Final Symptoms and Proposed Remedies

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).
109 answers Last reply
More about final symptoms proposed remedies
  1. 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
  2. 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/
  3. 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
  4. 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
  5. 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.
  6. 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
  7. 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"?
  8. 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
  9. 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.
  10. 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
  11. 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
  12. 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
  13. 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.
  14. 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
  15. 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)
  16. 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
  17. 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
  18. 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
  19. 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/
  20. 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.
  21. 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.
  22. 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
  23. 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.
  24. 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
  25. Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

    Ankur Gupta wrote:

    > 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!

    Yeah, see, well, um, the downside of the "free information" theory is that,
    um, it, um, makes, um, the game work better? Uhh, it really upsets people
    who have bizzare control issues? There are bunnies?


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

    "How does this end?"
    "In fire."
    Emperor Turhan and Kosh
  26. Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

    >> I mean, come on! People expect things from ya Peter. Satisfy your fans!
    >
    > Yeah, see, well, um, the downside of the "free information" theory is
    > that, um, it, um, makes, um, the game work better? Uhh, it really upsets
    > people who have bizzare control issues? There are bunnies?

    Sorry to say this man, but. . . it needs work. :)

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

    Robert Goudie a écrit :

    > 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

    that's quite good !

    i remember a tournament in LA.A where i had absolutely nothing for being
    5th qualified despite all my efforts to move forward.
    But you will always have players who prefer to stand on prelim results
    (like being 2nd) rather than trying to take riske and try to get on top :)
  28. Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

    LSJ wrote:

    > 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.

    Yeah, well, my apologies for the vitriol. Posted in a moment of
    irritation at other things, FWIW. But I don't think it could have been
    hyperbolic, because I don't understand hyperbole. ;)

    --

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

    In message <4241560d$0$18383$79c14f64@nan-newsreader-06.noos.net>, reyda
    <true_reyda@hotmail.com> writes:
    >2 weeks ago, i won the Coupe de Paris,

    I feel honoured that someone went to the trouble of cloning me.

    Can I claim royalties? Unless I'm the clone...

    --
    James Coupe "Why do so many talented people turn out to be sexual
    PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D deviants? Why can't they just be normal like me and
    EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 look at internet pictures of men's cocks all day?"
    13D7E668C3695D623D5D -- www.livejournal.com/users/scarletdemon/
  30. Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

    On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 06:21:22 -0500, Gregory Stuart Pettigrew
    <etherial@sidehack.sat.gweep.net> scrawled:

    >> 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"?

    the word 'scout' or 'scouting' does not appear at all in the vekn
    tournament rules.

    the closest thing to a 'no-scouting' rule in the vekn rules i could
    find is in section 2.4:
    "Players have the right to request that any person, other than
    tournament officials, not observe their game. All such requests must
    be made through a judge."

    and collusion needs to have some sort of attempt to change a game's
    outcome. i am not sure player A telling player B "don't sit next to C,
    he's playing stinky weenie dom!" is collusion, before the game has
    even started (especially if A isn't even in the final). it's just ....
    words. and may well be a complete lie! ;)

    salem
    http://www.users.tpg.com.au/adsltqna/VtES/index.htm
    (replace "hotmail" with "yahoo" to email)
  31. Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

    On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 23:42:48 +0100, Orpheus <orpheus.13@DEADfree.fr>
    scrawled:


    >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.

    only offer prizes for game wins. each GW in prelim rounds gets you a
    prize. a GW in the final gets you a bigger prize. 2nd through 5th in
    the final round gets you nothing. presumably, if you're in the final
    you already got your ranking's worth from the prior rounds you won to
    get to the final.

