won't block... i'll play on the qui vive with
this other guy there and... yes, i replace my card... Oh, look, it's
an intercept card with a manoeuver !
-ok, then elder impersonation.
- i wake this guy here... Hey, you cross table matey, would you give
me intercept for this action, since you have an untapped rumor mill ?
I know i can't promise anything great since i'm down to one pool, but
hey, we're cross table mates !
- so, you give intercept or not ?"
*refereee shouts "time limit". eof *
how ridiculous is that ? -_-
i know you answer : call the judge. You mean when the game is over ?
Johann von Doom
> thank you for assuming that i am making a stupid statement in a
> desperate need to be original.
Huh. Thanks for knowing better than I did what assumptions I made
while I was posting, I guess.
> if i never saw a game ending with a 1 pool prey, i would not be
> posting in this thread.
I don't recall thinking that you hadn't seen such a thing. I assumed
you had, actually, which is why I was trying to give you a solution to
your problem that doesn't involve a rules change which may or may not
ever occur, so that you won't continue to have the same problem in the
meantime.
> really, i assure you i saw players just trying to delay the game in
> the last few minutes, with incredibly long dialogues.
That's cheating. Changing the rules won't help with that.
> how ridiculous is that ? -_-
I agree that it sucks. That's why it's against the rules, presumably.
> i know you answer : call the judge. You mean when the game is over ?
Yes. Why not? The judge can put minutes back on the clock.
John Eno
Reyda !
> On Apr 9, 12:13 pm, "Reyda !" <Rey...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > really, i assure you i saw players just trying to delay the game in
> > the last few minutes, with incredibly long dialogues.
>
> That's cheating. Changing the rules won't help with that.
well, the frontier between being really stressed and cheating is so
thin, by calling the judge when a game is over, you are juste telling
everyone two things : sportsmanship is not your thing (even if you are
not the one they should blame), and you certainly are a rule nazi.
believe me, i tried, because this situation happened a lot of time
(even if was not the one who would benefit from the situation), and
the judge (whoever it was at that moment) never took this seriously. I
just gave up.
> > how ridiculous is that ? -_-
>
> I agree that it sucks. That's why it's against the rules, presumably.
again, it's a card game and i don't want to be painted as a rule nazi.
If we only could conclude the current declared action when the time
limit is called, it would solve this kind of case without hurting
anyone. Except the player who delays his death by invoking stress and
concentration.
> > i know you answer : call the judge. You mean when the game is over ?
>
> Yes. Why not? The judge can put minutes back on the clock.
The only answer i ever got from judges has always been : you should
have played faster. Well, thank you mister judge for the very witty
answer :)
just one concept: time limits means finishing the current action
before ending the game. Not halting the game in the middle of a combat
versus a famed vamp. Not giving the target of a bleed a way to evade
his fate by invoking something outside the rules. => possible answer :
"but timing out is part of the rule !!" Yes, but rules can change. See
the Table win 2VP+ instead of the old 1 VP game win we had before :)
It would be a blessing.
James Coupe
>how ridiculous is that ? -_-
>i know you answer : call the judge. You mean when the game is over ?
Let's compare that with what you said:
>really, i assure you i saw players just trying to delay the game in
>the last few minutes, with incredibly long dialogues.
So you've got the last few minutes to call the judge over.
--
James Coupe
PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D YOU ARE IN ERROR.
EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 NO-ONE IS SCREAMING.
13D7E668C3695D623D5D THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.
Johann von Doom
> well, the frontier between being really stressed and cheating is so
> thin, by calling the judge when a game is over, you are juste telling
> everyone two things : sportsmanship is not your thing (even if you are
> not the one they should blame),
I know that if I were a disinterested observer of a game, and one
player was attempting to stall in order to avoid being ousted and a
second player called for a judge, if I was going to point the "bad
sportsmanship" finger at anyone it would certainly be the staller, not
the one attempting to play by the rules.
It seems very odd to me that anyone would have the reverse reaction,
given that cheating is the last sportsmanlike conduct of all.
