Self-Ousting -- AGAIN
Kevin M.
him out on it. I asked the guy why he thinks self-ousting is a good
thing? Why not just say "Good Game guys, I can't block anything" and
get up and go have a smoke, or whatever you need to do to physically
get away from the game which is obviously so angering you that you
can't possibly stand another moment at the table? Why instead choose
to break the social covenant of "playing a game" that we all clearly,
implicitly agreed to when we choose to invest our valuable time and
sat down to play?
Oh, VTES is different than other games, you say? You are allowed to
lose in any way that you wish, you say, including scooping up all
your toys and going home, and we ADULTS are simply to suffer through
your childlike antics and get ready for round two of your continuing
bad behavior?
I want to know what makes you think that being a self-ousting quitter
in-game is something that I shouldn't consider when I'm thinking about
what to do with the next two hours of my life? Unless you just pulled
off the one-in-a-million shot and somehow got a VP or a GW by self-
ousting, what makes you think that I'll want to play **ANYTHING** with
you **EVER AGAIN**?
I know there are players in several playgroups that have done and
continue to do this sort of bad behavior and I know that in at least
two of these playgroups this bad behavior is tolerated because the
fear of losing those quitters is greater than trying to educate them
on their bad behavior and getting them to grow up.
To those of you who are full of fear of other players in your group
(and just think of how ridiculous THAT is) I ask you to reexamine your
games with these quitters and see if you are really having fun, or are
you just continuing to live in fear of the next game where the quitter
self-ousts at a crucial time and AGAIN wrecks the game in which you
chose to invest two hours of your valuable time, not to mention the
money you've spent on the game materials.
Yes, it's fear that you're feeling. Why else do you tolerate their
bad behavior? Would you tolerate their bad behavior if it weren't
within a game or would you call them out on it? Would you play ball
with them if they kept taking the ball and going home when they were
losing and then they came back the next day again and again as if
nothing had happened?
I rest my case.
Oh, and to those of you that have decided to finally grow up and have
stopped self-ousting, I thank you deeply. You are the players and the
friends that I would do anything for, and you have my respect and
admiration forever for being open-minded enough to hear and agree with
an argument for never giving up, to play until the bitter end, and to
never again reduce yourself to the bad behavior of self-ousting.
Kevin M., Prince of Las Vegas
"Know your enemy and know yourself; in one-thousand battles
you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, *The Art of War*
"Contentment...Complacency...Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier
Please visit VTESville daily! http://vtesville.myminicity.com/
Please buy my cards! http://shop.ebay.com/kjmergen/m.html
Blooded Sand
-snip sky is falling whinge-
>
> Kevin M., Prince of Las Vegas
Kevin, if your RL persona is at all as abrasive as your online one,
have you ever considered that that is maybe the reason people self
oust so often around you?
Kevin M.
> have you ever considered that that is maybe the reason people self
> oust so often around you?
Oh, that must be it! Thanks for letting me know that!
Kevin M., Prince of Las Vegas
Blooded Sand
> Blooded Sand wrote:
> > "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote:
> > -snip sky is falling whinge-
>
> > Kevin, if your RL persona is at all as abrasive as your online one,
> > have you ever considered that that is maybe the reason people self
> > oust so often around you?
>
> Oh, that must be it! Thanks for letting me know that!
see, sarcasm is just a case in point. Sarcastic people are unpleasant
to be around. If you are pointing out to someone in a game, in a
sarcastic manner, what they did wrong, they definitely don't want to
stay near you. Self ousts don't happen around here very often, if
ever. Yet you are regularly going on about it.
The sky is not falling dude.
Jakob Sievers
Kevin M.
It's nice to see how you're trying to help me with my personal issues!
Jozxyqk
> So here we are again. Someone self-ousted on me tonight and I called
> him out on it.
What did he do to self-oust?
For how many turns was his masochistic plan in effect?
echia...@yahoo.com
> So here we are again. Someone self-ousted on me tonight and I called
> him out on it. I asked the guy why he thinks self-ousting is a good
> thing? Why not just say "Good Game guys, I can't block anything" and
> get up and go have a smoke, or whatever you need to do to physically
> get away from the game which is obviously so angering you that you
> can't possibly stand another moment at the table? Why instead choose
> to break the social covenant of "playing a game" that we all clearly,
> implicitly agreed to when we choose to invest our valuable time and
> sat down to play?
I think you make some valid points, but in my personal opinion, I
think you're misdiagnosing the issue. The problem is not with self-
ousting (it's with the general attitude/personality/maturity of the
players involved).
When you're in a position where you're considering self-ousting,
everything you do (or decide not to do) is going to tilt the game in
favor of one player or another. Going all out against your prey will
mainly help your predator (and hurt your prey). Staying untapped and
just trying to survive helps your prey instead of your predator.
If you have 4 pool left and no minions, it probably doesn't matter if
you transfer out or sit there as a 4 pool buffer. Or say you're going
to be ousted by Dragonbound this turn no matter what, but you do have
Beast untapped. In this case Kevin, is the "right" thing to do: A.)
rush your prey, B.) rush your predator, C.) rush crosstable, or D.)
don't rush anyone. You're going to die regardless, so whatever you do
(or don't do), is going to influence the table dynamic.
How is sitting there as a buffer and not blocking anything, any better
than just transferring out?
> Oh, VTES is different than other games, you say? You are allowed to
> lose in any way that you wish, you say, including scooping up all
> your toys and going home, and we ADULTS are simply to suffer through
> your childlike antics and get ready for round two of your continuing
> bad behavior?
Earlier today I played several VTES games. One of the players is
actually pretty good, but he's easily frustrated and prone to
outbursts.
He is my predator, influences out Carna and takes a build-up action. I
try to make a deal whereby I won't block some of his build-up actions
if he won't block some of mine. He's not willing to negotiate at all,
stating: "I don't make those types of deals." Next turn I play Pentex
Subversion (insert link to that other newsgroup thread) which stays on
Carna the rest of the game. He gets all mad about it. But essentially
my options are:
A.) Don't play Pentex and get all my actions blocked by Carna for the
rest of the game
B.) Neutralize Carna
I was trying to work out a compromise but he wasn't willing to talk.
(Later that game, he also went on a tirade when I chose not to
influence out and contest a Scarce vampire with my prey. It would have
brought me down to 2 pool and my prey could then bleed me out
backwards in one action with a Kindred Spirits. But he wasn't offended
that I *wouldn't* do it.).
Once my predator had Carna Pentex'ed, he considered transferring out
and I wouldn't have blamed him if he did. If that's what he wanted to
do (thereby helping my Grand Predator) that would have been his
choice. Or if he wanted to do his best to survive (hoping for an
opening in my defenses), that would have been okay as well. Of course
he could have also tried negotiating with me to get the Pentex removed
but he wasn't willing to do so.
A few games later, he's my predator again and is aggressively rushing
me with Massassi. I suggest trying to work out a deal but once again
he's not interested. So obviously I'm going to try and block his tool-
up actions (especially getting a gun) because he's not willing to
talk. He gets all upset about it. Interestingly enough, I end up
Pentexing my new predator's Petrodon for a few turns. But we
eventually make a deal (I let him burn the Pentex and he doesn't block
my hunts and rescues).
(For the record, I did end up winning both of those games).
Connecting this to your original topic, I think the underlying problem
is attitude/personality/(perhaps even playstyle). The D.C. playgroup
recently had a player storm out of their storyline tournament (and it
had nothing to do with self-ousting).
VTES is a multi-player game and negotiation/diplomacy is a critical
aspect of the game. Given that people will be in no-win situations and
will serve as kingmakers, instead of complaining about that
inevitability, perhaps the better solution is to find ways to convince
them to make you the king (rather than someone else).
In another game, my grandpredator was going to be ousted during his
turn. So he wanted to de-stabilize the table and make the game end as
quickly as possible (so he wouldn't have to wait very long for the
next game). It ended up messing up my game, but I understand his
decision (and if I was in that position I might do the same).
Sometimes things work out in your favor, sometimes they don't.
The key is to improve the odds of things working in your favor. My
final anecdote of the day (cause I know you're sick of hearing about
them), illustrates why you shouldn't needlessly antagonize other
players. In yet another game, my prey was the Carna/Massassi player
and my predator was being extremely aggressive. I knew I didn't have
much of a chance at winning, and I was already focused on my predator.
Then my prey considers whether to diablerize one of my minions (he was
still holding a grudge from the Pentex'ed Carna incident). My response
was "Why would you even consider something like that? I'm not going to
win. And right now I'm just going to keep backrushing my predator. Why
would you want to needlessly antagonize me? Because the alternative is
that I just rush you instead and help my predator by going forward."
I think some of the other posters are a bit tactless and rude in their
comments, but there could be a grain of truth in what they have to
say. *Have* you considered your bedside manner? When players self-
destruct, it's usually against those who have antagonized them. So
maybe you're unconsciously doing things that irritate and annoy these
players (who then try to screw you over by self-ousting).
The best predators are those that can make their preys happy that
they're being ousted. Matt Morgan wrote a really good post recently
about letting your prey do his thing and have some fun (i.e. not
completing shutting him down needlessly). If you piss people off,
obviously they'll try to make things difficult for you if they can. So
maybe instead you should try to win them over?
And now maybe I should listen a little more to my own advice, eh? :-)
Kevin M.
> Kevin M. <you...@imaspammer.org> wrote:
>> So here we are again. Someone self-ousted on me tonight
>> and I called him out on it.
>
> What did he do to self-oust?
He was at 1 pool and saw no hope, so he self-ousted, which
guaranteed that I had no chance. If he wouldn't have self-ousted,
I had a chance. And he was my cross-table "ally".
LSJ
> So here we are again. Someone self-ousted on me tonight and I called
> him out on it. I asked the guy why he thinks self-ousting is a good
> thing? Why not just say "Good Game guys, I can't block anything" and
> get up and go have a smoke, or whatever you need to do to physically
> get away from the game which is obviously so angering you that you
> can't possibly stand another moment at the table? Why instead choose
> to break the social covenant of "playing a game" that we all clearly,
> implicitly agreed to when we choose to invest our valuable time and
> sat down to play?
Because self-ousting is honoring the social covenat of "playing the game" [7].
Standing up and going for a smoke is less "playing the game" than "abandoning
your position to the mechanics of the game, undermining the playing the game
aspect of the game as you remove the uncertainty of your position in the eyes of
the other players than you would by simply finishing your game."
Powerlord
can do.
In my playgroup (or should i say in Portugal), i don't recall ever
having that kind of problems (fortunatly, though we had a problem once
with Succubus Club), players usually fight to the last counter.
One thing i learn from playing is that you only need 1 pool to win, a
VP or a GW, as long as you are in game, you still have a chance. I
also agree, that sometimes you can not change the inevitable, but i
have already got saved a few times by my cross-table allies, so i
never quit.
It's diferent to play in friendly games, where that kind of behaviour
can be "accepted" (though i disaprove) and tournament games where that
kind of behaviour is reprehensible. All playgroups have problems, one
way or the other, but is up to us princes to try to educate the
players, we must show them they might be wrong, but we also have to
understand that that's their choice.
Good luck changing their prespective :)
Ricardo Marta
Prince of Lisboa
Brum
>
> SNIP ALL TEXT
>
> Kevin M., Prince of Las Vegas
> "Know your enemy and know yourself; in one-thousand battles
> you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, *The Art of War*
> "Contentment...Complacency...Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier
> Please visit VTESville daily!http://vtesville.myminicity.com/
> Please buy my cards!http://shop.ebay.com/kjmergen/m.html
I've met some abrasive characters in Palma de Maiorca. Kevin wasn't
one of them.
Now, about the issue that Kevin brought up:
This issue is paramount because it can wreck a playgroup and
playgroups of VtES are hard to come by. Childish-aggressive behaviour
can have many forms and it affects those who do it and those who
witness it.
It happens when you have an insecure player that turns up for other
things then playing a good game of VtES. Instead, this player just
wants to continue his misery by things like Self-Oust, destroying the
game of those that seem a bigger threat to his insecurity and trying
have others start his bad behaviour.