    this way, 2nd through 5th place (going into the finals) have big
    incentive to go nuts and try and win the final, as if they 'sit' and
    try not to do anything, they are definately going to get no more
    prizes. only 1st place has incentive to draw or time out the final.
    and if only one person is doing it, it's not going to work so well. :)

    salem
    http://www.users.tpg.com.au/adsltqna/VtES/index.htm
    (replace "hotmail" with "yahoo" to email)
  32. Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

    salem a écrit :
    > On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 23:42:48 +0100, Orpheus <orpheus.13@DEADfree.fr>
    > scrawled:
    >
    >
    >
    >>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.
    >
    >
    > only offer prizes for game wins. each GW in prelim rounds gets you a
    > prize. a GW in the final gets you a bigger prize. 2nd through 5th in
    > the final round gets you nothing. presumably, if you're in the final
    > you already got your ranking's worth from the prior rounds you won to
    > get to the final.
    >
    > this way, 2nd through 5th place (going into the finals) have big
    > incentive to go nuts and try and win the final, as if they 'sit' and
    > try not to do anything, they are definately going to get no more
    > prizes. only 1st place has incentive to draw or time out the final.
    > and if only one person is doing it, it's not going to work so well. :)
    >
    > salem

    Very interesting solution, Salem. I'm proposing it or a variant to my
    playgroup.

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

    > 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.

    Totally agreed with that, even though LSJ has a point concerning the
    first player. Solutions like : "same prize for all players but the
    first" or "Prize only for GWs" appeal to me, and don't change the rules,
    only the way prize are handled, which has nothing to do with VEKN rules
    and is only an organisational decision. Fine with me.

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

    pdb6@lightlink.com wrote:
    > ...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". ...
    >
    > B) Allow free access to information.

    Or C) Allow people to play a different deck in the final round. Or even
    a different deck every round.

    I'm fine with the existing system. Just pointing out an option.
  35. Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

    "Kevin M." <youwish@imaspammer.org> wrote in message
    news:rhe0e.60896$xt.56863@fed1read07...
    > 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?

    Bah. It's one thing to take a quick cheap shot and watch others react to
    defend their positions against imagined attacks. It's quite another to
    actually propose a thoughtful objection to what someone else is saying
    and then stick around to defend that objection.

    Do not concern yourselves.

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

    "reyda" <true_reyda@hotmail.com> wrote in message
    news:42419e1d$0$3354$79c14f64@nan-newsreader-05.noos.net...
    > But you will always have players who prefer to stand on prelim results (like being 2nd) rather than trying to take riske and try
    > to get on top :)

    Here is where I see a general problem with the game: that it should seem
    like such a risk to most good players to try to get an oust that they
    choose to play conservatively.

    My take on Orpheus's original problem, which seems to be more true in
    some areas and less true in others, is that the game encourages conservatism
    and reactionary play in general - not pro-active work at winning. Thus,
    the reason he identifies these issues in the finals and not in the
    preliminary rounds is that the finals are where five competant players
    are. It's the INcompetant players (or more diplomatically, the "less
    competant players" - like me) who tend to make the game more dynamic
    and interesting by doing incompetant things and making targets of
    themselves. The competant ones, unless they see good opportunity, tend
    to turtle-up, bloat, build up defenses, or do whatever it is they do to
    get ready for an oust opportunity, and break out when the opportunity
    does present itself.

    I'm not saying a good offense isn't a helpful tool, even to this form
    of play. I'm just saying the 'defense-first-keep-a-low-profile'
    philosophy seems to pay off in the long run and the proof of that is in
    tournament finals: where you see the five most successful players gather
    together instead of random groupings of just any five in the tournament.
    And it's interesting that when they don't have their usual means of
    winning at hand, they're not as adept at devising a secondary strategy.
    Hence you often see them negotiating frenetically trying to create one.

    If so, the overall game balance needs a shift. I'm not sure how to
    shift it, as I wouldn't want to go back to the days of stealth-bleed-
    bounce being the king of everything. But I'd sure like to see ways of
    pushing actions through that could ignore or frustrate intercept
    sometimes. I see far too much intercept in the metagames I play in,
    at least for my subjective tastes. I'd like to see more stuff like
    Crocadile's Tongue and Dominion or something that would make it
    somewhat less comfortable to just load up on intercept and expect that
    nothing bad will happen to you. (Of course, lots of intercept is not
    the only reason for this what-I-see-as-a-problem, but discouraging it
    to some extent couldn't hurt in my book.)

    My 0.02.

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

    "Damnans" <damnansVTES@ono.comNOSPAM> wrote in message
    news:Bvf0e.25137$dr.11990@news.ono.com...
    > 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).