> and you certainly are a rule nazi.
"This isn't 'Nam, Smokey. There are rules."
There's a thick line between calling someone on their cheating and
being a rules nazi. If someone showed up to a tournament and refused
to shuffle his deck or allow anyone else to shuffle or cut it, would
you think of a person who called over a judge as a rules nazi?
> believe me, i tried, because this situation happened a lot of time
> (even if was not the one who would benefit from the situation), and
> the judge (whoever it was at that moment) never took this seriously. I
> just gave up.
I feel sorry for the bias and/or ineptness of the judges you've had at
your tournaments, then.
> If we only could conclude the current declared action when the time
> limit is called, it would solve this kind of case without hurting
> anyone. Except the player who delays his death by invoking stress and
> concentration.
Didn't we used to have that rule? I seem to recall playing in
tournaments where it was in effect. Does anyone know why it was
eliminated?
John Eno
Reyda !
> Reyda ! <Rey...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >how ridiculous is that ? -_-
> >i know you answer : call the judge. You mean when the game is over ?
>
> Let's compare that with what you said:
>
> >really, i assure you i saw players just trying to delay the game in
> >the last few minutes, with incredibly long dialogues.
>
> So you've got the last few minutes to call the judge over.
Yes, i clearly see your point.
But it's quite a difficult task, and it takes a lot of guts to just
stop playing, stand up and leave the table to go seek a judge in a 25+
player tournament to tell him you really want to play your last action
without being seen as the rule nazi i don't want to be.
The most common thing i heard is also "if a players want to delay the
game, he will do it on the previous action, or talk during your
predator's turn", and so on... So it may not clearly stop any abuse.
but this simple thing, would make the game less frustrating for many
players.
I don't want to ban any card, i don't want to balance gameplay in any
way, i love the game as it is (and i play it fast cause i hate time
outs ^^ ). But this "the bell rings and it's over no matter what you
were doing" leaves much space for last minute babble that can ruin a 2
hour game for a careful player ... I know you will again analyze every
tiny bit of speech i made on the subject just for the sake of arguing,
so be it. But please at least consider this : a simple rule would
greatly reduce a common problem. Last action goes to term and then the
game ends. That would be neat.
Daneel
> how ridiculous is that ? -_-
> i know you answer : call the judge. You mean when the game is over ?
No. Call 5 minutes before the end. If you call the judge at the end, he
may not be able to do anything. But watching the last 5 minutes ensures
that either the potential transgressor foregoes his transgression and
contributes to a timely resolve of the game, or the judge is in a fair
position to rectify the situation.
While I was judging, it happened to me about once a tournament. When
they called in time, I had a plethora of options (change the GW; move
VPs; give extra time; issue warning; etc.) to remedy the situation.
When they called after "time", I could only say "sorry, you should've
called earlier".
--
Regards,
Daneel
James Coupe
>But it's quite a difficult task, and it takes a lot of guts to just
>stop playing, stand up and leave the table to go seek a judge in a 25+
>player tournament to tell him you really want to play your last action
>without being seen as the rule nazi i don't want to be.
Moving it to "Finish the current action" won't help if you have players
deliberately stalling.
Instead of someone delaying taking the bleed, they instead do something
like:
Situation: me on 1 pool, Reyda doing well.
Reyda: "Combat over? Nothing else this action?"
Me: "Sure thing."
Reyda: "Okay, for my next action..."
Me: "No wait, I think I want to use Heidelberg. Oh, err, um, that
would give me two blood on Lucita. Shit shit shit shit."
LSJ: "Time."
Reyda: "Damn, I didn't get to start my action."
Me: "Hurrah!"
Am I stalling in the above example? Obviously, we can't say. But I
*could* be. So you've still got exactly the same problem, it just
occurs at a different time. Instead of stalling during your last
action, I just stall immediately before it. Things like:
- using Heidelberg
- using Dreams or the Barrens
- negotiating harder in your referendum
- take a little longer finishing an action of mine, so you don't get to
have your turn.
