Final Symptoms and Proposed Remedies

[orpheus]

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

Hi all,

I dunno how it is in the States, but in every big tournie I've seen in
Europe the finals were static for a long time, mostly boring, all for a
very simple reason : people weren't all trying to win the game, just to
optimise their position according to their previous placement. For
example, in this week's tournie (not a big one, but people here now are
serious players) I played to win the game ; had I not, my interest was
just survive and let my grand'prey kill his, this would have put me one
rank above the one I ended up in ; in the finals of the Open de France,
I was first qualified, and had I played to resist and not to win I would
have ended up first instead of dying and ending up fifth.

I see there a flaw in the tournament rules.

So, in no particular order :

- must the finals also be played to win the current game, of can they be
played according to the position of each players in final ranking ?

- I would like to propose the following : the seating at the last table
is randomised as all the rest (the first are advantaged anyway for final
counting, and it doesn't advantage the players who saw each other's
decks, or lurked, or had outside info...). The precise ranking of each
player is kept secret by the organisation (yes, it requires orga
integrity, but then what doesn't ?). And all players must play to win
the game, period. Immediate consequence : more daring, interesting
games, where players actually try to score VPs instead of just sitting
and waiting.

- an alternative solution would be that only the final VPs count, the
rest of the ties being solved as "usual" : with TPs and randomness. Or
just : put everyone equal, like 1st player has 2 Vps, 2 tied 3rd players
with 0,5 and 2 tied 5th player with nothing. It would have the same
positive consequence, and change a little the ranking things, but
nothing too lethal.

Inputs, comments etc are welcome.

Orpheus, pro-active finalist (whenever finalist at all).

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

Orpheus wrote:

> - I would like to propose the following : the seating at the last table
> is randomised as all the rest (the first are advantaged anyway for final
> counting, and it doesn't advantage the players who saw each other's
> decks, or lurked, or had outside info...).

This is a bad idea. The ability to chose seating in the final is the only
thing that rewards player for doing well in previous rounds, and rewards
player skill at knowing where to sit. Which is a very significant part of
the tournament rules.

> The precise ranking of each
> player is kept secret by the organisation (yes, it requires orga
> integrity, but then what doesn't ?).

Impossible to do, as there will always be a general knowledge of how most
folks are doing.

>And all players must play to win the game, period.

That is already the case. As it stands, there are two ways to win a
tournament:

A) Win the final.
B) Have the final tme out in a 5 way tie (give or take) and be the first
seed going in.

As the only way to win in situation (B) is to be the first seed, the other 4
players have all the incentive in the world to actively try and win--I can't
for the life of me see why so many games time out in ties. Sure, first seed
has incentive for the game to time out as a 5 way tie, but the other 4
players don't, so they should be trying their best to actively win.


Peter D Bakija
pdb6@lightlink.com
http://www.lightlink.com/pdb6

"How does this end?"
"In fire."
Emperor Turhan and Kosh

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

Orpheus wrote:
> - must the finals also be played to win the current game, of can they be
> played according to the position of each players in final ranking ?

The players' rankings are part of the final game (unless some alternate
rules are being used), so playing to win naturally accomodates playing
according to those rankings.

--
LSJ (vtesrepSPAM@TRAPwhite-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep (remove spam trap to reply)
Links to V:TES news, rules, cards, utilities, and tournament calendar:
http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/

 

[orpheus]

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

Peter D Bakija a écrit :
> Orpheus wrote:
>
>
>>- I would like to propose the following : the seating at the last table
>>is randomised as all the rest (the first are advantaged anyway for final
>>counting, and it doesn't advantage the players who saw each other's
>>decks, or lurked, or had outside info...).
>
>
> This is a bad idea. The ability to chose seating in the final is the only
> thing that rewards player for doing well in previous rounds, and rewards
> player skill at knowing where to sit. Which is a very significant part of
> the tournament rules.

It rewards the skill if you know who you are facing. When you got to
choose last but have no idea of what anyone else is playing, you
actually have a big disadvantage on anyone who for some reason have that
type of info. Not good IMO.