    Considering where Orpheus observes this problem - in the finals - that
    seems like a very questionable theory. The five best players in the
    tournament didn't get to the final by giving up on games too soon. I
    think the game win rule, as currently implement, works very well and it
    does a good job of rewarding players who do the 'right' thing. I think
    the tournament final works as well as possible, too. Thus I don't think
    the static-n-boring finals problem has to do with bad play. It makes
    a lot more sense to me to conclude that it has to do with too much
    _good_ play in a single game!

    Fred
  38. 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.

    I absoultely don't see the problem with the current tournament system. If
    you understand and like the game rule, you should like the finals rule
    the way it is. And it is the tie-break mechanism that makes it as perfect
    AS POSSIBLE. As it stands, at least four players have a strong incentive
    to make sure the game DOESN'T wind up stultifying into a big standoff.
    The fact that this doesn't look exactly like a preliminary round game is
    beside the point. It does exactly the job it needs to do.

    The fact that all this doesn't seem to prevent stultification near as often
    as it should ought to tell us that we need to be looking elsewhere to find
    the problem and the solution.

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

    Emmit Svenson wrote:

    > Or C) Allow people to play a different deck in the final round. Or even
    > a different deck every round.

    As I pointed out elsewhere, multi-deck tournaments are a whole other animal.
    Allowing folks to play different decks every round is already a possibility,
    and a completely different discussion than the one that is going on here.


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

    "How does this end?"
    "In fire."
    Emperor Turhan and Kosh
  40. Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

    Emmit Svenson a écrit :
    > pdb6@lightlink.com wrote:
    >
    >>...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". ...
    >>
    >>B) Allow free access to information.

    B' : every player in the finals reveals his crypt (it leaves part for
    some surprises, but if you see some Eurobrujahs, lots of Beast, all
    !Malkies or big Lasombras with Pre you might have an idea what you're up
    against...) ; variant : the players reveal their crypt after they have
    chosen their table position.

    C : random positions in the finals.

    This subject ("about finals placement and information"), and the one
    about how to discourage insipid, boring finals seem to spring
    simultaneously in various forums or threads (not all on my instigation)
    and might warrant a close look from the authorities up-on-high.

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

    Orpheus wrote:

    > B' : every player in the finals reveals his crypt (it leaves part for
    > some surprises, but if you see some Eurobrujahs, lots of Beast, all
    > !Malkies or big Lasombras with Pre you might have an idea what you're up
    > against...) ; variant : the players reveal their crypt after they have
    > chosen their table position.

    Meh. Doesn't necessarily provide any worthwhile information. And really,
    most players have already seen most decks in action, which provides much
    more information. Having someone tell me "Ben is playing !Toreador tap -N-
    bleed" is going to give me far more information than looking at his crypt.
    The problem is that when you get to the finals, there is a good chance that
    someone will have zero idea of what one player is playing, when most other
    players probably know. The solution is to not make it a problem to look at
    games in progress after you are ousted (assuming you aren't annoying) and
    not a problem to ask folks what other people are playing.

    > C : random positions in the finals.

    This is certainly a possibility. But then, for one, I *like* that the finals
    have a unique, interesting element to them that specifically rewards doing
    well in the preliminary rounds. As most folks already know, a lot of this
    game often comes down to what decks you randomly sit next to, which has an
    unsatisfying element to it, especially in a "finals" round. I like that the
    finals minimize randomness and have an increased deterministic element to
    them, and that is the current seating system.

    Again, the only flaw is the uneven distribution of information going in--if
    I know what all 4 of the other decks in the finals are, and you only know 3
    of them, I have a very distinct advantage, especially if we are, like, top
    and second seed. The solution, really, is to let people watch games in
    progress and let people discuss what decks people are playing (which people
    already do, but there is some mostly unfounded idea that "scouting" is
    illegal, which makes people cranky).

    > This subject ("about finals placement and information"), and the one
    > about how to discourage insipid, boring finals seem to spring
    > simultaneously in various forums or threads (not all on my instigation)
    > and might warrant a close look from the authorities up-on-high.

