ORIGINS 2004 Tournament Reports and Winning Decks [LONG]
Kevin M.
Thursday Constructed
----------------------
Final Name Prelim Prelim Final TPs
Rank GWs VPs VPs
1 David Tatu 1 5.5 3 108
2 Mark Loughman 2 9 2 120
3 Ben Peal 1 6 0 108
4 John Bell 1 5 0 108
5 Jay Kristoff 1 4.5 0 108
Final Round: Mark => Ben => David => John => Jay
6 Will Kristoff 1 3.5 108
7 Jared Strait 1 3.5 96
8 Shane Strait 1 2.5 84
9 Peter Charnley 0 1 72
9 Trey Morita 0 1 72
9 Christian Herro 0 1 72
12 Karl Schaefer 0 1 60
12 Noal McDonald 0 1 60
12 David McCarty 0 1 60
15 James Moran 0 1 54
16 Rick Buerger 0 0.5 66
17 Matt Flint 0 0 54
17 David Setty 0 0 54
17 Cameron Domer 0 0 54
20 Jill Endress 0 0 48
20 Josh Duffin 0 0 48
20 Sean Sanderson 0 0 48
20 D Paul Bowles 0 0 48
20 Judy Cyran 0 0 48
25 Robyn Tatu 0 0 42
David's winning deck:
Crypt: (12 cards, Min: 19, Max: 26, Avg: 5.75)
----------------------------------------------
5 Jost Werner ani AUS PRE 6, !Toreador:2
1 Kendrick ANI aus obf POT 7, !Nosferatu:2, Priscus
1 Teresita for ANI OBF POT 7, !Nosferatu:3
1 Ox ANI OBF POT 6, !Nosferatu:2
1 Christanius Lionel ANI OBF pot 6, !Nosferatu:2
1 Nigel the Shunned ANI obf POT 5, !Nosferatu:2
1 Cicatriz ani obf pot 5, !Nosferatu:2, Bishop
1 Shannon Price ani obf 3, !Nosferatu:2
Library: (90 cards)
-------------------
Master (12 cards)
1 Bleeding the Vine
3 Blood Doll
1 Information Network
1 KRCG News Radio
1 Metro Underground
1 Nosferatu Kingdom
1 Obfuscate
1 Shanty Town Hunting Ground
2 Using the Advantage
Minion (78 cards)
4 .44 Magnum
5 Aid from Bats
1 Army of Rats
8 Art Scam
2 Behind You!
1 Bum`s Rush
1 Canine Horde
7 Carrion Crows
5 Cats` Guidance
2 Cloak the Gathering
1 Computer Hacking
1 Concealed Weapon
2 Elder Impersonation
2 Faceless Night
2 Fake Out
6 Forced Awakening
2 High Ground
1 J. S. Simmons, Esq.
1 Laptop Computer
2 Lost in Crowds
1 My Enemy`s Enemy
1 Pushing the Limit
1 Rampage
2 Raven Spy
1 Spying Mission
2 Swallowed by the Night
1 Tasha Morgan
6 Taste of Vitae
2 Telepathic Misdirection
1 Thrown Gate
4 Wake with Evening`s Freshness
Friday Constructed (25 players, 3R+F)
---------------------------------------
Final Name Prelim Prelim Final TPs
Rank GWs VPs VPs
1 Jay Kristoff 1 4.5 3 162
2 Ben Peal 2 7 1 168
3 Eric Chiang 1 5 1 106
4 Peter Bakija 1 6 0 150
5 Matt Flint 1 5 0 126
Final Round: Ben => Peter => Matt => Eric => Jay
6 David McCarty 1 4 126
7 Robyn Tatu 1 4 120
8 Christian Herro 1 3.5 102
9 Aaron Northrup 1 3 120
10 Jared Strait 0 4.5 150
11 Chris Talbot 0 3.5 126
12 Noal McDonald 0 3 120
13 Dave Buerger 0 2 120
14 Shane Strait 0 2 90
15 Cameron Domer 0 2 84
16 Trey Morita 0 1.5 102
17 David Tatu 0 1 84
18 Karl Schaefer 0 0.5 90
18 Arthur Wright 0 0.5 90
20 Rick Buerger 0 0 70
21 David Setty 0 0 66
22 Jill Endress 0 0 64
23 Mike Perlman 0 0 60
DQ Josh Duffin 1 5 120
DQ Keith Thompson 0 0 48
NOTE: Josh dropped to play in the (impromptu) draft. Keith dropped for
another event.
Jay's winning deck:
Crypt: (12 cards, Min: 25, Max: 40, Avg: 8.25)
----------------------------------------------
5 Lazverinus AUS DOM FOR POT pro 10, !Ventrue:2, Archbishop
3 Owain Evans cel pre AUS DOM FOR 8, !Ventrue:3
1 Gustav Mallenhous AUS DOM for obt 8, !Ventrue:2, Priscus
1 Jesse Menks ani AUS DOM FOR 8, !Ventrue:3, Archbishop
1 Joseph O`Grady aus cel DOM FOR 7, !Ventrue:3
1 Samson dom 2, !Ventrue:2
Library: (90 cards)
-------------------
Master (14 cards)
4 Blood Doll
1 Club Zombie
1 Corporate Hunting Ground
1 Demonstration
1 Erciyes Fragments, The
1 Guardian Angel
1 KRCG News Radio
1 London Evening Star, Tabloid Newspaper
1 Mob Connections
1 Powerbase: Chicago
1 Rack, The
Minion (76 cards)
1 Aranthebes
1 Cardinal Benediction
2 Crocodile`s Tongue
6 Deflection
2 Disarm
1 Disputed Territory
3 Enhanced Senses
3 Eternal Vigilance
1 Flak Jacket
4 Forced Awakening
1 Foreshadowing Destruction
6 Freak Drive
5 Govern the Unaligned
3 Indomitability
1 IR Goggles
1 Mylan Horseed (Goblin)
2 Neighborhood Watch Commander (Hunter)
2 Restoration
3 Rolling with the Punches
2 Scouting Mission
2 Seduction
2 Soak
1 Sport Bike
2 Superior Mettle
2 Taste of Vitae
2 Telepathic Counter
4 Telepathic Misdirection
1 Templar
1 Threats
2 Thrown Sewer Lid
2 Unflinching Persistence
4 Wake with Evening`s Freshness
1 WMRH Talk Radio
Friday Draft (16 players, 2R+F)
---------------------------------
Final Name Prelim Prelim Final TPs
Rank GWs VPs VPs
1 Dave Buerger 1 4 3 108
2 Josh Duffin 2 6.5 1 120
3 Christian Herro 1 3 1 78
4 Matt Heslin 1 3.5 0 96
5 David McCarty 1 3 0 88
Final Round: Josh => Dave => Matt => David => Christian
6 Patrick vd Reest 0 1.5 84
6 Karl Schaefer 0 1.5 84
8 David Tatu 0 1.5 78
9 Trey Morita 0 1 84
10 Robyn Tatu 0 1 66
11 James Moran 0 0.5 54
11 Cameron Domer 0 0.5 54
13 Jill Endress 0 0 46
13 Rick Buerger 0 0 46
15 Noal McDonald 0 0 36
16 Mike Perlman 0 0 30
This draft was a 'booster' style draft, with 4x SW, 3x BH, 3x GE, which
was drafted in that order. Dave's winning draft deck not available.
Saturday Constructed (30 players, 3R+F)
-----------------------------------------
* = already qualified (8)
^ = newly qualified (30-8 = 22, 22/4 = 6)
Final Name Prelim Prelim Final TPs
Rank GWs VPs VPs
1 Ben Peal* 2 7 4 162
2 D Paul Bowles^ 2 9 1 168
3 Izaak Kemp^ 2 7 0 150
4 Mike Perlman^ 1 6 0 126
5 Dave Buerger* 1 6 0 126
Final Round: D Paul => Ben => Izaak => Mike => Dave
6 Nicholas Smith^ 1 5 138
7 Robyn Tatu* 1 5 108
8 Todd Holland^ 1 5 102
9 Karl Schaefer^ 1 4 132
10 Stephanie Turner 1 4 120
11 David McCarty 1 3 114
12 Bernie Bresnahan 1 3 108
13 Randy Meny 0 4 144
14 Jay Kristoff* 0 3 126
15 Jill Endress 0 2.5 132
16 John Bell 0 2.5 120
17 David Setty* 0 1.5 102
18 Patrick vd Reest 0 1 84
18 Will Kristoff 0 1 84
18 Kevin Bolte 0 1 84
21 Sean Sanderson 0 0.5 84
22 Mark Loughman* 0 0.5 78
22 James Moran 0 0.5 78
24 Jeff Turner 0 0 78
24 Cameron Domer 0 0 78
24 David Tatu* 0 0 78
27 Matthew Piatek 0 0 66
DQ David Barasch 0 0.5 66
DQ Benjamin Ferguson0 0 42
DQ Peter Charnley* 0 0.5 54
NOTE: The three DQs were voluntary withdrawls after the 2nd round.
List of the six qualifying players:
- D Paul Bowles
- Izaak Kemp
- Mike Perlman
- Nicholas Smith
- Todd Holland
- Karl Schaefer
Ben's winning deck, "The Thugginator":
Crypt: (12 cards, Min: 7, Max: 22, Avg: 3.58)
---------------------------------------------
1 Quira AUS OBF obt tha 6, !Malkavian:2
2 Colonel cel dem obf AUS 5, !Malkavian:3
2 Roger Farnsworth aus OBF 4, !Malkavian:3
1 Lena Rowe aus obf pre 3, Pander:2
1 Basil obf 1, Pander:2
1 Ingram Frizer ani pot AUS OBF 6, !Nosferatu:3
1 Zoe AUS cel obf 3, Malkavian:2
1 Krid obf 2, Nosferatu:3
1 Hanna Redmonds obf tha 2, Caitiff:3
1 Piotr Andreikov aus 2, Tzimisce:3
Library: (90 cards)
-------------------
Master (15 cards)
1 Admonitions, The
1 Barrens, The
5 Blood Doll
1 Dreams of the Sphinx
1 Institution Hunting Ground
2 Into the Fire
2 Remover
2 Sudden Reversal
Minion (75 cards)
7 Blooding
2 Bloodwork
7 Cloak the Gathering
4 Domain of Evernight
5 Faceless Night
5 Forgotten Labyrinth
5 Lost in Crowds
10 Marijava Thuggee
3 Night Moves
1 Saturday-Night Special
5 Spying Mission
5 Swallowed by the Night
8 Telepathic Misdirection
8 Wake with Evening`s Freshness
Saturday Draft (12 players, 2R+F)
-----------------------------------
Final Name Prelim Prelim Final TPs
Rank GWs VPs VPs
1 Trey Morita 1 3 2.5 96
2 Matt Flint 0 1 1.5 66
3 Christian Herro 1 3.5 0 96
4 Joshua Duffin 0 2.5 0 90
5 Dave Pennington II 0 2 0 96
Final Round: Christian => Trey => Joshua => Dave => Matt
6 Andrew Valkanas 0 1 54
7 Kevin Mergen 0 1 48
8 Noal McDonald 0 0 36
9 Eric Chiang 0 0 24
DQ Tony Matranga 0 2 96
DQ Jared Strait 0 3 90
DQ Shane Strait 1 2 72
NOTE: The three DQs were voluntary withdrawls after the 2nd round. Also,
the judge (me) played in this draft due to the fact that it would have
been 11 players otherwise, which would have been insanely unplayable.
This draft was a 'booster' style draft, with 4x SW, 3x BH, 3x GE, which
was drafted as 2/1/1, 1/1/1, 1/1/1. Trey's winning draft deck not
available.
Sunday Constructed (18 players, 2R+F)
---------------------------------------
Final Name Prelim Prelim Final TPs
Rank GWs VPs VPs
1 Ben Peal 2 7 1.5 120
2 Matt Flint 1 5 0.5 108
3 Trey Morita 1 4.5 0.5 114
4 Stephanie Turner 1 3 0.5 78
5 Jay Kristoff 1 4 0 108
Final Round: Ben => Matt => Trey => Jay => Stephanie
6 Cameron Domer 0 3 96
7 John Bell 0 2 84
8 Dave Pennington II 0 2 72
9 Brad Cashdollar 0 1.5 78
10 Dave Setty 0 1 66
10 Dave Buerger 0 1 66
12 Josh Duffin 0 1 60
13 D Paul Bowles 0 0 42
13 Jeff Turner 0 0 42
13 Mark Loughman 0 0 42
13 James Moran 0 0 42
13 Karl Schaefer 0 0 42
18 David McCarty 0 0 36
Ben's winning deck, "The Blockinator":
Crypt: (12 cards, Min: 17, Max: 40, Avg: 7.17)
----------------------------------------------
3 Anneke AUS CEL dom PRE 10, Toreador:1, Justicar
1 Francois Villon AUS CEL chi obf pot PRE 10, Toreador:2, Prince
2 Marcellus AUS CEL pro 8, Toreador:2, Prince
1 Tatiana Romanov AUS cel pre 7, Toreador:1, Prince
1 Kallista AUS CEL pre pro 6, Toreador:1
1 Felicia Mostrom AUS CEL pre 5, Toreador:1
1 Dorian Strack AUS cel 4, Toreador:1
1 Colin Flynn aus cel 3, Toreador:1
1 Volker CEL pot 5, Brujah:2, Prince
Library: (90 cards)
-------------------
Master (13 cards)
1 Anarch Revolt
1 Art Museum
1 Barrens, The
6 Blood Doll
1 Rack, The
1 Society Hunting Ground
2 Sudden Reversal
Minion (77 cards)
6 .44 Magnum
2 Blur
6 Concealed Weapon
5 Eagle`s Sight
4 Enhanced Senses
10 Forced Awakening
1 Parity Shift
5 Precognition
6 Pursuit
5 Quicken Sight
6 Second Tradition: Domain, The
6 Side Strike
6 Sideslip
3 Spirit`s Touch
6 Telepathic Misdirection
Kevin M., Prince of Henderson, NV (USA)
"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
Derek Ray
"Kevin M." <you...@imaspammer.org> mumbled something about:
>OK, here's everything from Origins 2004:
As an idle note referencing a prior thread: This is what it took to get
into the finals for each tournament at Origins. (I'm listing the player
whose preliminary ranking was 5th in each case)
Thursday Constructed (25 players): Jay Kristoff, 1 GW, 4.5 VP
Friday Constructed (25 players): Jay Kristoff, 1 GW, 4.5 VP
Friday Draft (16 players): Christian Herro, 1 GW, 3 VP
Saturday Qualifier (30 players): Dave Buerger, 1 GW, 6 VP
Saturday Draft (12 players): Dave Pennington II, 0 GW, 2 VP
Sunday Constructed (18 players): Stephanie Turner, 1 GW, 3 VP
In every event except the Saturday Draft, the 6th-place finisher was
never more than a single VP behind. In the Saturday Draft, that player
was short 1GW and 1.5VP, but it's pretty obvious that the Saturday Draft
is the least useful for anyone's purposes, as it's certainly a smaller
tournament.
My point is this:
Anyone still interested in standing up on their hind legs and telling me
that additional VP don't matter and sheer accumulation of Game Wins is
the only way to make the finals?
-- Derek
a host is a host from coast to coast
and no one will talk to a host that's close
unless the host that isn't close
is busy, hung, or dead
Joshua Duffin
"Kevin M." <you...@imaspammer.org> wrote in message
news:TZqHc.125$jJ.28@fed1read07...
> OK, here's everything from Origins 2004:
[lots of snippage]
> Friday Draft (16 players, 2R+F)
> ---------------------------------
> Final Name Prelim Prelim Final TPs
> Rank GWs VPs VPs
> 1 Dave Buerger 1 4 3 108
> 2 Josh Duffin 2 6.5 1 120
> 3 Christian Herro 1 3 1 78
> 4 Matt Heslin 1 3.5 0 96
> 5 David McCarty 1 3 0 88
> Final Round: Josh => Dave => Matt => David => Christian
Just for the sake of completeness or something, I don't think this was
the right seating order (assuming that seating is what you're indicating
with the arrows). It was, I believe:
Josh -> David M. -> Dave B. -> Xian -> Heslin
> Saturday Draft (12 players, 2R+F)
> -----------------------------------
> Final Name Prelim Prelim Final TPs
> Rank GWs VPs VPs
> 1 Trey Morita 1 3 2.5 96
> 2 Matt Flint 0 1 1.5 66
> 3 Christian Herro 1 3.5 0 96
> 4 Joshua Duffin 0 2.5 0 90
> 5 Dave Pennington II 0 2 0 96
> Final Round: Christian => Trey => Joshua => Dave => Matt
And this one was:
Xian -> Josh -> Matt F. -> Dave P. -> Trey
> Sunday Constructed (18 players, 2R+F)
> ---------------------------------------
> Final Name Prelim Prelim Final TPs
> Rank GWs VPs VPs
> 1 Ben Peal 2 7 1.5 120
> 2 Matt Flint 1 5 0.5 108
> 3 Trey Morita 1 4.5 0.5 114
> 4 Stephanie Turner 1 3 0.5 78
> 5 Jay Kristoff 1 4 0 108
> Final Round: Ben => Matt => Trey => Jay => Stephanie
And unless they switched seats partway through, which is certainly
possible, I think this one was:
Ben -> Jay -> Matt -> Stephanie -> Trey
Thanks for the reports, Kevin! Any idea when the results will go into
the VEKN ratings database? :-)
Josh "seating is hard to keep track of" D.