>>The precise ranking of each
>>player is kept secret by the organisation (yes, it requires orga
>>integrity, but then what doesn't ?).
>
>
> Impossible to do, as there will always be a general knowledge of how most
> folks are doing.

General, for sure. Not precise enough. There are often ties, sometimes
"untied" by TPs (whom no one will ba able to calculate for everyone...).
All in all, you'll get the general idea, but nothing more, and not even
that in a big tournie (where everyone usually has between 9 and 6 VPs).

>>And all players must play to win the game, period.
>
> That is already the case. As it stands, there are two ways to win a
> tournament:
>
> A) Win the final.

Normal game in my book.

> B) Have the final tme out in a 5 way tie (give or take) and be the first
> seed going in.

Ugly but often seen.

> As the only way to win in situation (B) is to be the first seed, the other 4
> players have all the incentive in the world to actively try and win--I can't
> for the life of me see why so many games time out in ties. Sure, first seed
> has incentive for the game to time out as a 5 way tie, but the other 4
> players don't, so they should be trying their best to actively win.

Except that all but the fifth may fear to go down instead of up. WHich
seems to be a factor for many good players, or else there is something I
don't understand either.

Also, do not underestimate the impact on the game of half the table
playing to resist instead of winning. If you must go all-out to hurt
your prey, you become an easy one for your predator. You take undue
risks. So only 1-2 players are more than enough to "kill" a table.

Deadly Yours,

Orpheus

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

Orpheus wrote:

> It rewards the skill if you know who you are facing. When you got to
> choose last but have no idea of what anyone else is playing, you
> actually have a big disadvantage on anyone who for some reason have that
> type of info. Not good IMO.

See, but a lot of the time, you have all the information you need either
through direct contact or word on the street. I think the flaw here is not
"having too much information" but "not having free access to information".
Everyone, going into the finals should, at the very least, have a vague idea
of what decks everyone is playing--we shouldn't be trying to make
information *less* accessible. It should be more.

> Normal game in my book.

Me too.

> Ugly but often seen.

I haven't seen much of that. I was in one final where the game timed out
with 4 players left (and I won, 'cause at the end of the final, I have 1.5
VPs where everyone else had .5 VP), but most of the time in games I've been
in or seen, someone has actually won.

> Except that all but the fifth may fear to go down instead of up. WHich
> seems to be a factor for many good players, or else there is something I
> don't understand either.

Go down where? Either you win, or you don't.

> Also, do not underestimate the impact on the game of half the table
> playing to resist instead of winning. If you must go all-out to hurt
> your prey, you become an easy one for your predator. You take undue
> risks. So only 1-2 players are more than enough to "kill" a table.

What do you mean "resist"? I go into a final round trying to win. If I don't
win, it doesn't matter what place I come in--again, either you win or you
don't. Personally, my additude is either win or die trying. I'd much rather
be ousted trying to win a game and die on a gamble than hang on the whole 2
hours to get a .5 VP. But maybe that is just me.


Peter D Bakija
pdb6@lightlink.com
http://www.lightlink.com/pdb6

"How does this end?"
"In fire."
Emperor Turhan and Kosh

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

Orpheus wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I dunno how it is in the States, but in every big tournie I've seen
in
> Europe the finals were static for a long time, mostly boring,

Yes, in Germany its called "french playing style". Balance the table so
long that everyone is dying of boredom. ;-) But its successful.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

Orpheus <orpheus.13@DEADfree.fr> wrote:
> I dunno how it is in the States, but in every big tournie I've seen in
> Europe the finals were static for a long time, mostly boring, all for
> a very simple reason : people weren't all trying to win the game,
> just to optimise their position according to their previous
> placement.

If I understand correctly, in L.A. they have been recently giving all the
prizes to the winner of the tournament, and NOTHING to the other four
people at the final table. I believe this to be an excellent idea and one
worthy of major conventions (hint hint).

When I run tournaments, I personally also give prizes to those players
that achieve a GW.

> Orpheus, pro-active finalist (whenever finalist at all).