So, why do other people put up with such damaging behaviour?
Yes Kevin, you are right, it's fear that stops people from doing
anything about it.
We have a guy here that either plays with decks that totally destroy
another player's game (does not oust, and rarely he uses it against
his Prey) OR uses decks that are just annoying, like I-put-a-million-
Hauntings-on-you. Besides that, his attitude is always awfull and
tables with that guy are never in a good mood. Everybody gets
affected, either they see it or not.
Being a chauvinist, he has a problem when Teresa kicks ass at a table
(and she does quite frequently) just because she's a woman. Also, he
tryes for new players to use non-competitive decks, because "they are
more fun". Of course, they loose and disappear from the game.
Thankfully this guy doesn't go to tournaments (in the last that he
went he self ousted by voting in favor the Kines that killed him -
without his votes they wouldn't pass). I called the Judge, big
discussion, nothing happened. Fear.
These cases can only be solved if everyone helps. If there's only one
guy doing something against these children's behaviour, that usually
gets things worse. He tries to turn people against those that try to
improve things.
On our case, he's the guy that got us the venue where we play
friendlies and he's friends with a few the local players, therefore
there is fear of antagonizing a part of the playgroup.
But yeah, VtES is a community game. If there is a problem, the
community needs to address it as a whole, or else it's hard to solve
it.
Now that more people are playing good and the level of play is
increasing, things are getting better.
I find that if one guy is sucking alone for a few games on, he tries
to stop sucking and get better. Specially if there is no big fuss. But
again, the community as a whole needs to address these issues.
Tiago
Ruben Feldman
> If you have 4 pool left and no minions, it probably doesn't matter if
> you transfer out or sit there as a 4 pool buffer. Or say you're going
> to be ousted by Dragonbound this turn no matter what, but you do have
> Beast untapped. In this case Kevin, is the "right" thing to do: A.)
> rush your prey, B.) rush your predator, C.) rush crosstable, or D.)
> don't rush anyone. You're going to die regardless, so whatever you do
> (or don't do), is going to influence the table dynamic.
>
The answer is actually simple. You should play to maximize your
standing in the outcome of the game. If you think your predator can
sweep, then help him in order to increase your table points.
I personally think self-ousting should not be allowed unless it
procures an advantage to the person doing it. For example, in the EC
final in Turin, I was being bled for 5 a turn and no one on the table
wanted to help me, so i was dead the turn i started at 2 pool. I thus
bled for 12 in daring and transfered out hoping that my prey would get
ousted (I had a better seeding than him, thus i would not come 5th).
Self-ousting out of spite is a bit childish and usually against the
spirit of the game. I have often talked to some players who do it, and
they actually state that they are breaking the rules in self-ousting
as they justify it by saying: "Next game, he won't mess with me"...
Kevin M.
> "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote:
>> So here we are again. Someone self-ousted on me tonight and
>> I called him out on it. I asked the guy why he thinks self-ousting
>> is a good thing? Why not just say "Good Game guys, I can't block
>> anything" and get up and go have a smoke, or whatever you need to
>> do to physically get away from the game which is obviously so
>> angering you that you can't possibly stand another moment at the
>> table? Why instead choose to break the social covenant of "playing
>> a game" that we all clearly, implicitly agreed to when we choose
>> to invest our valuable time and sat down to play?
>
> I think you make some valid points, but in my personal opinion,
> I think you're misdiagnosing the issue. The problem is not with
> of the players involved).
That seems a bit too fundamental to me. At least, if that's truly
what it is then I really have no hope of ever enjoying the game
unless I'm playing with players that I know for 100% certain won't
self-oust.
I think the issue is more concretely-related to games and gaming and
how a player defines gaming, and entertainment in general, and how
disposable gaming and primarily gaming-related friends are to them.
There was a famous VTES player from long, long ago that (I heard) quit
largely over the introduction of Gehenna events and their powerful and
globaly destructive effects. At the time, I thought that it was
somewhat of an overreaction but over the years I have come to see that
the decision was really that the player's conceptualization of VTES
was incompatible with (some of) the Gehenna events and that quitting
the game was the best solution for that player. Hopefully I can
continue to play in an environment and with players who disdain self-
ousting as I do, but that won't always be the case, and self-ousting
may, in the end, be intolerable, given my definition of games, gaming,
and players.
> When you're in a position where you're considering self-ousting,
> everything you do (or decide not to do) is going to tilt the game in
> favor of one player or another. Going all out against your prey will
> mainly help your predator (and hurt your prey). Staying untapped
> and just trying to survive helps your prey instead of your predator.
Sure, that's true, but why would you give a freebie to the guy who's
been trying to kill you the entire game and is most likely the one who
made you lose? See, I just don't get that. But in the self-ousting
player's mind, I can see how having already given up, having already
mind-suicided their position, would make it impossible to believe
they had any chance at all.
> If you have 4 pool left and no minions, it probably doesn't matter
> if you transfer out or sit there as a 4 pool buffer.
It sure matters to the rest of the table, most especially to those
who you've been working with the entire game.
Perhaps that is the issue I have with self-ousting, that I see the
game in a larger context and on a longer timeframe, whereas self-
ousters see the game only as ephemeral and essentially meaningless.
Sure, it's a game, clearly it isn't real-life. But within the context
of the game you are still QUITTING THE GAME, you are still not
fulfilling the entire point of playing a game, which is to play from
beginning to end to determine a winner. And no one likes it when they
are playing a multi-player game and someone just up and quits,
absolutely no one.
There is a rule that says if you are losing that you may lose in any
fashion you wish. There is a rule that says you must play-to-win.
There is a rule that says you will receive sanction if you are a bad
sport. How are these rules not contradictory? This contradiction
constantly makes me sad, most especially for the new players that we
keep saying that we want, but can never seem to find.
In what other multiplayer game are you able to pick up your game
pieces and just up and quit? It is so clearly bad behavior I really
can't even grasp that a game would allow such behavior within the
rules. Perhaps it is that a multiplayer game MUST allow for such
a thing to exist, or the game would be unable to exist, but I don't
see that with Scrabble, Bridge, Bowling, Baseball, or any other multi-
player game in any other genre that I can think of.
[snip Dragonbound example]
> How is sitting there as a buffer and not blocking anything, any
> better than just transferring out?
Because choosing to play in some way is not QUITTING PLAYING.
Oh, I know, I know, it's been said many times, many ways, there isn't
any difference in VTES between ANY behavior when you're losing, right?
You say, how is not blocking anything and just sitting there any
better than just transferring out? I have answered that, above, but
I'd continue your analogy further and ask, why not just roll a die and
take a random action? Why not act like a crazy Malkavian when you're
losing? Just do what makes you feel good, right? After all, that's
what self-ousting (i.e. quitting) is all about, right? You don't want
to be losing so you quit in order to feel better about yourself in
some way.
I simply can't grasp that level of disconnect when just a while ago
you as a player chose to sit down and PLAY A GAME with the rest of us.
>> Oh, VTES is different than other games, you say? You are allowed to
>> lose in any way that you wish, you say, including scooping up all
>> your toys and going home, and we ADULTS are simply to suffer
>> through your childlike antics and get ready for round two of your
>> continuing bad behavior?
[snip Carna example with multiple games with the same player]
> VTES is a multi-player game and negotiation/diplomacy is a critical
> aspect of the game. Given that people will be in no-win situations
> and will serve as kingmakers, instead of complaining about that
> inevitability, perhaps the better solution is to find ways to
> convince them to make you the king (rather than someone else).
Sure, that's an excellent goal, if possible. Well said.
[snip destabilization-of-game-to-get-to-the-next-game-ASAP example]
> Sometimes things work out in your favor, sometimes they don't.
Oh, I don't expect things to always "work out" for me anymore than
I expect them to work out for anyone else. What I do expect, though,
is for someone to play the game until the end and not quit until THE
END. And quitting in some fashion via some rule(s) on your turn isn't
THE END, it's just you having quit, that's all.
Oh, I know, in their mind it is the end for them so they should be
allowed to act in whatever way they wish, right? No. Bad behavior
is bad behavior.
> The key is to improve the odds of things working in your favor. My
> final anecdote of the day (cause I know you're sick of hearing about
> them), illustrates why you shouldn't needlessly antagonize other
> players. In yet another game, my prey was the Carna/Massassi player
> and my predator was being extremely aggressive. I knew I didn't have
> much of a chance at winning, and I was already focused on my
> predator. Then my prey considers whether to diablerize one of my
> minions (he was still holding a grudge from the Pentex'ed Carna
> incident). My response was "Why would you even consider something
> like that? I'm not going to win. And right now I'm just going to
> keep backrushing my predator. Why would you want to needlessly
> antagonize me? Because the alternative is that I just rush you
> instead and help my predator by going forward."
>
> I think some of the other posters are a bit tactless and rude in
> their comments, but there could be a grain of truth in what they
> have to say. *Have* you considered your bedside manner?
We were cross-table allies the entire game. There were no issues like
that in this game. And for those who don't know me, I'm pretty fun
and friendly during the game. Unless you are a self-ouster.
> When players self-destruct, it's usually against those who have
> antagonized them. So maybe you're unconsciously doing things that
> irritate and annoy these players (who then try to screw you over by
> self-ousting).
The player in question's self-oust had nothing to do with me, he even
admitted such. He self-ousted because he was at 1 and saw no hope.
I asked him not to self-oust since I had hope if he didn't self-oust,
as he was my cross-table ally at the time and was just giving the game
to my prey for no reason other than he didn't want to "waste the time"
sticking around. I asked him to just get up and leave the table then
since that also wouldn't waste his time and wouldn't remove any chance
of me getting a VP. He said that he could do whatever he wanted and
I should just accept that people are different.
Sure, I accept that, but why would I want to play with someone who
doesn't fight it out until the bitter end, and just up and quits on
their ally?
It makes me ill that he feels he did nothing wrong by quitting, since
it was only "a game".
> And now maybe I should listen a little more to my own advice, eh?
Thanks for the thought-provoking discussion. :)
LSJ
> I personally think self-ousting should not be allowed unless it
> procures an advantage to the person doing it.
And what about other activity? Shall all activity be disallowed unless it
procures an advantage? Inactivity?
If not, then you face the problems of
1) Defining what exactly is self-ousting
2) Defending why exactly the thing(s) defined in 1) get disparate treatment
Kevin M.
Sure, I hear you. You and I have covered this before and, as a famous
philosopher once said, "The truth or falsehood of all man's conclusions,
inferences, thought and knowledge rests on the truth or falsehood of his
definitions."
Our definition of "playing the game" is fundementally different, therefore
we will never agree. Is this an issue? Sure, at some level which is
clearly
larger for me than it is for you.
Thanks for your continued support in the KevinM Dept., though. It's
appreciated. (And sorry about that awful BSG game, I'm a bad cylon.)
floppyzedolfin
[...] the end [...]
There was a lot of "the end" in this message. Don't forget that V:tES
is a game where each player usually doesn't play the same amount of
turns as others do. For instance, a player who got ousted on turn 6
will no longer participate in the game howsoever. I think this is what
your statement should be :
A player should play the game from the beginning [of the game] to the
end [of her game (which might happen before the time limit)].
That is, for instance, do not leave the table before you're ousted. Or
do not give advices to players when you are ousted and they're still
playing.
LSJ
> Our definition of "playing the game" is fundementally different, therefore
> we will never agree. Is this an issue? Sure, at some level which is
> clearly
> larger for me than it is for you.
What it means to be playing any game is defined by the rules of the game.
> Thanks for your continued support in the KevinM Dept., though. It's
> appreciated. (And sorry about that awful BSG game, I'm a bad cylon.)
FYI: The Pegasus expansion makes it less disastrous to be a double Cylon.
Petri Wessman
there are rare exceptions where it maybe makes sense, but all too
often it's just a childish passive-aggressive Eric Cartman tantrum...
"screw you guys, I'm going home!".
