Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Final Symptoms and Proposed Remedies - Page 2

Last response: in Video Games
Share
Anonymous
March 25, 2005 3:40:40 PM

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

salem wrote:

> not, however, if Ben is playing pot/dom bruise and bleed, and this
> random person just lied.

Sure--there is always the possibility that folks could lie. But it really
isn't that likely.

> not really a solution, rather than how it works now. but the problem
> with this is, the people getting GWs, and thus being the ones to
> choose seating in a final, tend not to be the ones who have time
> 'after they are ousted' to go look at other games.

Eh. There is time between rounds to talk with people and see what folks are
playing. And again, right before you pick your seat, you can always say
"Hey--what is this guy playing?" if you don't know. In all likelyhood,
you'll be able to get enough information in a scentence or less.


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

"How does this end?"
"In fire."
Emperor Turhan and Kosh
Anonymous
March 25, 2005 4:27:23 PM

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

Frederick Scott wrote:

> "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.

Right.

> 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.

Agreed.

> 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 agree that finalists may need
more time to think their moves (which can be solved by adding 30 minutes
to the usual 2 hour time limit). But they must not forget that time
is another factor of the game, and that, as such, it must be managed
wisely.

How many finalists have ever thought that they could have won the
tournament if the final round had lasted for several more minutes?

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.

A 2 hour or 2 hour and a half time limit for final rounds is more
than enough for them not to time out (if players do not waste time
being too conservative, which rarely leads to victory and is, therefore,
bad play).

--
Damnans

http://www.almadrava.net/damnans
http://www.vtes.net
http://es.groups.yahoo.com/group/vteshispania/
Anonymous
March 25, 2005 4:27:24 PM

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

"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.

> 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?

Fred
Related resources
Can't find your answer ? Ask !
Anonymous
March 25, 2005 5:18:05 PM

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

LSJ wrote:
> "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.

The final still has a very different dynamic to it because the top seed
will win by virtue of not losing.

Just get rid of time limits for finals and you will see everyone play
to win. The seedings can be useful as tie-breakers only when Meths
score the same number of VPs. Yes, that's how it is now, but an
extended or non-existent time limit can counterbalance against the
different table dynamic (play slow, don't lose, still win).

Jeff
Anonymous
March 25, 2005 5:46:44 PM

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

"Orpheus" <orpheus.13@DEADfree.fr> wrote in message
news:42446c96$0$11591$626a14ce@news.free.fr...
>>>>I tend to see the better players playing more reactively in most
>>>>cases.)
>>>
>>>I don't. Good players don't act reactively. They install, wait for their
>>>moment, and then move forward so fast you can't do a thing.
>>
>> "Wait(ing) for their moment" <<============>> REACTIVE
>>
>> I don't know what YOUR definition of "reactive" is.
>
> Decks that pack a lots of reactions, and spend more time blocking other
> people than acting (or pooling). So they block whole tables, and some
> good players win that way ; others just lead the table to painful
> stalemates.

Well, here's a whole big part of the problem. You and I do not agree
on "pro-active" vs. reactive. A Pro-active player is one who is pushing
the action by himself. BY DEFINITION, he is *NOT* "waiting for his
moment". Waiting is REACTIVE, not pro-active.

Since you did not seem to understand this distinction, I think you're
misinterpreting a lot of what I've said in the past.

If you like people just building up their stuff and then kind of
waiting around for someone to appear exposed, then you shouldn't have
a problem with the current game. But this is what you're seeing in
in your finals.

Or as I said in the previous post:
>> Now go back and think about the finals: everyone is *SO* "waiting for
>> their moment" that nobody's moment ever comes. THAT'S your problem!

Fred
Anonymous
March 25, 2005 8:07:21 PM

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

Robert Goudie wrote:

> 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.

Sure--all very valid points. I guess where I am coming from is that, again,
while I don't think there is any reasonable way to formalize letting folks
what deck you are playing, I think it would make sense to formalize the idea
that people are going to want to know what decks people are playing. And as
they are going to try and find out anyway by watching games in progress and
by comparing games during breaks, it would make sense to remove any sort of
stigma from trying to find out what other people are playing.

I mean, yeah, like, there isn't any rule stopping you from trying, but
apparently, some folks still think that looking at games in progress and
comparing games with your freinds during breaks somehow fall under the
rubric of "scouting" and "collusion" somehow.


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

"How does this end?"
"In fire."
Emperor Turhan and Kosh
Anonymous
March 26, 2005 1:29:11 AM

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

jeffkuta@pacbell.net wrote:
> Just get rid of time limits

Untenable.

--
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/
Anonymous
March 26, 2005 1:29:12 AM

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

"LSJ" <vtesrepSPAM@TRAPwhite-wolf.com> wrote in message
news:Xg01e.3868$z.1684@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> jeffkuta@pacbell.net wrote:
>> Just get rid of time limits
>
> Untenable.

NOBODY GOES TO THE BATHROOM UNTIL FOUR PLAYERS ARE OUSTED!

;-)
March 26, 2005 6:47:19 AM

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

Frederick Scott a écrit :
> "Orpheus" <orpheus.13@DEADfree.fr> wrote in message
> news:42446c96$0$11591$626a14ce@news.free.fr...
>
>>>>>I tend to see the better players playing more reactively in most
>>>>>cases.)
>>>>
>>>>I don't. Good players don't act reactively. They install, wait for their
>>>>moment, and then move forward so fast you can't do a thing.
>>>
>>>"Wait(ing) for their moment" <<============>> REACTIVE
>>>
>>>I don't know what YOUR definition of "reactive" is.
>>
>>Decks that pack a lots of reactions, and spend more time blocking other
>>people than acting (or pooling). So they block whole tables, and some
>>good players win that way ; others just lead the table to painful
>>stalemates.
>
>
> Well, here's a whole big part of the problem. You and I do not agree
> on "pro-active" vs. reactive. A Pro-active player is one who is pushing
> the action by himself. BY DEFINITION, he is *NOT* "waiting for his
> moment". Waiting is REACTIVE, not pro-active.

And so do you not understant me. LOL

I never said waiting was proactive !!!

I make the distinction between :

- reactive (blocking, playing intercept etc, what you're complaining about)
- waiting (cas be made with mostly any deck, what I'm complaining about)
- acting, being pro-active : what I usually do.

Is my POV clearer to you now

> Since you did not seem to understand this distinction, I think you're
> misinterpreting a lot of what I've said in the past.
>
> If you like people just building up their stuff and then kind of
> waiting around for someone to appear exposed, then you shouldn't have
> a problem with the current game. But this is what you're seeing in
> in your finals.

Read above.

> Or as I said in the previous post:
>
>>>Now go back and think about the finals: everyone is *SO* "waiting for
>>>their moment" that nobody's moment ever comes. THAT'S your problem!

Agreed. A timing problem. Either because people are too afraid of the
others to move at the right moment, or because people are willing to
keep their place rather than go down.


Orpheus
Anonymous
March 26, 2005 6:47:20 AM

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

"Orpheus" <orpheus.13@DEADfree.fr> wrote in message
news:4244cd2d$0$2771$626a14ce@news.free.fr...
>> Well, here's a whole big part of the problem. You and I do not agree
>> on "pro-active" vs. reactive. A Pro-active player is one who is pushing
>> the action by himself. BY DEFINITION, he is *NOT* "waiting for his
>> moment". Waiting is REACTIVE, not pro-active.
>
> And so do you not understant me. LOL
>
> I never said waiting was proactive !!!

You did indeed:
"Good players don't act reactively. They install, wait for their
moment,..."

You inferred that what "good players (did)" was not reactive, hence
must be proactive. But waiting was one of the things they did.

> I make the distinction between :
>
> - reactive (blocking, playing intercept etc, what you're complaining about)
> - waiting (cas be made with mostly any deck, what I'm complaining about)
> - acting, being pro-active : what I usually do.

Well, I don't. A triadic division like that is just silly. "Waiting" -
in the absense of reacting - would be just playing dead, I guess. (Waiting
and then - doing nothing.) It's no strategy for winning in any case.

In any event, I'm not here to engage in semantic discussions about
whether waiting is a sign of reactive play or not. To me, it plainly is
and I am basing my comments squarely on that fact. Since I was merely
responding to an issue you raised with some of my earlier comments, it's
not your definition I care about. It's my own. If your only issue with
those comments is based on a misunderstanding of what I meant, then I
don't need to care.

Fred
March 26, 2005 6:49:45 AM

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

LSJ a écrit :
> jeffkuta@pacbell.net wrote:
>
>> Just get rid of time limits
>
>
> Untenable.

We used to do it, of sorts (or fix such a big Time Limit that it
amounted to none at all). Mostly in 2-rounds tournies of course. Yes, it
means not going home in early evening, but other than that the games
were a lot better.

Orpheus
March 26, 2005 2:38:57 PM

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

>>>Well, here's a whole big part of the problem. You and I do not agree
>>>on "pro-active" vs. reactive. A Pro-active player is one who is pushing
>>>the action by himself. BY DEFINITION, he is *NOT* "waiting for his
>>>moment". Waiting is REACTIVE, not pro-active.
>>
>>And so do you not understant me. LOL
>>
>>I never said waiting was proactive !!!
>
>
> You did indeed:
> "Good players don't act reactively. They install, wait for their
> moment,..."
>
> You inferred that what "good players (did)" was not reactive, hence
> must be proactive.

Not at all. Fred, let's be serious. Can't you just read the typed
characters and not imagine any in between the lines ???

> But waiting was one of the things they did.

This I did say, yes. It doesn't mean that waiting is proactive !!!

>>I make the distinction between :
>>
>>- reactive (blocking, playing intercept etc, what you're complaining about)
>>- waiting (cas be made with mostly any deck, what I'm complaining about)
>>- acting, being pro-active : what I usually do.
>
> Well, I don't. A triadic division like that is just silly.

"Silly" is exactly the word I was looking for to describe your attitude
in this thread. Can't you just admit that not everyone in the world
shares your opinions or definitions ? I disagree with you and yet admit
your PoV, but please do not consider that just because you think
something you are the righteous and everyone else is insane. That would
be quite, well... insane ?!

> "Waiting" -
> in the absense of reacting - would be just playing dead, I guess. (Waiting
> and then - doing nothing.) It's no strategy for winning in any case.

Waiting may mean pooling, playing a minimum of reactions (as opposed to
intercepting everything on the table) or just leaving your minions
untapped to block. Did you ever play this game we're talking about ?

> In any event, I'm not here to engage in semantic discussions about
> whether waiting is a sign of reactive play or not.