Kevin M., Prince of Henderson, NV (USA)
"Know your enemy, and know yourself; in one-thousand battles
you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, *The Art of War*
"Contentment... Complacency... Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

> See, but a lot of the time, you have all the information you need either
> through direct contact or word on the street.

You mean "scouting" and "collusion"?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

Gregory Stuart Pettigrew <etherial@sidehack.sat.gweep.net> wrote:
> Peter D Bakija <pdb6@lightlink.com> wrote:
>> See, but a lot of the time, you have all the information you
>> need either through direct contact or word on the street.
>
> You mean "scouting" and "collusion"?

I do not think these words mean what you think they mean. Could define
them for us?


Kevin M., Prince of Henderson, NV (USA)
"Know your enemy, and know yourself; in one-thousand battles
you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, *The Art of War*
"Contentment... Complacency... Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

> > - I would like to propose the following : the seating at the last table
> > is randomised as all the rest (the first are advantaged anyway for final
> > counting, and it doesn't advantage the players who saw each other's
> > decks, or lurked, or had outside info...).
>
> This is a bad idea. The ability to chose seating in the final is the only
> thing that rewards player for doing well in previous rounds,

other than, you know, getting to the finals in the first place.

> and rewards player skill at knowing where to sit. Which is a very
> significant part of the tournament rules.

which is a skill that can pretty much only be exercised at a final.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

Gregory wrote:
>You mean "scouting" and "collusion"?

A) "Collusion" is people working together to fix the results of a game
un-naturally. There is no possible way that "collusion" fits into this
particular angle of this discussion.

B) "Scouting" is only illegal if it is illegal (and when it is illegal,
it is a really stupid thing to be illegal). When you play a tournament,
it makes zero sense at all that you know what half the decks in the
game do, 'cause you sat at a table with them, yet don't know what the
other decks do, 'cause you didn't. There is no reasonable way to keep
people from walking through a room full of games and having them look
at tables as they walk by. There is no reasonable way to make people
not watch other games when they are ousted. There is no reasonable way
to make people not ask their freinds what kind of decks they were
playing against.

Basically, there is no reasonable way to prevent people from
"scouting"--anyone who was involved with Babylon 5 back in the day will
remember the insane discussions involving the insane lengths people
were trying to go to to prevent "scouting". And in the end, it was all
futile. And insane.

So when you walk into a final round, it is perfectly reasonable to
expect to know what all the decks are (ya know, barring a "multi deck"
tournament, but that is a completely different animal), 'cause you
probably played against a couple of them, and you probably either saw
or heard about the other ones. Given this, it is really stupid to try
and prevent people from knowing what decks folks are playing, and it is
really stupid to not tell folks what people are playing when they are
choosing a seat, 'cause, say, if 4 people at the table know what every
deck does, and the last guy hasn't seen a few for whatever reason, they
are at a dumb disadvantage.

And I realize that there is no way to formalize making sure everyone
knows what everyone else's deck does. But it is very easy to not
penalize folks for sharing information--when I'm in a final round, if
someone asks me what my deck is, I'll tell them, 'cause it is likely
that most of the other folks already know.

-Peter

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

Kevin M. wrote:
> Orpheus <orpheus.13@DEADfree.fr> wrote:
> > I dunno how it is in the States, but in every big tournie I've seen
in
> > Europe the finals were static for a long time, mostly boring, all
for
> > a very simple reason : people weren't all trying to win the game,
> > just to optimise their position according to their previous
> > placement.
>
> If I understand correctly, in L.A. they have been recently giving all
the
> prizes to the winner of the tournament, and NOTHING to the other four
> people at the final table. I believe this to be an excellent idea
and one
> worthy of major conventions (hint hint).

Well that's close. We'll give the same token prize for 2nd through 5th
and the great majority of prizes to 1st place. It was intended to not
reward players for quickly selling-out to another player in order to
come in 2nd place. While this prize distribution doesn't prohibit the
practice, it at least doesn't reward it.