Can something be done to stop it? Probably not. Some people are don't
care for sportsmanship, and you can't force them to care. They feel
like they are losing, they pack up their toys and go home.
-Petri
Kevin M.
Yes, exactly. Well, something like that which you and I could come
up with after an hour or so of discussion, something to guide players
to behavior which is not bad.
Kevin M.
I just felt like a damn fool (although I was just tired, I suppose) when
that huge cylon fleet blew in on Turn 1 and I didn't reveal myself and
start smashing heads right away. Although my stupendous failure and
the subsequent education by the table makes me feel as if that single
game elevated me from novice to advanced player right there. :)
echia...@yahoo.com
Hello Ruben.
Excellent points. But in many cases, the self-ousting player does
perceive him/herself as gaining an advantage (besides tournament
points):
- Self-ousting could be seen as advantageous if it shifts the table
dynamic in favor of a deck/player that the self-ouster would prefer to
see in the final (which opens up the separate issue of collusion-like
behavior) or, more commonly, against a deck/player that the self-
ouster does not want to see in the final (i.e. Player already has 2 GW
and is guaranteed a spot in the final, possibly even first seed. He's
already going to lose the third round, so he sees an advantage in
taking out a deck that would be difficult to play against in the
final).
- Perhaps it is spiteful and childish. But some players might find it
advantageous to establish a reputation (i.e. don't mess with me). For
example, if I'm already hosed, I might as well teach my cross-table
"ally" that it's not a good idea to cross-table Pentex me so I
retaliate by attacking his minions or bleeding him with my last dying
breath.
This does lead to a slippery slope where we don't want to encourage
people to do this all the time (when they can still win). But if
they're already going to lose, it seems as good of a reason as any.
LSJ
> Well, add me to the crowd who sees self-ousting as a bad thing. Sure,
> there are rare exceptions where it maybe makes sense, but all too
> often it's just a childish passive-aggressive Eric Cartman tantrum...
> "screw you guys, I'm going home!".
or "Screw you guys, I'm walling up!" or "Screw you guys, I'm tapping out!".
Petri Wessman
Well, yes. On the other hand, both of those give you a *possibility*
of still scoring points. Sure, sometimes that possibility is close to
zero, but it's usually non-zero. Something unexpected might happen, a
cross-table player might jump to your aid... whatever. In any case,
you're still on the table and people have to deal with you.
If you transfer out, you 100% guarantee that you will not improve your
position any more, in that game.
Of course, there are people who try to do something destructive, often
cross-table, when they are caught in a bad spot... and that's even
worse.
The simplest solution, of course, is "don't play with dicks".
Unfortunately that's not always possible in a tournament context.
-Petri
Peter D Bakija
> In what other multiplayer game are you able to pick up your game
> pieces and just up and quit?
Titan and Diplomacy both have rules governing "picking up your pieces
and going home". Works fine for them. They are both very long games,
and it often blows to be in a seriously losing position for hours on
end with no hope in sight. So you can leave if you want. And the game
recovers. I mean, it often isn't optimal, but the mechanism exists to
deal with it.
Back to the point at hand, if you mean:
-Self ousting as getting up in the middle of the game when you still
have a fighting chance, taking all your stuff, and leaving, yeah, I
agree that is a problem, and also agree that it isn't something people
should do. For any number of reasons.
-Self ousting when you are at 1 pool, have no chance, and are gonna
get ousted anyway, well, if you can affect the game by self ousting at
that point, and the affect is something that you want to happen, I
can't so much see a problem with it. If self ousting from a clearly
lost position impacts the game in what you would consider a favorable
situation--say you are in a lost position 'cause your prey back rushed
you to death, self ousting from a lost position to benefit your
predator seems completely reasonable. Or if you are in a lost position
'cause of some shenanagins from your grand predator, and self ousting
benefits your predator and hinders your grand predator, sure, go nuts.
I completely agree that people shouldn't self oust in the name of
"Screw you guys! I'm going home!" as that is insane and irrational.
But if someone is in a lost position and teetering on the edge of
death anyway, and self ousting does something that they consider
beneficial, I can't really object.
-Peter
Ruben Feldman
That is a good point. As of right now, I am a bit confused as to what
the rules are with regards to play to win etc. I would think that it
is play for the GW, and most VP/TP otherwise.
All activity/inactivity is already disalowed if the player does not
really believe it to be procuring an advantage towards that goal. For
example, doing something that is grossly counter-productive to you
winning the game might be perceived as collusion or out of game
consideration and is punishable by gameloss/DQ... Self-oust would not
get disparate treatment in this case.
If that is so, I realize that self-ousting in most situations is
already prohibited under the rules, as they cannot possibly be acting
to maximize points. There is always a chance something drastic might
happen and the player might survive. Self-ousting would only be
justified when it provides a way of obtaining more points (as per my
example).
LSJ
> On Nov 30, 3:53 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
>> Petri Wessman wrote:
>>> Well, add me to the crowd who sees self-ousting as a bad thing. Sure,
>>> there are rare exceptions where it maybe makes sense, but all too
>>> often it's just a childish passive-aggressive Eric Cartman tantrum...
>>> "screw you guys, I'm going home!".
>> or "Screw you guys, I'm walling up!" or "Screw you guys, I'm tapping out!".
>
> Well, yes. On the other hand, both of those give you a *possibility*
> of still scoring points.
In the context of this example, they both leave you with no reasonable chance at
any further VPs.
> Sure, sometimes that possibility is close to
> zero, but it's usually non-zero. Something unexpected might happen, a
> cross-table player might jump to your aid... whatever. In any case,
> you're still on the table and people have to deal with you.
>
> If you transfer out, you 100% guarantee that you will not improve your
> position any more, in that game.
If you are successful in doing so, right. The activity of attempting to
self-oust might give you a possibility of still scoring points if you want to
leave the "reasonable" out of it.
Petri Wessman
> I completely agree that people shouldn't self oust in the name of
> "Screw you guys! I'm going home!" as that is insane and irrational.
> But if someone is in a lost position and teetering on the edge of
> death anyway, and self ousting does something that they consider
> beneficial, I can't really object.
Yeah... guess the important distinction here is what is considered a
clear "lost position". I've seen a few too many self-ousts in
situations where (imho) the situation was far from lost. The player
was having a hard time, his deck wasn't working... but they were still
way over 1 pool and had (again, imho) options left. But they
considered the game to be lost, and just went home -- giving their
predator an overly-easy instant 6 pool and sometimes completely
changing the game. That sucks.
-Petri
LSJ
> On Nov 30, 7:58 am, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
>> Ruben Feldman wrote:
>>> I personally think self-ousting should not be allowed unless it
>>> procures an advantage to the person doing it.
>> And what about other activity? Shall all activity be disallowed unless it
>> procures an advantage? Inactivity?
>>
>> If not, then you face the problems of
>>
>> 1) Defining what exactly is self-ousting
>> 2) Defending why exactly the thing(s) defined in 1) get disparate treatment
>
> That is a good point. As of right now, I am a bit confused as to what
> the rules are with regards to play to win etc. I would think that it
> is play for the GW, and most VP/TP otherwise.
Correct. (Well, it stops at VP without getting into TP -- but you're welcome to
use TP as your internal coin toss decider if you like).
> All activity/inactivity is already disalowed if the player does not
> really believe it to be procuring an advantage towards that goal.
Almost. Rather than needing to procure an advantage toward the goal, it need
only avoid producing a negative. That is, once in a lost position (where all
activities fail to procure an advantage), the player is not "stuck", but can
continue to choose from among the available activities.
> For
> example, doing something that is grossly counter-productive to you
> winning the game might be perceived as collusion or out of game
> consideration and is punishable by gameloss/DQ... Self-oust would not
> get disparate treatment in this case.
Correct. The legal self-ousts are the topic of this thread, as I understand it.
Not the ones that violate PTW.
> If that is so, I realize that self-ousting in most situations is
> already prohibited under the rules, as they cannot possibly be acting
> to maximize points.
Correct.
> There is always a chance something drastic might
> happen and the player might survive. Self-ousting would only be
> justified when it provides a way of obtaining more points (as per my
> example).
Or when it is simply one of the myriad of options that lead to no VPs when there
are no options that do better.
LSJ
And that's already illegal, assuming you're in a V:EKN tournament or using the
sportsmanship rules.
Peter D Bakija
> Yeah... guess the important distinction here is what is considered a
> clear "lost position".
Oh, sure--it is likely impossible to define such a position, but when
I'm in one, I know I'm in one. And kinda need to assume that other
people know when they are in one too. That being said, I'd never self
oust, even in an appropriate situation, in a tournament. As it is just
likely to piss people off, and I can just as easily survive the next
10 minutes of waiting to get killed. But in casual play, if I'm mostly
dead anyway, really have no hope, and self ousting does something I
want it to do, I'll self oust, if for no other reason that it speeds
up the game, lets me get a drink, and I was gonna die anyway.
-Peter
Ruben Feldman
>
> Or when it is simply one of the myriad of options that lead to no VPs when there
> are no options that do better.
What i'm saying is that unless the player gets a TP advantage from the
self-oust, it will always be the worse option and so should not be
allowed. It is the only option that has a 100% chance of getting you
nothing.
Kevin M.
> "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote:
>> In what other multiplayer game are you able to pick up your game
>> pieces and just up and quit?
>
> Titan and Diplomacy both have rules governing "picking up your pieces
> and going home". Works fine for them. They are both very long games,
> and it often blows to be in a seriously losing position for hours on
> end with no hope in sight. So you can leave if you want. And the game
> recovers. I mean, it often isn't optimal, but the mechanism exists to
> deal with it.
I guess I should've said (as I made clear in my examples) *co-operative*
multi-player games. You are right about Titan and Diplomacy, but they
really aren't cooperative in the VTES sense of "the guy across from you
is hurting your enemies therefore he is your kinda friend".
Meej
> > Going all out against your prey will
> > mainly help your predator (and hurt your prey). Staying untapped
> > and just trying to survive helps your prey instead of your predator.
>
> Sure, that's true, but why would you give a freebie to the guy who's
> been trying to kill you the entire game and is most likely the one who
> made you lose? See, I just don't get that.
Maybe you recognize that the whole point of your predator's game is to
make you lose, and thus you're acknowledging a job well done while
attempting to reinforce in cross-table players' minds that if they
wanted you to keep fighting and stay alive, they needed to have helped
out by now?
Mind you, I've never (that I recall) transferred out, and I'm not
particularly in favor of doing so, but as pointed out, when you know
you're going to go down and it's just a matter of how, there are as
many valid reasons for one way over another. It seems like a
strategic mistake to transfer out in just about every scenario I can
think of, even when you want to reward a predator, since another trip
around the table to xer turn may change things a lot, but that's not
to say there aren't reasons, if you're giving out a freebie of help,
to send it upstream rather than downstream.
- D.J.
Blooded Sand
Yet as pointed to above, there ARE occasions when self ousting would
deny somebody a final round spot, increasing your overall chances.
Still gamesmanship.
OTOH, the "wah my decks not working wah" behaviour?
Kevin, you take a mallet. You start with the little finger, then so on
and so forth. Either they don't do it again (win) or they stop playing
(win) or you get some non constructive vengeance out of it(win)
Oh yah, people keep missing these
;)
echia...@yahoo.com
> On Nov 30, 7:58 am, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
>
> > Ruben Feldman wrote:
> > > I personally think self-ousting should not be allowed unless it
> > > procures an advantage to the person doing it.
>
> > And what about other activity? Shall all activity be disallowed unless it
> > procures an advantage? Inactivity?
>
> > If not, then you face the problems of
>
> > 1) Defining what exactly is self-ousting
> > 2) Defending why exactly the thing(s) defined in 1) get disparate treatment
>
> That is a good point. As of right now, I am a bit confused as to what
> the rules are with regards to play to win etc. I would think that it
> is play for the GW, and most VP/TP otherwise.