Well, that's what you've been doing for quite some time now. If you
finally want to drop the semantics, it's fine with me, I've lost enough
time here ; I'f rather build and play some decks.

To me, it plainly is
> and I am basing my comments squarely on that fact. Since I was merely
> responding to an issue you raised with some of my earlier comments, it's
> not your definition I care about. It's my own. If your only issue with
> those comments is based on a misunderstanding of what I meant, then I
> don't need to care.

Great. That's how understanding will pass on better among the human race.

Seriously, I just think you should drop some of your self-justified
ideas, and maybe try to get into some finals or more serious games with
serious players. I can tell you that playing with my betters certainly
changed my vision of the game, although I still play very active games
even when it means my doom.

Deadly Yours,

Orpheus
Anonymous
March 28, 2005 1:09:14 AM

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

On 23 Mar 2005 09:29:24 -0800, pdb6@lightlink.com wrote:


>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


Downsides of allowing people to watch games or the like: punishes
anyone trying to do anything tricky or having any sort of
unpredictable cards in decks; rewards players who finish earlier;
rewards players who have more friends at the tournament. Also, it's
possible to gauge someone's play style better by watching the player
play for a long period of time.

But, as you say, preventing scouting is usually impractical.
Anonymous
March 28, 2005 1:09:15 AM

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

curevei@aol.commetal wrote:

> Downsides of allowing people to watch games or the like: punishes
> anyone trying to do anything tricky or having any sort of
> unpredictable cards in decks;

Sure. But there is no way to prevent playing people a second time (so
they'll already be wise to your deck) in subsequent rounds or the finals and
no way to prevent folks from discussing your deck over lunch ("Man! Did you
see Ian's deck! It was this fantastic trick deck that..."), and no practical
way to prevent people from looking at tables when they are ousted. I mean,
like, yeah, other people knowing what your deck does reduces the surprise of
trickiness, but the only time you can *guarantee* your deck being a surprise
is the first round, and after that, it is likely that people will know what
your deck does. Especially if it is a cool surprise :-)

> rewards players who finish earlier;

And don't we want people to have more incentive to play more pro-actively?

:-)

> rewards players who have more friends at the tournament.

True. But again, this is already the case--if I go to an event with 3 pals
and we eat lunch together between the first and second round, we are all
going to compare games and decks we saw. There is no reasonable way to
prevent this already.

> Also, it's
> possible to gauge someone's play style better by watching the player
> play for a long period of time.

Oh, sure. But that isn't that likely to happen--it is reasonable to expect
that any number of people will get to spy on a game in progress for about 5
minutes. You really only get a long period of time to watch by being in a
game.

> But, as you say, preventing scouting is usually impractical.

Unless you have sequestering chambers, people are going to look at games in
progress. And compare notes with friends over lunch. This already happens.
It strikes me as just a better plan all together to simply embrace it,
rather than try and prevent it.


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

"How does this end?"
"In fire."
Emperor Turhan and Kosh
Anonymous
March 28, 2005 1:22:01 AM

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

On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 19:10:42 -0500, Peter D Bakija
<pdb6@lightlink.com> wrote:

>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.

Giving an advantage to someone trying to do something surprising seems
like a good idea since, oh, I don't know, surprises in CCGs are kind
of fun. Scouting eliminates the advantage of surprising deck
construction.


>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.

My preference is to give the bulk of the prizes to everyone - have
something for game wins and for the overall winner but spread the
wealth. Reasons: the players who do the worst tend to have the most
use for prizes like boosters; feels less like gambling when you have
to put money in for the prize support; winning is its own reward*.

* Some people play for their rating, some people play to get in the
TWDA (the latter making a lot more sense to me than the former, but
whatever), some people play for being able to say they won a
tournament even if it goes unnoticed in the TWDA. At least for the
events I've played in, the physical prizes have paled in comparison to
the intangible benefits of winning. Therefore, I see little that's
gained from large relative rewards to a tournament victor. Even for
bigger events with bigger prizes, being able to say "... - 2004
National Champion" seems a tad better than artwork, several boxes of
cards, and a lot of other stuff.
Anonymous
March 28, 2005 1:22:02 AM

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

curevei@aol.commetal wrote:

> Giving an advantage to someone trying to do something surprising seems
> like a good idea since, oh, I don't know, surprises in CCGs are kind
> of fun. Scouting eliminates the advantage of surprising deck
> construction.

Sure. But as I mentioned in the other post, there is no way to prevent folks
from knowing what your deck does after the first round, even if you put a
lot of effort into preventing scouting, which is wildly impractical.

In the first round, 4 other people will see your deck in action. Likely,
they will share what your deck does during the break, especially if it is
cool and surprising, as folks like to share this sort of thing, mostly
'cause it is cool. And maybe a few people will see the deck in action by
spying on the game. By the time second round starts, half the people in the
tournament (assuimng an average size tournament) are reasonably likely to
have an idea what it does. After the second round, the same thing happens.


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

"How does this end?"
"In fire."
Emperor Turhan and Kosh
Anonymous
March 28, 2005 11:32:25 PM

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

On 25 Mar 2005 14:18:05 -0800, <jeffkuta@pacbell.net> wrote:

>> 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.
>
> The final still has a very different dynamic to it because the top seed
> will win by virtue of not losing.
>
> Just get rid of time limits for finals and you will see everyone play
> to win. The seedings can be useful as tie-breakers only when Meths
> score the same number of VPs. Yes, that's how it is now, but an
> extended or non-existent time limit can counterbalance against the
> different table dynamic (play slow, don't lose, still win).

I agree. Some folks don't, though... Having no time limit means the
finals can go on for eternity. That is rather impractical when renting
a hall for the game event, or needing to catch a return flight (or the
buddies who share the same car, etc.).

There are perhaps even players who would try to use the fatigue of their
adversaries, and basically turtle up and not do anything until someone
just gives up.

IMHO sportsmanship (in the undefined-by-tournament-rules sense) has long
died out from the VTES community. I know players who are very
sportsmanlike, but there are folks who just seem to care about winning
and doing whatever it takes to win, as long as they can get away with
it. Boring and disillusioning...

--
Bye,

Daneel
Anonymous
March 29, 2005 1:37:46 AM

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

On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 12:21:18 -0700, Frederick Scott
<nospam@no.spam.dot.com> wrote:

> 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.

While it could indeed encourage more proactive play in the finals,
it would take away much of the incentive to attend larger events.
Making top 5 is easier out of 20 people than 60 or 100. Winning
the tournament is about 5× as hard. So while I agree that more
proactive finals might be desirable, rewarding only the winner
seems somewhat unfair on another level.

Maybe giving serious thought to a hybrid reward system that was
mentioned earlier would make sense (that is, rewarding GWs and
1st place or something).

--
Bye,

Daneel
Anonymous
March 29, 2005 2:02:39 AM

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

On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 22:04:15 -0700, Frederick Scott
<nospam@no.spam.dot.com> wrote:

>> I make the distinction between :
>>
>> - reactive (blocking, playing intercept etc, what you're complaining
>> about)
>> - waiting (cas be made with mostly any deck, what I'm complaining about)
>> - acting, being pro-active : what I usually do.
>
> Well, I don't. A triadic division like that is just silly. "Waiting" -
> in the absense of reacting - would be just playing dead, I guess.
> (Waiting
> and then - doing nothing.) It's no strategy for winning in any case.

While your statement is somewhat rectified, it does seem mostly true to
me. However, Orpheus might be right on a different level (as far as the
big picture is concerned).

Let's define the terms. Say, as: "Proactive": doing your stuff mostly
irrespective of the game environment. "Reactive": doing your stuff
mostly depending on the game environment. In this sense proactive play
is stronger from a strategic POV, whereas reactive play is stronger
from a tactical POV.

What tips the scales, IMHO, towards reactive play is that in a
massively multiplayer game strategic deficiencies (or strengths)
can be overcome through good tactical play. Focusing on the tactical
aspect of the game works wonders in the preliminary rounds, where
you can often win despite the odds by using the less experienced
players.

--
Bye,

Daneel
Anonymous
March 29, 2005 2:02:40 AM

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

"Daneel" <daniel@eposta.hu> wrote in message
news:o psodbchnqo6j3lh@news.chello.hu...
> On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 22:04:15 -0700, Frederick Scott Let's define the terms. Say, as: "Proactive": doing your stuff mostly
> irrespective of the game environment. "Reactive": doing your stuff
> mostly depending on the game environment. In this sense proactive play
> is stronger from a strategic POV, whereas reactive play is stronger
> from a tactical POV.

I think with this last sentence, you wind up also giving your definitions
of what "strategy" and "tactics" in this game mean to you. But OK, it
makes a certain kind of sense to say this.

> What tips the scales, IMHO, towards reactive play is that in a
> massively multiplayer game strategic deficiencies (or strengths)
> can be overcome through good tactical play.

I wouldn't agree with such a general statement, myself. I think, rather,
in *THIS* multiplayer game, strategic deficiencies can be overcome through
good tactical play. I don't think that's a necessary state of affairs in
a multiplayer game, though.

I think you also put your finger on the potential problem with allowing
players to become proactive without remedy in some given metagame
matchup: a game might "plays itself" out without reference to what the
players actually do (assuming all are basically trying to win). Players
usually profess not to like a game that doesn't give them the chance to
play.

And therein lies the crux of the matter: you want to give players the
opportunity to make decisions and affect the game durng the actual
game. But if you do, four competant players normally can and should be
able to prevent one competant player from winning - and so they generally
choose to. Thus, games with five competant players tend to stalemate an
inordinate amount of the time.

Fred
Anonymous
March 30, 2005 3:06:05 AM

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

On Mon, 28 Mar 2005 18:46:19 -0700, Frederick Scott
<nospam@no.spam.dot.com> wrote:

> "Daneel" <daniel@eposta.hu> wrote in message
> news:o psodbchnqo6j3lh@news.chello.hu...
>> On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 22:04:15 -0700, Frederick Scott Let's define the
>> terms. Say, as: "Proactive": doing your stuff mostly
>> irrespective of the game environment. "Reactive": doing your stuff
>> mostly depending on the game environment. In this sense proactive play
>> is stronger from a strategic POV, whereas reactive play is stronger
>> from a tactical POV.
>
> I think with this last sentence, you wind up also giving your definitions
> of what "strategy" and "tactics" in this game mean to you. But OK, it
> makes a certain kind of sense to say this.

Yeah, well, it's just the words. I do have loose definitions for strategy
and tactics for VTES, but the point is, there is a difference between
selecting the tools you wish to have available, and using those tools. I
like "strategy" and "tactics", but the former primarily refers to deck
design, and the latter basically refers to playing the game.