-Robert

 

[orpheus]

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

Peter D Bakija a écrit :
> Orpheus wrote:
>
>
>>It rewards the skill if you know who you are facing. When you got to
>>choose last but have no idea of what anyone else is playing, you
>>actually have a big disadvantage on anyone who for some reason have that
>>type of info. Not good IMO.
>
>
> See, but a lot of the time, you have all the information you need either
> through direct contact or word on the street. I think the flaw here is not
> "having too much information" but "not having free access to information".
> Everyone, going into the finals should, at the very least, have a vague idea
> of what decks everyone is playing--we shouldn't be trying to make
> information *less* accessible. It should be more.

Interesting idea. So what do you suggest ? Going around and asking
people ? Each player describes his deck ? The easiest way maybe would be
: when you put your vampire on the table for final placement, you also
have to show your whole crypt.

>>Ugly but often seen.
>
> I haven't seen much of that. I was in one final where the game timed out
> with 4 players left (and I won, 'cause at the end of the final, I have 1.5
> VPs where everyone else had .5 VP), but most of the time in games I've been
> in or seen, someone has actually won.

Variant : someone moved and was the only one to die.

>>Except that all but the fifth may fear to go down instead of up. WHich
>>seems to be a factor for many good players, or else there is something I
>>don't understand either.
>
>
> Go down where? Either you win, or you don't.

Quite right. But some people 2 is better than 5 in most player's books.

>>Also, do not underestimate the impact on the game of half the table
>>playing to resist instead of winning. If you must go all-out to hurt
>>your prey, you become an easy one for your predator. You take undue
>>risks. So only 1-2 players are more than enough to "kill" a table.
>
>
> What do you mean "resist"? I go into a final round trying to win. If I don't
> win, it doesn't matter what place I come in--again, either you win or you
> don't. Personally, my additude is either win or die trying. I'd much rather
> be ousted trying to win a game and die on a gamble than hang on the whole 2
> hours to get a .5 VP. But maybe that is just me.

It isn't just you, but I believe it's a minority.

I do like your mentality, though. Hope we get to play together (and
maybe you got some of that Babylon 5 cards left for an initiation ?).

Orpheus

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

Kevin M. wrote:

> If I understand correctly, in L.A. they have been recently giving all the
> prizes to the winner of the tournament, and NOTHING to the other four
> people at the final table. I believe this to be an excellent idea and one
> worthy of major conventions (hint hint).

I do the same. I would prefer that no prizes be given to the winner of
the final table unless he also garnered a GW according to the normal
rules (2+ VP, more than anyone else), but I acknowledge it's a can of
worms, and haven't actually gone that far.... yet. It's been a while
since I actually read the V:EKN Rules. IIRC, you have a pretty free
hand in how you dole out the prizes.

--

David Cherryholmes
david.cherryholmes@gmail.com

"OK. So be it. It's not my view, but whatever makes you
happy, right? I'm all about making you happy, Dave. "

-- LSJ, V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

Gregory wrote:
>which is a skill that can pretty much only be exercised at a final.

Sure. But it makes the final into something special and different. The
current final system of getting to choose your seat based on score
going in might not be the best possible system. But it is a system, and
it is an interesting one, and one of the side effects of it is that it
gives a concrete advantage to being the top seed going in (much like in
a squash ladder type seeding system used in sports and one on one games
generally results in the strongest seed matching against the weakest
seed in the first round). Again, it might not be the best possible
option, but it gives an interesting angle to the game--you can gain
advantage through appropriate seating choice, assuming that you know
what the other decks are.

The flaw is, however, that there is no way to know that any given
player will know what all the decks are, and while it is likely that
you might know what most of the decks do, there is always a possibility
that you won't, and due to a lack of even distribution of information,
people will be at a disadvantage to eachother, possibly. This can be
dealt with in two ways:

A) Outlaw "scouting". This is kind of insane, as it is almost
completely impractical--unless you have folks playing their games in
individual rooms and as soon as someone is ousted they are led to a
private cell to be sequestered until the next game, there is no way at
all to keep people from looking around at other games, other tables, or
asking their friends over lunch "How'd your last round go--what were
folks playing?" On the up side, you strictly control
information--everyone only knows what the decks are that they have
already seen, so in all likelyhood, everyone in the final is going to
be in likely the same boat in terms of total information. On the down
side, again, completely impractical, and completely insane to even
attempt such a thing.