> All activity/inactivity is already disalowed if the player does not
> really believe it to be procuring an advantage towards that goal. For
> example, doing something that is grossly counter-productive to you
> winning the game might be perceived as collusion or out of game
> consideration and is punishable by gameloss/DQ... Self-oust would not
> get disparate treatment in this case.
Playing for the GW or VP's makes sense. But I'm a bit wary of a strict
requirement to maximize TP's (though in many cases, it may be in the
best interest of those players). Cause otherwise you have the case
where: Player A is the first to get a VP. He could then reasonably
argue that every player in a losing position (say C, D, and E in a 5-
player game) is *obligated* by the rules to help him win. (Because if
they help Player B win, then they'd tie for 3rd place but if they help
Player A win, there would be a four-way tie for 2nd place). A rule
requirement like that would seem kind of silly to me.
Also, the trouble with rule requirements is that it's hard to narrow
down the difference between bad play and mistakes vs intentionally
trying to oust yourself.
LSJ
>> Or when it is simply one of the myriad of options that lead to no VPs when there
>> are no options that do better.
>
>
> What i'm saying is that unless the player gets a TP advantage from the
> self-oust, it will always be the worse option and so should not be
> allowed.
It will be among the worst = best options (all options being equal in a lost
position, PTW-wise).
> It is the only option that has a 100% chance of getting you
> nothing.
It's not 100%, thanks to Life Boon (and/or other methods of intervention from
other players, depending on the actual method employed to self oust. Blocking,
DI, etc.)
echia...@yahoo.com
I agree with LSJ.
Ironically enough, even someone in a losing position could still get a
VP if their prey is in even more of a loserly position and transfers
out first! (So if you have one of those players in your playgroup, be
happy when he's your prey!). But the probability of that happening is
so negligible it's essentially zero.
And you could technically argue that attempting to self-oust could
actually lead to a VP. "Oh, I was just trying to flush out a Life
Boon. I spent all my pool, on the off chance that my prey would Life
Boon me, thus putting him within ousting range." Hey it could happen!
Frederick Scott
"Ruben Feldman" <fru...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:4b7d6d66-61df-4e0d...@p8g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
>
>> If you have 4 pool left and no minions, it probably doesn't matter if
>> you transfer out or sit there as a 4 pool buffer. Or say you're going
>> to be ousted by Dragonbound this turn no matter what, but you do have
>> Beast untapped. In this case Kevin, is the "right" thing to do: A.)
>> rush your prey, B.) rush your predator, C.) rush crosstable, or D.)
>> don't rush anyone. You're going to die regardless, so whatever you do
>> (or don't do), is going to influence the table dynamic.
>
> The answer is actually simple. You should play to maximize your
> standing in the outcome of the game. If you think your predator can
> sweep, then help him in order to increase your table points.
Wow! I agree with the second sentence but I think the third/final
sentence is a tad extreme. Table points (or tournament points, whatever
they're called) are a tournament construct, like game wins. I don't
think they should be given any consideration in a casual game. One
should play to maximize victory points but beyond that, one is free to
respond to perceived (in-game) provocation however one chooses. Even
within the context of maximizing victory points, there's certainly some
latitude for interpreting questions like:
"I perceive that I have a 2% chance of sweeping the table, a 5% chance of
getting two VPs, and a 50% chance of getting only one VP - all mutually
exclusive of one another and strictly depending on which course of action
I choose to pursue." Whichever choice one makes - along with affecting
one's own chance of getting to certain levels of victory - will also tend
to favor or oppose the interests of different opponents in the process.
So who pissed me off and who seems to be helping me will also have an
affect on my decision - both in a practical sense (I'm often better off
trying to work in tandem with someone who has shown he's willing to work
to me) and a philosophical sense (who "deserves" my cooperation vs. who
"deserves" to receive my attacks). All choices in such a scenario
strike me as a fair game.
Fred
Frederick Scott
news:2ecaec0e-a55f-466a...@x16g2000vbk.googlegroups.com...
> Playing for the GW or VP's makes sense. But I'm a bit wary of a strict
> requirement to maximize TP's (though in many cases, it may be in the
> best interest of those players).
Where PTW in a sanctioned tournament was concerned, I thought it only
took the Game Win and Victory Points into consideration. I didn't think
you could justify any given behavior (or needed to) by the number of
tournament points you would receive from it. The term "tournament points"
does not appear in rule 4.8.
Fred
Jyhad
situation. I see nothing wrong with it. I've been playing long enough
that it's pretty easy to see where a game is going when things are
down to the end especially. Early on in a game you can't tell, so
anyone self ousting then, should be tarred and feathered maybe even
beaten. However I expect that the other players in this game are as
knowledgeable about this game as I am. Aside from the fact that I'm
technically a "Prince" I know the rules. I know the clans and what
they are capable of doing. And I expect all those I play with to know
these things as well. It makes things a lot easier to understand and
then explain positions if necessary. Although sometimes explaining
things doesn't help as pointed out earlier in this thread. Some people
just will not listen to reason. What do you do then when said person
who is not listening completely neuters all aspects of your game
giving you no chance to do anything. I'm sorry, but I will not just
sit by and wait for the inevitable to come. I'd sooner remove myself
and move on to the next game if there is one. Accept my beating and
move on. It's that simple. Of course, I'm this crazy person that
plays to have fun. Winning doesn't matter to me. I simply enjoy
playing the game with intelligent people that have learned and
understand the game as I do.
Ruben Feldman
> Yet as pointed to above, there ARE occasions when self ousting would
> deny somebody a final round spot, increasing your overall chances.
> Still gamesmanship.
What you mention is against the rules. You have to take each game in
isolation (except for the final, in which you are allaowed to consider
the previous rounds). Thus you should not be thinking about what your
actions will do with respect to people getting into the final round.
"
Playing for the GW or VP's makes sense. But I'm a bit wary of a
strict
requirement to maximize TP's (though in many cases, it may be in the
best interest of those players). Cause otherwise you have the case
where: Player A is the first to get a VP. He could then reasonably
argue that every player in a losing position (say C, D, and E in a 5-
player game) is *obligated* by the rules to help him win. (Because if
they help Player B win, then they'd tie for 3rd place but if they
help
Player A win, there would be a four-way tie for 2nd place). A rule
requirement like that would seem kind of silly to me.
"
The argument would not be "reasonable". A player would be gaining from
self-oust on his/her last turn, when there is obvioulsy plenty of time
left for him to be ousted, and no possible way for him to survive
another turn. If he can survive another turn, then he might survive to
the end (0.5 vp or more).
"
And you could technically argue that attempting to self-oust could
actually lead to a VP. "Oh, I was just trying to flush out a Life
Boon. I spent all my pool, on the off chance that my prey would Life
Boon me, thus putting him within ousting range." Hey it could happen!
"
All dishonest play can be justified in a way. The function of the
rules is not to prevent players from being dishonest.
"
It's not 100%, thanks to Life Boon (and/or other methods of
intervention from
other players, depending on the actual method employed to self oust.
Blocking,
DI, etc.)
"
That is true, but the player's intention should be to flush out a life
boon/sudden on DI etc. and not self-oust.
If a player's intention is to self-oust, he intends to succeed and so
he intends to diminish his possible outcome to the worse possible
scenario.
"
> The answer is actually simple. You should play to maximize your
> standing in the outcome of the game. If you think your predator can
> sweep, then help him in order to increase your table points.
Wow! I agree with the second sentence but I think the third/final
sentence is a tad extreme. Table points (or tournament points,
whatever
they're called) are a tournament construct, like game wins. I don't
think they should be given any consideration in a casual game. One
should play to maximize victory points but beyond that, one is free
to
respond to perceived (in-game) provocation however one chooses.
"
I am talking about tournament play, although playing differently just
because it is casual is like playing a different game.
There is no reason to disregard TP's, they are important and can often
influence the outcome of a tournament.
"
(I'm often better off
trying to work in tandem with someone who has shown he's willing to
work
to me)
"
Working in tandem with someone by self-ousting does not make you
"better off".
librarian
And you can always pool sack.
I think what Kevin is saying is that he could have ousted
his prey when they were at x pool, but when grand prey
self-ousted, now Kevin can't oust his prey at x+6 pool, and
Kevin's whole game is screwed.
I have seen that several times, and it sucks for the grand
pred - who has sometimes been me.
Pool sack people, pool sack.
best -
chris
Robert Goudie
> >> and I called him out on it.
>
> > What did he do to self-oust?
>
> He was at 1 pool and saw no hope, so he self-ousted, which
> guaranteed that I had no chance. If he wouldn't have self-ousted,
> I had a chance. And he was my cross-table "ally".
I'm a big fan of sticking it out with that one pool. Strange things
happen in this game and I want to stick around and maybe lightning
will strike. That said, maybe he just quit and wasn't making a
thoughtful decision. But if it was an intentional, thoughtful
decision then it comes down to playing king-maker.
So who do you want to be the king? It's rarely your predator so
that's another reason not to transfer out. But maybe he's mad at his
grand-predator for not putting enough pressure on his predator. Maybe
he was denied assistance from his grand-predator or from his prey? So
he chooses to hurt those who hurt him.
Imagine that on your grand prey's turn he called a vote to make one of
his vamps a Justicar with the intention of using a Voter Captivation
to gain a bit of pool. You are playing a vote deck and that Justicar
will cause you to lose your vote lock. You are also hoping to oust
your prey AND your grand prey both on your next turn. So you cast the
deciding vote and crush your grand-prey's Justicar vote. Your grand-
prey transfers out to spite you. I have no problem with that
scenario.
-Robert
LSJ
In a parallel universe, Bingus, Kevin's prey, is posting: "So here we are again.
Someone pool-sacked on me tonight and I called him on it. I asked the guy why he
thinks pool-sacking is a good thing? Why not just say "Good Game guys, you got
me" and get out of the way to go have a smoke, or whatever you need to do to
physically get away from the game which is obviously so angering you that you
can't gracefully conclude your part? Why instead choose to break the social
covenant of "playing the a game" that we all clearly, implicitly agreed to when
we choose to invest our valuable time and sat down to play?"
Peter D Bakija
> I think what Kevin is saying is that he could have ousted
> his prey when they were at x pool, but when grand prey
> self-ousted, now Kevin can't oust his prey at x+6 pool, and
> Kevin's whole game is screwed.
Well, sure. But if his grand prey did that purposefully for some
reason (Kevin done him wrong?), then that is sad for Kevin, but
completely reasonable. If it was just random, well, that is lame.
-Peter
LSJ
Like if his grand prey had pool sacked purposefully for some reason, then that
would have been sad for Kevin's prey, but reasonable. If he had just randomly
pool-sacked, that would have been lame?
Really?
suoli
Pointing out that preferences are largely arbitrary doesn't really
invalidate them. (It does, of course, help to realize that preferences
shouldn't be rationalized.)
Robert Goudie
> Peter D Bakija wrote:
> > "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote:
> >> In what other multiplayer game are you able to pick up your game
> >> pieces and just up and quit?
>
> > Titan and Diplomacy both have rules governing "picking up your pieces
> > and going home". Works fine for them. They are both very long games,
> > and it often blows to be in a seriously losing position for hours on
> > end with no hope in sight. So you can leave if you want. And the game
> > recovers. I mean, it often isn't optimal, but the mechanism exists to
> > deal with it.
>
> I guess I should've said (as I made clear in my examples) *co-operative*
> multi-player games. You are right about Titan and Diplomacy, but they
> really aren't cooperative in the VTES sense of "the guy across from you
> is hurting your enemies therefore he is your kinda friend".
Maybe you have an over-developed sense of "your grandprey is your
friend". If you focus on the fact that all of them are your enemy
then a grandprey self-oust is right in-line with expected
behavior. :-)
-Robert
Frederick Scott
news:96c70ab6-59a8-426b...@j11g2000vbi.googlegroups.com...
Quite true. Still, there are times when I get really jealous/annoyed when
my predator and prey have allied themselves so effectively where as I seem
to have an ally who doesn't comprehend the concept of cooperation. "Sure,
I'll vote for prey's KRC if he takes the last pool damage on himself.