    I don't know what to do about insipid finals. But making all the prizes go
    to 1st place certainly would help (like, say, give 1st place the bulk of the
    prizes, and give 2-5th place identical token prizes, like a couple boosters
    or something). I suspect that this would go a long way towards encouraging
    people trying to actually win--if there was no measurable difference between
    2nd and 5th place, then there would be no incentive to try and get 2nd
    place.


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

    "How does this end?"
    "In fire."
    Emperor Turhan and Kosh
  42. Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

    >>But you will always have players who prefer to stand on prelim results (like being 2nd) rather than trying to take riske and try
    >>to get on top :)
    >
    >
    > Here is where I see a general problem with the game: that it should seem
    > like such a risk to most good players to try to get an oust that they
    > choose to play conservatively.
    >
    > My take on Orpheus's original problem, which seems to be more true in
    > some areas and less true in others, is that the game encourages conservatism
    > and reactionary play in general - not pro-active work at winning. Thus,
    > the reason he identifies these issues in the finals and not in the
    > preliminary rounds is that the finals are where five competant players
    > are. It's the INcompetant players (or more diplomatically, the "less
    > competant players" - like me) who tend to make the game more dynamic
    > and interesting by doing incompetant things and making targets of
    > themselves. The competant ones, unless they see good opportunity, tend
    > to turtle-up, bloat, build up defenses, or do whatever it is they do to
    > get ready for an oust opportunity, and break out when the opportunity
    > does present itself.

    It is an interesting analysis, and I must agree with it to some degree.
    Yes, at a very good table the first to make a bad move is the dead one,
    and bold move often equals bad move. On the other hand, as you mention
    in your next post, the guys sitting there have made their GW before, so
    they must have acted at some point or another before the time limit. So
    I'd rather think that the incentive to go forward is much stronger in
    the prelims than in the finals, even if the better game level is a
    factor (if only because no one will open the way with bad play).

    > I'm not saying a good offense isn't a helpful tool, even to this form
    > of play. I'm just saying the 'defense-first-keep-a-low-profile'
    > philosophy seems to pay off in the long run and the proof of that is in
    > tournament finals: where you see the five most successful players gather
    > together instead of random groupings of just any five in the tournament.

    Sure, but as already mentionned even a low profile has to blow sometime
    in the game if you wanna win.

    > And it's interesting that when they don't have their usual means of
    > winning at hand, they're not as adept at devising a secondary strategy.
    > Hence you often see them negotiating frenetically trying to create one.

    This would mean that being a good player is only possible when you have
    bad players at the table you can use. While it may be true for me ;) as
    I'm not "that" good, I'd hate to think it is the case for most good
    players, or the best of them.

    > If so, the overall game balance needs a shift.

    It has shifted a lot frequently and certainly will with each coming
    extension (ok, combat is balanced now, no more please) and player
    trends, wherever these come from.

    I'm not sure how to
    > shift it, as I wouldn't want to go back to the days of stealth-bleed-
    > bounce being the king of everything. But I'd sure like to see ways of
    > pushing actions through that could ignore or frustrate intercept
    > sometimes. I see far too much intercept in the metagames I play in,
    > at least for my subjective tastes.

    I might agree on a personnal level, but then why would a trend be more
    despicable than another ? Because it makes the game too static ?

    If you despise intercept abuse (as I do, although well used it can be
    quite a sight, as any other strategy of the game if well-played) you
    have a few counter strategies available :

    - full rush : intercept will certainly have less fight than you and die
    painfully (just pack something against Rötshit)
    - bruise'n'bleed : see how these blue cards stack in your opponent's hand...
    - swarm with no stealth
    - it is well known that stealth always over-ride intercept, especially
    if all your base actions are at +1 stealth : just pack more stealth,
    some perms, and a way to cycle a lot !

    And of course :

    I'd like to see more stuff like
    > Crocadile's Tongue and Dominion or something that would make it
    > somewhat less comfortable to just load up on intercept and expect that
    > nothing bad will happen to you. (Of course, lots of intercept is not
    > the only reason for this what-I-see-as-a-problem, but discouraging it
    > to some extent couldn't hurt in my book.)