B) Allow free access to information. Let people watch games in progress
(assuming they aren't annoying anyone) to see what decks folks are
playing. Assume folks are going to share information with their
friends. When someone gets to the finals and says "Huh. That is the one
player whose deck I haven't seen--anyone wanna tell me what it does in
one scentence or less?", people can tell him without being accused of
collusion or something. On the up side, it puts everyone on a pretty
much even keel and doesn't take any extra effort. On the down side, it,
um, uhh, yeah, I got nothing.

-Peter

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

> The precise ranking of each player is kept secret by the
> organisation (yes, it requires orga integrity, but then
> what doesn't ?).

Not possible. The formula for calculating rankings is known (and must
be to have any value), therefore anyone who wishes to can work out the
rankings for themselves. Of course, possibly not everybody could be
bothered.

--
* lehrbuch (lehrbuch@gmail.com)

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

x5mofr@gmx.de a écrit :
> Orpheus wrote:
>
>>Hi all,
>>
>>I dunno how it is in the States, but in every big tournie I've seen
>
> in
>
>>Europe the finals were static for a long time, mostly boring,
>
>
> Yes, in Germany its called "french playing style". Balance the table so
> long that everyone is dying of boredom. ;-) But its successful.

2 weeks ago, i won the Coupe de Paris, in a final that lasted for 1 hour
and 25 minutes. So no, all the french finals are not resulting to boring
timeouts

reyda

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

> much even keel and doesn't take any extra effort. On the down side, it,
> um, uhh, yeah, I got nothing.

You know, even though you having nothing on the downside is exactly your
point, I find it quite amusing that Peter "spew forth with all gusto, but
not with quite as much ungodly endurance as Fred" Bajika has got
absolutely nothing. I would have expected you to make something up that
relates to pink bunnies or something. Just to take up space.

I mean, come on! People expect things from ya Peter. Satisfy your fans!



Ankur

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

Orpheus wrote:

> Interesting idea. So what do you suggest ? Going around and asking
> people ? Each player describes his deck ? The easiest way maybe would be
> : when you put your vampire on the table for final placement, you also
> have to show your whole crypt.

As I mentioned elsewhere, I don't think there is a really practical way to
do this formally. But it is really easy to find out what most other folks
are playing simply by walking around and looking at games, which people
already do, and then maybe asking around between rounds. I think the thing
to do is simply to remove any idea that "scouting" is somehow illegal, and
let people ask folks when their opponent's decks do before the finals--like,
yeah, you might not feel like telling me what your deck does, but the guy
standing next to you probably will be willing.


Peter D Bakija
pdb6@lightlink.com
http://www.lightlink.com/pdb6

"How does this end?"
"In fire."
Emperor Turhan and Kosh

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

Orpheus wrote:

[...]

> - must the finals also be played to win the current game, of can they be
> played according to the position of each players in final ranking ?

Finals must be played to win the tournament (not just to win the game).

> - I would like to propose the following : the seating at the last table
> is randomised as all the rest (the first are advantaged anyway for final
> counting, and it doesn't advantage the players who saw each other's
> decks, or lurked, or had outside info...). The precise ranking of each
> player is kept secret by the organisation (yes, it requires orga
> integrity, but then what doesn't ?). And all players must play to win
> the game, period. Immediate consequence : more daring, interesting
> games, where players actually try to score VPs instead of just sitting
> and waiting.

I also think this is not a good idea because, among other reasons,
finalists are not prohibited from telling each other their respective
GWs and VPs gotten during the previous rounds.

Besides, having privileges in the final round (such as choosing seating)
depending on your preformante in the previous rounds encourages players
to do their best in those rounds.

However, I agree that static and, therefore, boring finals are a problem.
But that's the result of bad play on some players' part (too speculating
players who sometimes give up to win too soon, thus breaking the play-
to-win rule).

--
Damnans

http://www.almadrava.net/damnans
http://www.vtes.net
http://es.groups.yahoo.com/group/vteshispania/

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

Damnans wrote:

> Finals must be played to win the tournament (not just to win the game).