Jay Kristoff
>NOTE: Josh dropped to play in the (impromptu) draft. Keith dropped for
>another event.
Josh's drop let me squeak into the final round. Josh is the best!
>Jay's winning deck:
Kevin's list had WMRH in the wrong spot. Here is the fixed version:
Beefcake Blocks!
Crypt: (12 cards, Min: 25, Max: 40, Avg: 8.25)
----------------------------------------------
5 Lazverinus AUS DOM FOR POT pro 10, !Ventrue:2, Archbishop
3 Owain Evans cel pre AUS DOM FOR 8, !Ventrue:3
1 Gustav Mallenhous AUS DOM for obt 8, !Ventrue:2, Priscus
1 Jesse Menks ani AUS DOM FOR 8, !Ventrue:3, Archbishop
1 Joseph O`Grady aus cel DOM FOR 7, !Ventrue:3
1 Samson dom 2, !Ventrue:2
Library: (90 cards)
-------------------
Master (15 cards)
4 Blood Doll
1 Club Zombie
1 Corporate Hunting Ground
1 Demonstration
1 Erciyes Fragments, The
1 Guardian Angel
1 KRCG News Radio
1 London Evening Star, Tabloid Newspaper
1 Mob Connections
1 Powerbase: Chicago
1 Rack, The
1 WMRH Talk Radio
Minion (75 cards)
The deck was designed for a more bleedy atmoshpere than this
tournament turned out to be. Even so, it held up well. Lots of cool,
permanent resources, and a nice assortment of previously proven
cards. Nothing ground-breaking here. We already knew that the
Erciyes Fragment is good; add the fact that Beefcake can play many
of the most popular tournament skills, and it gets really strong. I think
this is my first tournament winning deck to use dominate. It took several
showers before I felt clean following this win :)
Jay
PS: at no point have the !Ventrue sucked.
Ben Peal
> > Sunday Constructed (18 players, 2R+F)
> > ---------------------------------------
> > Final Name Prelim Prelim Final TPs
> > Rank GWs VPs VPs
> > 1 Ben Peal 2 7 1.5 120
> > 2 Matt Flint 1 5 0.5 108
> > 3 Trey Morita 1 4.5 0.5 114
> > 4 Stephanie Turner 1 3 0.5 78
> > 5 Jay Kristoff 1 4 0 108
> > Final Round: Ben => Matt => Trey => Jay => Stephanie
>
> And unless they switched seats partway through, which is certainly
> possible, I think this one was:
>
> Ben -> Jay -> Matt -> Stephanie -> Trey
Seats were not switched during the game, and the seating order
as given by Josh Duffin is correct.
- Ben Peal
fu...@mindstorm.com
Kevin M.
[snip Josh and Ben saying the seating order in the finals was wrongly
entered]
OK, I don't know how all those finals could have been put into the
computer in the wrong order, but as it doesn't matter, I'll just let it
be. Maybe I was more tired than I thought. I certainly am going to make
sure I get more sleep next year. :)
> Thanks for the reports, Kevin! Any idea when the results will go into
> the VEKN ratings database? :-)
Next week. Maybe you'll still be #1 in draft?
> Josh "seating is hard to keep track of" D.
Kevin M., Prince of Henderson, NV (USA)
Derek Ray
Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> mumbled something about:
>In every event except the Saturday Draft, the 6th-place finisher was
>never more than a single VP behind. In the Saturday Draft, that player
>was short 1GW and 1.5VP, but it's pretty obvious that the Saturday Draft
>is the least useful for anyone's purposes, as it's certainly a smaller
>tournament.
Replace all occurrences of "Saturday Draft" in this paragraph with
"Friday Draft", please.
I am a moron and cannot tell my days of the week apart.
Daneel
> As an idle note referencing a prior thread: This is what it took to get
> into the finals for each tournament at Origins. (I'm listing the player
> whose preliminary ranking was 5th in each case)
I'm pretty sure continuing a discussion where it started is an
excellent way to continue a debate in the sense that anyone interested
pro or con can probably encounter your post _without_ sheer luck only.
Posting a la coupe de grace where it probably fails to reach at least
a portion of the participants of the original debate can nevertheless
be good for other purposes.
> In every event except the Saturday Draft, the 6th-place finisher was
> never more than a single VP behind. In the Saturday Draft, that player
> was short 1GW and 1.5VP, but it's pretty obvious that the Saturday Draft
> is the least useful for anyone's purposes, as it's certainly a smaller
> tournament.
>
> My point is this:
>
> Anyone still interested in standing up on their hind legs and telling me
> that additional VP don't matter and sheer accumulation of Game Wins is
> the only way to make the finals?
However, as far as the actual debate went I can only refer to my
argument, which read along the lines of...
dan...@eposta.hu (Daneel) wrote in message news:<a23a105e.04062...@posting.google.com>...
[...]
> ASSUMPTION: In a tournament of sufficient size your only sure way to
> make the finals is to score 3 GWs. VPs are only used for secondary
> sorting. Lots of people will have 2 GW; the second best way to make it
> is to have 2 GW and lots of VPs. Nevertheless, without GWs you won't
> make the finals.
[...]
> Case A:
> 0 GW and 0 VP: 75% (about 45th place)
> 1 GW and 3 VP: 22% (about 15th place)
> 2 GW and 6 VP: 2.2% (some chance for the finals; about 5th place)
> 3 GW and 9 VP: 0.073% (probably finals + first seed)
>
> Case B:
> 0 GW and 6 VP: 100% (In a tournament with 50 people that's about 16th
> place.)
Note that my "calculated" placings assumed a tournament of about 50
participants (and as such were actually calculated in a rule-of-thumb
manner, based on the results of the last few regular local
tournaments).
Further note that even at the quoted smaller events, those people who
just made it into the finals could have just missed it as well. Also
note the variations of VP concentration. Aiming to achieve 1/4.5 is a
sure way to _miss_ the finals and score 6th- place. Getting 2+ GWs is
more like it.
Last but not least please note my phrases "2 GW and lots of VPs" and
"without GWs you won't make the finals" for some on-topic reference.
Happy Gaming,
Daneel
Derek Ray
dan...@eposta.hu (Daneel) mumbled something about:
>Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<gh3te0t6a46g82424...@4ax.com>...
>> As an idle note referencing a prior thread: This is what it took to get
>> into the finals for each tournament at Origins. (I'm listing the player
>> whose preliminary ranking was 5th in each case)
>
>I'm pretty sure continuing a discussion where it started is an
>excellent way to continue a debate in the sense that anyone interested
>pro or con can probably encounter your post _without_ sheer luck only.
Funny, I'm pretty sure that posting something like this WITHOUT
obviously directing it at any specific person... ie, by responding to a
different thread... is an excellent way to cap off that same debate, as
only the people who feel "stung" will respond. *smirk*
I really am not interested in people who don't at least bother to glance
over each new post for content. It only takes a few seconds to see what
the person in question is talking about, and then you can tap "next" on
your newsreader to go to the next-unread message. Some newsreaders
allow you to mark an entire thread "read" if you're that type, and if
you feel confident enough that the thread will remain on subject
(experience indicates that it never does, so I always touch each post
briefly).
I suppose if one is still silly enough to use Google, and considers
web-based interfaces to actually be EFFECTIVE for this sort of thing,
then one might have some trouble, or more of a time investment required.
That, however, is not my problem. Refusal to use readily-available
technology for assistance is simple stubbornness.
Very few tournaments hit 50 participants -- and it's worth noting that
you are blithely ignoring your own statements.
Your statement: The only sure way to make the finals is to score 3 GW.
Proven false above.
Your statement: The second best way to make it is to have 2GW and lots
of VPs. This is an abstract statement due to the phrase "second best";
however, if you are intending to imply that 2GW and lots of VP are
necessary, that also has been proven false above.
>Further note that even at the quoted smaller events, those people who
>just made it into the finals could have just missed it as well. Also
Are we going to play "what-if" and "might-have-been" now?
What if everyone plays weenie Dominate bleed? Everyone would contest
and the Samedi deck with 20 Deflections might well win.
>note the variations of VP concentration. Aiming to achieve 1/4.5 is a
>sure way to _miss_ the finals and score 6th- place. Getting 2+ GWs is
>more like it.
Also proven false above. I suggest reading my post, and then examining
the VP totals for the 4th place finishers in Kevin's post. Aiming to
achieve 1GW with lots of VPs may not be the most certain way to make the
finals, but it is patently true that it is POSSIBLE to do so.
Aiming for a higher-risk 2GW provides more certainty that if you
succeed, you will make the finals -- but also typically increases the
risk of failure. (in our prevous example, it surely did).
>Last but not least please note my phrases "2 GW and lots of VPs" and
>"without GWs you won't make the finals" for some on-topic reference.
First proven false above, second is a pithy tautology.
Glad you showed up for your on-topic spanking. Thanks for playing!
Daneel
> >excellent way to continue a debate in the sense that anyone interested
> >pro or con can probably encounter your post _without_ sheer luck only.
>
> Funny, I'm pretty sure that posting something like this WITHOUT
> obviously directing it at any specific person... ie, by responding to a
> different thread... is an excellent way to cap off that same debate, as
> only the people who feel "stung" will respond. *smirk*
Nice riposte, even though I basically disagree (I generally prefer
threads to remain as comprehensive and exclusive as possible). Also
note that posting a stingy post in the first place is bound to sting
normal folks every now and then, even if (ad absurdum) posted by a
well-known troll or something... ;)
> I really am not interested in people
Well, cool statement. Must be nice to be you... ;) (Talk about
selective quoting and (un)intentional(?) misunderstanding of
content...)
> >> ASSUMPTION: In a tournament of sufficient size your only sure way to
> >> make the finals is to score 3 GWs. VPs are only used for secondary
> >> sorting. Lots of people will have 2 GW; the second best way to make it
> >> is to have 2 GW and lots of VPs. Nevertheless, without GWs you won't
> >> make the finals.
> >Note that my "calculated" placings assumed a tournament of about 50
> >participants (and as such were actually calculated in a rule-of-thumb
> >manner, based on the results of the last few regular local
> >tournaments).
>
> Very few tournaments hit 50 participants --
Irrelevant to a discussion about tournaments with 50 participants.
(Kind of like how it would be pointless to argue on an Assamite Deck
Strategies forum on the Path of Blood that discussion about the
Assamites is pointless because they seldom win anyway).
> and it's worth noting that you are blithely ignoring your own statements.
Please clarify.
> Your statement: The only sure way to make the finals is to score 3 GW.
> Proven false above.
Check the part quoted from my original post.
1. It is an assumption (on which my calculations are based).
2. It assumes tournaments of "sufficient size" (an admittedly
arbitrary comment on which my position calculations sheds some light,
which use 50-people tournaments).
> Your statement: The second best way to make it is to have 2GW and lots
> of VPs. This is an abstract statement due to the phrase "second best";
> however, if you are intending to imply that 2GW and lots of VP are
> necessary, that also has been proven false above.
See above.
> >Further note that even at the quoted smaller events, those people who
> >just made it into the finals could have just missed it as well. Also
>
> Are we going to play "what-if" and "might-have-been" now?
No. Check the VP variations. Gaining 1 GW and 4.5 VP will earn you 5th
place at one 20 player tournament and 6th at another. Please try to
tell me how the same GW/VP score will always get you a fix position.
> >note the variations of VP concentration. Aiming to achieve 1/4.5 is a
> >sure way to _miss_ the finals and score 6th- place. Getting 2+ GWs is
> >more like it.
>
> Also proven false above. I suggest reading my post, and then examining
> the VP totals for the 4th place finishers in Kevin's post. Aiming to
> achieve 1GW with lots of VPs may not be the most certain way to make the
> finals, but it is patently true that it is POSSIBLE to do so.
Yes. The chances are, however, drastically diminished with an increase
in tournament size. Seldom do I see 50+ participant tournaments where
some finalists managed with a single GW. The usual is something like
around 1+ people with 3 GW, and around 4+ with 2. If all tables yield
a GW, 50/5×3 is 30, distributed somewhat unevenly among 50
participants. The rule of thumb borderline between 1 GW and 2 GW
required for the finals is around 30-40 people.
> Aiming for a higher-risk 2GW provides more certainty that if you
> succeed, you will make the finals -- but also typically increases the
> risk of failure. (in our prevous example, it surely did).
You clearly assume smaller tournaments. It is even possible to make
the finals without any GWs. Unfortunately (fortunately?) I have little
experience with smaller tournaments. I prefer events with 40-50
participants, where I won't usually face the same people again in the
preliminary rounds (and the whole thing feels more "authentic"). 51+
is not really preferred, because it is basically two or more different
tournaments with jointly tallied results.
Happy Gaming,
Daneel
Jay Kristoff
>OK, here's everything from Origins 2004:
(snip)
Kevin, thank you for all of the effort you put in
at this year's Origins. I think that this might
have been your most smoothly run year so far.
Your work does not go unnoticed.
Jay
Derek Ray
>> >Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<gh3te0t6a46g82424...@4ax.com>...
>> >I'm pretty sure continuing a discussion where it started is an
>> >excellent way to continue a debate in the sense that anyone interested
>> >pro or con can probably encounter your post _without_ sheer luck only.
>>
>> Funny, I'm pretty sure that posting something like this WITHOUT
>> obviously directing it at any specific person... ie, by responding to a
>> different thread... is an excellent way to cap off that same debate, as
>> only the people who feel "stung" will respond. *smirk*
>
>Nice riposte, even though I basically disagree (I generally prefer
>threads to remain as comprehensive and exclusive as possible). Also
>note that posting a stingy post in the first place is bound to sting
>normal folks every now and then, even if (ad absurdum) posted by a
>well-known troll or something... ;)
You think I'm just a troll?
I've done more for this game than you could imagine. I've spent more
time creating things for it, writing about it, and otherwise supporting
it (especially when it was in the ditch under WotC) than you EVER would
have, because you're too set in your little narrow-minded clueless world
to even HOPE to have that talent.
Go fuck yourself. I have better things to do with my time than waste it
on dead-slot losers like you.
The Doctor
>
> I've done more for this game than you could imagine. I've spent more
> time creating things for it, writing about it, and otherwise supporting
> it (especially when it was in the ditch under WotC) than you EVER would
> have, because you're too set in your little narrow-minded clueless world
> to even HOPE to have that talent.
Well, so far the things I've been reading in this group by your hand
were overwhelmingly unimpressive.
You seem bitter.
Time to retire then?
//Doc.
--
"Wees jezelf, er zijn al zoveel anderen" - Loesje
begin Your_MS_program_incorrectly_interprets_this_as_an_attachment.txt
Derek Ray
The Doctor <D...@freemail.nl> mumbled something about:
>Derek Ray wrote:
>>
>> I've done more for this game than you could imagine. I've spent more
>> time creating things for it, writing about it, and otherwise supporting
>> it (especially when it was in the ditch under WotC) than you EVER would
>> have, because you're too set in your little narrow-minded clueless world
>> to even HOPE to have that talent.
>
>Well, so far the things I've been reading in this group by your hand
>were overwhelmingly unimpressive.
That's because you're a short-sighted RPG refugee whose overblown
opinion of himself is only matched by your overblown opinion of your
skill. Both are sadly lacking.
I suggest Google.
Daneel
> >threads to remain as comprehensive and exclusive as possible). Also
> >note that posting a stingy post in the first place is bound to sting
> >normal folks every now and then, even if (ad absurdum) posted by a
> >well-known troll or something... ;)
>
> You think I'm just a troll?
You started rough. I entered the sparring room. If you wield heavy
weapons you should also have the guts to take a direct hit.
> I've done more for this game than you could imagine. I've spent more
> time creating things for it, writing about it, and otherwise supporting
> it (especially when it was in the ditch under WotC) than you EVER would
> have, because you're too set in your little narrow-minded clueless world
> to even HOPE to have that talent.
That is very nice of you. You sound like RCG and LSJ combined. Must be
cool to be you...
However, all that you have written (even if true and as such is to be
respected) falls short of being a point in a debate whether you behave
like a troll or not.
You are not just a troll. You also contribute. But you do not seem
indispensable in either capacity (work for the game, being the local
tough guy on forums). Your work is to be respected; your attitude is
to be not. It's not just style, mind you. I don't mind people who are
rough, but have the guts and are fair. You are rough (especially if
someone disagrees with you, even if in a normally polite manner), but
as soon as someone does anything but cower before you you become
hysterical. You also have a tendency to sneak-post (my definition of
posting something that is supposed to continue an old debate) and find
various excuses to scorn *specific* people (only specific people, like
people who use google, or people who play the RPG and compare the CCG
to it, or... Forgive me for being personal for a bit, but I presume
you are a straight young adult caucasian middle class male (in no way
belonging to any minority) who has a tendency to have prejudices and
use a set of convenient social clichés to mark the majority of the
people as one form of inferior minority).