    PLAY NECROMANCY !!!! :)

    ---------------
    Orpheus

    http://necrobones.free.fr
  43. Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

    >>Orpheus wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>>B' : every player in the finals reveals his crypt (it leaves part for
    >>>some surprises, but if you see some Eurobrujahs, lots of Beast, all
    >>>!Malkies or big Lasombras with Pre you might have an idea what you're up
    >>>against...) ; variant : the players reveal their crypt after they have
    >>>chosen their table position.
    >>
    >>Meh. Doesn't necessarily provide any worthwhile information.
    >
    >
    > especially if they do this after they choose their table position, as
    > orph suggested. defeats the purpose, no?

    You misunderstood. I meant : first players puts his card on the table,
    reveals his crypt, so player 2 knows what he's up against ; player 2
    does the same, Player 3 chooses position, etc.

    And part of the skill of this game also is knowing what a crypt can do.
    Sure, if you see lots of midcap !Tores, you'll wonder if it's a Palla
    embrace, a gun deck, a voter, or an Art of Pain deck, but really there
    are chances that without Miller, any titled vamp, and with lots of Jost
    Werner it's only a Palla...

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

    Frederick Scott wrote:
    > "Damnans" <damnansVTES@ono.comNOSPAM> wrote in message
    > news:kmT0e.27804$US.12643@news.ono.com...
    > >> Thus I don't think the static-n-boring finals problem has to do
    with bad play. It makes a lot more sense to me to conclude that
    > >> it has to
    > > > do with too much _good_ play in a single game!
    > >
    > > Wasting time in a final is bad play.
    >
    > I'm not sure how you define "wasting time", but if many, MANY good
    > players do it, it's highly unlikely to be "bad play".

    >
    > Again, maybe it's just me, but I tend to go by the theory that
    > smart players don't suddenly turn dumb because they're put in a
    > particular situation.
    >
    > > How many finalists have ever thought that they could have won the
    > > tournament if the final round had lasted for several more minutes?
    >
    > But they were probably wrong. Had the clocks been so construed from
    > the start, the series of events that led them to feel that way would
    > have just taken place...several minutes laters. In almost all of
    > these cases, I'm pretty sure things time themselves from the end of
    > the game all the players know is coming up - NOT from the beginning
    > of the game.

    Very true. For example, at the end of the GenCon NA Championships,
    Stephane Lavrut made his big push but ran out of time before ousting
    his prey. An observer could have seen that as a case where he'd have
    been able to win if there was more time on the clock. However, he
    intentionally made his lunge at the point where there'd be no time
    remaining if he was successful.

    It is akin to an NBA game where the clock winds down and the team with
    the ball holds for the final shot in an attempt to leave no time on the
    clock afterwards. The length of the game is irrelevant--only the time
    remaining matters. If anything, a 3-hour final just may create more
    "dead time" before the late-game action begins.

    > > What happens is that some finalists act too conservatively (and I
    am
    > > not just referring to the top seeded ones, who obviously tend to be
    > > conservative), and therefore afraid of making the first aggressive
    > > move, because they do not want to draw too much attention.
    >
    > I know - but that's my whole point. If you watch them play, you'll
    > notice that it was how the got to the finals in the first place.
    > Why does it suddenly become bad play IN the finals?

    Hey, some of my favorite games have been ones in which very little
    happened from a spectator's viewpoint. Those are the finals where
    there's a lot of intensity and subtle manueverings which is all a big
    setup for someone to make their push for the win. The finalists come
    away talking about how great the game was while the spectators see it
    as a big yawnfest.

    To some degree I think the GW rule has spawned a playstyle that seeks
    to win the table but doesn't do well at acquiring lots of VPs. The old
    VP-sweeping decks that were the mainstay of finalist's decks were more
    fun for spectators probably. There's certainly a growing group of
    players that have adopted this style and build that decks start slowly
    and build build build until they reach critical mass and then just
    sweep over a prey or two and then hang on till time expires. Palla
    Grande and Week of Nightmares-based decks are two of the more obvious
    ways to go about this.

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

    In message <Y0R0e.4955$TZ.3866@okepread06>, Frederick Scott
    <nospam@no.spam.dot.com> writes:
    >Huh? One-half a victory point in the finals is *ONLY* ever worth anything
    >to one guy - and then only if everyone else is held to one-half a victory
    >point.