>> What tips the scales, IMHO, towards reactive play is that in a
>> massively multiplayer game strategic deficiencies (or strengths)
>> can be overcome through good tactical play.
>
> I wouldn't agree with such a general statement, myself. I think, rather,
> in *THIS* multiplayer game, strategic deficiencies can be overcome
> through good tactical play.

Right, let's not get into overgeneralizations, because they NEVER serve
any puspose whatsoever and are ALWAYS pointless. ;) 

> I don't think that's a necessary state of affairs in a multiplayer
> game, though.

You're probably right in this, though.

> I think you also put your finger on the potential problem with allowing
> players to become proactive without remedy in some given metagame
> matchup: a game might "plays itself" out without reference to what the
> players actually do (assuming all are basically trying to win). Players
> usually profess not to like a game that doesn't give them the chance to
> play.

Are you referring to a possibility that non-interactive strategies might
take away from the fun of the game by turning the game into basically a
Rock/Paper/Scissors game where player presence is almost unnecessary?

> And therein lies the crux of the matter: you want to give players the
> opportunity to make decisions and affect the game durng the actual
> game. But if you do, four competant players normally can and should be
> able to prevent one competant player from winning - and so they generally
> choose to. Thus, games with five competant players tend to stalemate an
> inordinate amount of the time.

I would say that the game (especially in the preliminary rounds) rewards
reactive play more than proactive play (I think that this is true since
the GW rule got introduced). So in the finals you probably end up with
players who play decks that allow them more tactical freedom. Meaning,
basically, that in such a case your above paragraph kicks in, and the
more reactive strategies result in a stalemate of sorts.

--
Bye,

Daneel
Anonymous
March 30, 2005 3:06:06 AM

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

"Daneel" <daniel@eposta.hu> wrote:
> On Mon, 28 Mar 2005 18:46:19 -0700, Frederick Scott wrote:
>> I think you also put your finger on the potential problem with allowing
>> players to become proactive without remedy in some given metagame
>> matchup: a game might "plays itself" out without reference to what the
>> players actually do (assuming all are basically trying to win). Players
>> usually profess not to like a game that doesn't give them the chance to
>> play.
>
> Are you referring to a possibility that non-interactive strategies might
> take away from the fun of the game by turning the game into basically a
> Rock/Paper/Scissors game where player presence is almost unnecessary?

Something like that. In trying to think what would tend to discourage
statemates in a tournament final, I'm just musing that it would have to
come from the inability of other players to effectively react to what one
player was doing proactively. The point being, if you go to the other
extreme, then players aren't able to react to the overall game situation as
they play so you've got, like, five games of solitaire going on at once.
Someone will win and others will lose and the result (yes, indeed) would
seem like Rock/Paper/Sissors.

Still, it seems like some happy medium between the two could be arranged.
A place where players would risk being marginalized if they didn't
make _some_ effort at actually ousting their prey.

> I would say that the game (especially in the preliminary rounds) rewards
> reactive play more than proactive play (I think that this is true since
> the GW rule got introduced). So in the finals you probably end up with
> players who play decks that allow them more tactical freedom. Meaning,
> basically, that in such a case your above paragraph kicks in, and the
> more reactive strategies result in a stalemate of sorts.

Right; agreed.

Fred
Anonymous
March 30, 2005 3:33:38 PM

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

On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 19:00:58 -0700, Frederick Scott
<nospam@no.spam.dot.com> wrote:

>> Are you referring to a possibility that non-interactive strategies might
>> take away from the fun of the game by turning the game into basically a
>> Rock/Paper/Scissors game where player presence is almost unnecessary?
>
> Something like that. In trying to think what would tend to discourage
> statemates in a tournament final, I'm just musing that it would have to
> come from the inability of other players to effectively react to what one
> player was doing proactively. The point being, if you go to the other
> extreme, then players aren't able to react to the overall game situation
> as
> they play so you've got, like, five games of solitaire going on at once.
> Someone will win and others will lose and the result (yes, indeed) would
> seem like Rock/Paper/Sissors.
>
> Still, it seems like some happy medium between the two could be arranged.
> A place where players would risk being marginalized if they didn't
> make _some_ effort at actually ousting their prey.

Some random points that come into mind:

1. The ready availability of numerous counter cards, even general counter
cards, pushes bold or highly conditional plays over the line of
unfeasibility. Without general interference cards like Direct
Intervention,
Delaying Tactics and Eagle's Sight we'd possibly see more proactive decks.

2. Game Wins were invented to give players a better chance by making ultra-
aggressive, one-sure-VP decks impractical. I'm not sure that after a
healthy
dose of cards like Aranthebes, Retribution and Nightmares upon Nightmares
we still need the GW rule. Because it basically forces people to think
tables instead of preys, which shifts the game towards a more reactive
play.

3. Perhaps VPs could be scaled. I am thinking along the lines of, say,
making
the first oust worth an additional VP or something.

--
Bye,

Daneel
Anonymous
March 31, 2005 11:27:28 AM

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

On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 11:33:38 GMT, Daneel <daniel@eposta.hu> scrawled:


>3. Perhaps VPs could be scaled. I am thinking along the lines of, say,
>making
> the first oust worth an additional VP or something.

this is very interesting. i quite like the idea, at least as something
to think about, and maybe trial.

if the first 'oust' was worth an additional vp, then you'd need rules
for wherre multiple meths were ousted simultaneously (split the
additional vp among all the preds, i guess, or perhaps only allocate
it for a 'clean' first oust, where only one meth is ousted) and
no-oust time outs (again spread the vp....or maybe not allocate it at
all? we already have disparity in possible vps in 4 or 5 player
tables..). hmmm....

possibly make combat decks again a nudge up the power curve (the
oft-mentioned ploy of kill your first prey, try not to let anyone else
get more than one vp, and then work backwards round the table becomes
even more valuable...although i guess that depends on the speed at
which you can get your first oust compared to other players...).

although, this could just make games MORE stagnant as people try even
harder to cross-table 'balance' things and prevent anyone else getting
an oust...

salem
http://www.users.tpg.com.au/adsltqna/VtES/index.htm
(replace "hotmail" with "yahoo" to email)
Anonymous
March 31, 2005 1:19:27 PM

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

In message <opsof7kknqo6j3lh@news.chello.hu>, Daneel <daniel@eposta.hu>
writes:
>1. The ready availability of numerous counter cards, even general counter
> cards, pushes bold or highly conditional plays over the line of
> unfeasibility. Without general interference cards like Direct
>Intervention,
> Delaying Tactics and Eagle's Sight we'd possibly see more proactive decks.

Depends a lot on the player. Not everyone thinks "Oh my god, I might
get cancelled" and shifts into a reactive play. Indeed, this is one of
the reasons that some players go focused on specific strategies in the
extreme - to screw up the (now useless) defence that their prey has
(e.g. Delaying Tactics vs a combat deck) and to make sure they always
have the right cards in hand. So, even if you D.I. my rush, I have
another one. If you D.I. my Grapple, I have another one. And so on.


>2. Game Wins were invented to give players a better chance by making ultra-
>aggressive, one-sure-VP decks impractical.

Not really.

When the GW was invented, there were two problematic situations:

- two combat decks agreeing to table-split rather than mutual
annihilation (particularly if sat next to each other). Here,
two VPs (for the loser) was very close to three VPs (for the
winner), and better than both getting zero. These days, 2 is
better than 0, but 3 and a GW is significantly better.

- intercept decks, but much less so than the combat deck situation. Sit
down, wait, wait, wait, wait, oust final prey and get 1 VP for
last man standing. Gets 2 VP. But never gets any more. But
the player perceives 2 VP as being a good base to work on,
rather than looking at the deck more significantly. These days,
they know they have to get three which often makes them more
aggressive (and thus in general better for a relatively speedy
game).

One-sure-VP decks were always impractical, pretty much, since across
three rounds, you'd get 3 VP and lots of other players would be amassing
6-8 VPs (two to three each round). Of course, some people would still
view it as "Cool, a VP!" but that's not quite the same thing - the rules
were pretty clear that such wouldn't be rewarded in a tournament.

>I'm not sure that after a healthy
> dose of cards like Aranthebes, Retribution and Nightmares upon Nightmares
> we still need the GW rule. Because it basically forces people to think
> tables instead of preys, which shifts the game towards a more reactive
>play.

In that they need to get at least two, and preferably three, VP, yes.
But they needed at least two per table before really. Now, of course,
pre-GW, a 5VP sweep and a 1VP grab were as good as two 3VPs (which would
be GWs, in the current system). In the new system, not so.

What this does encourage is consistency.

I would say that the decks people choose to play now seem to be slightly
less willing to take the risk of "What if I get completely creamed on
one table?" And so they provide themselves with more options. Whereas
previously, since on the two tables they did sweep they'd make up for
the one table they got creamed, they'd be happier to take that risk.

Is that a bad thing? Well, it does prevent (in part) Jyhad turning into
rock/paper/scissors. I bring my rock weenie vote deck, you bring your
paper weenie rush deck and accidentally flatten me. Of course, these
decks can still happen and do still happen, but possibly less so?


Here, however, I'm not sure if this is a good thing, a bad thing, or
just a thing. I think there's a lot to be said for encouraging decks
which can do well repeatedly, rather than decks which are spectacular
victors or spectacular flops.


>3. Perhaps VPs could be scaled. I am thinking along the lines of, say,
>making
> the first oust worth an additional VP or something.

This has a number of potential downsides.

First of all, this encourages speed. This is not, in and of itself, a
bad thing. However, the sort of speedy oust that is most easily and
most reliably found is the weenie deck - and the game has steadily
shifted away from gifting the weenie decks that power, for a variety of
reasons. I'm not sure we want to give that power back to the weenie
decks.


Secondly, the "guaranteed 1VP decks" you mention above can fall into
this category. Get 1VP *which is now 2VP* then wall up. 2VP is the
sort of number at which players start thinking "Wow, I have a good base
for a deck here!" even when it's pants - see the intercept/wall decks of
old which *only* get 2VP for ousting the final other player.


Thirdly, I'm not sure that a deck which takes a little time to start
(e.g. to pass a few votes, play a few actions etc.) but which is then
extremely aggressive should have this sort of downside to it. Typical
examples might include an aggressive, forward moving intercept/combat
deck - which takes a little while to get out a decent vampire, an
intercept location/equipment or two, maybe Smiling Jack, maybe Talons of
the Dead on Omaya or somesuch sort of setup - which just needs a little
effort before it can move forward, but then can. Or similarly, a deck
which needs to pass a few votes (title granters, Rumors, etc.) before it
moves forward.