> Go fuck yourself. I have better things to do with my time than waste it
> on dead-slot losers like you.
I had hoped for some more on-topic posting. Guess the topic _will_ go
on, only in another thread. I'll be polishing my vigilance...
Bye,
Daneel
Derek Ray
>> >> >Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<gh3te0t6a46g82424...@4ax.com>...
>> >Nice riposte, even though I basically disagree (I generally prefer
>> >threads to remain as comprehensive and exclusive as possible). Also
>> >note that posting a stingy post in the first place is bound to sting
>> >normal folks every now and then, even if (ad absurdum) posted by a
>> >well-known troll or something... ;)
>>
>> You think I'm just a troll?
>
>You started rough. I entered the sparring room. If you wield heavy
>weapons you should also have the guts to take a direct hit.
Sorry, bud, it's a dead miss. I just don't want to waste time with you
if you're going to be a retard, because it just proves what I said --
you're a dead slot. You can't get it because you don't have enough
common sense, you won't get it because you're too stubborn, and you'll
NEVER get it because you won't try.
I suggest you go through Google and read. Some things you'll never know
about, but you should definitely catch up on the past before you begin
running your mouth.
Until then, you can continue to go fuck yourself.
Kamel SENNI
>
> I've done more for this game than you could imagine. I've spent more
> time creating things for it, writing about it, and otherwise supporting
> it (especially when it was in the ditch under WotC) than you EVER would
> have, because you're too set in your little narrow-minded clueless world
> to even HOPE to have that talent.
So continue.
> Go fuck yourself. I have better things to do with my time than waste it
> on dead-slot losers like you.
So do these better things.
Thanks !
Kamel.
Derek Ray
kamel...@yvelines.pref.gouv.fr (Kamel SENNI) mumbled something about:
>> You think I'm just a troll?
>>
>> I've done more for this game than you could imagine. I've spent more
>> time creating things for it, writing about it, and otherwise supporting
>> it (especially when it was in the ditch under WotC) than you EVER would
>> have, because you're too set in your little narrow-minded clueless world
>> to even HOPE to have that talent.
>
>So continue.
Have been for some time, thanks.
>> Go fuck yourself. I have better things to do with my time than waste it
>> on dead-slot losers like you.
>
>So do these better things.
Have been doing that for some time too, thanks. I originally tried to
discuss the issues again with this retard, but frankly, he spends a lot
of time being a fool about stuff and bitching about my attitude instead
of stepping back and looking at the big picture, in order to arrive at
some conclusions that AREN'T based within 15 miles of himself.
Here's one for all y'all: Don't like my attitude? LEARN TO THINK.
I cut a lot of discussions short in person because people obviously
cannot grasp the most basic premise of the conversation; if one can't
identify that what we're looking at is a forest, debating whether or not
those are pine trees or maple trees is going to be pretty fruitless.
Not so easy to do on USENET, and I often make the mistake of responding
to morons who say things like "But we aren't talking about forests."
Perhaps all of you reading this could consider that, too; first identify
the forest correctly, THEN consider whether or not your assessment of
the trees is right. Daneel can't do that and is more interested in
intellectual masturbation and calling me a troll than using his head;
can YOU do that? Or are you in Daneel's ghost ship?
The Doctor
> Your work is to be respected; your attitude is to be not.
Hear, hear!
> It's not just style, mind you. I don't mind people who are
> rough, but have the guts and are fair. You are rough (especially if
> someone disagrees with you, even if in a normally polite manner), but
> as soon as someone does anything but cower before you you become
> hysterical.
And again, I have to second that.
The Doctor
>
> I suggest you go through Google and read. Some things you'll never know
> about, but you should definitely catch up on the past before you begin
> running your mouth.
Whatever the amount of knowledge in your head or work you've done in the
past does not give you the righjt to call other people names and insult
them (well pathetic attempts at insults anyway).
You should go read about Netiquette perhaps. I'm sure there's plenty of
peopple that can teach you plenty about that. In fact, use Google if you
wish.
Darky
> I suggest you go through Google and read. Some things you'll never know
> about, but you should definitely catch up on the past before you begin
> running your mouth.
>
> Until then, you can continue to go fuck yourself.
>
> -- Derek
Must be tough, having fallen down from your oh-so glorious past to
just degenerating threads with your personal arguments. Go do those
better things like Kamel said and give it a rest.
-Bram Vink
Ira
> PS: at no point have the !Ventrue sucked.
You have so many actions at exactly +1 stealth; I would have been
worried that they'd be blocked all the time. Did you find that they
weren't blocked because people couldn't block, didn't choose to block
because they were scared of your combat, or that they did block, but
you had freak drives and a lot of actions?
Also, I'm curious about Telepathic Misdirection - did you use it for
bounce, intercept, or both? In retrospect, would you have preferred
more Dom bounce, or did you like the variety of bounce types?
And why not Mr. Winthrop vs. the Sport's Bike? Perhaps just fear of
contesting, but I'd probably rather contest it than have him out. And
I'm always afraid of Car Bombs. hehe. :)
Feel free to not reveal your entire strategy, but I figured it
couldn't hurt to ask the master. :)
Ira
Jay Kristoff
>Hey Jay,
>> PS: at no point have the !Ventrue sucked.
>You have so many actions at exactly +1 stealth; I would have been
>worried that they'd be blocked all the time. Did you find that they
>weren't blocked because people couldn't block, didn't choose to block
>because they were scared of your combat, or that they did block, but
>you had freak drives and a lot of actions?
Yes, intercept can bother this deck. On the day of this tournament I wasn't
getting blocked much. When people are trying to block me, a combination
of Beefcake combat, and multiple, good actions can confuse the blocking
player. Also Crockodile's Tounge and Seduction are there to help.
>Also, I'm curious about Telepathic Misdirection - did you use it for
>bounce, intercept, or both? In retrospect, would you have preferred
>more Dom bounce, or did you like the variety of bounce types?
I really like the versatility of Telpathic Misdirection, especially in a
deck like this one that is content with blocking or bouncing. Plus,
it's not an intstant discard in a two player end-game. The varitey
of bounce types served me well.
>And why not Mr. Winthrop vs. the Sport's Bike? Perhaps just fear of
>contesting, but I'd probably rather contest it than have him out. And
>I'm always afraid of Car Bombs. hehe. :)
Sport Bike and the other equipment in the deck (I.R., Flack) were often
innocently equiped early in the game by a non-Beefcake vampire. No
one seems to care if Sampson or Owain has a bike. Later on, Beefcake
walks over and equips that stuff from those innocent dudes and becomes
even more of a blocking machine.
>Feel free to not reveal your entire strategy, but I figured it
>couldn't hurt to ask the master. :)
There's no real secret to my strategies. And yeah, it doesn't
hurt to ask. BTW, what did the master say when you asked
him? :)
take care,
Jay
Daneel
> >> >note that posting a stingy post in the first place is bound to sting
> >> >normal folks every now and then, even if (ad absurdum) posted by a
> >> >well-known troll or something... ;)
> >>
> >> You think I'm just a troll?
> >
> >You started rough. I entered the sparring room. If you wield heavy
> >weapons you should also have the guts to take a direct hit.
>
> Sorry, bud, it's a dead miss. I just don't want to waste time with you
> if you're going to be a retard, because it just proves what I said --
> you're a dead slot. You can't get it because you don't have enough
> common sense, you won't get it because you're too stubborn, and you'll
> NEVER get it because you won't try.
Sorry, I was wrong. You *are* just a troll, regardless of what you
once were. Immediately resorting to getting personal once you are
proven wrong, even if it is only about basic facts, like what one post
stated and what it did not state. You conveniently ignore integral
parts of some posts (like my note on the number of people
participating).
My greatest sorrow is that while your contributions may be worth
something in themselves, your arguments are always in a vacuum - it is
pretty hard to involve you in an actual _debate_. (Even for people who
are more lenient than I am.) As soon as someone disagrees with you
your straw breaks. It is hard to take you really seriously for the
same reason; most normal folks will just tolerate you, but will not
necessarily be happy with what you contribute. Less lenient folks and
trolls will take the lurking flamebait present in your average comment
and flame your ass off. And grin when you whine how you never saw that
coming.
Check the forum work of TheLasombra. An old timer and a significant
contributor, he can be sarcastic like vinegar, but he is always far
from being offensive. Or LSJ; he can be so diplomatic that it
literally hurts. It is possible to remain civil after lengthy forum
exposure (even if the means are currently beyond my comprehension).
Bye,
Daneel
Daneel
> >> >note that posting a stingy post in the first place is bound to sting
> >> >normal folks every now and then, even if (ad absurdum) posted by a
> >> >well-known troll or something... ;)
> >>
> >> You think I'm just a troll?
> >
> >You started rough. I entered the sparring room. If you wield heavy
> >weapons you should also have the guts to take a direct hit.
>
> Sorry, bud, it's a dead miss. I just don't want to waste time with you
> if you're going to be a retard, because it just proves what I said --
> you're a dead slot. You can't get it because you don't have enough
> common sense, you won't get it because you're too stubborn, and you'll
> NEVER get it because you won't try.
Sorry, I was wrong. You *are* just a troll, regardless of what you
Derek Ray
>Derek Ray wrote:
>>
>> I suggest you go through Google and read. Some things you'll never know
>> about, but you should definitely catch up on the past before you begin
>> running your mouth.
>
>Whatever the amount of knowledge in your head or work you've done in the
>past does not give you the righjt to call other people names and insult
>them (well pathetic attempts at insults anyway).
Well, if you would pull your head out of your ass and try to think,
instead of leaving it up there and continuing to blow smoke, then you
might understand why I insult people.
When I phrase something politely and you fail to read it, I figure that
the only way to get your attention is to call you a naughty boo-boo.
Funny, I don't have ANY of this trouble at work, and I phrase all my
email correspondence there in the same "polite" style as I do here.
Yes, yes, whine all you like, but for every nasty message, there are
plenty of polite ones too. I know you'd just LOVE to demonize me as a
right 'orrible blighter, but forget it, bud, I know better.
Maybe I work with people who are a bit smarter than you, or who are at
least willing to listen to well-phrased arguments? Hmmm... could
beeee.... Maybe it's that "Malkavian wannabe" leaking into your head
again. Ooo, the voices! *snort*
Derek Ray
jja....@hccnet.nl (Darky) mumbled something about:
And fuck you too, Bram. I spend just as much time posting content as I
do responding to retards -- it's just a shame that more and more of the
readers here these days seem to be retards who are unwilling to listen
to plain old facts, and instead want to blabber about unrelated bullshit
in an effort to support a flimsy to nonexistent point.
I refer you to my initial post in this thread, which was chock full of
content. EZ GG $$, as you would say -- that's all.
Derek Ray
dan...@eposta.hu (Daneel) mumbled something about:
>> Sorry, bud, it's a dead miss. I just don't want to waste time with you
>> if you're going to be a retard, because it just proves what I said --
>> you're a dead slot. You can't get it because you don't have enough
>> common sense, you won't get it because you're too stubborn, and you'll
>> NEVER get it because you won't try.
>
>Sorry, I was wrong. You *are* just a troll, regardless of what you
>once were. Immediately resorting to getting personal once you are
>proven wrong, even if it is only about basic facts, like what one post
Except that you have, yet again, failed to prove anything.
Go back and read. Just read. Continue to read until you understand it.
And then go back and read again. And keep reading.
Eventually you will find that you cannot deny your own words, or the
gaping flaws in your logic that an old grandmother could waddle through
before you could close it.
>stated and what it did not state. You conveniently ignore integral
>parts of some posts (like my note on the number of people
>participating).
Because you ignore the big picture in favor of your own narrow-minded
perceptions. You do this because you cannot STAND that someone other
than you might be right. Guess what; I am. I always will be, because
you REFUSE to grasp things that are not as you have always perceived
them, and you (like the Doctor, unsurprisingly) have SUCH an overflown
opinion of yourself that you assume you're always right. You're not!
In fact, you're usually wrong, because you haven't really spent any time
thinking; you've just spent time running your mouth and pissing and
moaning about how I said bad words to you.
Example: You cannot say "I prefer 50 player tournaments, so I will use
THIS for all my arguments, and deny that any other size exists". It
does not matter a shit what you prefer. The rules must encompass
12-player tournaments through 100-player tournaments. 25-30 player
tournaments are far more common than 50-player tournaments, and probably
12-25 player tournaments are more common than THOSE. When dealing with
generalizations, it is most useful to pick... the general case, in other
words, the most common.
I need provide no more examples. Again, please just TRY to think. I
know it's hard, but you can manage it.
Ben Peal
> Note that my "calculated" placings assumed a tournament of about 50
> participants (and as such were actually calculated in a rule-of-thumb
> manner, based on the results of the last few regular local
> tournaments).
>
> Further note that even at the quoted smaller events, those people who
> just made it into the finals could have just missed it as well. Also
> note the variations of VP concentration. Aiming to achieve 1/4.5 is a
> sure way to _miss_ the finals and score 6th- place. Getting 2+ GWs is
> more like it.
At a tournament of 50+ players, I'd rather play a deck that has a
lower chance of getting GW but a higher chance of getting lots of
VP when it does win, than play a deck that has a better chance of
getting 2 GW but not typically getting more than 3 VP when it does
win.
Why? Because if I _do_ get the 2 GW that's gonna be necessary to
make the finals, I also want the VP that are also going to be
necessary to make the finals. 2 GW and 5 VP, or 2 GW and 6 VP
aren't going to do it.
- Ben Peal
fu...@mindstorm.com
Alex Broadhead
.me foolishly inserts self into flamewar
> Sorry, I was wrong. You *are* just a troll, regardless of what you
> once were. Immediately resorting to getting personal once you are
> proven wrong, even if it is only about basic facts, like what one post
> stated and what it did not state. You conveniently ignore integral
> parts of some posts (like my note on the number of people
> participating).
Neither of theses are characteristics of trolls, unless you are just
using the term as a generic insult and not in its Net-specific sense.
And for what it's worth, I've yet to see anyone 'prove' anyone wrong
about anything in this thread or the bits of the one it was derived
from that I read. Here's a diagram of the 'argument' as I see it:
Daneel: In tournaments of 'sufficient size' (N=50), you need lots
of Game Wins to make the final, and VP are largely irrelevant.
Derek: In actual tournaments of 'sufficient size' (12<=N<=30), you
are quite likely to make the final based on your VP, so they're very
important.
Note that both statements are more or less entirely correct - it's
simply that 'sufficient size' is taken to mean different things.
Daneel has chosen an abstract number, apparently based on his
experience of European tourneys; Derek is analyzing actual data from a
very important set of US tourneys.
Applying Daneel's analysis to the US data produces no useful result;
we almost never see his 'sufficient size'. Applying Derek's analysis
to the Daneel's specific European hypothesis is similarly not terribly
helpful, though I would note that tournaments of smaller scale
probably happen more often there than ones of larger scale happen
here...
> My greatest sorrow is that while your contributions may be worth
> something in themselves, your arguments are always in a vacuum - it is
> pretty hard to involve you in an actual _debate_. (Even for people who
> are more lenient than I am.) As soon as someone disagrees with you
> your straw breaks. It is hard to take you really seriously for the
> same reason; most normal folks will just tolerate you, but will not
> necessarily be happy with what you contribute. Less lenient folks and
> trolls will take the lurking flamebait present in your average comment
> and flame your ass off. And grin when you whine how you never saw that
> coming.
Dude. What are you basing these wild generalizations on? Maybe you
_should_ check Google, like Derek suggests. While Derek is well-known
for flaming _other people's asses off_, he most often does so with
cause. And most often that cause is the other person's inability to
form and/or follow a logical argument. I don't tend to agree with
that school of discourse, but I can certainly understand where it
comes from. In the current case, I suspect it is your insistence that
the only important value of N is 50, in the face of empirical evidence
to the contrary, that is ticking him off.
> Check the forum work of TheLasombra. An old timer and a significant
> contributor, he can be sarcastic like vinegar, but he is always far
> from being offensive.
Oof. Hopefully Jeff will take that better than it reads.
> Or LSJ; he can be so diplomatic that it
> literally hurts
An apt description. You do know that it's his job to be here, right?
He is paid to be diplomatic, among other things.
> It is possible to remain civil after lengthy forum
> exposure (even if the means are currently beyond my comprehension).
Heh. The hard part is remaining civil after initial introduction...
Most people who make it to 'lengthy' exposure have a pretty good sense
of appropriate behavior. Say, how long have you been with us?
Hope that helps,
Alex
Daneel
...sorry for the double post. I'm not sure why it occured, I most
certainly believe I only sent the post once...
Bye,
Daneel
Kamel SENNI
> intellectual masturbation and calling me a troll than using his head;
> can YOU do that? Or are you in Daneel's ghost ship?
Yes, I can. And no, I'm not anywhere, except in front of my PC.