This is incorrect. Playing to win that game usually coincides with
winning the tournament. But if they are somehow at odds, you must play
to win that game.

--

David Cherryholmes
david.cherryholmes@gmail.com

"OK. So be it. It's not my view, but whatever makes you
happy, right? I'm all about making you happy, Dave. "

-- LSJ, V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

David Cherryholmes wrote:

> This is incorrect. Playing to win that game usually coincides with
> winning the tournament. But if they are somehow at odds, you must play
> to win that game.

I have been corrected. LSJ has clearly stated that you do not have to
play to win the final game, if not playing to win will win you the
tournament, citing Jared Strait's 2002 NAC win. This is spectacularly
retarded and inconsistent, but there it is.

--

David Cherryholmes
david.cherryholmes@gmail.com

"OK. So be it. It's not my view, but whatever makes you
happy, right? I'm all about making you happy, Dave. "

-- LSJ, V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

"David Cherryholmes" <david.cherryholmes@duke.edu> wrote in message news:3adgmrF6a5kvgU1@individual.net...
> David Cherryholmes wrote:
>
> > This is incorrect. Playing to win that game usually coincides with
> > winning the tournament. But if they are somehow at odds, you must play
> > to win that game.
>
> I have been corrected. LSJ has clearly stated that you do not have to
> play to win the final game, if not playing to win will win you the
> tournament, citing Jared Strait's 2002 NAC win. This is spectacularly
> retarded and inconsistent, but there it is.


Incorrect.

You do have to play to win. In the finals, "winning" is determined
by number of VPs, with ties on VPs broken by rank going into the final
(unlike in the preliminary rounds, where ties remain unbroken and are
simply ties).

This is spectacularly logical and consistent.

--
LSJ (vtesrepSPAM@TRAPwhite-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep (Remove spam trap to reply).
V:TES homepage: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/
Though effective, appear to be ineffective -- Sun Tzu

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

LSJ wrote:

> You do have to play to win. In the finals, "winning" is determined
> by number of VPs, with ties on VPs broken by rank going into the final
> (unlike in the preliminary rounds, where ties remain unbroken and are
> simply ties).

It is consistent once you have decided to apply an arbitrary, different
standard for the final game compared to the previous games. That is the
inconsistency to which I was referring.

But in fact, my disagreement is even more profound. There is no logical
necessity for a tie breaking system. It is my opinion that game play
would be enhanced if ties were left simply for what they were, games in
which no one achieved a victory.

--

David Cherryholmes
david.cherryholmes@gmail.com

"OK. So be it. It's not my view, but whatever makes you
happy, right? I'm all about making you happy, Dave. "

-- LSJ, V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

"David Cherryholmes" <david.cherryholmes@duke.edu> wrote in message news:3adhbdF6bnh6bU1@individual.net...
> LSJ wrote:
>
> > You do have to play to win. In the finals, "winning" is determined
> > by number of VPs, with ties on VPs broken by rank going into the final
> > (unlike in the preliminary rounds, where ties remain unbroken and are
> > simply ties).
>
> It is consistent once you have decided to apply an arbitrary, different
> standard for the final game compared to the previous games. That is the
> inconsistency to which I was referring.
> But in fact, my disagreement is even more profound. There is no logical
> necessity for a tie breaking system. It is my opinion that game play
> would be enhanced if ties were left simply for what they were, games in
> which no one achieved a victory.

You don't feel that ties should be broken. That's fine.

But that would be an issue with the V:EKN tournament rules themselves,
not with the vagaries of "play to win". Casting it as the latter,
especially with the hyperbolic vitriol, clouds the issue, as we've
just discovered.

There are benefits to having tie-breakers, though. You have a
winner, which is beneficial to things like continental championships
were unique (and indivisible) prizes like rings and artwork are
awarded.

--
LSJ (vtesrepSPAM@TRAPwhite-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep (Remove spam trap to reply).
V:TES homepage: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/
Though effective, appear to be ineffective -- Sun Tzu