    In situations where substantial prizes are offered for 1st through 5th
    place, one half a VP can shift you up above several other people. If
    someone else gets two VP, and you're just walling up and the remaining
    three of you get 0.5VP, you've come third at least - depending on how
    you and the other guy ranked going into the final.

    Hence the discussion about removing most of the prize incentives for
    other placings.

    I've never found that reasonably small amounts of boosters are that big
    a problem, however. If the first place person is getting 20 boosters
    and 2nd through 5th are getting some but less (say, 16, 12, 8, 4 - these
    are just random numbers), it doesn't seem to be a big problem. When
    prizes are unique or hard to get or unusual, it can be a bigger problem.
    That might be solvable by using, say, "First place gets to pick first",
    rather than specific prizes for specific positions (e.g. "First place
    gets this artwork, second place gets this signed copy of Darkness
    Unveiled, etc.")


    >Now you're making my argument. This is precisely my point. Why be a
    >stealth bleeder or look dangerous if the entire table will gang up on
    >you for your effort? And it will in the final.

    Stealth bleeders don't have to look inherently dangerous. People being
    very aggressive can. It depends a lot on what other options you've
    given yourself. If you don't have much (say) combat defence, being
    aggressive may be better - less time for the combat deck to eat you. On
    the flip-side, if you have a fair arsenal of defence, you can still
    stealth-bleed but you don't need to do it so viciously. e.g. the
    difference between an aggressive Malk obf/dom stealth bleed deck, and a
    Lasombra obt/dom stealth bleed deck with a fair chunk of Arms of the
    Abyss, Torn Signpost, Disarm and the like as a sideline.


    It's also worth remembering that in any sizeable tournament, quite a few
    of the people at the table will have looked dangerous. IME, it's only
    when a deck has REALLY stuck its head above the parapet (e.g. Turbo-
    Arika) that the table starts thinking "Urr..."

    When that happened at a tournament I was judging, it was only two decks
    on the final table which decided to deal with Turbo Arika anyway.
    Perhaps the other two would've done had those two not done so, but it
    wasn't a 4 against 1 OHMYGODWE'REALLGOINGTODIE moment. (Though that is
    what many spectators were thinking.)

    And the main reason for that action was that if Turbo-Arika got to take
    an action, it could plausibly give them no further opportunity to
    intervene.


    Certainly, I've seen a lot of scary, scary decks make final tables
    without everyone throwing themselves at it to balance the table.


    The upshot of this? I'm not sure. Some of this may be social factors.

    Some cultures may put a lot more emphasis on coming first. Others might
    think that second is just fine, as it's still better than third, fourth
    or fifth.


    >The problem here is just that: a good table CAN know how to gang up on
    >a player who plays very forward. It's too hard for a single player to
    >force play and be rewarded for being aggressive, unless the other players
    >are incompetant.

    It depends on the forward, IMO. Is it a forward that will keep giving
    it more and more momentum, or is it a forward that you can do something
    about when it gets to you? Maybe you have a lot of bounce, or intercept
    combat, or backwards rush, and have no need to go near the deck even
    though it's an aggressive stealth bleeder.

    That a deck is aggressive isn't, IME, enough to cause people to gang up
    on it. When it's aggressive and that aggression would cause other decks
    significant problems, yes.

    --
    James Coupe "Why do so many talented people turn out to be sexual
    PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D deviants? Why can't they just be normal like me and
    EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 look at internet pictures of men's cocks all day?"
    13D7E668C3695D623D5D -- www.livejournal.com/users/scarletdemon/
  46. Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

    pdb6@lightlink.com wrote:
    > 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:

    When you are choosing seating in the finals of a very large event,
    there's always at least one bit of public information available--even
    if you know nothing about your opponents' decks.

    What you know is their seeding in the finals. If you are the top seed,
    you can intentionally sit as the predator or prey or the lowest seeded
    player or wherever else you'd like. Maybe you prefer to make the
    lowest seeded finalist your predator. Maybe you'd prefer to make the
    2nd seeded finalist your prey and try to get rid of them quickly. This
    of course presumes some correlation between seeding and player and/or
    deck strengths.