So, you pretty much have to address the issue of players stalling in
both situations. Moving to "finish the action" alters when the stalling
occurs, but you should still address it.
Getting people to play by the rules isn't rules-lawyering, either. It's
just playing by the rules.
Salem
> if i never saw a game ending with a 1 pool prey, i would not be
> posting in this thread.
>
> really, i assure you i saw players just trying to delay the game in
> the last few minutes, with incredibly long dialogues.
> "-ok, you're at one pool... i bleed you with my first untapped vamp...
[snip]
...
> - so, you give intercept or not ?"
> *refereee shouts "time limit". eof *
>
> how ridiculous is that ? -_-
not ridiculous at all. sounds like perfectly normal play.
if that situation is acceptable at, say the 1 hour mark (which it sounds
like it would be fine to me), why should it be considered 'slow play' or
stalling if you're getting close to time?
Maybe YOU should have gone through your master phase a bit quicker or
something? or done your own reactions slightly faster back on turn 6
when you were being bled by someone.
Just because someone is on the ropes doesn't mean they should suddenly
have to rush things through just to help you get a VP right at the end
of the round.
Salem
...
> So, you pretty much have to address the issue of players stalling in
> both situations. Moving to "finish the action" alters when the stalling
> occurs, but you should still address it.
>
> Getting people to play by the rules isn't rules-lawyering, either. It's
> just playing by the rules.
>
not to mention that some actions, such as political actions, can take
quite a while to finish. This may cause some issues when the tournament
is running to a tight schedule.
You also have to then determine when exactly an action has started. Is
it when you point at a minion and say it is going to act? when you tap
your minion? announce the name of the action? announce all the effects
of the action?
Wherever that line is you'll find people rushing other actions/effects
so that they can get to that point when time is called, and then
leisurely work their way through the rest of it safe in the knowledge
that they now have all the time in the world to finish it.
Kevin M.
Josh Duffin won the Rapid Thought tournament at GenCon several
years ago, by going backward at all his tables with a KS deck.
I don't recall if he won every table, but I think he did.
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/
Reyda !
> Maybe YOU should have gone through your master phase a bit quicker or
> something? or done your own reactions slightly faster back on turn 6
> when you were being bled by someone.
god i love this forum :)
> Just because someone is on the ropes doesn't mean they should suddenly
> have to rush things through just to help you get a VP right at the end
> of the round.
ok thank you for your friendly input :)
Reyda !
Paul M johnson, if i recall correctly, also won a tournament by going
backwards with a blood brothers deck. Does this make Blood brothers
broken ? :)
Reyda !
> On Thu, 9 Apr 2009 09:13:15 -0700 (PDT), Reyda ! <Rey...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > how ridiculous is that ? -_-
> > i know you answer : call the judge. You mean when the game is over ?
>
> No. Call 5 minutes before the end. If you call the judge at the end, he
> may not be able to do anything. But watching the last 5 minutes ensures
> that either the potential transgressor foregoes his transgression and
> contributes to a timely resolve of the game, or the judge is in a fair
> position to rectify the situation.
best suggestion ever.
thank you, i'm glad you posted here. I 'll try to do that during the
Eurodraft this sunday. I hope it will work :)
Reyda !
> So, you pretty much have to address the issue of players stalling in
> both situations. Moving to "finish the action" alters when the stalling
> occurs, but you should still address it.
do you remember what i wrote a few moments ago ?
*The most common thing i heard is also "if a players want to delay the
*game, he will do it on the previous action, or talk during your
*predator's turn", and so on... So it may not clearly stop any abuse.
so thank you for telling in other words what i already said. The
example was nice though.
> Getting people to play by the rules isn't rules-lawyering, either. It's
> just playing by the rules.
I played many times with the LA crew, so i understand the *true*
meaning of "playing by the rules" :)
But then again, how do you handle the "game is halted during combat
with a famous vampire" stuff ? is it unfair to conclude the action ?