These decks aren't part of the problem, and I'm not sure that action
which discourages them in favour of moving towards "speed oust OR defend
against speed oust" (which an early grab VP rule does) is sensible, as a
result.

--
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/
Anonymous
March 31, 2005 3:18:39 PM

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

Daneel wrote:
> On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 09:19:27 +0100, James Coupe <james@zephyr.org.uk>

> wrote:
>
> > When the GW was invented, there were two problematic situations:
> >
> > - two combat decks agreeing to table-split rather than mutual
> > annihilation (particularly if sat next to each other).
Here,
> > two VPs (for the loser) was very close to three VPs (for
the
> > winner), and better than both getting zero. These days, 2
is
> > better than 0, but 3 and a GW is significantly better.
>
> This is completely unaddressed by the GW rule. The two combat decks
still
> have it in their best interests to split the table. Yes, 3 VP and a
GW
> is more than 2 VP and no GW, but both are more than 0 VP and 0 GW.

It wasn't specifically combat decks that necessitated the change. It
was that it was almost always in everyone's best interest to split the
table. Tables were being split 3/2 or 2/3 too quickly after the rounds
began. As James noted, the "losing side" of that split still get's 2
VPs. Many players would reach the finals on the strength of sitting
down and accepting 3 deals at 2 VPs each.

Essentially we were rewarding 2 VP losses almost as much as we were
rewarding wins and the choice of finalists based on VPs gave incentive
for players to choose to lose.

> I'm somewhat beginning to doubt the necesity of the Game Win rule.

Daneel, were you involved in tournaments pre-GW? Just curious. I don't
imagine very many tournament players from that era would agree with
you.

-Robert
Anonymous
March 31, 2005 3:27:53 PM

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

Frederick Scott wrote:
> "Damnans" <damnansVTES@ono.comNOSPAM> wrote in message
> news:RXT2e.28496$US.2917@news.ono.com...
> > Define "smart players", please ;-)
>
> Well, playing in a finals is a pretty good clue.
>
> >>>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.
> >
> > You are right about that, but that was not what I was talking
about.
> >
> > I was referring to finals where time is wasted.
>
> I guess I don't perceive that "wasting time" is usually the issue
with
> finals timing out. I guess at this point, I'd write our differences
down
> to that.

I think there is significant "wasting time" in many finals. It's also
not so cut-and-dried to assert there are 4 people against the top seed.
The second seed has nearly as much incentive to protect their position
against the third, fourth and fifth seeded players too. Likewise 3 over
4 & 5, and 4 over 5 with diminishing returns.

Finalists are also much more subtle about how they waste time. They are
generally better players to get there, and they know how the time game
is played. Games are 120 minutes. Suppose the average turn takes 2
minutes, 10 minutes around the table. That gives you roughly 12
complete turns of the table. Now suppose the two top seeds draw out
their turns, averaging 3 minutes per turn compared to the others. This
is reasonable considering careful deliberations, extra table talk,
meaningless deal-making, referendum discussions, etc. You're now up to
12 minutes per rotation and down to 10 turns of the table. Granted,
this isn't perfect considering ousts, etc, but one or two players can
have a significant impact on the game in slow, yet "legitimate" ways
and not appear to be stalling.

Jeff
Anonymous
March 31, 2005 6:12:27 PM

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

On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 09:19:27 +0100, James Coupe <james@zephyr.org.uk>
wrote:

> In message <opsof7kknqo6j3lh@news.chello.hu>, Daneel <daniel@eposta.hu>
> writes:
>> 1. The ready availability of numerous counter cards, even general
>> counter
>> cards, pushes bold or highly conditional plays over the line of
>> unfeasibility. Without general interference cards like Direct
>> Intervention,
>> Delaying Tactics and Eagle's Sight we'd possibly see more proactive
>> decks.
>
> Depends a lot on the player. Not everyone thinks "Oh my god, I might
> get cancelled" and shifts into a reactive play.

Yeah, but players may think "Oh my god, I have 6 DIs and 6 DTs in my
deck, I might cancel what I want" and shift into reactive play.

> Indeed, this is one of
> the reasons that some players go focused on specific strategies in the
> extreme - to screw up the (now useless) defence that their prey has
> (e.g. Delaying Tactics vs a combat deck) and to make sure they always
> have the right cards in hand. So, even if you D.I. my rush, I have
> another one. If you D.I. my Grapple, I have another one. And so on.

Well, having another Grapple might not be too significant if we are
talking about Immortal Grapples. DIing the one means you are free
to S:CE. Sometimes that's all you need. Granted, if you can readily
enter combat, you won't mind it that much.

>> 2. Game Wins were invented to give players a better chance by making
>> ultra-
>> aggressive, one-sure-VP decks impractical.
>
> Not really.
>
> When the GW was invented, there were two problematic situations:
>
> - two combat decks agreeing to table-split rather than mutual
> annihilation (particularly if sat next to each other). Here,
> two VPs (for the loser) was very close to three VPs (for the
> winner), and better than both getting zero. These days, 2 is
> better than 0, but 3 and a GW is significantly better.

This is completely unaddressed by the GW rule. The two combat decks still
have it in their best interests to split the table. Yes, 3 VP and a GW
is more than 2 VP and no GW, but both are more than 0 VP and 0 GW.

> - intercept decks, but much less so than the combat deck situation. Sit
> down, wait, wait, wait, wait, oust final prey and get 1 VP for
> last man standing. Gets 2 VP. But never gets any more. But
> the player perceives 2 VP as being a good base to work on,
> rather than looking at the deck more significantly. These days,
> they know they have to get three which often makes them more
> aggressive (and thus in general better for a relatively speedy
> game).

???

Dunno where are you from, but I never really saw the prevalence of
intercept
decks before the GW rule. The fact that getting 3 VPs reliably is enough
to
get the GW is creating a niche for those decks that can get 3 VPs reliably
but have no significant chance to score more.

> One-sure-VP decks were always impractical, pretty much, since across
> three rounds, you'd get 3 VP and lots of other players would be amassing
> 6-8 VPs (two to three each round). Of course, some people would still
> view it as "Cool, a VP!" but that's not quite the same thing - the rules
> were pretty clear that such wouldn't be rewarded in a tournament.

One-sure-VP decks are those that are so aggressive that they are almost
certainly guaranteed at least 1 VP each round, but have drastically
diminishing hopes to achieve significantly more. One-sure-VP decks
probably get about 2 VPs on the average each table. That is 6 VPs and
0 GWs on the average.

Such decks often sacrafice mid-game staying power and end-game tactical
resources for the sake of maximising early ousting power. Meaning, an
average deck will be powerless against them when seated as their prey.
By discouraging these highly aggressive decks, more interaction is
supported as players are encouraged to make a shot at 3 VPs in any game.

>> I'm not sure that after a healthy
>> dose of cards like Aranthebes, Retribution and Nightmares upon
>> Nightmares
>> we still need the GW rule. Because it basically forces people to think
>> tables instead of preys, which shifts the game towards a more reactive
>> play.
>
> In that they need to get at least two, and preferably three, VP, yes.
> But they needed at least two per table before really. Now, of course,

Which is easier to do with a super aggressive deck.

> pre-GW, a 5VP sweep and a 1VP grab were as good as two 3VPs (which would
> be GWs, in the current system). In the new system, not so.

Yeah, that's obvious.

> What this does encourage is consistency.

In a card game where cards are randomly drawn, and seating is determined
randomly. I'm not sure.

> I would say that the decks people choose to play now seem to be slightly
> less willing to take the risk of "What if I get completely creamed on
> one table?" And so they provide themselves with more options. Whereas
> previously, since on the two tables they did sweep they'd make up for
> the one table they got creamed, they'd be happier to take that risk.

If you sweep two tables you are likely standing at 2/10, which is pretty
much enough for even the largest tournament finals.

> Is that a bad thing? Well, it does prevent (in part) Jyhad turning into
> rock/paper/scissors. I bring my rock weenie vote deck, you bring your
> paper weenie rush deck and accidentally flatten me. Of course, these
> decks can still happen and do still happen, but possibly less so?

Well, there is a significant Rock/Paper/Scissors aspect to the game no
matter what you do. But yes, I agree that the game win rule discourages
super-aggressive, one-sure-VP decks.

> Here, however, I'm not sure if this is a good thing, a bad thing, or
> just a thing. I think there's a lot to be said for encouraging decks
> which can do well repeatedly, rather than decks which are spectacular
> victors or spectacular flops.

Yeah, but this is still just a card game. You can jam, you can get the
paper to your rock as your predator (or prey, or both), or you can be
busted by any other unfortunate event. Play skill is important, but so
is chance. Consistency, in that aspect, could be nothing more than just
repetitious good fortune.

>> 3. Perhaps VPs could be scaled. I am thinking along the lines of, say,
>> making
>> the first oust worth an additional VP or something.
>
> This has a number of potential downsides.

Yeah, I know. I don't think this is the way to go; only that I think
there may be a desire in some people to find a way to go. For pondering,
this is as good as any other idea.

> First of all, this encourages speed. This is not, in and of itself, a
> bad thing. However, the sort of speedy oust that is most easily and
> most reliably found is the weenie deck - and the game has steadily
> shifted away from gifting the weenie decks that power, for a variety of
> reasons. I'm not sure we want to give that power back to the weenie
> decks.

Yeah, that's probably true.

> Secondly, the "guaranteed 1VP decks" you mention above can fall into
> this category. Get 1VP *which is now 2VP* then wall up. 2VP is the
> sort of number at which players start thinking "Wow, I have a good base
> for a deck here!" even when it's pants - see the intercept/wall decks of
> old which *only* get 2VP for ousting the final other player.

Okay, I'm not sure where you are getting at here. Unless this is just a
restatement of your first point. Because if a deck can (under the
current system) score the first VP and than be the last man standing, he
or she already has the GW.

> Thirdly, I'm not sure that a deck which takes a little time to start
> (e.g. to pass a few votes, play a few actions etc.) but which is then
> extremely aggressive should have this sort of downside to it. Typical
> examples might include an aggressive, forward moving intercept/combat
> deck - which takes a little while to get out a decent vampire, an
> intercept location/equipment or two, maybe Smiling Jack, maybe Talons of
> the Dead on Omaya or somesuch sort of setup - which just needs a little
> effort before it can move forward, but then can. Or similarly, a deck
> which needs to pass a few votes (title granters, Rumors, etc.) before it
> moves forward.

I don't really see the point. Almost every deck intends to apply forward
pressure. This sounds like just another restatement of your point #1.
Giving more power to weenies takes away from every other deck type, even
those that should be strengthened, not weakened.