    Additionally, even when you don't know what deck is being played, you
    may know something about the player and their tendencies. If you Peter
    are at the finals with me, I might assume you are playing combat and
    I'd avoid setting as your predator or prey. If I'm playing combat I
    might team with you to beat-down the table and so I might put you as my
    grand predator.

    In the GenCon 2000 NA Championships, I was 2nd seed and Ben Peal 1st
    seed. I chose Steve Fazio as my prey because he'd done well with a
    Princely vote deck in the last chance qualifier and I took a stab that
    he might play it again--perfect fodder for my weenie pot rush deck.
    Ben Peal took a stab that I might be playing weenie pot rush since I'd
    done well with it at the last chance qualifier. He chose his seat
    accordingly. As well, I had downloaded and brought with me a copy of
    Ben Peal's decklist that he qualified with and I had a feeling that he
    would play that deck again. If I'd have been top seed, I would have
    chosen Ben as my first prey. So, in this case, there were at least 3
    correct assumptions made based on observation and player history that
    had nothing to do with knowledge of decks or even knowledge gained
    within that event.

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

    Frederick Scott wrote:
    > "Robert Goudie" <robertg@vtesinla.org> wrote in message

    > > To some degree I think the GW rule has spawned a playstyle that
    seeks
    > > to win the table but doesn't do well at acquiring lots of VPs. The
    old
    > > VP-sweeping decks that were the mainstay of finalist's decks were
    more
    > > fun for spectators probably. There's certainly a growing group of
    > > players that have adopted this style and build that decks start
    slowly
    > > and build build build until they reach critical mass and then just
    > > sweep over a prey or two and then hang on till time expires. Palla
    > > Grande and Week of Nightmares-based decks are two of the more
    obvious
    > > ways to go about this.
    >
    > It's interesting you would see it that way. Agreed, a deck that's
    built
    > for a VP sweep may well be more proactive in the finals, as well.
    > Unfortunately, the GW rule works too well for othre purposes to
    adjust
    > it for this.

    Agreed. I'm certainly not proposing that we change the GW rule just
    because some players are jockeying for GWs at the expense of massive VP
    accumulation. For me personally, I still prefer the hyper-aggressive
    decks and they continue to serve me well but I've also got my fair
    share of low-VP but GW gathering decks as well.

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

    "Robert Goudie" <robertg@vtesinla.org> wrote in message
    news:1111770723.740058.187530@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
    >> > What happens is that some finalists act too conservatively (and I am
    >> > not just referring to the top seeded ones, who obviously tend to be
    >> > conservative), and therefore afraid of making the first aggressive
    >> > move, because they do not want to draw too much attention.
    >>
    >> I know - but that's my whole point. If you watch them play, you'll
    >> notice that it was how the got to the finals in the first place.
    >> Why does it suddenly become bad play IN the finals?
    >
    > Hey, some of my favorite games have been ones in which very little
    > happened from a spectator's viewpoint. Those are the finals where
    > there's a lot of intensity and subtle manueverings which is all a big
    > setup for someone to make their push for the win. The finalists come
    > away talking about how great the game was while the spectators see it
    > as a big yawnfest.

    I guess I don't mind so much if the specatators don't feel they got
    their money's worth. (Though I suspect in truth most players who will
    sit and watch a final are NOT yawing through something like that.
    They may not understand everything that's going on in the minds of the
    players, but they're probably just as fascinated.) The trouble I have
    with the sort of play I see in this kind of final is that it seems to
    give little incentive to do anything except jockey and maneuver for
    that moment 10 minutes before the game ends when guys are finally going
    to try to do something because time's running out and the pecking order
    hasn't moved.

    It's doesn't have to be that way. People can jockey and maneuver with
    all the same intensity and subtly toward a result that's approaching
    because of the play of the cards, not the tick of the clock. Or at
    least, I speculate it could be if the game could be rebalanced a bit more
    towards pro-active rather than reactive elements.

    It's hard for me to tell, though. I know there's always going to be a
    self-balancing aspect to a multiplayer games like this. I'm not sure
    whether the tendency to try to "outwait fate" by the better players
    can be defeated by adjusting game elements or not.