After all, if my prey loses a pool, that's good for me, right?"
Fred
Robert Goudie
> "Robert Goudie" <robertt.gou...@gmail.com> wrote in message
In the few moments over the last 15 years when I've lost my cool it
was always connected to my feeling betrayed by some "ally". A bounced
bleed with stealth added or an attack from someone I'd been repeatedly
saving, and so on.
-Robert
Rehlow
>
> - Show quoted text -
This reply isn't directly aimed at LSJ, but it feels like a good time
to jump in.
But when you pool sack you are still in the game and if the game state
magically changes you can jump back in and possibly get some VPs. That
is the thing I don't understand with transferring out being legal -
once you are out of the game it is 100% for sure you cannot gain any
more VPs, but up until that point no one knows for sure. Come up with
a situation where it is for sure and a counterpoint can be made. The
lost position everyone points to is no minions and very low pool, but
crosstable a vote deck might kill your prey because giving you a VP
now and removing that other player means a GW for them later.
Later,
~Rehlow
LSJ
> But when you pool sack you are still in the game and if the game state
> magically changes you can jump back in and possibly get some VPs. That
> is the thing I don't understand with transferring out being legal -
> once you are out of the game it is 100% for sure you cannot gain any
> more VPs, but up until that point no one knows for sure.
True. But attempting to transfer out doesn't put you out of the game with 100%
certainty. As long as we're leaving out the "reasonable" (see "magic" above), we
can always appeal to Life Boon, etc.
Put "reasonable" back in, and taking the inactive approach to self-ousting
(i.e., pool sacking) and taking the active approach to self-ousting (i.e.,
transferring out) are on the same footing, legal-wise.
Matthew T. Morgan
> Imagine that on your grand prey's turn he called a vote to make one of
> his vamps a Justicar with the intention of using a Voter Captivation
> to gain a bit of pool. You are playing a vote deck and that Justicar
> will cause you to lose your vote lock. You are also hoping to oust
> your prey AND your grand prey both on your next turn. So you cast the
> deciding vote and crush your grand-prey's Justicar vote. Your grand-
> prey transfers out to spite you. I have no problem with that
> scenario.
Ahem! What the what? My grandprey can self-oust because I'm hoping to
oust my prey and my grandprey the next turn? Are you trying to make me
take Kevin's side or something? Sorry, that's complete BS. I mean, maybe
you're imagining some additional details that you didn't list, but with
this base scenario, utter BS.
Matt Morgan
Rehlow
> Petri Wessman wrote:
> > On Nov 30, 3:53 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
> >> Petri Wessman wrote:
> >>> Well, add me to the crowd who sees self-ousting as a bad thing. Sure,
> >>> there are rare exceptions where it maybe makes sense, but all too
> >>> often it's just a childish passive-aggressive Eric Cartman tantrum...
> >>> "screw you guys, I'm going home!".
> >> or "Screw you guys, I'm walling up!" or "Screw you guys, I'm tapping out!".
>
> > Well, yes. On the other hand, both of those give you a *possibility*
> > of still scoring points.
>
> In the context of this example, they both leave you with no reasonable chance at
> any further VPs.
>
> > Sure, sometimes that possibility is close to
> > zero, but it's usually non-zero. Something unexpected might happen, a
> > cross-table player might jump to your aid... whatever. In any case,
> > you're still on the table and people have to deal with you.
>
> > If you transfer out, you 100% guarantee that you will not improve your
> > position any more, in that game.
>
> If you are successful in doing so, right. The activity of attempting to
> self-oust might give you a possibility of still scoring points if you want to
> leave the "reasonable" out of it.
OK, I now see the problem I have is with the "reasonable" clause. I
need to start judging tournaments so that I can enforce my level of
reasonableness and I find the smallest chance of obtaining VPs to be
reasonable.
Later,
~Rehlow
LSJ
> OK, I now see the problem I have is with the "reasonable" clause. I
> need to start judging tournaments so that I can enforce my level of
> reasonableness and I find the smallest chance of obtaining VPs to be
> reasonable.
If you plan on not executing your duties as judge properly, best not to announce
it on public forums.
wedge
You can transfer out to win the table. It is risky, but it can happen.
JB Thompson
> You can transfer out to win the table. It is risky, but it can happen.
I've transferred out to win a 50 player tournament.
It can definitely be play-to-win.
(I already had 2 VP, couldn't oust the next person and they were
guaranteed to get my predator and me eventually.)
Robert Goudie
Well, the only thing I left out was the assumed "lost position" that
the grandprey is in (we're only discussing legal self-ousts here). So
feel free to add in that the grandprey is at 1 pool and was trying to
gain a couple of pool with his passed vote and Voter Captivation and
that, as a result of the vote going down he is now in a lost position.
He can stand pat and let grand predator take 2 VPs or he can self-oust
to punish "his ally" grandpredator who voted down his vote.
-Robert
Peter D Bakija
> Like if his grand prey had pool sacked purposefully for some reason, then that
> would have been sad for Kevin's prey, but reasonable. If he had just randomly
> pool-sacked, that would have been lame?
>
> Really?
My point was the rational actions that are taken rationally are
reasonable. Irrational actions that are taken irrationally, not so
much.
-Peter
LSJ
Sure, but that's A taken X are reasonable, B taken Y are not. Which is just
overly restrictive. A are reasonable; B are not.
But the example you gave was A taken X are reasonable, A taken Y are not. To
which I objected: A are reasonable whether taken X or Y.
A: rational actions (these are reasonable)
B: irrational actions (these are "not so much")
X: rationally
Y: irrationally
If you take a reasonable action irrationally, the action is still reasonable.
librarian
> Rehlow wrote:
>> But when you pool sack you are still in the game and if the game state
>> magically changes you can jump back in and possibly get some VPs. That
>> is the thing I don't understand with transferring out being legal -
>> once you are out of the game it is 100% for sure you cannot gain any
>> more VPs, but up until that point no one knows for sure.
>
> True. But attempting to transfer out
How can you be stopped from transferring out? What is this
"attemtping" stuff in reference to transferring? I'm
certainly far from being a rules guru, but I can't remember
anything that can prevent a person from transferring to
their uncontrolled minion *at that moment* in the influence
phase (unlike say DI or SR).
best -
chris
Brum
In the end, it's all up to the Judge, I mean, Head Philosopher. :)
Drain
I have to come forth and admit to have self-ousted during a tournament
(and in the final, no less!).
I had been first-seed but made a poor judgment call while choosing my
starting position. I was faced with an overly agressive predator, with
the most agressive deck on the table as grandpredator (whose main
bleeding efforts where being consistently redirected onto me). My prey
and grandprey mostly did nothing for the duration of the game and
seemed quite content to watch the first two players leave the table in
quick sucession.
Since the tournament had a prize pool that differed for all the
finalists (i.e. we still effectively had a 2nd place, 3rd place, etc.)
and I was first seed, about to fall, I opted for some alpha striking
onto my prey followed by a transfer-out. The transfer-out was somewhat
contested since the players are not familiarized with this particular
instance and thus I obliged them by staying at 1 pool and tapped out.
I did myself the service of showing my hand to my original predator
(already ousted at that time), so that he could later attest that my
chances were between zero and none.
The plan, as it was, worked, my predator managed (just barely) to
sweep the table, assuring me a "2nd place" and a couple more boosters.
Could I have hung back a little and try to salvage that trainwreck of
a game, hoping for some sudden reversal of fortunes? I could. But
there was no one at the table that seemed the least interested in my
overtures (too much Dom bleed on that one table), so I deem that my
actions were justified, rational and would doubtlessly repeat them if
the situation arised once more.
Drain
Brum
> Could I have hung back a little and try to salvage that trainwreck of
> a game, hoping for some sudden reversal of fortunes? I could. But
> there was no one at the table that seemed the least interested in my
> overtures (too much Dom bleed on that one table), so I deem that my
> actions were justified, rational and would doubtlessly repeat them if
> the situation arised once more.
>
> Drain
It will not, since all our Tournaments will have the same prizes for
2nd to 5th players.
Tiago
Peter D Bakija
> Sure, but that's A taken X are reasonable, B taken Y are not. Which is just
> overly restrictive. A are reasonable; B are not.
Ah, see, that is what I thought my example was:
A) "Person self ousts specifically to hose Kevin": reasonable.
B) "Person self ousts. Hoses Kevin by accident": lame.
It is all about intention. If someone in position A specifically
whacks themselves to hinder Kevin cross table ('cause Kevin was the
architect of his demise, one way or the other, say), that strikes me
as a reasonable course of action. On the other hand, if someone in
position B whacks themselves 'cause they are cranky and want to bail,
and this hoses Kevin cross table, that strikes me as lame. I'd never
claim that one is any more legal than the other (both are either legal
or illegal, depending on the situation), but I think an intentional
self ousting, done for the purpose of affecting the outcome of the
game is a reasonable action, where an intentional self ousting done
without regard for the end results or effect on the rest of the game
is lame.
-Peter
Drain
And a step in the right direction that is. :)
I'll add:
Caveat emptor: all circunstances being the same.
Drain
Frederick Scott
news:hf1eiq$maq$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
Others have been making reference to it. You must have missed it.
I transfer my last two pool, I'm ousted except....someone plays
Life Boon and gives me 6 pool. D'OH!
Fred
librarian
Aha, see, the rules and my brain are not even in the same
zip code...
best -
chris
Kevin M.
> In a parallel universe, Bingus, Kevin's prey, is posting: "So here we
> are again. Someone pool-sacked on me tonight and I called him on it.
> I asked the guy why he thinks pool-sacking is a good thing? Why not
> just say "Good Game guys, you got me" and get out of the way to go
> have a smoke, or whatever you need to do to physically get away from
> the game which is obviously so angering you that you can't gracefully
> conclude your part? Why instead choose to break the social covenant
> of "playing the a game" that we all clearly, implicitly agreed to
> when we choose to invest our valuable time and sat down to play?"
This is disengenuous, as Bingus would have no need to write this,
as a single bleed action for 1 would for 100% sure oust his prey,
therefore he wouldn't have any of these feelings you ascribe to him.
Kevin M., Prince of Las Vegas
"Know your enemy and know yourself; in one-thousand battles
you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, *The Art of War*
"Contentment...Complacency...Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier
Please visit VTESville daily! http://vtesville.myminicity.com/
Please buy my cards! http://shop.ebay.com/kjmergen/m.html
Kevin M.
> Rehlow wrote:
>> But when you pool sack you are still in the game and if the game
>> state magically changes you can jump back in and possibly get some
>> VPs. That is the thing I don't understand with transferring out
>> being legal - once you are out of the game it is 100% for sure you
>> cannot gain any more VPs, but up until that point no one knows for
>> sure.
>
> True. But attempting to transfer out doesn't put you out of the game
> with 100% certainty. As long as we're leaving out the "reasonable"
> (see "magic" above), we can always appeal to Life Boon, etc.
Attempting to shoot yourself in the head with a fully-loaded handgun
isn't suicide, either, right? Since the gun could jam, you could get
a misfire, you could get a bad primer, etc.
Please stop the clearly absurd comparisons.
Kevin M.
> You can transfer out to win the table. It is risky, but it can happen.
This is the ridiculous one-in-a-million I describe in my OP.
LSJ
> LSJ wrote:
>> Rehlow wrote:
>>> But when you pool sack you are still in the game and if the game
>>> state magically changes you can jump back in and possibly get some
>>> VPs. That is the thing I don't understand with transferring out
>>> being legal - once you are out of the game it is 100% for sure you
>>> cannot gain any more VPs, but up until that point no one knows for
>>> sure.
>> True. But attempting to transfer out doesn't put you out of the game
>> with 100% certainty. As long as we're leaving out the "reasonable"
>> (see "magic" above), we can always appeal to Life Boon, etc.
>
> Attempting to shoot yourself in the head with a fully-loaded handgun
> isn't suicide, either, right? Since the gun could jam, you could get
> a misfire, you could get a bad primer, etc.