> These decks aren't part of the problem, and I'm not sure that action
> which discourages them in favour of moving towards "speed oust OR defend
> against speed oust" (which an early grab VP rule does) is sensible, as a
> result.

But the other problem is that we are having a time limit. I see tables
timing out as a big problem. I see the prevalence of reactive play as a
poor alternative to the perceived mindlessness of weenie computer hacking
(or somesuch). The balance should, IMHO, be found and encouraged, with
neither super-aggressive, nor highly reactive plays being rewarded too
much.

I'm somewhat beginning to doubt the necesity of the Game Win rule.

--
Bye,

Daneel
Anonymous
March 31, 2005 7:14:40 PM

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

<jeffkuta@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:1112297273.045398.86060@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> Frederick Scott wrote:
>> "Damnans" <damnansVTES@ono.comNOSPAM> wrote in message
>> news:RXT2e.28496$US.2917@news.ono.com...
>> > Define "smart players", please ;-)
>>
>> Well, playing in a finals is a pretty good clue.
>>
>> >>>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.
>> >
>> > You are right about that, but that was not what I was talking
>> > about.
>> >
>> > I was referring to finals where time is wasted.
>>
>> I guess I don't perceive that "wasting time" is usually the issue
>> with finals timing out. I guess at this point, I'd write our differences
>> down to that.
>
> I think there is significant "wasting time" in many finals.
....
> Finalists are also much more subtle about how they waste time. They are
> generally better players to get there, and they know how the time game
> is played. Games are 120 minutes. Suppose the average turn takes 2
> minutes, 10 minutes around the table. That gives you roughly 12
> complete turns of the table. Now suppose the two top seeds draw out
> their turns, averaging 3 minutes per turn compared to the others. This
> is reasonable considering careful deliberations, extra table talk,
> meaningless deal-making, referendum discussions, etc. You're now up to
> 12 minutes per rotation and down to 10 turns of the table. Granted,
> this isn't perfect considering ousts, etc, but one or two players can
> have a significant impact on the game in slow, yet "legitimate" ways
> and not appear to be stalling.

OK, I've seen that stuff, too. In this case, I think I'm being
semantically whip-sawed between alterntative definitions of "wasting
time". If there's a point to it - even if that point doesn't advance the
cause of maximizing the chances of having the game end before time - then
it's not bad play, IMHO. At least, not from the perspective of the
individual player's best interests. I'm not sure if I just disagree with
Damnans about this point or if he has some other type of play or situation
he's thinking of when he talks about "wasting time".

Fred
Anonymous
March 31, 2005 8:45:32 PM

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".

For me, "wasting time" means taking more time than usual to do
your turn (not counting the fact that, in a final, players tend
to take longer to think about their moves), either by talking too
much about irrelevant things, or by reiterating their points
ad nauseam in endless discussions (once they are clear to everyone
else), or by taking a century to think of a futile or insignificant
move, or by checking your hand over and over again to see of you
can find a given card it is not actually there, etc.

> 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.

Define "smart players", please ;-)

>>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.

You are right about that, but that was not what I was talking about.

I was referring to finals where time is wasted.

>>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?

Players do not take that long to think about their moves in the
preliminary rounds as they do in the final (which is understandable),
but wasting time is bad play anyway, as long as it is not considered
by a judge as stalling.

And, in my experience, some "smart players" waste time during final
rounds.

--
Damnans

http://www.almadrava.net/damnans
http://www.vtes.net
http://es.groups.yahoo.com/group/vteshispania/
Anonymous
March 31, 2005 8:45:33 PM

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

"Damnans" <damnansVTES@ono.comNOSPAM> wrote in message
news:RXT2e.28496$US.2917@news.ono.com...
> Define "smart players", please ;-)

Well, playing in a finals is a pretty good clue.

>>>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.
>
> You are right about that, but that was not what I was talking about.
>
> I was referring to finals where time is wasted.

I guess I don't perceive that "wasting time" is usually the issue with
finals timing out. I guess at this point, I'd write our differences down
to that.

Fred
Anonymous
April 1, 2005 12:31:42 AM

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

In message <opsoh9k7apo6j3lh@news.chello.hu>, Daneel <daniel@eposta.hu>
writes:
>On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 09:19:27 +0100, James Coupe <james@zephyr.org.uk>
>wrote:
>> Depends a lot on the player. Not everyone thinks "Oh my god, I might
>> get cancelled" and shifts into a reactive play.
>
>Yeah, but players may think "Oh my god, I have 6 DIs and 6 DTs in my
> deck, I might cancel what I want" and shift into reactive play.

That a player has 6 DIs and 6 DTs (or whatever similar cards - Sudden
Reversals are an obvious other one) doesn't make the deck reactive, any
more than including Wakes and Bleed Bounce makes the deck "reactive".

Including flexible defence is good play, in many, many decks. (Insert
standard "Obviously, some decks..." to taste.) That doesn't make the
deck reactive - it's just acknowledging that many decks need some
staying power against an aggressive predator, a wily prey or whatever.

If throwing down D.I. stops my prey playing a Govern the Unaligned to
gain pool, that's surely not "reactive" in any meaningful sense. It's
simply stopping him undoing the work I've done. If throwing down
Delaying Tactics stops my predator Banishing my copy of Tariq, that's
good sense and a sensible precaution, surely? My deck is still doing
its thing, it's just standing up to problems. Similarly, throwing a
Sudden Reversal to stop a Minion Tap - good sense.

And so on, and so on, and so on. There are lots of flexible defensive
cards that many highly active decks can and do pack.


>> When the GW was invented, there were two problematic situations:
>>
>> - two combat decks agreeing to table-split rather than mutual
>> annihilation (particularly if sat next to each other). Here,
>> two VPs (for the loser) was very close to three VPs (for the
>> winner), and better than both getting zero. These days, 2 is
>> better than 0, but 3 and a GW is significantly better.
>
>This is completely unaddressed by the GW rule. The two combat decks still
> have it in their best interests to split the table. Yes, 3 VP and a GW
> is more than 2 VP and no GW, but both are more than 0 VP and 0 GW.

Not true. Certainly not true if the rapid decline of cries of despair
about this happening is anything to go by.

Yes, 2VP is better than 0VP. Yes, there is still some incentive to do
this.

What you are missing is that in a 3VP vs 2VP situation, the difference
is marginal. 1VP. Yes, that could be the difference between a final
place and no final place. However, it's not a *huge* difference. You
could be getting up to 15 VP, so 1 isn't a big difference.

This means that either deck is likely to take the deal, and roll over if
it decides to go through with the deal. And either deck can stop and
think "Oh, go on then, it's only 1 VP difference."

When there are only three GW to be had (for you), the loss of one is
huge. Many players of such decks are *much* less inclined to take this
deal, because they need the GW, not the VP.

>Dunno where are you from, but I never really saw the prevalence of
>intercept
> decks before the GW rule. The fact that getting 3 VPs reliably is
>enough to
> get the GW is creating a niche for those decks that can get 3 VPs reliably
> but have no significant chance to score more.

I wasn't talking about the "prevalence of intercept decks". I was
talking about the deck style, and the problem it had, and how the GW
rule was perceived as addressing this.

However, it would be worth bearing in my that "Dunno where you are from"
is rarely a useful comment when bearing in mind that different groups do
different things at different times for different reasons. Lots of
people never saw RtoI being abused, but that was addressed in 7/7, for
instance.


>> One-sure-VP decks were always impractical, pretty much, since across
>> three rounds, you'd get 3 VP and lots of other players would be amassing
>> 6-8 VPs (two to three each round). Of course, some people would still
>> view it as "Cool, a VP!" but that's not quite the same thing - the rules
>> were pretty clear that such wouldn't be rewarded in a tournament.
>
>One-sure-VP decks are those that are so aggressive that they are almost
> certainly guaranteed at least 1 VP each round, but have drastically
> diminishing hopes to achieve significantly more. One-sure-VP decks
> probably get about 2 VPs on the average each table. That is 6 VPs and
> 0 GWs on the average.

If it's 2VP, that doesn't strike me as "drastically diminishing".

>> In that they need to get at least two, and preferably three, VP, yes.
>> But they needed at least two per table before really. Now, of course,
>
>Which is easier to do with a super aggressive deck.

In part. In any reasonably sized tournament, "at least" 2VP isn't true,
but not that helpful - you needed to go for three, four or sweeps,
though (say) 2, 4, 5 could easily be a good result.

In smaller tournaments, of course, those 2VP were 2VP out of 8 or 10
available that round, so it could work out better.

If you could go beyond 2VP to get the 3s, 4s and 5s you really needed,
then the same deck could do just as well now, since the 2s it got could
(at least in theory) be a GW - though you wouldn't rely on it - and the
3s, 4s and 5s it got would clearly be a GW.


>> What this does encourage is consistency.
>
>In a card game where cards are randomly drawn, and seating is determined
> randomly. I'm not sure.

That's why some people spend so much time dealing with probabilities, or
pseudo-probability:

- the White Wolf forums have a thread on possible maths for "Master Jam"
right now

- "Happy Families" is a whole theory of deck building based around
having the probabilities of cards in a reasonable ratio, so that
you don't have three Potence-endowed vampires and a clutch of
unusable cards

- a LOT of arguments have been had over exactly how to "guarantee" a
vampire without screwing your deck. In the right decks, I've
seen people head for three, four or five of the same vampire to
get the right balance of crypt vampires. This isn't just about
(say) multi-rush - though that's certainly a powerful deck type
that benefits from this - but also, say, heavy master decks
needing copies of Anson, back in the day.

- a number of the arguments in favour of short-chain combat revolve
around requiring far fewer cards in hand at once, or just out of
hand. If you only need two cards at once (and have some choice
there), that's a lot more reliable than 5 cards out of 8 or 9.

- ditto, search for threads with Derek Ray doing the maths for High
Ground and Collapse the Arches.

Lots of people put a LOT of effort into fighting probability.

Yes, your deck can still come out in alphabetical order. That doesn't
mean people make it easy.



>> I would say that the decks people choose to play now seem to be slightly
>> less willing to take the risk of "What if I get completely creamed on
>> one table?" And so they provide themselves with more options. Whereas
>> previously, since on the two tables they did sweep they'd make up for
>> the one table they got creamed, they'd be happier to take that risk.
>
>If you sweep two tables you are likely standing at 2/10, which is pretty
> much enough for even the largest tournament finals.