    > To some degree I think the GW rule has spawned a playstyle that seeks
    > to win the table but doesn't do well at acquiring lots of VPs. The old
    > VP-sweeping decks that were the mainstay of finalist's decks were more
    > fun for spectators probably. There's certainly a growing group of
    > players that have adopted this style and build that decks start slowly
    > and build build build until they reach critical mass and then just
    > sweep over a prey or two and then hang on till time expires. Palla
    > Grande and Week of Nightmares-based decks are two of the more obvious
    > ways to go about this.

    It's interesting you would see it that way. Agreed, a deck that's built
    for a VP sweep may well be more proactive in the finals, as well.
    Unfortunately, the GW rule works too well for othre purposes to adjust
    it for this.

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

    "James Coupe" <james@zephyr.org.uk> wrote in
    message news:I4b4O7CyX+QCFwwM@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk...
    > In message <Y0R0e.4955$TZ.3866@okepread06>, Frederick Scott
    > <nospam@no.spam.dot.com> writes:
    >>Huh? One-half a victory point in the finals is *ONLY* ever worth anything
    >>to one guy - and then only if everyone else is held to one-half a victory
    >>point.
    >
    > In situations where substantial prizes are offered for 1st through 5th
    > place, one half a VP can shift you up above several other people.

    Sure. That's the nature of the finals in general. But my comment was
    about the suggestion that just finishing with 1/2 a VP was worth anything
    to anyone. It's not - unless you were the preliminary round leader and
    no one else got an oust. I suppose if there's one oust in the game, the
    guy who didn't get the 1/2 VP may slip (in the worst case) from first to
    fifth but I still think as a general statement, what Orpheus said was silly.
    There's plenty of incentive to aspire to more than 1/2 VP in the finals.
    The incentive isn't the issue.

    ....
    > Hence the discussion about removing most of the prize incentives for
    > other placings.
    >
    > I've never found that reasonably small amounts of boosters are that big
    > a problem, however.

    I really don't think so either. But, for what it's worth, I suppose it's
    not a bad idea to flatten out the awards in the larger tournaments so
    2nd place doesn't get much more than 5th. For what it's worth, I agree
    that only 1st place should stick out noticably above the others.

    >>Now you're making my argument. This is precisely my point. Why be a
    >>stealth bleeder or look dangerous if the entire table will gang up on
    >>you for your effort? And it will in the final.
    >
    > Stealth bleeders don't have to look inherently dangerous. People being
    > very aggressive can. It depends a lot on what other options you've
    > given yourself. If you don't have much (say) combat defence, being
    > aggressive may be better - less time for the combat deck to eat you. On
    > the flip-side, if you have a fair arsenal of defence, you can still
    > stealth-bleed but you don't need to do it so viciously. e.g. the
    > difference between an aggressive Malk obf/dom stealth bleed deck, and a
    > Lasombra obt/dom stealth bleed deck with a fair chunk of Arms of the
    > Abyss, Torn Signpost, Disarm and the like as a sideline.

    The trouble is, the better players you run into in the finals tend to have
    defense as well. I agree with what you say about not needing to look
    dangerous, but trying to sneak up on a prey like that will often fail
    due to well-managed pool. Thus, a lot of finals turn into these kinds
    of marathons.

    > It's also worth remembering that in any sizeable tournament, quite a few
    > of the people at the table will have looked dangerous. IME, it's only
    > when a deck has REALLY stuck its head above the parapet (e.g. Turbo-
    > Arika) that the table starts thinking "Urr..."

    Well, yea. But a lot of times in the finals, or in the preliminary
    rounds, for that matter, just making irresitable headway towards an oust
    makes you "look dangerous". And - as noted above - it's hard to actually
    get an oust against a prey who knows what he's doing without revealing
    some might in order make irresistable headway.

    > The upshot of this? I'm not sure. Some of this may be social factors.
    >
    > Some cultures may put a lot more emphasis on coming first. Others might
    > think that second is just fine, as it's still better than third, fourth
    > or fifth.

    Agreed. That may have something to do with it. It's not an easy thing
    to pick apart.

    Fred
Ask a new question

Read More

Games Video Games