The thing that I see, Derek, is that continue to argue with a guy you
don't like rise your level of cholesterol, lessens your lifespan by
elevating (is it the word ?) your arteral tension and so on.
Just say : "Hey Danneel, see you in another life !"
You will feel better, and we will, then, continue to discuss about our
favorite games without that flamewars, that give us a bad opinion of
you, just because you really want to be the last to talk. Tha last to
talk is not always the guy who won...
You can win by just let the other talk to the end... alone.
I know the great work you have done for the ratings.
So, Derek...
Bye !
Kamel.
Stefan Ferenci
>
> Daneel: In tournaments of 'sufficient size' (N=50), you need lots
> of Game Wins to make the final, and VP are largely irrelevant.
> Derek: In actual tournaments of 'sufficient size' (12<=N<=30), you
> are quite likely to make the final based on your VP, so they're very
> important.
>
wrong in small to medium size event you need 1 gw and a lot of vps
and in a large event you need 2 game win and a lot of vps
stefan
The Doctor
>
> Maybe I work with people who are a bit smarter than you, or who are at
> least willing to listen to well-phrased arguments? Hmmm... could
> beeee.... Maybe it's that "Malkavian wannabe" leaking into your head
> again. Ooo, the voices! *snort*
Or maybe you are just a bitter man who is trying to gain standing in a
community he feels he has done much for, but which was never openly
appreciated by all.
Or maybe you have delusions of grandeur.
Or maybe you are just too stupid to communicate in a normal manner with
people you do not have to face (this is a common problem on the
internet). Just because they cannot punch you in the face you feel you
have the right to be mean.
The Doctor
>
> And fuck you too, Bram. I spend just as much time posting content as I
> do responding to retards -- it's just a shame that more and more of the
Stop wasting both our times then, go to just posting content and leave
the retards alone. You'll have more time, and we and the retards will
have more content to read.
Derek Ray
>Derek Ray wrote:
>>
>> Maybe I work with people who are a bit smarter than you, or who are at
>> least willing to listen to well-phrased arguments? Hmmm... could
>> beeee.... Maybe it's that "Malkavian wannabe" leaking into your head
>> again. Ooo, the voices! *snort*
>
>Or maybe you are just a bitter man who is trying to gain standing in a
>community he feels he has done much for, but which was never openly
>appreciated by all.
Nope. Enough people who I consider to matter say nice things to me on a
frequent basis. Perhaps you are just a fool?
>Or maybe you have delusions of grandeur.
Projection syndrome?
>Or maybe you are just too stupid to communicate in a normal manner with
>people you do not have to face (this is a common problem on the
>internet). Just because they cannot punch you in the face you feel you
>have the right to be mean.
You know, this is what's funny; I would WELCOME any of you, ANY of you,
standing in front of me and trying to repeat the things both of you do.
I am dead certain that I would not be the one changing my tune, and we
would notice a MARKED difference in your attitude.
And it's not because of any physical reasons; it's just that you might
realize just how stupid some of the things you say are when you heard
them said out loud.
Derek Ray
>Derek Ray wrote:
>>
>> And fuck you too, Bram. I spend just as much time posting content as I
>> do responding to retards -- it's just a shame that more and more of the
>
>Stop wasting both our times then, go to just posting content and leave
>the retards alone. You'll have more time, and we and the retards will
>have more content to read.
Pot, kettle, black.
Derek Ray
Stefan Ferenci <a950n...@unet.s.p.a.m.univie.ac.at> mumbled something
about:
This is actually a quite accurate perspective.
It's been my personal impression that to make the final consistently, I
need to scarf up as many GW and VP as I can possibly manage; when I
don't think I can get a GW, I need to make at least some VP in a round.
A round where I get 0VP is terrible and hurts my chances significantly,
because now I will lose on tiebreakers to anyone who is running at about
the same speed I am. The larger the tournament, the more likely it is
that someone's deck is performing almost exactly as well as mine.
Those stray VP matter TONS. That's also why the 1GW/5VP sweep is better
than the 1GW/4VP sweep, and why the tournament seating charts are
structured to make an effort to avoid someone being at a 4-player (or
5-player, whichever is the odd number out) table more than once.
Derek Ray
>>Daneel can't do that and is more interested in
>> intellectual masturbation and calling me a troll than using his head;
>> can YOU do that? Or are you in Daneel's ghost ship?
>
>Yes, I can. And no, I'm not anywhere, except in front of my PC.
>
>The thing that I see, Derek, is that continue to argue with a guy you
>don't like rise your level of cholesterol, lessens your lifespan by
>elevating (is it the word ?) your arteral tension and so on.
There's another school of thought on that. Some believe a good argument
restores vigor, wakes the blood up, and really makes one think.
I'm not one of those. I think it's just about unmattering <-- new word!
for me -- I don't really let this stuff bother me in the real world. I
talk about it to others locally who read the group sometimes, but
typically they bring it up to ME first.
>Just say : "Hey Danneel, see you in another life !"
>You will feel better, and we will, then, continue to discuss about our
>favorite games without that flamewars, that give us a bad opinion of
>you, just because you really want to be the last to talk. Tha last to
>talk is not always the guy who won...
There's no "winning", one way or the other. I think this is something
many people don't understand. I speak until I've said what needs to be
said. I don't really like repeating myself, and I really REALLY don't
like people who just plain don't read what's being said.
>I know the great work you have done for the ratings.
Actually, most (if not all) of the credit for what Robyn and I did
should go to Robyn. She is the one who has put in tons of work in the
past keeping the ratings straight, and tons of work during the
new-ratings process to make sure everything was up-to-date and the data
had as few as possible holes in it... and she's managed to do this
despite all the Princes who fail to send tournament reports on time, or
fail to send them at all until they've been pestered with multiple
emails... and then send an improperly filled out report. Wow, that's
some grim stuff. I've seen the junk that some Princes send (if you're
reading this, you know who you are), and all I can say is that they
should be glad it's Robyn pestering them to fix it, and not me. I'd
have had some heads on a plate by now. =)
Hurrah, Robyn!
The Doctor
>
> You know, this is what's funny; I would WELCOME any of you, ANY of you,
> standing in front of me and trying to repeat the things both of you do.
> I am dead certain that I would not be the one changing my tune, and we
> would notice a MARKED difference in your attitude.
>
> And it's not because of any physical reasons; it's just that you might
> realize just how stupid some of the things you say are when you heard
> them said out loud.
So you'd stand in front of me saying I am stupid, a fool, a wannabe and
I should go fuck myself?
I would not be surprised to break with my non-violence rule if someone
would be stupid enough to be as insultive as I've seen you be in the
past 2 weeks.
Please do note that in none of the cases I have witnessed your opponent
(since that seems to be how you view anyone who happens to have another
opinion) was the one that started the unpleasantness.
The Doctor
> In message <40F3B016...@freemail.nl>,
> The Doctor <D...@freemail.nl> mumbled something about:
>
>
>>Derek Ray wrote:
>>
>>>And fuck you too, Bram. I spend just as much time posting content as I
>>>do responding to retards -- it's just a shame that more and more of the
>>
>>Stop wasting both our times then, go to just posting content and leave
>>the retards alone. You'll have more time, and we and the retards will
>>have more content to read.
>
>
> Pot, kettle, black.
Wrong, I never claimed to be producing content.
Try again.
Andrew S. Davidson
>Anyone still interested in standing up on their hind legs and telling me
>that additional VP don't matter and sheer accumulation of Game Wins is
>the only way to make the finals?
My understanding is that the "play to win" rule derives from the VEKN
sportmasnship rule: "Players must not play toward goals that conflict
with the goal of the game as stated in the V:TES rulebook (e.g.,
attacking certain players on the basis of their V:EKN ratings or
overall tournament standing, etc.)." It appears from this that one's
tournament standing is not a sportmanslike goal. One is supposed to
be trying to win each individual game, regardless of the tournament
metagame. If that's the case, then the statistics from Origins are
irrelevant to that issue.
But thanks to Kevin for taking the trouble to write the stats up. Me,
I'm still haven't finished 2003 for Doomtown, never mind 2004. :(
Andrew
Joshua Duffin
"Kevin M." <you...@imaspammer.org> wrote in message
news:HsFHc.212$jJ.108@fed1read07...
> "Joshua Duffin" <duff...@bls.gov> wrote:
> [snip Josh and Ben saying the seating order in the finals was wrongly
> entered]
>
> OK, I don't know how all those finals could have been put into the
> computer in the wrong order, but as it doesn't matter, I'll just let
it
> be. Maybe I was more tired than I thought. I certainly am going to
make
> sure I get more sleep next year. :)
Good luck with that, I think I said the same thing about this year. :-)
> > Thanks for the reports, Kevin! Any idea when the results will go
into
> > the VEKN ratings database? :-)
>
> Next week. Maybe you'll still be #1 in draft?
I actually discovered on returning to DC that at least one of my old
draft tournaments fell off the back of the bus, so I am no longer #1.
But perhaps I can restore my reputation with the Origins tournaments!
Josh
egomaniac... or megalomaniac?
Emmit Svenson
> Funny, I don't have ANY of this trouble at work, and I phrase all my
> email correspondence there in the same "polite" style as I do here.
This is a well-known cause of flame wars. When people read e-mail from
people they know, they automatically envision a face, a tone of voice
and body language that tends to soften the impact of any harsh words.
When people read the work of strangers, they tend to interpret it in a
more hostile way. So the people at work who know you as a friendly guy
with a gruff sense of humor don't take your guff seriously, but the
participants and lurkers on r.g.t-c.j might not know any other side of
you--especially since hostile exchanges tend to remain in the memory
longer than friendly ones.
Of course, another factor might be that the people you work with have
to try to get along with you as part of their job, and their private
opinions might be very different from their public ones. I
wouldn’t know, but it may be worth considering.
Ira
Thanks for your response amidst the flamewar that's going on
elsewhere in this thread. :)
> one seems to care if Sampson or Owain has a bike. Later on, Beefcake
> walks over and equips that stuff from those innocent dudes and becomes
> even more of a blocking machine.
Ah, OK.
> BTW, what did the master say when you asked him? :)
He said, "Be humble and lead by example." :)
Ira
Alex Broadhead
'Wrong' in this context isn't specific enough. Are you disagreeing
with my reduction of Daneel and Derek's positions? It doesn't look
like it to me.
The first part of your assertion, "in small to medium size event you
need 1 gw and a lot of vps," can be read to be the same as Derek's
assertion, if we can agree that 'small to medium' and 12<=N<=30 are
functionally equivalent. (I suppressed the 'you need 1 GW and' part
of Derek's argument, as I perceived the crux of the disagreement to be
over the value of VP.)
Which leaves the only part you seem to be considering 'wrong' to be
Daneel's assertion that for large events (N=50) VP are largely
irrelevant. Is that correct? If not, I cannot parse your comment,
and I'd appreciate clarification rather than oxidation...
Alex
Daneel
> Applying Daneel's analysis to the US data produces no useful result;
> we almost never see his 'sufficient size'. Applying Derek's analysis
> to the Daneel's specific European hypothesis is similarly not terribly
> helpful, though I would note that tournaments of smaller scale
> probably happen more often there than ones of larger scale happen
> here...
They do. That's another topic, though, and IMHO even though there are
more small tournaments than large ones, I see small tournaments as
requiring less analysis. In a smaller tournament you can almost always
just ignore the Game Win rule and aim to get as much VPs as possible
(and usually get a GW in the process anyway). In a larger tournament
the significance of GWs vs. VPs begin to matter. Nevertheless, the
question originally came up in relation to a problem of taking chances
(aiming at a GW at great risk or taking VPs from a more secure losing
deal).
> > My greatest sorrow is that while your contributions may be worth
> > something in themselves, your arguments are always in a vacuum - it is
> > pretty hard to involve you in an actual _debate_. (Even for people who
> > are more lenient than I am.) As soon as someone disagrees with you
> > your straw breaks. It is hard to take you really seriously for the
> > same reason; most normal folks will just tolerate you, but will not
> > necessarily be happy with what you contribute. Less lenient folks and
> > trolls will take the lurking flamebait present in your average comment
> > and flame your ass off. And grin when you whine how you never saw that
> > coming.
>
> Dude. What are you basing these wild generalizations on?
The late work of one Mr. Derek Ray.
> Maybe you _should_ check Google, like Derek suggests.
I am using it. I am browsing old posts. I am not comprehensive, but I
am driven by my curiosity and my desire to be familiar with the rules
and the history of the game.
> While Derek is well-known for flaming _other people's asses off_, he most
> often does so with cause. And most often that cause is the other person's
> inability to form and/or follow a logical argument.
Sometimes it is a matter of tastes, preferences and personal
experience. And neither is Derek omniscient. I've no problems with
people who flame other people's asses off as long as they _never_ do
it when they are not 100% right.
> In the current case, I suspect it is your insistence that
> the only important value of N is 50, in the face of empirical evidence
> to the contrary, that is ticking him off.
I was instructed to read so many times that recommending it no longer
seems to be any stylish. My insistance was fairly simple and easily
recognizable. One, I think that my original calculus was a more or
less fair representation of the data I processed (and as such IMHO a
fairly accurate, albeit general depiction). My conclusions drawed from
that were also fairly accurate. True, I did have some assumptions and
environmental variables set, and my findings do not apply equally well
to situations with different assumptions or environmental variables.
My insistance, to put it simply, is that in order to bring evidence to
a discussion you need to observe the bases of the discussion.
To rephrase the incident:
Daneel: In tournaments of 50+ size making the finals is nigh
impossible without 3 GWs or 2 GWs and lots of VPs.
Derek (undirected post): People who say that it is impossible to make
the finals without 2 or 3 GWs are asses, check this data about these
actual tournaments with 12 to 30 people.
Daneel (paraphrased): Uhum...
Kind of like the process you described for Derek, right? ;)
> > Check the forum work of TheLasombra. An old timer and a significant
> > contributor, he can be sarcastic like vinegar, but he is always far
> > from being offensive.
>
> Oof. Hopefully Jeff will take that better than it reads.
Maybe that's just my opinion and I did not write it just to please
him. Note that neither did I wish to upset him. I'm also sure he can
live with me having this opinion... ;)
> > Or LSJ; he can be so diplomatic that it literally hurts
>
> An apt description. You do know that it's his job to be here, right?
> He is paid to be diplomatic, among other things.
I am aware. I am curious whether you really thought that your comment
brought in new information, but that is another question.
> > It is possible to remain civil after lengthy forum
> > exposure (even if the means are currently beyond my comprehension).
>
> Heh. The hard part is remaining civil after initial introduction...
> Most people who make it to 'lengthy' exposure have a pretty good sense
> of appropriate behavior. Say, how long have you been with us?
Not sure what 'us' means:
My first Usenet post is from January 2004.
I have my WW forum account since about '99.
I am playing VTES since '96.
> Hope that helps,
With what exactly?
> Alex
Bye,
Daneel
James Mcclellan
> >>
> >> Daneel: In tournaments of 'sufficient size' (N=50), you need lots
> >> of Game Wins to make the final, and VP are largely irrelevant.
> >> Derek: In actual tournaments of 'sufficient size' (12<=N<=30), you
> >> are quite likely to make the final based on your VP, so they're very
> >> important.
> >>
> >wrong in small to medium size event you need 1 gw and a lot of vps
> >and in a large event you need 2 game win and a lot of vps
>
> This is actually a quite accurate perspective.
>
> It's been my personal impression that to make the final consistently, I
> need to scarf up as many GW and VP as I can possibly manage; when I
> don't think I can get a GW, I need to make at least some VP in a round.
>
> A round where I get 0VP is terrible and hurts my chances significantly,
> because now I will lose on tiebreakers to anyone who is running at about
> the same speed I am. The larger the tournament, the more likely it is
> that someone's deck is performing almost exactly as well as mine.
>
> Those stray VP matter TONS. That's also why the 1GW/5VP sweep is better
> than the 1GW/4VP sweep, and why the tournament seating charts are
> structured to make an effort to avoid someone being at a 4-player (or
> 5-player, whichever is the odd number out) table more than once.
>
> -- Derek
>
and i'ld like to thank you for sharing it with us. i always like it when
the discussion about VTES/Jyhad gets quantitative and i think it's at
these times that one may justly talk about a "science" of gaming, or at
least of Jyhad. i feel that this latest contribution of yours is
probably the most significant quantitative leap in the field since Ethan
articulated the module concept.
i wonder if you would agree with this extension of your idea, based on
final table realities [at least as i perceive them]: it is actually
WORSE to mount what we might call a Doc/Daneel deck that routinely takes
games so as to get 3GW and an irrelevant number of VP, than one that
routinely accumulates just enough [ie 1-2 GW depending on tournament
size, and a LOT of VP] to get to the final. This proposition is of
course based on the notion that the routine game-winner is a marked
Methuselah once they get to the final, the victim of every possible
cross-table effect that is not actually injurious to the other players'
individual interests. It may, however, be wholly wrong - i do not know
whether in tournaments players who go in as first seed are unusually
likely to win. Does anyone else know?