Hmmm? That can depend a lot. In a fairly large tournament, you can
find quite a few people with 3 VPs, and if you didn't get any VPs when
you exploded, you can find yourself edged out by someone with a deck
that got (say) 2 GW with a score of 4, 4, 2 since they'll have better
tournament points due to coming at least second on the 2 VP table
(possibly joint first).

And if you stop to wonder just how big the tournament is, if you are
going for 10 players, you may well see that counter again, and suddenly
find yourself in a very different situation.

In situations like that, decks that either do very well or very badly
start looking less attractive.


>> Is that a bad thing? Well, it does prevent (in part) Jyhad turning into
>> rock/paper/scissors. I bring my rock weenie vote deck, you bring your
>> paper weenie rush deck and accidentally flatten me. Of course, these
>> decks can still happen and do still happen, but possibly less so?
>
>Well, there is a significant Rock/Paper/Scissors aspect to the game no
> matter what you do. But yes, I agree that the game win rule discourages
> super-aggressive, one-sure-VP decks.

The R/P/S can be mitigated an awful, awful lot, whilst still being an
active deck. Giving yourself the right tools for survival can make a
huge amount of difference. Making the right deals can make a huge
amount of difference.

Having a deck which *survives* these days, and is aggressive when it can
be, can be quite useful these days. Witness the rise of combat that
many people are experiencing. Winning then is not about being
"reactive", just about survival - and then having your Fames, or
Computer Hackings, or whatever in the gaps.


>> Here, however, I'm not sure if this is a good thing, a bad thing, or
>> just a thing. I think there's a lot to be said for encouraging decks
>> which can do well repeatedly, rather than decks which are spectacular
>> victors or spectacular flops.
>
>Yeah, but this is still just a card game. You can jam, you can get the
> paper to your rock as your predator (or prey, or both), or you can be
> busted by any other unfortunate event. Play skill is important, but so
> is chance. Consistency, in that aspect, could be nothing more than just
> repetitious good fortune.

First of all, this is the same whether you have GW or no GW. It's a
non-issue as far as that's concerned.

And, yes, there's chance. But people build decks which mitigate that in
all manner of ways. If I am 10% more likely to get a "good" crypt than
you, that's good for me. Sure, probability says that you might get it
all three rounds and I might not. But people play the odds as they see
fit.

Additionally, there are some decks which are particularly fragile and
require good hand cycling and "good luck" a lot more than other decks -
that is simple probability. However, when they work, they can work
well. When they fail, they can fail extremely badly. Yer pays yer
money, yer takes yer choice.


>> Secondly, the "guaranteed 1VP decks" you mention above can fall into
>> this category. Get 1VP *which is now 2VP* then wall up. 2VP is the
>> sort of number at which players start thinking "Wow, I have a good base
>> for a deck here!" even when it's pants - see the intercept/wall decks of
>> old which *only* get 2VP for ousting the final other player.
>
>Okay, I'm not sure where you are getting at here. Unless this is just a
> restatement of your first point. Because if a deck can (under the
> current system) score the first VP and than be the last man standing, he
> or she already has the GW.

It was explained further up the post. The bit you went "????" at.

Lots of decks and players see 2VP as a good result - even when it means
they don't get any further VP.

Providing incentives for speed decks which lack longevity (because that
sort of thing jams their hand on the speed oust!) repeats that problem.


>> Thirdly, I'm not sure that a deck which takes a little time to start
>> (e.g. to pass a few votes, play a few actions etc.) but which is then
>> extremely aggressive should have this sort of downside to it. Typical
>> examples might include an aggressive, forward moving intercept/combat
>> deck - which takes a little while to get out a decent vampire, an
>> intercept location/equipment or two, maybe Smiling Jack, maybe Talons of
>> the Dead on Omaya or somesuch sort of setup - which just needs a little
>> effort before it can move forward, but then can. Or similarly, a deck
>> which needs to pass a few votes (title granters, Rumors, etc.) before it
>> moves forward.
>
>I don't really see the point. Almost every deck intends to apply forward
> pressure. This sounds like just another restatement of your point #1.
> Giving more power to weenies takes away from every other deck type, even
> those that should be strengthened, not weakened.

I'm talking about providing disincentives to many potentially useful
deck-styles which are not the problem.

Perhaps exploring the full implications for many deck-styles is
"restatement of the point" - that the original proposition is flawed.

For me, however, it's providing an informed basis for an opinion and a
number of inter-related points which would need to be addressed.


>> These decks aren't part of the problem, and I'm not sure that action
>> which discourages them in favour of moving towards "speed oust OR defend
>> against speed oust" (which an early grab VP rule does) is sensible, as a
>> result.
>
>But the other problem is that we are having a time limit.

You don't need to have one - certainly not in the finals.

Of course, these can be limited by practical considerations, but if you
don't want a time limit, don't have one. The finals can have a
different time limit, and setting it at (for all practical purposes)
untimed is quite possible.

This is only a problem as much as "people playing for the second place
prizes" is a problem - it's one that doesn't need any changes to the
rules or the game. As can be seen from the newsgroup, many people have
creative options around this - having the final in a different place
and/or different time, for instance, with secret decklists.


>I see tables
> timing out as a big problem. I see the prevalence of reactive play as a
> poor alternative to the perceived mindlessness of weenie computer hacking
> (or somesuch). The balance should, IMHO, be found and encouraged, with
> neither super-aggressive, nor highly reactive plays being rewarded too
>much.

Highly reactive plays are hardly rewarded too much as it is. Unless a
deck can repeatedly apply forward pressure, it can't win - the GW rule
tells it that. Half a VP won't let it win.

However, if by highly reactive play you mean things like 6 DIs and 6 DT,
that's hardly an issue. A deck being aware of its flaws and providing
flexible defence to suit those flaws is something that absolutely should
be in the game, or you end up with multi-player solitaire, just waiting
until the first person does it right.

--
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/
Anonymous
April 1, 2005 12:31:43 AM

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

"James Coupe" <james@zephyr.org.uk> wrote in message
news:mIzzCdteAFTCFw$z@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk...
> Including flexible defence is good play, in many, many decks. (Insert
> standard "Obviously, some decks..." to taste.) That doesn't make the
> deck reactive - it's just acknowledging that many decks need some
> staying power against an aggressive predator, a wily prey or whatever.

Er, including a flexible defense makes the deck reactive. Unless you
planned not to use it??? (Sorry, I just can't imagine how you're reasoning
that a flexible defense is not reactive in nature.)

It may indeed ALSO acknowledge those other things and be a good,
intelligent thing to do given the state of the game and all. In fact,
it's the juxtaposition of those two points that I suspect causes long,
time-outy finals frequently.

> Highly reactive plays are hardly rewarded too much as it is. Unless a
> deck can repeatedly apply forward pressure, it can't win - the GW rule
> tells it that. Half a VP won't let it win.

No, but the problem at the moment is that finals players frequently seem
unwilling to apply a lot of forward pressure for fear of leaving their
predators an opening to oust them. 1/2 VP in the finals won't move you
up the ladder any but you don't lose ground, either. In too many finals,
all five of the players seem to be waiting for one of their opponents to
push play and don't feel comfortable doing it themselves. Under these
circumstances, I have to disagree with you: highly reactive play _is_
rewarded too highly - as opposed to proactive play.

Fred
Anonymous
April 1, 2005 3:14:08 AM

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

On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 09:19:27 +0100, James Coupe <james@zephyr.org.uk>
scrawled:

>another one. If you D.I. my Grapple, I have another one. And so on.

....to play next round...


salem
http://www.users.tpg.com.au/adsltqna/VtES/index.htm
(replace "hotmail" with "yahoo" to email)
Anonymous
April 1, 2005 3:16:02 AM

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

In message <Y_Z2e.13841$TZ.11731@okepread06>, Frederick Scott
<nospam@no.spam.dot.com> writes:
>"James Coupe" <james@zephyr.org.uk> wrote in message
>news:mIzzCdteAFTCFw$z@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk...
>> Including flexible defence is good play, in many, many decks. (Insert
>> standard "Obviously, some decks..." to taste.) That doesn't make the
>> deck reactive - it's just acknowledging that many decks need some
>> staying power against an aggressive predator, a wily prey or whatever.
>
>Er, including a flexible defense makes the deck reactive. Unless you
>planned not to use it??? (Sorry, I just can't imagine how you're reasoning
>that a flexible defense is not reactive in nature.)

Then almost all decks are reactive and the conversation about proactive
and reactive is highly pointless, if any pro-active deck that also
includes 12 defensive cards is now a reactive deck. (Sorry, I just
can't imagine how you're reasoning that a pro-active deck, with some
flexible defence as well, is reactive in nature.)

Are pro-active decks now only decks that include no defence? That's
really quite... extreme. Sufficiently extreme to not be useful. A
Malky stealth-bleed deck that includes some DT and DI is now not the
pro-active deck that reality shows it to be? Errr...


If the problem is "reactive decks" and the definition of "reactive
decks" is "practically any deck in the game", you probably haven't
thought about your definition hard enough.

--
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/
Anonymous
April 1, 2005 3:16:03 AM

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

"James Coupe" <james@zephyr.org.uk> wrote in message news:jPsCzi4iaHTCFwfs@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk...
> In message <Y_Z2e.13841$TZ.11731@okepread06>, Frederick Scott
>>Er, including a flexible defense makes the deck reactive. Unless you
>>planned not to use it??? (Sorry, I just can't imagine how you're reasoning
>>that a flexible defense is not reactive in nature.)
>
> Then almost all decks are reactive and the conversation about proactive
> and reactive is highly pointless,

Nonsense. It may be true that most all current viable tournament decks have
some flexible defense, but there's still a such thing as degree. Some decks
have more, some have less. Thus, conversation about same is far from "highly
pointless".

And flexible defense is clearly reactive in nature.

> Are pro-active decks now only decks that include no defence? That's
> really quite... extreme.

They could have *less* defense.

> If the problem is "reactive decks" and the definition of "reactive
> decks" is "practically any deck in the game", you probably haven't
> thought about your definition hard enough.

No - the problem is that you're being too inflexible about how you want
to look at the issue. If you reduce all decks to, "Has flexible defense/
doesn't have *ANY* flexible defense.", then sure: it becomes pointless to
complain about the fact that most all good tournament decks have lots of
flexible defense and are hence mostly reactive decks. The only thing you
could do to fix the problem is to go to the other extreme, which would be
bad also.

Fortunately, reality doesn't reduce simply to those two extremes. There
is hope.

Fred
Anonymous
April 1, 2005 3:56:15 AM

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

In message <rO_2e.13848$TZ.937@okepread06>, Frederick Scott
<nospam@no.spam.dot.com> writes:
>> Are pro-active decks now only decks that include no defence? That's
>> really quite... extreme.
>
>They could have *less* defense.