I'm not getting into living wills and assisted suicide, sorry.
> Please stop the clearly absurd comparisons.
It is a clearly applicable parallel. If you find it absurd, well, investigate
the main.
LSJ
> LSJ wrote:
>> In a parallel universe, Bingus, Kevin's prey, is posting: "So here we
>> are again. Someone pool-sacked on me tonight and I called him on it.
>> I asked the guy why he thinks pool-sacking is a good thing? Why not
>> just say "Good Game guys, you got me" and get out of the way to go
>> have a smoke, or whatever you need to do to physically get away from
>> the game which is obviously so angering you that you can't gracefully
>> conclude your part? Why instead choose to break the social covenant
>> of "playing the a game" that we all clearly, implicitly agreed to
>> when we choose to invest our valuable time and sat down to play?"
>
> This is disengenuous, as Bingus would have no need to write this,
> as a single bleed action for 1 would for 100% sure oust his prey,
> therefore he wouldn't have any of these feelings you ascribe to him.
I agree he would have no need to write this. Just as there's no need to write
the parallel regarding self-ousting.
Kevin M.
> Kevin M. wrote:
>> LSJ wrote:
>>> Rehlow wrote:
>>>> But when you pool sack you are still in the game and if the game
>>>> state magically changes you can jump back in and possibly get some
>>>> VPs. That is the thing I don't understand with transferring out
>>>> being legal - once you are out of the game it is 100% for sure you
>>>> cannot gain any more VPs, but up until that point no one knows for
>>>> sure.
>>> True. But attempting to transfer out doesn't put you out of the game
>>> with 100% certainty. As long as we're leaving out the "reasonable"
>>> (see "magic" above), we can always appeal to Life Boon, etc.
>>
>> Attempting to shoot yourself in the head with a fully-loaded handgun
>> isn't suicide, either, right? Since the gun could jam, you could get
>> a misfire, you could get a bad primer, etc.
>
> I'm not getting into living wills and assisted suicide, sorry.
A living will won't bring a dead person back to life.
Well, ok, if your intent upon asking and later answering the question
was to so twist the reality of self-ousting into not self-ousting and
suicide-by-gun-to-the-head as not ending one's life, then I agree.
Sigh.
Ruben Feldman
wrote:
> On Nov 30, 6:52 am,RubenFeldman <frub...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > > If you have 4 pool left and no minions, it probably doesn't matter if
> > > you transfer out or sit there as a 4 pool buffer. Or say you're going
> > > to be ousted by Dragonbound this turn no matter what, but you do have
> > > Beast untapped. In this case Kevin, is the "right" thing to do: A.)
> > > rush your prey, B.) rush your predator, C.) rush crosstable, or D.)
> > > don't rush anyone. You're going to die regardless, so whatever you do
> > > (or don't do), is going to influence the table dynamic.
>
> > The answer is actually simple. You should play to maximize your
> > standing in the outcome of the game. If you think your predator can
> > sweep, then help him in order to increase your table points.
>
> > I personally think self-ousting should not be allowed unless it
> > procures an advantage to the person doing it. For example, in the EC
> > final in Turin, I was being bled for 5 a turn and no one on the table
> > wanted to help me, so i was dead the turn i started at 2 pool. I thus
> > bled for 12 in daring and transfered out hoping that my prey would get
> > ousted (I had a better seeding than him, thus i would not come 5th).
>
> > Self-ousting out of spite is a bit childish and usually against the
> > spirit of the game. I have often talked to some players who do it, and
> > they actually state that they are breaking the rules in self-ousting
> > as they justify it by saying: "Next game, he won't mess with me"...
>
> HelloRuben.
>
> Excellent points. But in many cases, the self-ousting player does
> perceive him/herself as gaining an advantage (besides tournament
> points):
>
> - Self-ousting could be seen as advantageous if it shifts the table
> dynamic in favor of a deck/player that the self-ouster would prefer to
> see in the final (which opens up the separate issue of collusion-like
> behavior) or, more commonly, against a deck/player that the self-
> ouster does not want to see in the final (i.e. Player already has 2 GW
> and is guaranteed a spot in the final, possibly even first seed. He's
> already going to lose the third round, so he sees an advantage in
> taking out a deck that would be difficult to play against in the
> final).
>
> - Perhaps it is spiteful and childish. But some players might find it
> advantageous to establish a reputation (i.e. don't mess with me). For
> example, if I'm already hosed, I might as well teach my cross-table
> "ally" that it's not a good idea to cross-table Pentex me so I
> retaliate by attacking his minions or bleeding him with my last dying
> breath.
>
> This does lead to a slippery slope where we don't want to encourage
> people to do this all the time (when they can still win). But if
> they're already going to lose, it seems as good of a reason as any.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Both your points exhibit behaviour specifically illegal as per the
rules. Any player doing this should receive sanction.
LSJ
> LSJ wrote:
>> Kevin M. wrote:
>>> LSJ wrote:
>>>> Rehlow wrote:
>>>>> But when you pool sack you are still in the game and if the game
>>>>> state magically changes you can jump back in and possibly get some
>>>>> VPs. That is the thing I don't understand with transferring out
>>>>> being legal - once you are out of the game it is 100% for sure you
>>>>> cannot gain any more VPs, but up until that point no one knows for
>>>>> sure.
>>>> True. But attempting to transfer out doesn't put you out of the game
>>>> with 100% certainty. As long as we're leaving out the "reasonable"
>>>> (see "magic" above), we can always appeal to Life Boon, etc.
>>> Attempting to shoot yourself in the head with a fully-loaded handgun
>>> isn't suicide, either, right? Since the gun could jam, you could get
>>> a misfire, you could get a bad primer, etc.
>> I'm not getting into living wills and assisted suicide, sorry.
>
> A living will won't bring a dead person back to life.
>
> Well, ok, if your intent upon asking and later answering the question
> was to so twist the reality of self-ousting into not self-ousting and
> suicide-by-gun-to-the-head as not ending one's life, then I agree.
Clearly, it was not.
> Sigh.
Indeed.
OldFan
I would have to side with Kevin with "self-ousting = bad".
My main contention with it is that:
a.) the reward to the predator of said player is immediate - they get
6 pool right then and there, before the other 3 players get a chance
to interact.
b.) It completely destroys the social covenant of game playing of "the
guy that wins EARNED the win".
That one of the reasons why I like multiplayer games like Vtes and
Shadowfist - you can have a player who is a complete master at game
mechanics, has spent $1000's of dollars on cases of cards and super
valuable rare cards, and is the best table talker you have ever seen,
but that doesn't mean he will win the game, as there are 3-4 other
players at the table who could gang up and kill him because they have
each determined that Superman needs to die in order for them to have a
chance of winning.
There is perhaps nothing in the world so irritating has spending
precious time and money building a deck, and sitting down to play a
game, taking 1-2 hours to carefully set yourself up to get some VP and
maybe even a GW, you've got your prey at 1 pool, and then your grand
prey just ups and transfers out, putting your prey at 7 pool
IMMEDIATELY - THROUGH NO EFFORT OF THEIR OWN.
And I'm talking about friendly play here - there is no tournament
prize, no bragging rights, no NAC titles at stake. Just people
getting together to play some games and have some fun.
I don't know about the rest of you, but for me, it is not satisfying
at all to win because "someone LET ME win". I'd rather win through
skilled playing, good deck design, and maybe a little luck in the card/
crypt draw.
It is also detrimental to gaining new players - who the hell wants to
get into a game where some jerkoff can just randomly destroy the table
state by picking up his ball and going home? Trust me, if I had
witnessed more of that in Ithaca before putting serious money into the
game, I probably never would have joined in.
Self-ousting sucks. At least for friendly play.
That said, in response to Matt Morgan being outraged that he would be
prevented from getting 2 Vp in 1 turn - if I was the guy trying to
play the game and live, and you spent the whole game shutting me down
with vote lock from Cross-table, I'd probably spite self oust to screw
said "cross-table ally".
Because another part of the social covenant of gaming is - LET ME PLAY
THE GAME. i.e., let me play some cards, draw some cards, actually
have a successful action at least ONCE in a while, etc. If that's not
going to happen, then all bets are off. Because sitting around just
transferring to vamps, just to see them killed/sen dep'd/pentex'd
immediately is a crappy way to spend an evening.
It's understandable and acceptable that your predator would do
everything in his power to stop your deck - it's HIS JOB.
What's NOT so easy to take is when the predator has inordinate amounts
of help from your grand pred plus your prey, and maybe even your grand
prey. Then, friendly play becomes not so friendly. And if I had a
cross table ally who shot down every single vote I tried, without even
considering bargaining with me, then he deserves NO help from me
whatsoever.
Just my $0.02 - I can understand Scott's point on trying to legislate
"good sportsmanship" and how difficult it can be but self ousting
sucks.
-AC
LSJ
[snip unused quoted material -- please quote responsibly]
> I would have to side with Kevin with "self-ousting = bad".
>
> My main contention with it is that:
>
> a.) the reward to the predator of said player is immediate - they get
> 6 pool right then and there, before the other 3 players get a chance
> to interact.
>
> b.) It completely destroys the social covenant of game playing of "the
> guy that wins EARNED the win".
Then see the rest of this thread where those points are addressed directly.
To wit:
a) Any activity or inactivity on the part of the lost-position player benefits
one player or another. (The other three players have had all game to interact --
someone has to get ousted sooner or later)
b) It is playing the game. [7]. The predator earned it.
Rehlow
But no guidelines for "reasonable" have ever been given. Its up to the
judge to determine what is reasonable. I have seen tables completely
shaken up, so you will have to be in extremely dire straits before you
cross my threshold of being unable to reasonably gain any more VPs. I
believe there is too much hidden information in Vtes to say I can't
reasonably get any more VPs with any amount of frequency.
Later,
~Rehlow
LSJ
> On Nov 30, 1:24 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
>> Rehlow wrote:
>>> OK, I now see the problem I have is with the "reasonable" clause. I
>>> need to start judging tournaments so that I can enforce my level of
>>> reasonableness and I find the smallest chance of obtaining VPs to be
>>> reasonable.
>> If you plan on not executing your duties as judge properly, best not to announce
>> it on public forums.
>
> But no guidelines for "reasonable" have ever been given. Its up to the
> judge to determine what is reasonable.
The V:EKN doesn't use those sorts of min-max loophole rules, true.
It is up to the judge to determine what is reasonable (i.e., what a reasonable
person would consider reasonable), not to redefine "reasonable".
Matthew T. Morgan
> That said, in response to Matt Morgan being outraged that he would be
> prevented from getting 2 Vp in 1 turn - if I was the guy trying to
> play the game and live, and you spent the whole game shutting me down
> with vote lock from Cross-table, I'd probably spite self oust to screw
> said "cross-table ally".
Well, I should've assumed Robert was talking about a guy who is pretty
well in a lost position and really has no hope without that Voter Cap.
Maybe he has 1 pool and the Cap will put him up to 3 with an outside
chance of remaining alive and gaining VPs, but without the Cap he's on 1
pool and if I don't pull off the kill, then my prey will. That's fair
enough. Danging hope in front of the doomed is a very important part of
vtes.
If I'm going to get outraged, it would be by a player who wants to bail on
the game because somebody at the table is making life difficult, but he's
not yet in a completely lost position. He still has vampires and pool and
maybe his hand is bad right now, maybe it looks like somebody else is very
likely to take the table, but he can still do stuff, still play the game.
Unless the dude is Nostradamus, I expect him to hang around and try to
enjoy the game or at least not try to ruin my fun.
Matt Morgan
Curevei
> That one of the reasons why I like multiplayer games like Vtes and
> Shadowfist - you can have a player who is a complete master at game
> mechanics, has spent $1000's of dollars on cases of cards and super
> valuable rare cards, and is the best table talker you have ever seen,
> but that doesn't mean he will win the game, as there are 3-4 other
> players at the table who could gang up and kill him because they have
> each determined that Superman needs to die in order for them to have a
> chance of winning.