--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
The Doctor
> WORSE to mount what we might call a Doc/Daneel deck that routinely takes
Excuse me?
I know I haven't bothered to say it yet, since Derek keeps using harsh
words to shout about his opinion, but I agree with Derek that it's
better to pick up stray VP. It got me to the final last Sunday...
It's better to go for 50% chance at 1 VP then 5% chance of a GW
(assuming the path
to them would be mutually exclusive) _in_a_tournament_.
In a friendly game however, there are no second places, I will always go
for the tablewin. (Though I won't care about not getting it)
The Doctor
>>of appropriate behavior. Say, how long have you been with us?
>
> Not sure what 'us' means:
>
> My first Usenet post is from January 2004.
> I have my WW forum account since about '99.
> I am playing VTES since '96.
A kewl, let's compare dicksizes :)
Usenet since 1992 or 1993 (hard to recover the exact date since it's
pre-dejanews).
Jyhad since 1994. (Including being annoyed by Tom Wylie's Rotschreck
rulings in this group that changed about twice per week ;) )
Webforums (though non on-topic) since they exist, I guess about 1999 indeed.
How am I doing?
XZealot
> threads to remain as comprehensive and exclusive as possible). Also
> note that posting a stingy post in the first place is bound to sting
> normal folks every now and then, even if (ad absurdum) posted by a
> well-known troll or something... ;)
To furthur your English education
Main Entry: stin·gy
Pronunciation: 'stin-jE
Function: adjective
Inflected Form(s): stin·gi·er; -est
Etymology: perhaps from (assumed) English dialect stinge, noun, sting; akin
to Old English stingan to sting
1 : not generous or liberal : sparing or scant in giving or spending
2 : meanly scanty or small
As you can see Stingy has very little to do with Sting as you write in the
above statement.
Hope this helps.
--
Comments Welcome,
Norman S. Brown, Jr
XZealot
Archon of the Swamp
legbiter
I agree with Derek that it's
> better to pick up stray VP.
In that case, i apologise for misrepresenting you.
The Doctor
>
> To furthur your English education
Next time you attack a Hungarian about his English, please do so in
perfect Hungarian.
And do read up on your Netiquette before doing so.
And don't forget to never attach pictures to your posts anymore.
John Flournoy
> > Nice riposte, even though I basically disagree (I generally prefer
> > threads to remain as comprehensive and exclusive as possible). Also
> > note that posting a stingy post in the first place is bound to sting
> > normal folks every now and then, even if (ad absurdum) posted by a
> > well-known troll or something... ;)
>
> To furthur your English education
*dictionary entry for 'stingy' snipped*
> --
> Comments Welcome,
> Norman S. Brown, Jr
> XZealot
> Archon of the Swamp
Since comments are welcome, perhaps it'd be appropriate to point out
the irony in Norman's spelling of 'further'. :P
-John Flournoy
Daneel
> i wonder if you would agree with this extension of your idea, based on
> final table realities [at least as i perceive them]: it is actually
> WORSE to mount what we might call a Doc/Daneel deck that routinely takes
> games so as to get 3GW and an irrelevant number of VP, than one that
> routinely accumulates just enough [ie 1-2 GW depending on tournament
> size, and a LOT of VP] to get to the final.
If I had a deck that can be reasonably expected to score 3 GW in a
tournament, I'd probably have what is a broken deck. Discussing
whether it is good to use a deck that scores 3 GW or not is probably
moot, because performance at a tournament round highly depends on the
environment and also on the draw. Aiming to get exactly 3 VPs is a
viable strategy if you can do it every single round (most likely
winning the tournament). Using a deck that cannot normally do over 1/3
in a given round but has a significant chance to fall short of gaining
the GW is a poor choice in larger tournaments.
A deck that is good at securing GWs stands a better chance in any
tournament.
A deck that is good at gaining lots of VPs stands a better chance in
any tournament.
A deck that is good at gaining lots of GWs and VPs is probably the
best in any tournament.
A deck that can pick up some VPs but stands a poor chance of scoring a
GW is an increasingly poor choice for larger tournaments.
In any given round you only accumulate VPs during the given round (and
get the GW after the round is tallied). If you aim to score as close
as possible to 5 VP each round, you cannot really go too wrong... ;)
Bye,
Daneel
Daneel
> Next time you attack a Hungarian about his English, please do so in
> perfect Hungarian.
Don't lose sleep over it... He is right; I'm posting in English, so I
should re-read my posts to eliminate bugs like that. Also, I don't
really mind it when people correct my English (or other languages I
frequently use), because 1) I learn from it, and 2) when it is all
someone can add to a debate, I usually take it as a compliment
concerning the content I contribute.
Bye,
Daneel
Daneel
> At a tournament of 50+ players, I'd rather play a deck that has a
> lower chance of getting GW but a higher chance of getting lots of
> VP when it does win, than play a deck that has a better chance of
> getting 2 GW but not typically getting more than 3 VP when it does
> win.
>
> Why? Because if I _do_ get the 2 GW that's gonna be necessary to
> make the finals, I also want the VP that are also going to be
> necessary to make the finals. 2 GW and 5 VP, or 2 GW and 6 VP
> aren't going to do it.
I'm not sure whether you agreed with me or not by posting that, but I
certainly agree with what you posted... ;)
Getting 2 GW + lots of VPs is definitely a cool strategy, and to get
that you basically need lots of VPs. You should not rely on getting no
more than 1/3 each round (unless you are most certain to do it at
least four times in a row...)
Bye,
Daneel
Daneel
> > > Daneel: In tournaments of 'sufficient size' (N=50), you need lots
> > > of Game Wins to make the final, and VP are largely irrelevant.
> > > Derek: In actual tournaments of 'sufficient size' (12<=N<=30), you
> > > are quite likely to make the final based on your VP, so they're very
> > > important.
>
> > wrong in small to medium size event you need 1 gw and a lot of vps
> > and in a large event you need 2 game win and a lot of vps
>
> 'Wrong' in this context isn't specific enough. Are you disagreeing
> with my reduction of Daneel and Derek's positions? It doesn't look
> like it to me.
[...]
> Which leaves the only part you seem to be considering 'wrong' to be
> Daneel's assertion that for large events (N=50) VP are largely
> irrelevant. Is that correct? If not, I cannot parse your comment,
> and I'd appreciate clarification rather than oxidation...
Would you please point towards my post where my assertion stated how
VPs are irrelevant? Here's a helping hand:
> ASSUMPTION: In a tournament of sufficient size your only sure way to
> make the finals is to score 3 GWs. VPs are only used for secondary
> sorting. Lots of people will have 2 GW; the second best way to make it
> is to have 2 GW and lots of VPs. Nevertheless, without GWs you won't
> make the finals.
Please note parts "VPs are only used for secondary sorting", "Lots of
people will have 2 GW", "the second best way to make it is to have 2
GW and lots of VPs" and "without GWs you won't make the finals".
Also, especially in the case of the last statement, I must point out
that in the first part of the first sentence ("...of sufficient
size...") I am using an unspecified descriptor ("sufficient").
CLARIFICATION: In the previous assumption (and the original
calculations and deductions based on it) the phrase "tournament of
sufficient size" refers to a tournament with about 50 or more
participants.
Hope that helps,
Daneel
Derek Ray
>Derek Ray wrote:
>>
>> You know, this is what's funny; I would WELCOME any of you, ANY of you,
>> standing in front of me and trying to repeat the things both of you do.
>> I am dead certain that I would not be the one changing my tune, and we
>> would notice a MARKED difference in your attitude.
>>
>> And it's not because of any physical reasons; it's just that you might
>> realize just how stupid some of the things you say are when you heard
>> them said out loud.
>
>So you'd stand in front of me saying I am stupid, a fool, a wannabe and
>I should go fuck myself?
Yep, I sure would. I've done it to plenty of other people in the past
when they were being stupid, a fool, and a wannabe; and I have actually
been officially warned in a tournament before for saying:
"If you think I made the wrong decision, you can go fuck yourself."
Surprised? I'm not afraid to say what I think.
>I would not be surprised to break with my non-violence rule if someone
>would be stupid enough to be as insultive as I've seen you be in the
>past 2 weeks.
Mind stating that in a sentence of less than 10 words?
I just want to be absolutely certain what you said here before I say
"Bring it" and openly smirk. Ooops, too late. *smirk* I have little
fear of such blather.
>Please do note that in none of the cases I have witnessed your opponent
>(since that seems to be how you view anyone who happens to have another
>opinion) was the one that started the unpleasantness.
Except, of course, the three people including yourself who jumped into
the thread. I don't recall you contributing anything to the VP
discussion; I think you're just here because you have a hard-on for me.
Pot, kettle, black?
Again?
Derek Ray
emmits...@hotmail.com (Emmit Svenson) mumbled something about:
>Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<1766f0lkd8oqldh59...@4ax.com>...
>> Funny, I don't have ANY of this trouble at work, and I phrase all my
>> email correspondence there in the same "polite" style as I do here.
>
>This is a well-known cause of flame wars. When people read e-mail from
>people they know, they automatically envision a face, a tone of voice
>and body language that tends to soften the impact of any harsh words.
>When people read the work of strangers, they tend to interpret it in a
>more hostile way. So the people at work who know you as a friendly guy
>with a gruff sense of humor don't take your guff seriously, but the
>participants and lurkers on r.g.t-c.j might not know any other side of
>you--especially since hostile exchanges tend to remain in the memory
>longer than friendly ones.
You've misinterpreted my statement, or more likely I phrased it
unclearly -- let me redo that here for clarity.
You have surely noticed that some of my messages have a "polite" tone,
and others have a "rude" tone, and occasionally you get the "downright
hostile" tone. The "polite" tone is the one I use at work -- and oddly,
nobody has trouble reading or understanding anything I say. Nor do I
get anywhere NEAR the obtuse responses I get from some people on here --
I get well-thought out conversation and/or debate, if necessary.
Here, it seems some people are, well, shall we say, less willing to read
the entire message, or perhaps just too damn dumb to understand what's
being said. Often, this results in the "rude" tone being used in later
responses, especially when the person in question wanders into the
"deliberately obtuse" realm of their own responses.
Derek Ray
>>>Stop wasting both our times then, go to just posting content and leave
>>>the retards alone. You'll have more time, and we and the retards will
>>>have more content to read.
>>
>> Pot, kettle, black.
>
>Wrong, I never claimed to be producing content.
False.
But in any case, you pretty much damn yourself with that statement.
Thanks!
Derek Ray
"James Mcclellan" <legb...@mailandnews.com> mumbled something about:
>> A round where I get 0VP is terrible and hurts my chances significantly,
>> because now I will lose on tiebreakers to anyone who is running at about
>> the same speed I am. The larger the tournament, the more likely it is
>> that someone's deck is performing almost exactly as well as mine.
>>
>> Those stray VP matter TONS. That's also why the 1GW/5VP sweep is better
>> than the 1GW/4VP sweep, and why the tournament seating charts are
>> structured to make an effort to avoid someone being at a 4-player (or
>> 5-player, whichever is the odd number out) table more than once.
>>
>i find this thesis of yours enormously interesting and useful, Derek,
>and i'ld like to thank you for sharing it with us. i always like it when
>the discussion about VTES/Jyhad gets quantitative and i think it's at
>these times that one may justly talk about a "science" of gaming, or at
>least of Jyhad. i feel that this latest contribution of yours is
>probably the most significant quantitative leap in the field since Ethan
>articulated the module concept.
Leave us not be TOO carried away.
However, it is, interestingly, something which came up long ago when the
Turbo-Arika decks were going 'round, and was debated to some degree
then. Searching on Google will locate the huge thread, but the premise,
stated semi-simply, was this:
We assumed at the time that Turbo-Arika, for the sake of argument, has a
50% chance of either sweeping and taking a Game Win, or choking, dying
horribly, and getting 0VP. It's one of the few archetypes that is taken
to such extremes and requires so little player interaction -- the skill
required to play the deck is ALL that's needed, so we can actually
remove the other decks from consideration at the table.
Given a 3-round tournament plus a final, simple math permutations give
us the following table of performances for Turbo-Arika, based on the
assumption that it adheres as closely as possible to the percentages:
R1 R2 R3 Final
=================
GW GW L L
GW L GW L
GW L L (didn't make final, has no chance for Game Win here)
L GW L (didn't make final)
L GW GW L
L L GW (didn't make final)
It can be assumed that the two Game Wins that are sweeps would leave a
player with 2GW and 10VP, fairly likely to make the final table. In a
smaller tournament, 1GW and 5VP might be enough, and the "didn't make
finals" would turn into GWs.
But now we look at its performance. In order to win a decently-sized
tournament, Turbo-Arika actually has to beat the probabilities at some
point, because over 4 rounds its expected performance is 2 sweeps and 2
chokes. In any situation when it gets its 2 sweeps at the right time to
make the final, it won't finish the job UNLESS...
...UNLESS it gets lucky.
There was a lot more discussion at the time, of course, mostly on
whether or not you wanted to trust your tournament performance to luck
or skill. I personally lean towards skill, which is why I said at the
time (and still do) that Turbo-Arika isn't a problem in the sense of
"too good"; it's a loophole that should probably be closed, but not
broken. It messes games up, but is FAR from a guaranteed win.
>i wonder if you would agree with this extension of your idea, based on
>final table realities [at least as i perceive them]: it is actually
>WORSE to mount what we might call a Doc/Daneel deck that routinely takes
>games so as to get 3GW and an irrelevant number of VP, than one that
For clarification, this should be described as an "all or nothing" deck
that either sweeps or gets 0VP.
>routinely accumulates just enough [ie 1-2 GW depending on tournament
>size, and a LOT of VP] to get to the final. This proposition is of
Also for clarification, this could be described as an "all-flexible"
deck that hits the middle of the 0-5 range: excellent chances to get
either 2VP or 3VP, but very unlikely to have the resources to sweep.
>course based on the notion that the routine game-winner is a marked
>Methuselah once they get to the final, the victim of every possible
This doesn't even have to be based on that notion.
>cross-table effect that is not actually injurious to the other players'
>individual interests. It may, however, be wholly wrong - i do not know
>whether in tournaments players who go in as first seed are unusually
>likely to win. Does anyone else know?
I can fetch the database from Robyn if we like. I mean, we've got one,
why not use it a little bit?
Curevei
>tournament.
>A deck that is good at gaining lots of VPs stands a better chance in
>any tournament.
>A deck that is good at gaining lots of GWs and VPs is probably the
>best in any tournament.
>A deck that can pick up some VPs but stands a poor chance of scoring a
>GW is an increasingly poor choice for larger tournaments.
Going off on a tangent, is there any evidence that suggests deck quality
matters?
Best I can gather from data is that the deck played by the best player is
likely to be the "best" deck and, if not, then whoever the luckiest player
among competents players has the best deck. This is evidenced by how often you
see the same names win or at the top and how often you wonder how such and such
deck won.
I don't think any analysis has been done on trying to evaluate all decks played
in a tournament for quality and correlating to final tournament position. It
may not even be possible as people fail to agree with how good a deck is,
nevermind such things as the effort required to pore over numerous decklists.
Ben Peal
> Please do note that in none of the cases I have witnessed your opponent
> (since that seems to be how you view anyone who happens to have another
> opinion) was the one that started the unpleasantness.
You started your contribution to this thread with an insulting and
derisive pot shot at Derek.
- Ben Peal
fu...@mindstorm.com
Kevin M.
> i do not know whether in tournaments players who go in as
> first seed are unusually likely to win. Does anyone else know?
http://groups.google.com/groups?&th=fcfc3804a9840e0f%40posting.google.com
"THE JOHN BELL CURSE"
When coming in first place in the preliminary rounds, said Methuselah
will lose the final round.
"THE MATT FLINT CORROLARY"
When coming in second place in the preliminary rounds, said Methuselah
will win the final round.
"THE DUFFIN DILEMA"
When achieving 3GW in the preliminary rounds, said Methuselah will lose
the final round.
Kevin M., Prince of Henderson, NV (USA)
"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
Alex Broadhead
> > Which leaves the only part you seem to be considering 'wrong' to be
> > Daneel's assertion that for large events (N=50) VP are largely
> > irrelevant. Is that correct? If not, I cannot parse your comment,
> > and I'd appreciate clarification rather than oxidation...
>
> Would you please point towards my post where my assertion stated how
> VPs are irrelevant? Here's a helping hand:
>
> > ASSUMPTION: In a tournament of sufficient size your only sure way to
> > make the finals is to score 3 GWs. VPs are only used for secondary
> > sorting. Lots of people will have 2 GW; the second best way to make it
> > is to have 2 GW and lots of VPs. Nevertheless, without GWs you won't
> > make the finals.
Ah. I see. So your assertion works out to: "In order to make the
finals of a tourney of size X, you'll need Y GW (and probably some
amount of VP as well), where as X increases Y also increases." I'll
certainly grant you that tautology. It reminds me of the time I heard
the commentator John Madden say, "If you want to win the game, you've
got to move the ball down the field." (In reference to [American]
football.)