Fred, if 12 flexible defensive cards make a pro-active deck into a
reactive deck, put down the crack pipe and step away from the computer.

--
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/
Anonymous
April 1, 2005 3:56:16 AM

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

"James Coupe" <james@zephyr.org.uk> wrote in message
news:p Qn5E47PAITCFwrJ@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk...
> In message <rO_2e.13848$TZ.937@okepread06>, Frederick Scott
> <nospam@no.spam.dot.com> writes:
>>> Are pro-active decks now only decks that include no defence? That's
>>> really quite... extreme.
>>
>>They could have *less* defense.
>
> Fred, if 12 flexible defensive cards make a pro-active deck into a
> reactive deck, put down the crack pipe and step away from the computer.

Of course 12 flexible defensive cards make a deck *MORE* reactive than it
was without then. If you don't think so, put down the crack pipe you're
smoking.

Trying to make points by pigeon-holing definions of entire decks into
"reactive" and (presumedly) "not reactive" will get you nowhere.

Fred
Anonymous
April 1, 2005 1:57:45 PM

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

In message <vz%2e.13853$TZ.10934@okepread06>, Frederick Scott
<nospam@no.spam.dot.com> writes:
>Of course 12 flexible defensive cards make a deck *MORE* reactive than it
>was without then. If you don't think so, put down the crack pipe you're
>smoking.

Certainly.

That is now, however, quite a different position from the one you were
espousing about pro-active decks being the ones with less defence.

Certainly, any measure of defence (that isn't taking out the resources
to start with, a la weenie rush and not that many other archetypes) is
"reactive" in nature. But that's a highly foolish basis on which to
define "reactive". Remember, you claimed:

>> Are pro-active decks now only decks that include no defence? That's
>> really quite... extreme.
>
>They could have *less* defense.

But a deck with, say, 3 DIs and 3 DTs is "*MORE* reactive" than the deck
without. And that has less defence, and by your own words is a pro-
active deck. But it has "*MORE* reactive" cards, and is therefore
reactive, by the same logic you're exhibiting above.

Why is 6 DIs and 6 DTs "reactive" but 5 DIs and 6 DTs (that would be
"*less* defense") not reactive? You weren't talking about more reactive
or less reactive - because that is obvious to even a five minute newbie
- you were talking about the criteria for a deck to be "pro-active".
That's what I asked, that's what your answer was.

Now you are saying that 12 cards makes it simply "*MORE* reactive" -
that's fine as it's not crack-induced foolishness. Your previous claim,
however, is.


Having the ability to defend yourself doesn't stop your pro-active deck
being pro-active any more than having a scattering of bleed cards (of
which even fewer are seen and played during a game) would stop a naive
intercept wall being reactive.

--
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/
Anonymous
April 1, 2005 6:12:21 PM

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

Daneel wrote:
> On 31 Mar 2005 11:18:39 -0800, Robert Goudie <robertg@vtesinla.org>
wrote:
>
> > It wasn't specifically combat decks that necessitated the change.
It
> > was that it was almost always in everyone's best interest to split
the
> > table. Tables were being split 3/2 or 2/3 too quickly after the
rounds
> > began. As James noted, the "losing side" of that split still get's
2
> > VPs. Many players would reach the finals on the strength of
sitting
> > down and accepting 3 deals at 2 VPs each.
> >
> > Essentially we were rewarding 2 VP losses almost as much as we were
> > rewarding wins and the choice of finalists based on VPs gave
incentive
> > for players to choose to lose.
>
> I agree with this. Introducing the GW rule is a good alternative to
> posting a judge beside every table who can watch whether players
> play fair. But doing so alters the game in other ways as well.

Rather than have a tournament system that rewards VPs but requires GWs
in the rules, we chose to reward what we required--GWs. Whenever you
ask players to do something contrary to what you are rewarding, you are
asking for trouble---whether or not there's a judge at the table.

> >> I'm somewhat beginning to doubt the necesity of the Game Win rule.
> >
> > Daneel, were you involved in tournaments pre-GW? Just curious. I
don't
> > imagine very many tournament players from that era would agree with
> > you.
>
> Yeah, though we did not see too much sanctioning. Most early
tournaments
> I attended were using 4CL, for example, like the DCI tournaments.

You mean the Magic tournament rules, right? I ask because the DCI also
sanctioned V:TES tournaments (but didn't have a 4CL).

> Interesting to note, I actually started to notice splits after the
GW
> rule got introduced (as the meth aspiring for 3 VP could now "throw
> away" 2 VPs, because those VPs were not needed to gain the GW).
Under
> the GW rule most folks will agree to a winning split, meaning you
can
> usually get 2 VP off a table if you lay down. Worth much less than
the
> GW, true, but does wonders if you already have a GW and the break
point
> is governed by VPs.

The breakpoint is first governed by GWs. So you are still better off
seeking another GW if possible. Only when the GW is not possible will
someone consider a deal to grab 2 VPs. Under the old system, accepting
2 VPs was much more valuable.

Splits happen far less frequently now. The tournament environment is
much improved.

-Robert
Anonymous
April 1, 2005 7:31:36 PM

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

"James Coupe" <james@zephyr.org.uk> wrote in message
news:bmmcZ4BJ0QTCFwq$@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk...
> In message <vz%2e.13853$TZ.10934@okepread06>, Frederick Scott
> <nospam@no.spam.dot.com> writes:
>>Of course 12 flexible defensive cards make a deck *MORE* reactive than it
>>was without then. If you don't think so, put down the crack pipe you're
>>smoking.
>
> Certainly.
>
> That is now, however, quite a different position from the one you were
> espousing about pro-active decks being the ones with less defence.

Look, we just got started in this little sub-thread because you claimed
"flexible defense isn't reactive". That's wrong. Of course, flexible
defense is reactive - to whatever extent you make use of it. More flexible
defense is more reactive than less flexible defense.

> Certainly, any measure of defence (that isn't taking out the resources
> to start with, a la weenie rush and not that many other archetypes) is
> "reactive" in nature. But that's a highly foolish basis on which to
> define "reactive".

See, we keep getting into trouble here because you keep getting back into
wanting to define "reactive" as if it weren't a partitive quality. You
keep doing it, I keep correcting you, you don't challenge the corrections
but now you return to the same practice.

> Remember, you claimed:
>
>>> Are pro-active decks now only decks that include no defence? That's
>>> really quite... extreme.
>>
>>They could have *less* defense.
>
> But a deck with, say, 3 DIs and 3 DTs is "*MORE* reactive" than the deck
> without. And that has less defence, and by your own words is a pro-
> active deck. But it has "*MORE* reactive" cards, and is therefore
> reactive, by the same logic you're exhibiting above.

Sure. And this is correct. It is more reactive - which you seem to admit.
So I'm confused what your issue is.

> Why is 6 DIs and 6 DTs "reactive" but 5 DIs and 6 DTs (that would be
> "*less* defense") not reactive?

Because I'm not bothing to define "reactive" and "not reactive". The
point is around "more reactive" and "less reactive".

> You weren't talking about more reactive
> or less reactive - because that is obvious to even a five minute newbie
> - you were talking about the criteria for a deck to be "pro-active".

You're apparently taking some quote out of context. I made reference to
"pro-active" elsewhere in the thread, but the intent was not to nail down
a single definition of when a deck is "pro-active" and when it was
"reactive". There's no need for discrete definitions like that in order
to understand my point.

> That's what I asked, that's what your answer was.

I'm confused what you're claiming here or what 'answer' you're making
reference to. I suspect it would be more useful to stick to just
clarifying positions rather than making accusations about 'changing
positions' or whatever you think I did.

To clarify: I disagree with your statement back up aways in the thread
that: "Including flexible defence is good play, in many, many decks....
That doesn't make the deck reactive..." It _does_ make the deck _more_
reactive than it would otherwise have been. And talk of discrete
definitions of "reactive" and "not reactive" (or pro-active) is irrelevent
and only serves to obfuscate the issue.

> Having the ability to defend yourself doesn't stop your pro-active deck
> being pro-active any more than having a scattering of bleed cards (of
> which even fewer are seen and played during a game) would stop a naive
> intercept wall being reactive.

Having the ability to defend yourself will make a pro-active deck LESS
"pro-active" than it was without such ability (assuming a sane substitution
for the cards otherwise invested in defense). Again, your insistence on a
discrete definition of "pro-active" only serves to obscure the issue I
was raising elsewhere. It doesn't matter what you or I define as "pro-
active" or "reactive" as an overall discrete label for a given deck. What
matters is, good players choose to make ENOUGH use of reactive elements
in their decks overall that the result frequently is a stalemated
tournament final. Call them what you what you will, it doesn't matter -
that is certainly engaging in semantics.

Fred
Anonymous
April 1, 2005 11:43:06 PM

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

On 31 Mar 2005 11:18:39 -0800, Robert Goudie <robertg@vtesinla.org> wrote:

> It wasn't specifically combat decks that necessitated the change. It
> was that it was almost always in everyone's best interest to split the
> table. Tables were being split 3/2 or 2/3 too quickly after the rounds
> began. As James noted, the "losing side" of that split still get's 2
> VPs. Many players would reach the finals on the strength of sitting
> down and accepting 3 deals at 2 VPs each.
>
> Essentially we were rewarding 2 VP losses almost as much as we were
> rewarding wins and the choice of finalists based on VPs gave incentive
> for players to choose to lose.

I agree with this. Introducing the GW rule is a good alternative to
posting a judge beside every table who can watch whether players
play fair. But doing so alters the game in other ways as well.

>> I'm somewhat beginning to doubt the necesity of the Game Win rule.
>
> Daneel, were you involved in tournaments pre-GW? Just curious. I don't
> imagine very many tournament players from that era would agree with
> you.

Yeah, though we did not see too much sanctioning. Most early tournaments
I attended were using 4CL, for example, like the DCI tournaments.
Interesting to note, I actually started to notice splits after the GW
rule got introduced (as the meth aspiring for 3 VP could now "throw
away" 2 VPs, because those VPs were not needed to gain the GW). Under
the GW rule most folks will agree to a winning split, meaning you can
usually get 2 VP off a table if you lay down. Worth much less than the
GW, true, but does wonders if you already have a GW and the break point
is governed by VPs.