(please spare me the "now you are changing examples to better suits
your arguments, this is not a method, this is provocation" stuff, i
know you can do better than that :) )
Kevin M.
> Daneel dan...@eposta.hu wrote:
>> Reyda ! Rey...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> how ridiculous is that ? -_-
>>> i know you answer : call the judge. You mean when the game is over?
>>
>> No. Call 5 minutes before the end. If you call the judge at the end,
>> he may not be able to do anything. But watching the last 5 minutes
>> ensures that either the potential transgressor foregoes his
>> transgression and contributes to a timely resolve of the game,
>> or the judge is in a fair position to rectify the situation.
>
> best suggestion ever.
> thank you, i'm glad you posted here. I 'll try to do that during the
> Eurodraft this sunday. I hope it will work :)
Here are a few more constructive suggestions for you, Reyda:
- Play your own game faster
- Ask others to continue play if they are taking too long
- Call the judge over when those others are still slow-playing
- Keep your own timer so you know when you have to lunge
- Play Obfuscate
Kevin M.
If he won with BB combat in a
If not, your analogy is riduclous.
--
Kevin M.
Kevin M.
If he won with BB combat in a RT tournament, no, since Combat decks
are *much* more powerful in 3-player than in any (real VTES) format.
If not, your analogy is riduclous.
Blooded Sand
> Reyda ! wrote:
> > Paul M johnson, if i recall correctly, also won a tournament by going
> > backwards with a blood brothers deck. Does this make Blood brothers
> > broken ? :)
>
> If he won with BB combat in a RT tournament, no, since Combat decks
> are *much* more powerful in 3-player than in any (real VTES) format.
Is collapsing a table into a three player format where combat reigns
not "real" VtES then?
If not, your statement is ridiculous.
Or do you mean that non tournament VtES is not REAL VtES?
Which is as patently ridiculous.
Kevin M.
> "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote:
>> Reyda ! wrote:
>>> Paul M johnson, if i recall correctly, also won a tournament by
>>> going backwards with a blood brothers deck. Does this make
>>> Blood brothers broken ? :)
>>
>> If he won with BB combat in a RT tournament, no, since Combat
>> decks are *much* more powerful in 3-player than in any (real VTES)
>> format.
>
> Is collapsing a table into a three player format where combat reigns
> not "real" VtES then?
No, since that isn't what I'm talking about. I'm discussing the RT format.
If you want to discuss that format, I'll be happy to.
> If not, your statement is ridiculous.
No it isn't. You just want to discuss something that I'm not discussing.
> Or do you mean that non tournament VtES is not REAL VtES?
People keep talking about tournament VTES. I said nothing about
tournament VTES. I'm discussing the RT format.
"Oh but the RT format *can* be sanctioned, so KevinM you're wrong!
It *is* tournament VTES!" If that's your argument, feel free to have
said it, you got me, good job, you win. :P
Anyway...
I do not consider non-four or five-player VTES to be "real" VTES.
It is a subset of VTES which shouldn't be considered without some
modification, given the current rules set and cards that are available
to break it (KS, ConAg, et.al.). I do understand that this is the only
way that some people can play. I have nothing against non-KevinM
people playing that way. I wish them well. Enjoy.
I think that the RT format is an interesting idea, perhaps one that could
be further explored, *perhaps* even one that, given time and balancing
via a banned or restricted list (or whatever) could be implemented as a
sanctioned, rated, legitimate format. I'd be happy to figure out the lists
of banned/restricted cards, if I felt that this could ever become a rated
format.
> Which is as patently ridiculous.
See above. Nice try, though. :)
Kevin M., Prince of Las Vegas
Salem
sorry if i sounded snippy. :) i just don't like the way people try and
rush the game at the end, but play at whatever pace they like earlier in
the game. slow play is slow play whenever it happens in the round. just
like acceptably paced play is acceptably paced at any time in the round.
.. and that kind of flowed through to this discussion. :D