I note also that you and Derek are apparently in entire agreement,
except as to what size tournaments are... (And there you've both got
statistics to support your positions.) I guess I just tried too hard
to find an actual difference between your positions to go with the
disagreement in your postings. My mistake.
Whatever,
Alex
Alex Broadhead
> > While Derek is well-known for flaming _other people's asses off_, he most
> > often does so with cause. And most often that cause is the other person's
> > inability to form and/or follow a logical argument.
>
> Sometimes it is a matter of tastes, preferences and personal
> experience. And neither is Derek omniscient. I've no problems with
> people who flame other people's asses off as long as they _never_ do
> it when they are not 100% right.
It's always a matter of opinion and understanding. There is no such
thing as '100% right'. And thus I have problems with flaming in
general. But I still understand the urge, and, in fact, am gaining in
understanding by the minute...
> To rephrase the incident:
>
> Daneel: In tournaments of 50+ size making the finals is nigh
> impossible without 3 GWs or 2 GWs and lots of VPs.
>
> Derek (undirected post): People who say that it is impossible to make
> the finals without 2 or 3 GWs are asses, check this data about these
> actual tournaments with 12 to 30 people.
>
> Daneel (paraphrased): Uhum...
See... The secret here is in the (undirected post) bit. What Derek
actually said was:
"Anyone still interested in standing up on their hind legs and telling
me
that additional VP don't matter and sheer accumulation of Game Wins is
the only way to make the finals?"
You read this and _self-selected_ as someone who disagreed with his
statement - he didn't direct it at you. And then in order to
'disprove' his assertion, you chose to repeat an argument that is a
non-sequitur in the context of this thread. (The one with N=50). To
rebut his argument, what you need to demonstrate that Game Wins are
the only thing that is important in making the finals...
Which is probably why I assumed that that was what you were trying to
do (viz. the other branch of this thread I'm in). As it is, you now
seem to have denied that latter is what you are arguing (again in the
other thread), so I'm not seeing what you hoped to accomplish? Do
you, in fact, agree with Derek's assertion above? (That additional VP
do [always] matter.)
> > > Or LSJ; he can be so diplomatic that it literally hurts
> >
> > An apt description. You do know that it's his job to be here, right?
> > He is paid to be diplomatic, among other things.
>
> I am aware. I am curious whether you really thought that your comment
> brought in new information, but that is another question.
Holding LSJ up as an example of diplomacy when he really has no choice
but to be diplomatic just struck me as irrelevant to the wider context
of newsgroup posters.
> > > It is possible to remain civil after lengthy forum
> > > exposure (even if the means are currently beyond my comprehension).
> >
> > Heh. The hard part is remaining civil after initial introduction...
> > Most people who make it to 'lengthy' exposure have a pretty good sense
> > of appropriate behavior. Say, how long have you been with us?
>
> Not sure what 'us' means:
>
> My first Usenet post is from January 2004.
> I have my WW forum account since about '99.
> I am playing VTES since '96.
My point was entirely that you might not want to lecture about
civility to people who have managed to 'be civil' (participate in a
community) for much longer than you... Which is not to say that the
veterans are always right. Just that it's a tad unseemly to tell the
people who built the house how to live in it.
> > Hope that helps,
>
> With what exactly?
You seem to me to be trying to pick a new flamewar with your words
here and above - why? I suppose you doubt my sincerity in trying to
defuse what looked to me like a pointless argument? I had assumed
that you didn't enjoy the previous flaming, but perhaps that was my
mistake?
In any case, I don't do that sort of thing - I leave it to the
professionals. I don't see any point in repeating myself with abusive
emphasis - if people can't see the value of my commentary with their
rational minds, I doubt that they will get it with their emotional
minds.
Alex
legbiter
i feel that this latest contribution of yours is
> >probably the most significant quantitative leap in the field since Ethan
> >articulated the module concept.
>
> Leave us not be TOO carried away.
;-) One possible interpretation of my remark would be: "There has been
*NO* really serious and useful attempt since Ethan's module concept to
get quantitative about Jyhad, except for this one. Hooray!"
Seriously, i do think this is a good idea which is worth kicking about a
bit to see if it helps one to win games and tournaments. That is why,
entertaining though the flame-war was, i pitched into the thread -
probably it is also why Alex, Stefan and Ben joined in too. Where it
seems to me this discussion *MIGHT* be headed is that you should take at
least two decks to any tournament, and that which one you played would
depend on tourney size. That's something i wouldn't have thought of
myself, and would find a very useful tool if that really IS what is
being said.
>
> However, it is, interestingly, something which came up long ago when the
> Turbo-Arika decks were going 'round, and was debated to some degree
> then.
I remember this one <snip>
In order to win a decently-sized
> tournament, Turbo-Arika actually has to beat the probabilities at some
> point, because over 4 rounds its expected performance is 2 sweeps and 2
> chokes. In any situation when it gets its 2 sweeps at the right time to
> make the final, it won't finish the job UNLESS...
>
> ...UNLESS it gets lucky.
>
> There was a lot more discussion at the time, of course, mostly on
> whether or not you wanted to trust your tournament performance to luck
> or skill. I personally lean towards skill, which is why I said at the
> time (and still do) that Turbo-Arika isn't a problem in the sense of
> "too good"; it's a loophole that should probably be closed, but not
> broken. It messes games up, but is FAR from a guaranteed win.
Agreed, except that i personally don't think this is a loophole which
should be closed. I LOVE it when some clever person [or in the case we
are talking about, several clever French people] comes up with a
"machine" deck [for those who did not follow this thread, many of us
believe that the brilliance of the Lang/Alix turbo-Arika deck lies in
the inclusion of Distraction to unblock one's hand - there are other
turbo-decks but this one is so elegant and, well, French]. However, this
is a matter of tastes not to be disputed sorta thing, it seems to me.
>
> >i wonder if you would agree with this extension of your idea, based on
> >final table realities [at least as i perceive them]: it is actually
> >WORSE to mount what we might call a Doc/Daneel deck that routinely takes
> >games so as to get 3GW and an irrelevant number of VP, than one that
>
> For clarification, this should be described as an "all or nothing" deck
> that either sweeps or gets 0VP.
>
> >routinely accumulates just enough [ie 1-2 GW depending on tournament
> >size, and a LOT of VP] to get to the final. This proposition is of
>
> Also for clarification, this could be described as an "all-flexible"
> deck that hits the middle of the 0-5 range: excellent chances to get
> either 2VP or 3VP, but very unlikely to have the resources to sweep.
Interesting! i would have turned those definitons round, which probably
means i don't understand your argument as well as i think i do. Are you,
perhaps, making a tactical case only [about what you should do in a
game], and not a strategic case [about what kind of deck you should take
to a game] at all? If so i would not at all blame you or think worse of
your idea, because i completely understand that this is where the
discussion started ... what do you do if IN A GAME you have an outside
chance of a game win by doing A, but a near-certain chance of VPs if you
do !A.
>
> >course based on the notion that the routine game-winner is a marked
> >Methuselah once they get to the final, the victim of every possible
>
> This doesn't even have to be based on that notion.
Sorry brother, you've lost me here. Unless you're referring to the sheer
dumb lucky happened-to-run-across-all-the-numpties-and-swept player?
>
> >cross-table effect that is not actually injurious to the other players'
> >individual interests. It may, however, be wholly wrong - i do not know
> >whether in tournaments players who go in as first seed are unusually
> >likely to win. Does anyone else know?
>
> I can fetch the database from Robyn if we like. I mean, we've got one,
> why not use it a little bit?
>
i think that would be really interesting! Of course, as Curevei points
out further down this thread, there are two hypotheses which one could
set up, maybe three.
1. In the final, everyone has an equal chance to win [amongst skilled
players with decent decks, the outcome of a game is down to luck].
2. In the final, the player who wins will generally *NOT* be the top
seed [the top seed will be victimised].
3. In the final, the top seed will tend to win [the most
skilled/ruthless player wins more often than would be expected by
chance].
My prediction, for what *VERY* little it is worth, is that [3] will be
true for 10-20 player tournaments, and that 2 will be true for 30+
player tournaments. MUCH more importantly, the data is going to falsify
AT LEAST two of these hypotheses.
XZealot
> the irony in Norman's spelling of 'further'. :P
Note to self: use the spell checker.
I don't know where that attachment came from, but I do see that I sent it.
Strange...
Anyone care to teach me Hungarian? I would love to learn it.
XZealot
"Daneel" <dan...@eposta.hu> wrote in message
news:a23a105e.04071...@posting.google.com...
I do like to educate other posters, and I definantly am enjoying the
fireworks.
XZealot
> Next time you attack a Hungarian about his English, please do so in
> perfect Hungarian.
>
> And do read up on your Netiquette before doing so.
Care to teach me?
> And don't forget to never attach pictures to your posts anymore
As opposed to whichever newsgroup program you are using attaches "Your MS
program incorrectly interprets this as an attachment". You seem to have not
been able to work the bug out of that one, and from where I am sitting, you
are the only poster on this newsgroup with that problem.
Funny Stuff...
The Doctor
>
> As opposed to whichever newsgroup program you are using attaches "Your MS
> program incorrectly interprets this as an attachment".
In case you had not noticed: that is not an attachment. MS even
recognises it as a bug in their programs, but refuses to fix it. Instead
everyone in the world is supposed to never start a line with 'begin'
*roll eyes*
Curevei
>set up, maybe three.
>
>1. In the final, everyone has an equal chance to win [amongst skilled
>players with decent decks, the outcome of a game is down to luck].
>
>2. In the final, the player who wins will generally *NOT* be the top
>seed [the top seed will be victimised].
>
>3. In the final, the top seed will tend to win [the most
>skilled/ruthless player wins more often than would be expected by
>chance].
>
>My prediction, for what *VERY* little it is worth, is that [3] will be
>true for 10-20 player tournaments, and that 2 will be true for 30+
>player tournaments. MUCH more importantly, the data is going to falsify
>AT LEAST two of these hypotheses.
Top seed has two advantages that aren't getting much mention: picking seating
position last; beating everyone else on tiebreakers.
Picking seating position certainly has advantages on average. It's really not
clear, at least to me, whether it's a clear advantage most of the time, almost
all of the time, or what. Helps, of course, to scout and whatnot to know what
others are playing.
Beating people on tiebreakers means you can play differently. You can play for
a time out if it seems possible. You can play for table splits.
Disadvantage of top seed is that everyone should have an extra incentive to
knock off anyone higher ranked in the finals to prevent losing on tiebreakers
in case a table split arises ... and everyone is lower ranked than the top
seed. Then, the top seed probably has one of the better seating positions at
the table and requires being "stabilized".
I don't buy that someone is a greater threat *just* because they did
particularly well in prelims. Matchups might have been far better or whatever.
Doesn't mean prelim success should be ignored, but I'd put it behind other
considerations; the composition of the final table is likely to heavily
influence the players' approaches, assuming they even bother thinking about how
to table manage to victory.
What this means for deck quality, I guess, is that I'd care much more about the
type of deck someone is playing in the finals than the precise components -
whether a deck is aggro, control, or aggro-control, what speeds they develop
at, what they are next to, etc. - matchups.
Ben Peal
> Ben Peal wrote:
> > At a tournament of 50+ players, I'd rather play a deck that has a
> > lower chance of getting GW but a higher chance of getting lots of
> > VP when it does win, than play a deck that has a better chance of
> > getting 2 GW but not typically getting more than 3 VP when it does
> > win.
> >
> > Why? Because if I _do_ get the 2 GW that's gonna be necessary to
> > make the finals, I also want the VP that are also going to be
> > necessary to make the finals. 2 GW and 5 VP, or 2 GW and 6 VP
> > aren't going to do it.
>
> I'm not sure whether you agreed with me or not by posting that, but I
> certainly agree with what you posted... ;)
Well, your initial post in this thread on the matter was (I think)
based on another thread which I never read, so I'm also not sure if
I agreed with you or not in my post. :)
I just figured I'd post my thoughts on the matter, and it's nice
that you agree with it. :)
> Getting 2 GW + lots of VPs is definitely a cool strategy, and to get
> that you basically need lots of VPs. You should not rely on getting no
> more than 1/3 each round (unless you are most certain to do it at
> least four times in a row...)
Exactly...you need that many VP to make it at all, and if you're
getting that many VP, then the GW will take care of themselves.
So, the options are to play a high-risk, high-yield deck, or to
hope you have a monster day with whatever other kind of deck you're
playing. I've seen both strategies work, but I think the high-risk,
high-yield strategy has been more successful.
- Ben Peal
fu...@mindstorm.com
The Doctor
>
> Picking seating position certainly has advantages on average. It's really not
> clear, at least to me, whether it's a clear advantage most of the time, almost
> all of the time, or what. Helps, of course, to scout and whatnot to know what
> others are playing.
Certainly helped me last Sunday.
I had already played against 2 of the 4 other finalists, and chose to
seat behind one playing a Gangrel deck that did little in pressurizing
it's prey. It would give me time to develop my position.
I was not even the top seed, but second seed, but the top seed had only
seen my deck, and decided to stay away from me as an advantage.
Turns out I was more right then he was about our choices, but still, it
was a distinct advantage we had over the other 3.
Daneel
> > they _never_ do it when they are not 100% right.
>
> It's always a matter of opinion and understanding. There is no such
> thing as '100% right'.
I wrote, if someone only flames if they are 100% right. So if someone
does not flame when it is a matter of opinion, but lets loose when
someone is being a jerk about sticking to false facts, it is far less
antagonistic to me than when someone flames all the time (and is
sometimes right).
> And thus I have problems with flaming in general. But I still understand
> the urge, and, in fact, am gaining in understanding by the minute...
Curiosity... Is that based on this particular debate?
> > To rephrase the incident:
>
> You read this and _self-selected_ as someone who disagreed with his
> statement - he didn't direct it at you. And then in order to
> 'disprove' his assertion, you chose to repeat an argument that is a
> non-sequitur in the context of this thread. (The one with N=50). To
> rebut his argument, what you need to demonstrate that Game Wins are
> the only thing that is important in making the finals...
I did not disprove his argument. In fact, my post had nothing to do
with his argument. I merely pointed out how his post was _irrelevant_
to the discussion what it apparently wished to continue (conclude).
> Holding LSJ up as an example of diplomacy when he really has no choice
> but to be diplomatic just struck me as irrelevant to the wider context
> of newsgroup posters.
There are different styles you would probably all describe as
'diplomatic'. But anyway, let's drop it, I'm not really cool about
talking about people who do not participate in the current discussion.
I should not have brought them up anyway.
> My point was entirely that you might not want to lecture about
> civility to people who have managed to 'be civil' (participate in a
> community) for much longer than you...
You see, comments like this make me doubt your sincerity. I thought
that it was quite obvious that my usage of civil was as an adjective
(in which case it roughly means 'courteous'). You seem to be twisting
my words in order to get somewhere. Is this really the case?
> Which is not to say that the veterans are always right. Just that it's a
> tad unseemly to tell the people who built the house how to live in it.
I guess times do change... The old man who once started the workshop
can well be an unimportant shareholder in what the company has since
become. As things change, previous positions and standings need to be
revised.
> > > Hope that helps,
> >
> > With what exactly?
>
> You seem to me to be trying to pick a new flamewar with your words
> here and above - why?
Your comments were on the verge of sincere contribution and veiled
offence. I simply wished to make the matters clear. I'm cool either
way, but I do not wish to offend someone who is not trying to offend
me.
> I suppose you doubt my sincerity in trying to
> defuse what looked to me like a pointless argument?
You missed the point.
> I had assumed that you didn't enjoy the previous flaming, but perhaps that
> was my mistake?
I enjoyed it, yes. I would have enjoyed a civil discussion about facts
and theories far more.
> In any case, I don't do that sort of thing - I leave it to the
> professionals. I don't see any point in repeating myself with abusive
> emphasis - if people can't see the value of my commentary with their
> rational minds, I doubt that they will get it with their emotional
> minds.
I recommend this paragraph to everyone who regularly flames.
Bye,
Daneel
Wouter Kuyper
> In message <TZqHc.125$jJ.28@fed1read07>,
> "Kevin M." <you...@imaspammer.org> mumbled something about:
>
> >OK, here's everything from Origins 2004:
>
> As an idle note referencing a prior thread: This is what it took to get
> into the finals for each tournament at Origins. (I'm listing the player
> whose preliminary ranking was 5th in each case)
>
> Thursday Constructed (25 players): Jay Kristoff, 1 GW, 4.5 VP
> Friday Constructed (25 players): Jay Kristoff, 1 GW, 4.5 VP
> Friday Draft (16 players): Christian Herro, 1 GW, 3 VP
> Saturday Qualifier (30 players): Dave Buerger, 1 GW, 6 VP
> Saturday Draft (12 players): Dave Pennington II, 0 GW, 2 VP
> Sunday Constructed (18 players): Stephanie Turner, 1 GW, 3 VP
>
> In every event except the Saturday Draft, the 6th-place finisher was
> never more than a single VP behind. In the Saturday Draft, that player
> was short 1GW and 1.5VP, but it's pretty obvious that the Saturday Draft
> is the least useful for anyone's purposes, as it's certainly a smaller
> tournament.