>
> There is perhaps nothing in the world so irritating has spending
> precious time and money building a deck, and sitting down to play a
> game, taking 1-2 hours to carefully set yourself up to get some VP and
> maybe even a GW, you've got your prey at 1 pool, and then your grand
> prey just ups and transfers out, putting your prey at 7 pool
> IMMEDIATELY - THROUGH NO EFFORT OF THEIR OWN.
>
> at all to win because "someone LET ME win". I'd rather win through
> skilled playing, good deck design, and maybe a little luck in the card/
> crypt draw.
You don't see any sort of logical inconsistency in these comments?
On the one hand, you like multiplayer games because the better player
can be ganged up on and made to lose simply because the player was
better. On the other, the person who plays better should be rewarded?
> It is also detrimental to gaining new players - who the hell wants to
> get into a game where some jerkoff can just randomly destroy the table
> state by picking up his ball and going home? Trust me, if I had
> witnessed more of that in Ithaca before putting serious money into the
> game, I probably never would have joined in.
I see it as the nature of multiplayer CCGs. A huge advantage, IMO, of
two-player games is that you remove a kingmaking element. Someone
wants to take a ball and go home, fine, deserving player wins.
> Self-ousting sucks. At least for friendly play.
Lots of things suck. Being ganged up on because your deck is better
sucks. Being ganged up on because you play better sucks. Winning
games easily because other people throw them or don't know what they
are doing sucks.
As Eric brings up much earlier in the thread, I don't see the problem
being self-ousting but the problem being lack of maturity. Mature
players are going to self-oust for a reason and, when they do, mature
opponents probably won't care because they will understand why.
Now, two-player games see a lot of players who have maturity problems
as well, and they suck to play against; it's just that there's more
control and more damage control when it's one on one.
> Because another part of the social covenant of gaming is - LET ME PLAY
> THE GAME. i.e., let me play some cards, draw some cards, actually
> have a successful action at least ONCE in a while, etc. If that's not
> going to happen, then all bets are off. Because sitting around just
> transferring to vamps, just to see them killed/sen dep'd/pentex'd
> immediately is a crappy way to spend an evening.
No, it isn't.
It's my philosophy to the game, sure, to not play decks that prevent
my opponents from playing the game. And, one's play group may have a
social covenant to allowing people to do stuff in games. But, it's
absurd to believe that it's part of this competitive game to be nice
enough to let people do stuff.
Again, advantage to two-player games - if you are screwed, you concede
and move on to the next game. With this game, it's rarely clean to
concede while there are more than two players in the game. If the
game were faster, by the way, it would be less noticeable when people
just want to move on to the next game.
Daneel
wrote:
> So here we are again. Someone self-ousted on me tonight and I called
> him out on it. I asked the guy why he thinks self-ousting is a good
> thing? Why not just say "Good Game guys, I can't block anything" and
> get up and go have a smoke, or whatever you need to do to physically
> get away from the game which is obviously so angering you that you
> can't possibly stand another moment at the table? Why instead choose
> to break the social covenant of "playing a game" that we all clearly,
> implicitly agreed to when we choose to invest our valuable time and
> sat down to play?
Dude. Get a grip. This is recurring premediated necroequestripugilism.
FACT #1: If you are in a reasonably lost position where you cannot
reasonably expect to get any more VPs, then having fulfilled your
obligation to Play to Win, you are free to get your remaining VPs
in any way you choose (*inluding self-ousting*).
FACT #2: Standing up from the table and using whatever haphazard
representation of some aspect of your continued presence in the
game (e.g. pool counters) while withdrawing from the other aspects
of the game (e.g. playing cards and blocking/taking actions)
is *not supported by the rules*. You are basically breaking them
if you do this (or encourage someone to do this). Consider the
judging guidelines put forth for the case of someone having to
leave a round early.
You are of course free to have your opinion, just please be aware
of the rules and their implications, and don't try to convince
other people to break them (or make them beleive they are doing
something wrong when they are in fact playing by them).
--
Regards,
Daneel
Peter D Bakija
> Dude. Get a grip. This is recurring premediated necroequestripugilism.
That word is *awesome*!
-Peter
librarian
> Dude. Get a grip. This is recurring premediated necroequestripugilism.
>
>
> FACT #2: Standing up from the table and using whatever haphazard
> representation of some aspect of your continued presence in the
> game (e.g. pool counters) while withdrawing from the other aspects
> of the game (e.g. playing cards and blocking/taking actions)
> is *not supported by the rules*.
Really? So, if you continue to sit at the table and play no
more cards nor block, nor take actions, nor interact with
the table in any way, but you are *sitting* at the table,
that is supported by the rules? But it's the standing
up/leaving that is a problem? Just wondering. I'm vaguely
remembering a rule that you need to take your cards with you
if you leave, but typically I'm not so hot on the rules.
And I question your use of the word premediated (meaning
advocated). Not sure where it fits in with "beating a dead
horse". Even if you meant premeditated.
best -
chris
wumpus
I'm pretty sure the previous word is supposed to be 'premeditated',
but I like 'premediated' too. As to the other:
Necroequestripugilism
Type: Action/Combat
Cost: 1 blood
[nec] The acting minion gains 1 blood.
[nec][pot] Strike: make a hand strike at +2 damage, with an optional
press to continue combat.
[NEC][POT] As above, and if the opposing minion strikes to end combat
or dodge, cancel the opposing minion's strike (and no new strike may
be chosen).
<insert really horrific picture along the lines of Stunt Cycle, but
with a (dead) horse>
Alex
Peter D Bakija
> I'm pretty sure the previous word is supposed to be 'premeditated',
> but I like 'premediated' too. As to the other:
Heh. I wasn't even paying attention to the "premeditated" aspect. I
was just wildly impressed by the use of "necroequestripugilism". I
gotta find a way to use that in everyday conversation.
-Peter
Daneel
wrote:
> Daneel wrote:
>
>> FACT #2: Standing up from the table and using whatever haphazard
>> representation of some aspect of your continued presence in the
>> game (e.g. pool counters) while withdrawing from the other aspects
>> of the game (e.g. playing cards and blocking/taking actions)
>> is *not supported by the rules*.
>
> Really? So, if you continue to sit at the table and play no more cards
> nor block, nor take actions, nor interact with the table in any way, but
> you are *sitting* at the table, that is supported by the rules? But
> it's the standing up/leaving that is a problem? Just wondering. I'm
> vaguely remembering a rule that you need to take your cards with you if
> you leave, but typically I'm not so hot on the rules.
Do you generally interpret every "Doing X while also doing Y is not Z"
statement to automatically mean "Doing X but not Y *is* Z"? ;)
Anyway, I'm pretty sure that if you are in a lost position, playing in an
unmotivated way is one of the ways you can aspire to reach your remaining
0 VPs.
> And I question your use of the word premediated (meaning advocated).
> Not sure where it fits in with "beating a dead horse".
I intended to write "premeditated" (as in, decided in advance), but I
made a typo and mistakenly omitted the first "t". Thanks for pointing
this out!
> Even if you meant premeditated.
Beating the dead horse pre-decidedly (as opposed to beating the dead
horse, you know, on impulse).
--
Regards,
Daneel
Ruben Feldman
Your fact 2 is just as illegal as your fact 1. Having no reasonable
chance at a VP doesnt mean you dont have a chance. Therefore self-
ousting would be directly stopping you from maximizing your victory
points, as by staying alive, you always have more chance to get more
VPs than by dying right then.
brandonsantacruz
From the rulebook:
Object of the Game
Your goal is to accumulate the most victory points by destroying the
influence held by rival Methuselahs. You accomplish this goal by using
your influence to gain control of younger vampires and using those
vampires to take actions to reduce the influence of rival Methuselahs.
Influence is represented by pool counters (see Equipment Needed, sec.
1.2), the main currency of the game. When a Methuselah runs out of
pool counters, she* is bereft of influence and ousted from the game.
As Methuselahs are ousted, players earn victory points; the winner is
the player with the most victory points at the end of the game (see
Victory Points, sec. 9.1).
From the tournament rules:
4.8. Play to Win
One aspect of sportsmanlike conduct is that 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.). For tournaments,
playing to win means playing to get a Game Win if it is reasonably
possible, and when a Game Win is not reasonably possible, then playing
to get as many Victory Points as possible.
5.2. Unsportsmanlike Conduct
Unsportsmanlike conduct is unacceptable and will not be tolerated at
any time. Players who engage in unsportsmanlike conduct will be
subject to the appropriate provisions of the V:EKN Penalty Guidelines
and will be subject to further V:EKN review. Judges, players,
spectators, and officials must behave in a polite, respectable, and
sportsmanlike manner. In addition, players must not use profanity,
argue, act belligerently toward tournament officials or one another,
or harass spectators, tournament officials, or opponents. See also
"Play to Win" in section 4.8 above.
These seem to indicate that in casual play, if you can't win the game
you are free to do what you want. Ruben is right that you must try to
get the most victory points possible, but I would further agree with
what LSJ is getting at that the less chance you have of getting VPs,
the less reasonable your approach would have to be in a tournament.
For example, you have 1 pool and one Tupdog in play. Your hand has
nothing helpful, except for something that costs you a pool (Vessel,
Ivory Bow, etc). Why not play that card in the hopes that you either
get a Life Boon or draw into that Extremis Boon you might have
accidentally included in your deck? Your chance for a VP is about as
good either way and there's no way to determine exactly what effect
that play would have until you do it. Just about anything is
"reasonable" at this point.
Yay, no cognitive dissonance!
Brandon
Daneel
wrote:
>> FACT #2: Standing up from the table and using whatever haphazard
>> ￜ representation of some aspect of your continued presence in the
>> ￜ game (e.g. pool counters) while withdrawing from the other aspects
>> ￜ of the game (e.g. playing cards and blocking/taking actions)
>> ￜ is *not supported by the rules*. You are basically breaking them
>> ￜ if you do this (or encourage someone to do this). Consider the
>> ￜ judging guidelines put forth for the case of someone having to
>> ￜ leave a round early.
>
> Your fact 2 is just as illegal as your fact 1.
No. My fact 2 is a fact.
> Having no reasonable chance at a VP doesnt mean you dont have a
> chance.
True. Technically, you do have a chance as long as you are in the
game (I mean, it's possible, though not very likely, that all your
opponents choose to self-oust before you, handing you the table).
Having no reasonable chance, though, means just that - having no
reasonable chance.
> Therefore self-ousting would be directly stopping you from
> maximizing your victory points, as by staying alive, you always
> have more chance to get more VPs than by dying right then.
If you don't have a reasonable chance to score any more VPs, then
you have reasonably already maximized your VPs (and fulfilled PTW).
I'm pretty sure that some people would like the kind of tone to
this discussion that could be used to coerce another player to
hand his or her VP to them instead of someone else. Preventing
this kind of coercion by allowing players to reasonably assess
their game state (just like allowing players the freedom to
disbelieve other Methuselah's promises) makes the game cleaner.
Because, remember, we are talking about a player who is deeply
convinced that he or she cannot gain any more VPs - otherwise,
he or she would just keep on playing. As most people just do 99%
of the time. I mean, after having played an immense number of
V:tES games during about 15 years, I only remember self-ousting
about twice (not counting table-split deals). The other 99.9% of
the cases I just keep on playing irrespective of the game state,
trying my best to score my point(s), even if the odds seem to be
stacked against me.
You could say I'm pro-choice when it comes to self-ousting, even
though I hardly ever self-oust.
--
Regards,
Daneel
Brum
> On Tue, 1 Dec 2009 14:19:55 -0800 (PST), Ruben Feldman <frub...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >> FACT #2: Standing up from the table and using whatever haphazard
How about 0.5 VP?
Some of other players might not be able to secure GW and go for time
in order to stop your Predador from sweeping. Specially if one of your
allies has 2 VPs.
0.5 is better then 0.
Tiago
Ruben Feldman
game
you are free to do what you want. Ruben is right that you must try to
get the most victory points possible, but I would further agree with
what LSJ is getting at that the less chance you have of getting VPs,
the less reasonable your approach would have to be in a tournament.