>
> My point is this:
>
> Anyone still interested in standing up on their hind legs and telling me
> that additional VP don't matter and sheer accumulation of Game Wins is
> the only way to make the finals?
>
Damn, only away for a week and you miss a great flamewar. let me guess
who is starring in it.
:-)
I am not sure if you were talking to me with the above statement, but
in the thread before i was trying to figure out the legality of not
going for the GW. Ofcourse VP's matter. Most tournaments i played
lately (i haven't played many the last times) required at least 2 GW
to get to the finals.
W
Alex Broadhead
> I did not disprove his argument. In fact, my post had nothing to do
> with his argument. I merely pointed out how his post was _irrelevant_
> to the discussion what it apparently wished to continue (conclude).
But it wasn't irrelevant to the thread it was posted in, or in
general. I found it useful to have the Origins stats tabulated in the
way he did, and found it interesting to note that you don't
necessarily need tons of GW to make the finals in the sorts of
tourneys I might play in - that was not at all obvious to me.
That you considered his post irrelevant to the argument you posited in
another thread seems to me to reinforce Derek's judgement in not
posting it to that thread. That you seem to essentially agree with
his argument makes it additionally bizarre that you would take
umbrage. As it was, reposting your original assertions made it look
to me like you had a substantive disagreement, i.e. that you couldn't
simply extrapolate the statistics and arguments to larger N. And then
you started throwing the term 'prove' about, which further confused
me. When you're not trying to prove anything, it's hard to do it.
> > My point was entirely that you might not want to lecture about
> > civility to people who have managed to 'be civil' (participate in a
> > community) for much longer than you...
>
> You see, comments like this make me doubt your sincerity. I thought
> that it was quite obvious that my usage of civil was as an adjective
> (in which case it roughly means 'courteous'). You seem to be twisting
> my words in order to get somewhere. Is this really the case?
I'm not sure how I'm twisting your words. I just mean that 'civil' or
'courteous' has different meanings in different contexts. And that I
am not sure that you are entirely clear on its meaning here.
> > > > Hope that helps,
> > >
> > > With what exactly?
> >
> > You seem to me to be trying to pick a new flamewar with your words
> > here and above - why?
>
> Your comments were on the verge of sincere contribution and veiled
> offence. I simply wished to make the matters clear.
Sarcasm doesn't strike me as a good tool for that job. It is a good
tool for turning either sincere contribution or veiled offence into
open hostility, which would make matters clear, though it would not
clarify their previous status.
> I'm cool either
> way, but I do not wish to offend someone who is not trying to offend
> me.
>
> > I suppose you doubt my sincerity in trying to
> > defuse what looked to me like a pointless argument?
>
> You missed the point.
Apparently. I thought there was an argument under the pointlessness.
As it turns out, you were just taking Derek's bait and baiting him in
turn. Derek's a big boy and didn't need my help (though I do like to
acknowledge his contributions, as they've meant a lot to me), and you
were apparently enjoying yourself. I should've stayed away.
> > I had assumed that you didn't enjoy the previous flaming, but perhaps that
> > was my mistake?
>
> I enjoyed it, yes. I would have enjoyed a civil discussion about facts
> and theories far more.
See, this is patently untrue. You can't have a civil discussion about
facts and theories on the basis of an off-topic, non-sequitur reply to
a (baiting, but on-topic) assertion of fact. I _thought_ that your
intention was to do so, but now that you have confirmed that you were
not, in fact, actually attempting to address Derek's argument at all,
I see that I was mistaken, and I see that I should have let you guys
have your little flamewar and get it out of your systems.
Oh, and as an aesthetic criticism, I guess I find your flaming
technique kind of confusing and undirected. More, bigger, and
weirder! Then I'll know to observe at a distance.
Alex
Daneel
>
> > I did not disprove his argument. In fact, my post had nothing to do
> > with his argument. I merely pointed out how his post was _irrelevant_
> > to the discussion what it apparently wished to continue (conclude).
>
> But it wasn't irrelevant to the thread it was posted in, or in
> general. I found it useful to have the Origins stats tabulated in the
> way he did, and found it interesting to note that you don't
> necessarily need tons of GW to make the finals in the sorts of
> tourneys I might play in - that was not at all obvious to me.
Ask him why he did it.
Also, ask yourself, did you really need a tabulation to see how you
don't need 2+ GWs in a tournament with 20 players?
> That you considered his post irrelevant to the argument you posited in
> another thread seems to me to reinforce Derek's judgement in not
> posting it to that thread.
Irrelevant but apparently intended to be relevant. I already
explained.
> That you seem to essentially agree with
> his argument makes it additionally bizarre that you would take
> umbrage. As it was, reposting your original assertions made it look
> to me like you had a substantive disagreement, i.e. that you couldn't
> simply extrapolate the statistics and arguments to larger N. And then
> you started throwing the term 'prove' about, which further confused
> me. When you're not trying to prove anything, it's hard to do it.
Are you familiar with the contents of the thread the discussion
originates from? Your comments seem to indicate otherwise.
> > > My point was entirely that you might not want to lecture about
> > > civility to people who have managed to 'be civil' (participate in a
> > > community) for much longer than you...
> >
> > You see, comments like this make me doubt your sincerity. I thought
> > that it was quite obvious that my usage of civil was as an adjective
> > (in which case it roughly means 'courteous'). You seem to be twisting
> > my words in order to get somewhere. Is this really the case?
>
> I'm not sure how I'm twisting your words. I just mean that 'civil' or
> 'courteous' has different meanings in different contexts. And that I
> am not sure that you are entirely clear on its meaning here.
The fact you had to explain your usage of civil clearly shows how even
you knew you were not using it in the sense I intended it. Yes, some
words may have different meanings in different contexts. Yes, it is
possible to intentionally misunderstand what someone is writing. I'm
not sure many people would understand 'to be civil' in the case of a
message board to mean 'of or relating to citizens', 'of or relating to
the state or its citizenry' or 'of, relating to, or based on civil
law' instead of 'adequate in courtesy and politeness'. Maybe it's just
me, being a non-native speaker of English and a noob to the message
boards.
> Sarcasm doesn't strike me as a good tool for that job. It is a good
> tool for turning either sincere contribution or veiled offence into
> open hostility, which would make matters clear, though it would not
> clarify their previous status.
What job? I'm not yet sure what your motives are in this discussion.
You clearly want to avoid being outright offensive, but neither do I
see any sincere attempt to actually understand what I am writing.
> > > I suppose you doubt my sincerity in trying to
> > > defuse what looked to me like a pointless argument?
> >
> > You missed the point.
>
> Apparently. I thought there was an argument under the pointlessness.
The argument was in a former thread. Feel free to check it in order to
see what this debate was about.
> See, this is patently untrue. You can't have a civil discussion about
> facts and theories on the basis of an off-topic, non-sequitur reply to
> a (baiting, but on-topic) assertion of fact.
Assess both threads in unison. You may be enlightened to my motives.
> Oh, and as an aesthetic criticism, I guess I find your flaming
> technique kind of confusing and undirected. More, bigger, and
> weirder! Then I'll know to observe at a distance.
Well, I'm not really your average Troll. In fact, I seldom flame, and
most of the time just throw in my cents or try to contribute some
other way. You must excuse me for not being as skilled as others are
when it comes to being offensive, twisting words or being outright
ignorant. Perhaps being a noob, I still retain some sincerity...
Best Regards,
Daneel
Timlagor
LSJ has repeatedly reiterated that you MUST go for the GW. You cannot
play for tournament considerations and you cannot settle for a more
certain VP score while you have a "reasonable chance" of a GW. What you
risk in goign for the GW is compltely irrelevant to the legality of the
decision.
Alex Broadhead
> Also, ask yourself, did you really need a tabulation to see how you
> don't need 2+ GWs in a tournament with 20 players?
...well, see, there was this guy who was arguing that in tournaments
of sufficient size you needed 3 GWs to make the finals...
BTW, don't think that I didn't notice that you've again substituted
your own random constant (20) for the relevant value (30) above.
.me walks away shaking head
Alex
Daneel
> > don't need 2+ GWs in a tournament with 20 players?
>
> ...well, see, there was this guy who was arguing that in tournaments
> of sufficient size you needed 3 GWs to make the finals...
...who also explained in the very same post that in this particular
case he meant 50+ under sufficient size.
I'm at least finally clear concerning your previous intentions.
> BTW, don't think that I didn't notice that you've again substituted
> your own random constant (20) for the relevant value (30) above.
You originally wrote:
> But it wasn't irrelevant to the thread it was posted in, or in
> general. I found it useful to have the Origins stats tabulated in the
> way he did, and found it interesting to note that you don't
> necessarily need tons of GW to make the finals in the sorts of
> tourneys I might play in - that was not at all obvious to me.
Unless you meant that you usually participate in exactly 30 player
tournaments, you probably used the plural form to refer to the whole
bunch of tournaments analysed by Derek. Which were:
Thursday Constructed (25 players)
Friday Constructed (25 players)
Friday Draft (16 players)
Saturday Qualifier (30 players)
Saturday Draft (12 players)
Sunday Constructed (18 players)
12 + 16 + 18 + 25 + 25 + 30 = 126
126 / 6 = 21
20 is far closer to the mean than 30 is, wouldn't you agree? So much
for your "random constants" angle. You're no fun, by the way.
Continuing a debate with you demonstrates how prolonged forum exposure
does make it hard to remain civil without turning ignorant in the
process.
I think I'll look up that post about typical forum inanities (posted
here by atomweaver?) so that I can refer to the more common ones
simply with numbers. Spares a lot of typing...
Best Regards,
Daneel
Wouter Kuyper
Which is exactly how i read it. With "reasonable" being pretty small
(say 5%). Others didn't agree though.
W
Raille
> If I had a deck that can be reasonably expected to score 3 GW in a
> tournament, I'd probably have what is a broken deck.
Wrong, you would have what is called a Winning deck.
PTO is broken, but its hardly a winning deck style.
Play to win!
Raille
Raille
> Here, it seems some people are, well, shall we say, less willing to read
> the entire message, or perhaps just too damn dumb to understand what's
> being said. Often, this results in the "rude" tone being used in later
> responses, especially when the person in question wanders into the
> "deliberately obtuse" realm of their own responses.
*raises hand*
Yup that could be me. I seem to have managed to get onto the rude side
now and again. ;)
Raille
Derek Ray
Wouter...@yahoo.com (Wouter Kuyper) mumbled something about:
>Timlagor <TimSl...@yaMhoo.co.uk> wrote in message news:<MPG.1b634499f...@news.eclipse.co.uk>...
>> LSJ has repeatedly reiterated that you MUST go for the GW. You cannot
Assuming you have a reasonable chance of that GW.
>> play for tournament considerations and you cannot settle for a more
>> certain VP score while you have a "reasonable chance" of a GW. What you
Oh, wait, you DID mention it! Try to keep it all together.
>> risk in goign for the GW is compltely irrelevant to the legality of the
>> decision.
See above related to "reasonable chance".
The more reasonable your chance, the less you risk, by definition.
>Which is exactly how i read it. With "reasonable" being pretty small
>(say 5%). Others didn't agree though.
Oooo, I don't believe I've EVER seen LSJ state a percentage. Careful
now, you're confusing your own interpretation with quotation.
I can tell you this, though: Attempt to specifically dictate a player's
actions, as opposed to simply forbidding their illegal actions, and
players will walk out of your tournaments.
...Starting with the person whose deck you played for them.
Wouter Kuyper
> In message <44a2da05.04071...@posting.google.com>,
> Wouter...@yahoo.com (Wouter Kuyper) mumbled something about:
>
> >Timlagor <TimSl...@yaMhoo.co.uk> wrote in message news:<MPG.1b634499f...@news.eclipse.co.uk>...
> >> LSJ has repeatedly reiterated that you MUST go for the GW. You cannot
>
> Assuming you have a reasonable chance of that GW.
>
> >> play for tournament considerations and you cannot settle for a more
> >> certain VP score while you have a "reasonable chance" of a GW. What you
>
> Oh, wait, you DID mention it! Try to keep it all together.
>
> >> risk in goign for the GW is compltely irrelevant to the legality of the
> >> decision.
>
> See above related to "reasonable chance".
>
> The more reasonable your chance, the less you risk, by definition.
>
> >Which is exactly how i read it. With "reasonable" being pretty small
> >(say 5%). Others didn't agree though.
>
> Oooo, I don't believe I've EVER seen LSJ state a percentage. Careful
> now, you're confusing your own interpretation with quotation.
No, i don't think i saw LSJ give a percentage either, (i wish he did)
i never wanted it to look like HE gave the percentage, sorry if it
looked like that.
>
> I can tell you this, though: Attempt to specifically dictate a player's
> actions, as opposed to simply forbidding their illegal actions, and
> players will walk out of your tournaments.
>
> ...Starting with the person whose deck you played for them.
I know, i know, we talked about this before :-) and you are right
about that. I just hoped someone could think of something that avoids
that, but still makes you play for the GW (say from a 5-10% chance of
getting it).
I can't think of anything yet, but i would love to see some sort of
percentage (or explanation as to what "reasonable" means in this
context) in the rules. Perhaps, even when not enforcable by a judge,
people will follow that rule just because they are good guys.
W
Colin McGuigan
> No, i don't think i saw LSJ give a percentage either, (i wish he did)
Why? Let's say for sake of argument that LSJ says "reasonable chance"
== "25%". How does that help? Is there some calculation you can run on
the game state to say what someone's chance of winning is?
--Colin McGuigan
Ira
> == "25%". How does that help? Is there some calculation you can run on
> the game state to say what someone's chance of winning is?
Yes, the calculation goes like this: count all possible outcomes of
the game in which you get a GW. Then count all possible outcomes of
the game. Divide the two numbers, that that's your probability.
I realize it's not actually possible to count the two (potentially
infinite) numbers above. Nonetheless, estimating probabilities is a
useful and necessary skill. It's a weak argument (IMO) to claim that
since we can't calculate the probabilities exactly, we shouldn't even
try estimating.
Colin, if you look at a VTES game in its mid-game, you can make a
reasonable guess at who's going to win. You can assign probabilities
to various outcomes. They won't be perfect, but they'll be close, and
close is good enough and certainly better than nothing.
Also, as a player, you know your deck, and can make an even better
estimation than a casual observer. As a judge, if you really want to
take the time, you can look through players' decks. I realize we're
not computers and giving a concrete number isn't actually that
concrete, but I personally think that some ballpark number is better
than nothing at all.
Finally, on a larger scale, I believe our goal should be that all
judges make the same (correct) ruling given the same situation. I
realize that it's possible to have different rulings that are both
correct (because of differing definitions of the word "reasonable.")
I also realize it's not possible to have exactly the same situation.
Nonetheless, I personally strive to unify all judge's decision through
dialogue with LSJ and open communication of the rules. If other
people do not feel that it's a worthy goal to have judges make the
same decisions given the same input, then we have a fundamentally
different approach to these discussions.
Ira
Wouter Kuyper
There is no way to be calculating this ofcourse. But many that play
tournaments are capable of saying "i've been in quite a few of these
situations or similar; i have won about 1/8 of these situations"
Ofcourse it will still be guesstimating, but i will be able to tell if
i have a chance to win that is closer to 25 or to 10%. I think many
can.
W
Matthew T. Morgan
> > Why? Let's say for sake of argument that LSJ says "reasonable chance"
> > == "25%". How does that help? Is there some calculation you can run on
> > the game state to say what someone's chance of winning is?
>
> Yes, the calculation goes like this: count all possible outcomes of
> the game in which you get a GW. Then count all possible outcomes of
> the game. Divide the two numbers, that that's your probability.
Wouldn't a meteor landing on the game shop be a possible outcome? Maybe
some possibilities ought to be weighted as more or less likely.
> I realize it's not actually possible to count the two (potentially
> infinite) numbers above. Nonetheless, estimating probabilities is a
> useful and necessary skill. It's a weak argument (IMO) to claim that
> since we can't calculate the probabilities exactly, we shouldn't even
> try estimating.
<snip supporting arguments>
Do people really refuse to play to win so often it would be worth
implementing something like that? If judges started trying to play my
deck for me, I'd probably find another hobby (or at least skip out on
tournaments).
Matt Morgan
Colin McGuigan
> Yes, the calculation goes like this: count all possible outcomes of
> the game in which you get a GW. Then count all possible outcomes of
> the game. Divide the two numbers, that that's your probability.
I bet you could teach those people who build chess-playing computers a
thing or two.
> I realize it's not actually possible to count the two (potentially
> infinite) numbers above. Nonetheless, estimating probabilities is a
> useful and necessary skill. It's a weak argument (IMO) to claim that
> since we can't calculate the probabilities exactly, we shouldn't even
> try estimating.
Never said that. What I'm making fun of is the idea that if LSJ would
give a "magic number", then the situation would suddenly become resolved.
We're very good at estimating. I can estimate if my chances are
"reasonable" or not. But if you ask five different players five turns
in what they think their chance of winning a game is, I will
guaran-frickin'-tee you it will not total 100%. Hell, I'd be surprised
if it totalled less than 200%.
> Colin, if you look at a VTES game in its mid-game, you can make a
> reasonable guess at who's going to win. You can assign probabilities
> to various outcomes. They won't be perfect, but they'll be close, and
> close is good enough and certainly better than nothing.
Laf. The majority of games have an endgame that's extremely delicate --
everyone's at a little pool, and one or two combos is all it takes.
Played a six player game last night. It went something like this: me (4
pool) -> 6 pool -> 1 pool -> 2 pool -> 8 pool -> 12 pool. That game
could've gone any which way -- trying to predict a winner was, and
generally is, futile.
Even if there's a deck that's dominating the table, that's usually the
cue (around these parts) for everyone to turn against it. I have seen
very, very few sweeps.
> Also, as a player, you know your deck, and can make an even better
> estimation than a casual observer. As a judge, if you really want to
> take the time, you can look through players' decks. I realize we're
> not computers and giving a concrete number isn't actually that
> concrete, but I personally think that some ballpark number is better
> than nothing at all.
My stance is that you can name whatever ballpark number you want, and
it'll mean bumpkis.
Here's an experiment! Try it with your playgroup!
1) Play a game.
2) On the start of turn 3, have everyone (secretly) write down what they
think their percentage of winning is. Don't share the info.
3) Repeat on turn 6, 9, 12, etc.
4) Afterwards, share the information. Compare the totals for any given
turn; what do they add up to? Then check to see how accurate they were.
For extra credit, have someone play "judge", who doesn't play, but can
investigate player's hands, crypts, libraries, etc also write down these
percentages.
I eagerly await your results.
> Finally, on a larger scale, I believe our goal should be that all
> judges make the same (correct) ruling given the same situation. I
> realize that it's possible to have different rulings that are both
> correct (because of differing definitions of the word "reasonable.")
> I also realize it's not possible to have exactly the same situation.
> Nonetheless, I personally strive to unify all judge's decision through
> dialogue with LSJ and open communication of the rules. If other
> people do not feel that it's a worthy goal to have judges make the
> same decisions given the same input, then we have a fundamentally
> different approach to these discussions.
I'm trying to stay within the realm of possibility, here. You cannot
mathematically define "reasonable", nor someone's chances of winning V:TES.
--Colin McGuigan
Colin McGuigan
> There is no way to be calculating this ofcourse. But many that play
> tournaments are capable of saying "i've been in quite a few of these
> situations or similar; i have won about 1/8 of these situations"
> Ofcourse it will still be guesstimating, but i will be able to tell if
> i have a chance to win that is closer to 25 or to 10%. I think many
> can.
Uhm. Not to be rude, but, so?
I'm sorry. That was rude. Let me explain.
Let's say, hypothetically, you find yourself in a position where you
have calculated your chance of winning (X%), and found that it's less
than reasonable (Y%) (X% < Y%). So, you wait for your turn, and you tap
your Succubus Club, and state you're giving all your pool and all your
minions to your best buddy.
Other players cry foul and call the judge. The judge examines your
situation and says, "No can do. You still have a reasonable chance of
winning."
You explain your calculations to the judge, but the judge disagrees. Do
you tell the judge he's in error?
--Colin McGuigan
Derek Ray
Wouter...@yahoo.com (Wouter Kuyper) mumbled something about:
>Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<brlmf0plu2papplcc...@4ax.com>...
>>
>> I can tell you this, though: Attempt to specifically dictate a player's
>> actions, as opposed to simply forbidding their illegal actions, and
>> players will walk out of your tournaments.
>>
>> ...Starting with the person whose deck you played for them.
>
>I know, i know, we talked about this before :-) and you are right
>about that. I just hoped someone could think of something that avoids
>that, but still makes you play for the GW (say from a 5-10% chance of
>getting it).
But this sort of play isn't the problem, and I think this is something
everyone has lost sight of.
A person who decides whether to go for the 5% chance of the GW, or to
take a sure 2VP and skedaddle, is NOT a person making a play that we as
players should find objectionable. The choice is obviously from the
individual's own perception of his best interests at that time, and it
is also clearly a choice made "against the wall" -- ie, there is no more
time to wait, the choice must be made now.
The plays that players have found objectionable are the ones where
people deal to split the table with a rollover on turn 3, or where
someone is going nuts cross-table, or where someone is bE1nG a
MalKaVIan, ... as well as having another weapon to detect collusion,
although I do not think collusion is the problem either.
>I can't think of anything yet, but i would love to see some sort of
>percentage (or explanation as to what "reasonable" means in this
>context) in the rules. Perhaps, even when not enforcable by a judge,
>people will follow that rule just because they are good guys.
No percentage can be accurately determined at the table; why try to
determine a percentage in the rules?
And you surely know better than to think people will follow
unenforceable rules just because they're good guys. Look around.
I'm in the process of searching for the exact wording of something I saw
on a casino wall recently; it was rule #1, in fact. I think it applies
eminently to both V:TES and this particular situation. I shall not
mention anything about it yet, because the wording itself was quite well
done, and I want to be sure it carries the correct impact.
Ira
> Wouldn't a meteor landing on the game shop be a
> possible outcome? Maybe some possibilities ought
> to be weighted as more or less likely.
Hey Matt - yes, you're definitely correct. Outcomes must be
weighted. Error on my part.
Colin wrote:
> Never said that. What I'm making fun of is the
> idea that if LSJ would give a "magic number",
> then the situation would suddenly become resolved.
Oh, my bad - I didn't realize that's what you were arguing against.
I can't defend that point, and I agree that LSJ giving a number
wouldn't suddenly resolve anything. I think it may slightly increase
the consistency of rulings across the world, but that's just an
opinion that can't be backed up by fact. :)
*My* point is that as a regular judge (i.e. not LSJ), giving a number
for "reasonable" is better than being unable to define it in any way.
I'm really just shifting the argument to a different level. If
there's a debate about a player playing to win, I see two likely
debates (maybe more):
1) Player and judge discuss what is a "reasonable" chance
2) Judge defining "reasonable" as 5%, and then player and judge
discuss whether or not the player has a 5% chance of winning. (or 2%
or 20% or whatever number the judge wants to pick.)
I personally prefer the judge to define it as he wishes, and then
engage in the latter discussion, rather than the (IMO) more nebulous
first discussion. Granted, both discussions are necessarily nebulous,
I just prefer the latter.
Perhaps it's just a matter of taste?
> I can estimate if my chances are "reasonable" or not.
How do you define reasonable?
I can estimate if my chances are "falanteerpop" if I don't have to
define what it means. :)
> Here's an experiment! Try it with your playgroup!
Unfortunately it's not that simple. First, the numbers shouldn't add
up to 100%, because there's some chance the game will time out (2hr
limit) or some other way that no one wins (2-2-1.) Also, say everyone
estimated 15% chance of winning, and then I won. Were the estimates
correct? They could all be entirely correct.
I'm not claiming that it will solve everything to define
"reasonable." I'm claiming that it's better to define reasonable than
to leave it undefined.
> You cannot mathematically define "reasonable",
Sure I can: I define a "reasonable" chance of winning as a 5% or
greater chance of winning.
> nor someone's chances of winning V:TES.
This I agree is practically impossible to define. That is where the
judge's estimation comes in. As the judge, I define "reasonable," and
then I estimate the player's chances of winning. I take into
consideration the situation at the table, the time left on the clock,
the player's deck, the relative skill of the players, the chance that
a meteor will strike the game shop, etc. I will then come up with a
number.
It's basically a black box how I come up with that number. This
experiment might have value:
Have ten experienced judges observe a game from the beginning to turn
10. At turn 10, have each observer estimate the chances of winning
for each player, as well as the chance the game will time-out or
otherwise have no winner.
It doesn't really matter who wins, it just matters how close the
estimates are.
If those numbers are close, then one could possibly conclude that
skilled judges would magically come up with estimates that are
similar, and therefore a global definition of "reasonable" would allow
more consistent rulings (without sacrificing flexibility among
judges.)
Ideally, we'd also do an experiment to determine the accuracy of the
estimates, and that would take much longer (estimate the outcomes of
many games, and see if you're right over time.) Also, the turn at
which you must make the estimate has a great impact on your accuracy.
Ideally, we should have the observers estimate chance of winning only
when a play-to-win question arises, but that experiment would take a
really long time to conclude.
Ira
Wouter Kuyper
> In message <44a2da05.04071...@posting.google.com>,
> Wouter...@yahoo.com (Wouter Kuyper) mumbled something about:
>
> >Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<brlmf0plu2papplcc...@4ax.com>...
> >>
> >> I can tell you this, though: Attempt to specifically dictate a player's
> >> actions, as opposed to simply forbidding their illegal actions, and
> >> players will walk out of your tournaments.
> >>
> >> ...Starting with the person whose deck you played for them.
> >
> >I know, i know, we talked about this before :-) and you are right
> >about that. I just hoped someone could think of something that avoids
> >that, but still makes you play for the GW (say from a 5-10% chance of
> >getting it).
>
> But this sort of play isn't the problem, and I think this is something
> everyone has lost sight of.
>
> A person who decides whether to go for the 5% chance of the GW, or to
> take a sure 2VP and skedaddle, is NOT a person making a play that we as
> players should find objectionable. The choice is obviously from the
> individual's own perception of his best interests at that time, and it
> is also clearly a choice made "against the wall" -- ie, there is no more
> time to wait, the choice must be made now.
>
> The plays that players have found objectionable are the ones where
> people deal to split the table with a rollover on turn 3, or where
> someone is going nuts cross-table, or where someone is bE1nG a
> MalKaVIan, ... as well as having another weapon to detect collusion,
> although I do not think collusion is the problem either.
making a losing deal where you can get a GW can be anoying too.
>
> >I can't think of anything yet, but i would love to see some sort of
> >percentage (or explanation as to what "reasonable" means in this
> >context) in the rules. Perhaps, even when not enforcable by a judge,
> >people will follow that rule just because they are good guys.
>
> No percentage can be accurately determined at the table; why try to
> determine a percentage in the rules?
I think, when i am playing a game, i can make a difference between "my
reasonable chance" (5%) and "your reasonable chance" (40?%). I will
be able to tell where my chances are closer too. You are saying you
are not? if you indeed cannot, it will be very difficult for you to
make any losing deal, as it is important to know even for you if your
chances are 35 or 55% of getting a GW.
>
> And you surely know better than to think people will follow
> unenforceable rules just because they're good guys. Look around.
I think there are that will follow these rules. I there are that
won't. but at least that is some improvement.
>
> I'm in the process of searching for the exact wording of something I saw
> on a casino wall recently; it was rule #1, in fact. I think it applies
> eminently to both V:TES and this particular situation. I shall not
> mention anything about it yet, because the wording itself was quite well
> done, and I want to be sure it carries the correct impact.
I'm curious
:-)
W
Wouter Kuyper
> Wouter Kuyper wrote:
> > There is no way to be calculating this ofcourse. But many that play
> > tournaments are capable of saying "i've been in quite a few of these
> > situations or similar; i have won about 1/8 of these situations"
> > Ofcourse it will still be guesstimating, but i will be able to tell if
> > i have a chance to win that is closer to 25 or to 10%. I think many
> > can.
>
> Uhm. Not to be rude, but, so?
>
> I'm sorry. That was rude. Let me explain.
If that was rude, i don't mind your rudeness.
>
> Let's say, hypothetically, you find yourself in a position where you
> have calculated your chance of winning (X%), and found that it's less
> than reasonable (Y%) (X% < Y%). So, you wait for your turn, and you tap
> your Succubus Club, and state you're giving all your pool and all your
> minions to your best buddy.
>
> Other players cry foul and call the judge. The judge examines your
> situation and says, "No can do. You still have a reasonable chance of
> winning."
>
> You explain your calculations to the judge, but the judge disagrees. Do
> you tell the judge he's in error?
You are mixing some things up. if you have a less then reasonable
chance of winning you still have to play for the highest number of
VP's you can get. you cannot just give up/transfer out in that case.
The situation where you cannot get more VP's then you have now, is
also interesting, but not the issue in this case.
W
Wouter Kuyper
> > Why? Let's say for sake of argument that LSJ says "reasonable chance"
> > == "25%". How does that help? Is there some calculation you can run on
> > the game state to say what someone's chance of winning is?
>
> Yes, the calculation goes like this: count all possible outcomes of
> the game in which you get a GW. Then count all possible outcomes of
> the game. Divide the two numbers, that that's your probability.
some outcomes are more likely then others, so this is not exactly how
it goes, but i agree with you that it is doable to get an
approximation of your chance.
>
> I realize it's not actually possible to count the two (potentially
> infinite) numbers above. Nonetheless, estimating probabilities is a
> useful and necessary skill. It's a weak argument (IMO) to claim that
> since we can't calculate the probabilities exactly, we shouldn't even
> try estimating.
agreed.
>
> Colin, if you look at a VTES game in its mid-game, you can make a
> reasonable guess at who's going to win. You can assign probabilities
> to various outcomes. They won't be perfect, but they'll be close, and
> close is good enough and certainly better than nothing.
>
> Also, as a player, you know your deck, and can make an even better
> estimation than a casual observer. As a judge, if you really want to
> take the time, you can look through players' decks. I realize we're
> not computers and giving a concrete number isn't actually that
> concrete, but I personally think that some ballpark number is better
> than nothing at all.
>
> Finally, on a larger scale, I believe our goal should be that all
> judges make the same (correct) ruling given the same situation. I
> realize that it's possible to have different rulings that are both
> correct (because of differing definitions of the word "reasonable.")
> I also realize it's not possible to have exactly the same situation.
> Nonetheless, I personally strive to unify all judge's decision through
> dialogue with LSJ and open communication of the rules. If other
> people do not feel that it's a worthy goal to have judges make the
> same decisions given the same input, then we have a fundamentally
> different approach to these discussions.
Amen.
we should aim for the least ambiguous rules possible.
W
LSJ
> Matt wrote:
> > I can estimate if my chances are "reasonable" or not.
>
> How do you define reasonable?
In the absence of a game-defined, English-overriding definition,
the English is used.
You might also investigate "reasonable doubt", as used by US law.
If you find that a universal (here used to mean "for all of US law
jury cases) hard percentage number for that has been defined for
US law, please cite the ruling, and maybe the V:EKN will add similar
"help" to the V:EKN rules.
--
LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc.
Links to V:TES news, rules, cards, utilities, and tournament calendar:
http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/
Colin McGuigan
> *My* point is that as a regular judge (i.e. not LSJ), giving a number
> for "reasonable" is better than being unable to define it in any way.
Let's try another thought experiment that I hope illustrates my
counter-point. Define "pornography". =)
> 1) Player and judge discuss what is a "reasonable" chance
> 2) Judge defining "reasonable" as 5%, and then player and judge
> discuss whether or not the player has a 5% chance of winning. (or 2%
> or 20% or whatever number the judge wants to pick.)
>
> I personally prefer the judge to define it as he wishes, and then
> engage in the latter discussion, rather than the (IMO) more nebulous
> first discussion. Granted, both discussions are necessarily nebulous,
> I just prefer the latter.
Honestly, I see no difference between the two discussions. At all.
This may just be a fundamental disagreement between us, but two people
arguing whether something is "reasonable" strikes me as exactly the same
as two people arguing whether something is "X% likely".
> How do you define reasonable?
Counterpoint: How do you define "rich"? Or "short"? Or "heavy"?
I use these words every day, but it is impossible to assign a concrete
(numerical) meaning to any of them.
> Unfortunately it's not that simple. First, the numbers shouldn't add
> up to 100%, because there's some chance the game will time out (2hr
> limit) or some other way that no one wins (2-2-1.) Also, say everyone
> estimated 15% chance of winning, and then I won. Were the estimates
> correct? They could all be entirely correct.
Two points:
1) If everyone estimated their chances of winning at 15% (in a 5 player
game), that totals 75%. Kinda off. Worse if everyone gives themselves
a 50% chance to win.
2) What if someone's predictions fluctuate wildly? 25% on turn 3, 50%
on turn 6, 10% on turn 9, etc? How useful are those predictions then?
> Sure I can: I define a "reasonable" chance of winning as a 5% or
> greater chance of winning.
Fine. I'll play Derek's game with you. We roll a 20-sided die. If it
comes up 1, I'll pay you $5. Otherwise, you pay me $1.
You have a "reasonable" chance of winning at 5:1 odds! That's _fantastic_!
> Have ten experienced judges observe a game from the beginning to turn
> 10. At turn 10, have each observer estimate the chances of winning
> for each player, as well as the chance the game will time-out or
> otherwise have no winner.
>
> It doesn't really matter who wins, it just matters how close the
> estimates are.
>
> If those numbers are close, then one could possibly conclude that
> skilled judges would magically come up with estimates that are
> similar, and therefore a global definition of "reasonable" would allow
> more consistent rulings (without sacrificing flexibility among
> judges.)
And if the numbers aren't close?
--Colin McGuigan