For example, you have 1 pool and one Tupdog in play. Your hand has
nothing helpful, except for something that costs you a pool (Vessel,
Ivory Bow, etc). Why not play that card in the hopes that you either
get a Life Boon or draw into that Extremis Boon you might have
accidentally included in your deck? Your chance for a VP is about as
good either way and there's no way to determine exactly what effect
that play would have until you do it. Just about anything is
"reasonable" at this point.
"
In casual play... who cares - play with 4CL or madness of the bard if
you want.
What about discarding a card at your discard phase. Let's be honest
this increases your odds of staying alive than the chance of something
else saving you from suicide. (Also on a side note, lifebooning
someone who is trying to self-oust is semi-retarded in most situations
as that person will be able to do it again in most cases).
What if you predator gets all his minnions toprored.
What if your great predator ousts his prey with his last action.
What if people start making deals with onkly 10 minutes left on the
clock.
what if...
the point is that you just dont know. however improbable that you
might increase your score for that game, self-ousting will reduce that
improbability to zero.
> > Having no reasonable chance at a VP doesnt mean you dont have a
> > chance.
>
> True. Technically, you do have a chance as long as you are in the
> game (I mean, it's possible, though not very likely, that all your
> opponents choose to self-oust before you, handing you the table).
>
> Having no reasonable chance, though, means just that - having no
> reasonable chance.
>
Yes, and my point is haveing an unreasonable chance is always better
than having no chance.Therefore self-ousting when a player has an
(even unreasonable) chance at getting more points out of the game is
playing against the rules to maximize your victory points.
> > Therefore self-ousting would be directly stopping you from
> > maximizing your victory points, as by staying alive, you always
> > have more chance to get more VPs than by dying right then.
>
> If you don't have a reasonable chance to score any more VPs, then
> you have reasonably already maximized your VPs (and fulfilled PTW).
>
Reasonably maximized is not maximized. You do not play a game by
abiding to the rules up to an extent you deem reasonable. Else it is
called cheating.
> I'm pretty sure that some people would like the kind of tone to
> this discussion that could be used to coerce another player to
> hand his or her VP to them instead of someone else. Preventing
> this kind of coercion by allowing players to reasonably assess
> their game state (just like allowing players the freedom to
> disbelieve other Methuselah's promises) makes the game cleaner.
>
My point is that no one should hand any VPs. People should be able to
take their own VPs.
> Because, remember, we are talking about a player who is deeply
> convinced that he or she cannot gain any more VPs - otherwise,
> he or she would just keep on playing. As most people just do 99%
> of the time. I mean, after having played an immense number of
> V:tES games during about 15 years, I only remember self-ousting
> about twice (not counting table-split deals). The other 99.9% of
> the cases I just keep on playing irrespective of the game state,
> trying my best to score my point(s), even if the odds seem to be
> stacked against me.
>
> You could say I'm pro-choice when it comes to self-ousting, even
> though I hardly ever self-oust.
>
I wouldnt mind if it wasn't called cheating in most situations.
"
From the tournament rules:
4.8. Play to Win
One aspect of sportsmanlike conduct is that 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.). For tournaments,
playing to win means playing to get a Game Win if it is reasonably
possible, and when a Game Win is not reasonably possible, then
playing
to get as many Victory Points as possible.
"
Self-ousting is playing to get as many points as possible? No, self-
ousting with the intent of leaving the game (ie not trying to draw out
a life boon etc.) is intentionally ending up in the worse possible
immediate state of having NO chance of increasing your points.
Matthew T. Morgan
>> I'm pretty sure that some people would like the kind of tone to
>> � this discussion that could be used to coerce another player to
>> � hand his or her VP to them instead of someone else. Preventing
>> � this kind of coercion by allowing players to reasonably assess
>> � their game state (just like allowing players the freedom to
>> � disbelieve other Methuselah's promises) makes the game cleaner.
>>
>
> My point is that no one should hand any VPs. People should be able to
> take their own VPs.
Agreed. In some ways it's a state of mind. If your attitude is "well, my
game is F'd, so I'm going to hand a VP to that guy 'cause he was nice to
me" then the likely outcome is just that. If your attitude is "well, I'm
in a real mess now, but maybe there's a way to pull off a VP in here
somewhere or at least play to time" then that's way more likely to happen,
even if it's still unlikely.
The decision of who to hand the game to is not one that finalists of major
tournaments are often faced with because those players are thinking about
how to get themselves more VPs, not how to get them for others.
Matt Morgan
Martin Tibor Major
this self oust thing.
1. Generally I am against it. If your prey or grandpredator or whoever
plays well, he deserves the win. Most self-ousts I see when people
can't deal with being killed cross tabel, or killed backwards from
their prey. If I see, that from that players point it does make sense
(= he will get the Game Win), than I would say you should never self-
oust, because it is just not cool to punish somebody for playing well.
2. If somebody pisses me off, lets say because he breaks a deal, or he
tries to win the game for another player (his friend or fellow
countryman), than I think it is ok to self oust, unless of course you
see a good chance to make at least 1 vp.
OldFan
Sorry Scott - this is just one of those "agree to disagree" things.
I understand how you arrive at your reasoning - I simply don't agree
with it.
a.) Yes - regardless of what happens (pool sack vs self oust) SOMEONE
benefits. But - self ousting is just quitting. Plain and simple.
b.) If a person self ousts because his predator alone has thoroughly
demoralized him into do so, then sure - the pred earned it. If
someone self ousts because his grand pred and grand prey conspired to
eagle sight/vote lock him out of the game, then NO, the predator
didn't earn it.
As I said in my post - self ousting in general stinks, but each game/
circumstance is different and could lead to a reason why someone would
do so. So, I agreed with you - you can't legislate good sportsmanship
or make self ousting illegal.
-AC
OldFan
True enough - I concur with your point.
Again - the point of Vtes is to play a game AND have fun. Even if you
think someone is just dangling hope if front of you to keep you
going. :-D
-AC
LSJ
> I understand how you arrive at your reasoning - I simply don't agree
> with it.
That's cool.
> a.) Yes - regardless of what happens (pool sack vs self oust) SOMEONE
> benefits. But - self ousting is just quitting. Plain and simple.
So is pool-sacking (is just quitting, that is). Or tapping out (and otherwise
leaving yourself defenseless after an all-out futile offensive).
> b.) If a person self ousts because his predator alone has thoroughly
> demoralized him into do so, then sure - the pred earned it. If
> someone self ousts because his grand pred and grand prey conspired to
> eagle sight/vote lock him out of the game, then NO, the predator
> didn't earn it.
Perhaps. But that's getting into a lot of variables and gray area. The short
answer is: if your prey is ousted, you earned the VP (either by your own heroic
efforts, or by playing the table correctly, or by simply being the lesser of
four evils).
OldFan
> On Dec 1, 7:21 am, OldFan <asif.i.chaud...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > That one of the reasons why I like multiplayer games like Vtes and
> > Shadowfist - you can have a player who is a complete master at game
> > mechanics, has spent $1000's of dollars on cases of cards and super
> > valuable rare cards, and is the best table talker you have ever seen,
> > but that doesn't mean he will win the game, as there are 3-4 other
> > players at the table who could gang up and kill him because they have
> > each determined that Superman needs to die in order for them to have a
> > chance of winning.
>
> > There is perhaps nothing in the world so irritating has spending
> > precious time and money building a deck, and sitting down to play a
> > game, taking 1-2 hours to carefully set yourself up to get some VP and
> > maybe even a GW, you've got your prey at 1 pool, and then your grand
> > prey just ups and transfers out, putting your prey at 7 pool
> > IMMEDIATELY - THROUGH NO EFFORT OF THEIR OWN.
>
> > I don't know about the rest of you, but for me, it is not satisfying
> > at all to win because "someone LET ME win". I'd rather win through
> > skilled playing, good deck design, and maybe a little luck in the card/
> > crypt draw.
>
> You don't see any sort of logical inconsistency in these comments?
>
> On the one hand, you like multiplayer games because the better player
> can be ganged up on and made to lose simply because the player was
> better. On the other, the person who plays better should be rewarded?
No - I don't see any logical inconsistency.
It is a good game where (to borrow Magic terminology) can't spend
$3000 on Black lotus, 5 Moxen, Power blue cards, Juzam Djinn, and
piles of other hard to find/expensive/broken cards, and just crush
everyone.
Even if somone spends uber money on lots of Deflection/Parity Shift/
Enkil Cog/etc and super vamps like Arika or Saulot - there is still
hope for the other 4 players at the table because no one deck is that
great.
And if the result of getting ganged up on results in said Munchkin
player:
a.) building and playing decks that are "fun" and not "uber
competitive/kill-y"
or
b.) not contaminating your play group
Then that's fine with me.
> > It is also detrimental to gaining new players - who the hell wants to
> > get into a game where some jerkoff can just randomly destroy the table
> > state by picking up his ball and going home? Trust me, if I had
> > witnessed more of that in Ithaca before putting serious money into the
> > game, I probably never would have joined in.
>
> I see it as the nature of multiplayer CCGs. A huge advantage, IMO, of
> two-player games is that you remove a kingmaking element. Someone
> wants to take a ball and go home, fine, deserving player wins.
Hence, why I don't play "competitive" games anymore - i.e.
tournaments, etc. I play "fun" games, where all the participants get
to
a.) play the game
b.) have fun
> > Self-ousting sucks. At least for friendly play.
>
> Lots of things suck. Being ganged up on because your deck is better
> sucks.
Nonsense - if people respect your deck enough to say "hey, no offense,
but you are going to kill us all if we let you build up", then guess
what? Mission accomplished - you built a really good/Tier 1 deck.
Congrats - NOW go build another deck!
> Being ganged up on because you play better sucks.
Nonsense - if people gang up on you because you are a better player
ALL the time, then maybe you should take some time and effort to help
teach your newer/younger players how to play better THEMSELVES. Tell
them how you came up with your deck design. When someone goes "why
the heck in turn 10 did you do that / not do this?", explain to them
your reasoning.
One the best parts for me about playing in Ithaca is that the guys
here are funny, knowledgeable, and they are willing to take the time
to explain what their deck is doing or how they are playing.
> Winning
> games easily because other people throw them or don't know what they
> are doing sucks.
I agree - so TEACH your players how to play better. See above.
> > Because another part of the social covenant of gaming is - LET ME PLAY
> > THE GAME. i.e., let me play some cards, draw some cards, actually
> > have a successful action at least ONCE in a while, etc. If that's not
> > going to happen, then all bets are off. Because sitting around just
> > transferring to vamps, just to see them killed/sen dep'd/pentex'd
> > immediately is a crappy way to spend an evening.
>
> No, it isn't.
Uhm....Yes, it is. According to dictionary.com, the definition of
game is:
1.) an amusement or pastime: children's games.
3.) a competitive activity involving skill, chance, or endurance on
the part of two or more persons who play according to a set of rules,
usually for their OWN (note plural, not one person or the other)
amusement or for that of spectators.
If you constantly try to set up an activity where one side or the
other is ALWAYS not having fun or "amusement", you are doing some kind
of activity but it sure as heck isn't a "Game".
> It's my philosophy to the game, sure, to not play decks that prevent
> my opponents from playing the game. And, one's play group may have a
> social covenant to allowing people to do stuff in games. But, it's
> absurd to believe that it's part of this competitive game to be nice
> enough to let people do stuff.
Again with the competitive. I'm not talking tournaments - sure, if
there are prizes and bragging rights involved, the do whatever you can
within the scope of the rules to win. Go for it - knock yourself out.
Which is why I avoid tournaments and "competitive" gaming like the
plague. I play games to have fun and amuse myself AND my opponent AND
any possible spectators that may be watching, because hey, today's
spectator might be tomorrow's new player.
If the only thing your playgroup does, is build/tweak/practice decks
in anticipation of the next tournament - well, in my mind that is a
shame. Vtes has so much more to offer than that.
-AC