--
Bye,

Daneel
Anonymous
April 2, 2005 1:42:12 AM

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

On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 20:31:42 +0100, James Coupe <james@zephyr.org.uk>
wrote:

> In message <opsoh9k7apo6j3lh@news.chello.hu>, Daneel <daniel@eposta.hu>
> writes:
>> On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 09:19:27 +0100, James Coupe <james@zephyr.org.uk>
>> wrote:
>>> Depends a lot on the player. Not everyone thinks "Oh my god, I might
>>> get cancelled" and shifts into a reactive play.
>>
>> Yeah, but players may think "Oh my god, I have 6 DIs and 6 DTs in my
>> deck, I might cancel what I want" and shift into reactive play.
>
> That a player has 6 DIs and 6 DTs (or whatever similar cards - Sudden
> Reversals are an obvious other one) doesn't make the deck reactive, any
> more than including Wakes and Bleed Bounce makes the deck "reactive".

Wow, talk about escalating argument. After having read a couple posts on
this from you and Fred, I see that you might be a bit off track here.

The question is not whether including a total of 12 denial cards in a
general deck necessarily makes that deck reactive. Those 12 slots are
reactive slots, but you might have another 78 proactive slots beside
them to make the deck more proactive than reactive.

The question is rather different. It is whether the abundance of
available denial tech contributes to reactive play being feasible.
Also, another question might be whether the Game Win rule contributes
to reactive play being desirable. These questions are IMHO both valid
(and can only be answered in the affirmative).

>> This is completely unaddressed by the GW rule. The two combat decks
>> still
>> have it in their best interests to split the table. Yes, 3 VP and a GW
>> is more than 2 VP and no GW, but both are more than 0 VP and 0 GW.
>
> Not true. Certainly not true if the rapid decline of cries of despair
> about this happening is anything to go by.

Not really an argument, mind you. I'm certainly oblivious to such an
existing or perceived decline. But even if such a decline would indeed
exist, it would still not be any more indicative than the formerly
undeclined cries of despair - probably even less so. Meaning very little.

> Yes, 2VP is better than 0VP. Yes, there is still some incentive to do
> this.
>
> What you are missing is that in a 3VP vs 2VP situation, the difference
> is marginal. 1VP. Yes, that could be the difference between a final
> place and no final place. However, it's not a *huge* difference. You
> could be getting up to 15 VP, so 1 isn't a big difference.
>
> This means that either deck is likely to take the deal, and roll over if
> it decides to go through with the deal. And either deck can stop and
> think "Oh, go on then, it's only 1 VP difference."
>
> When there are only three GW to be had (for you), the loss of one is
> huge. Many players of such decks are *much* less inclined to take this
> deal, because they need the GW, not the VP.

I kind of think we drifted away from the two combat decks issue. Rest is
probably governed by fair play, though.

>> One-sure-VP decks are those that are so aggressive that they are almost
>> certainly guaranteed at least 1 VP each round, but have drastically
>> diminishing hopes to achieve significantly more. One-sure-VP decks
>> probably get about 2 VPs on the average each table. That is 6 VPs and
>> 0 GWs on the average.
>
> If it's 2VP, that doesn't strike me as "drastically diminishing".

Hypothetical example:

Regular deck vs. hyper-aggressive deck:
0 VP: 25% vs. 0%
1 VP: 15% vs. 50%
2 VP: 15% vs. 20%
3 VP: 30% vs. 15%
4 VP: 10% vs. 10%
5 VP: 5% vs. 5%

Now these are admittedly just arbitrary numbers. The idea is that
Deck A is a slower, more toolboxy deck that builds up, and as such
has a good chance to get the GW if it gets rolling. Deck B is very
aggressive, and concentrates on the short term gain. While both
decks do 2 VPs on the average (yeah, I know, they are very good
decks), Deck A has 45% to score a GW, while Deck B only has 30%.
If we assume that you need 2 GWs to make the finals, and for
simplicity's sake assume you need 3 VPs for a GW, we can see that
Deck A can deliver that 2 GW almost twice as likely as Deck B can
(42.525 vs. 21.6).

Whereas, the amount of VPs attained is equal on the average.

>>> In that they need to get at least two, and preferably three, VP, yes.
>>> But they needed at least two per table before really. Now, of course,
>>
>> Which is easier to do with a super aggressive deck.
>
> In part. In any reasonably sized tournament, "at least" 2VP isn't true,
> but not that helpful - you needed to go for three, four or sweeps,
> though (say) 2, 4, 5 could easily be a good result.

I thought we were primarily arguing distribution here. A deck that gets
3+ VPs on the average is probably going to be better than another deck
that gets 2 VPs on the average.

> In smaller tournaments, of course, those 2VP were 2VP out of 8 or 10
> available that round, so it could work out better.
>
> If you could go beyond 2VP to get the 3s, 4s and 5s you really needed,
> then the same deck could do just as well now, since the 2s it got could
> (at least in theory) be a GW - though you wouldn't rely on it - and the
> 3s, 4s and 5s it got would clearly be a GW.

You always have a slim chance to take the table or sweep. Being
super-aggreassive takes away from your prospects at doing so,
while almost guaranteeing 1 or 2 VP. Of course, super-aggressive
is an undefined concept (but I think a 1-cap computer hacking
deck is a pretty good starting point to visualize it).

>>> What this does encourage is consistency.
>>
>> In a card game where cards are randomly drawn, and seating is determined
>> randomly. I'm not sure.
>
> That's why some people spend so much time dealing with probabilities, or
> pseudo-probability:
>
> - the White Wolf forums have a thread on possible maths for "Master Jam"
> right now
>
> - "Happy Families" is a whole theory of deck building based around
> having the probabilities of cards in a reasonable ratio, so that
> you don't have three Potence-endowed vampires and a clutch of
> unusable cards
>
> - a LOT of arguments have been had over exactly how to "guarantee" a
> vampire without screwing your deck. In the right decks, I've
> seen people head for three, four or five of the same vampire to
> get the right balance of crypt vampires. This isn't just about
> (say) multi-rush - though that's certainly a powerful deck type
> that benefits from this - but also, say, heavy master decks
> needing copies of Anson, back in the day.
>
> - a number of the arguments in favour of short-chain combat revolve
> around requiring far fewer cards in hand at once, or just out of
> hand. If you only need two cards at once (and have some choice
> there), that's a lot more reliable than 5 cards out of 8 or 9.
>
> - ditto, search for threads with Derek Ray doing the maths for High
> Ground and Collapse the Arches.
>
> Lots of people put a LOT of effort into fighting probability.
>
> Yes, your deck can still come out in alphabetical order. That doesn't
> mean people make it easy.

I really like numbers. Chances are great. I frequently engage in this sort
of "mathsturbation" and calculate the odds for drawing a given card, combo
or one of n similar cards. Great mental excercise. However, when you
actually play, you actually need a certain card in your hand at a given
time. Play will selectively deplete your resources, you will cycle some
cards but will be at least temporarily stuck on others, etc.

The point being: this is still a card game where you randomly draw your
cards. Also, seating is still random (and you have no way to address that,
especially in larger playgroups, where the metagame is inconsistent enough
to make any metagame guesses more than arbitrary).

>>> I would say that the decks people choose to play now seem to be
>>> slightly
>>> less willing to take the risk of "What if I get completely creamed on
>>> one table?" And so they provide themselves with more options. Whereas
>>> previously, since on the two tables they did sweep they'd make up for
>>> the one table they got creamed, they'd be happier to take that risk.
>>
>> If you sweep two tables you are likely standing at 2/10, which is pretty
>> much enough for even the largest tournament finals.
>
> Hmmm? That can depend a lot. In a fairly large tournament, you can
> find quite a few people with 3 VPs, and if you didn't get any VPs when
> you exploded, you can find yourself edged out by someone with a deck
> that got (say) 2 GW with a score of 4, 4, 2 since they'll have better
> tournament points due to coming at least second on the 2 VP table
> (possibly joint first).
>
> And if you stop to wonder just how big the tournament is, if you are
> going for 10 players, you may well see that counter again, and suddenly
> find yourself in a very different situation.
>
> In situations like that, decks that either do very well or very badly
> start looking less attractive.

Okay, the point stands. I'd choose a deck that will reliably get me 2/10
and no more any day over a deck that might get me more (but most likely
will just get me way less). Admit, that was a poor example. ;) 

>>> Is that a bad thing? Well, it does prevent (in part) Jyhad turning
>>> into
>>> rock/paper/scissors. I bring my rock weenie vote deck, you bring your
>>> paper weenie rush deck and accidentally flatten me. Of course, these
>>> decks can still happen and do still happen, but possibly less so?
>>
>> Well, there is a significant Rock/Paper/Scissors aspect to the game no
>> matter what you do. But yes, I agree that the game win rule discourages
>> super-aggressive, one-sure-VP decks.
>
> The R/P/S can be mitigated an awful, awful lot, whilst still being an
> active deck. Giving yourself the right tools for survival can make a
> huge amount of difference. Making the right deals can make a huge
> amount of difference.
>
> Having a deck which *survives* these days, and is aggressive when it can
> be, can be quite useful these days. Witness the rise of combat that
> many people are experiencing. Winning then is not about being
> "reactive", just about survival - and then having your Fames, or
> Computer Hackings, or whatever in the gaps.

Interesting point. Survival is, perhaps, separable from being reactive
if you proactively bloat, for example. However, in practice I think
survival is mostly a reactive thing. You survive against whatever
pressure is applied to you, with multipurpose tools (including a fair
share of denial effects) whose applications depend largely on what
you face.

Assuming you are doing a proactive survival deck - you use weenies,
say Panders, to vote you lots of pool. You are more or less protected
against most decks, your minions have sheer numbers on their side,
and you can gain a lot from the Boons and Persecutions. Still, you
will probably look strong and get dealt with.

Surviving without looking strong is IMHO a very reactive thing.

>>> Here, however, I'm not sure if this is a good thing, a bad thing, or
>>> just a thing. I think there's a lot to be said for encouraging decks
>>> which can do well repeatedly, rather than decks which are spectacular
>>> victors or spectacular flops.
>>
>> Yeah, but this is still just a card game. You can jam, you can get the
>> paper to your rock as your predator (or prey, or both), or you can be
>> busted by any other unfortunate event. Play skill is important, but so
>> is chance. Consistency, in that aspect, could be nothing more than just
>> repetitious good fortune.
>
> First of all, this is the same whether you have GW or no GW. It's a
> non-issue as far as that's concerned.

Well, your point was that the GW rule supports consistency. To which I
replied that consistency is highly non-existent in a card game because
of certain reasons (randomness being the most significant). Nobody plays
a deck that has little chance to win under normal circumstances (well,
maybe some do, but I'm assuming players try to win and for the sake of
argument, are not incompetent in doing so). Meaning, you have some decks
that will perform somehow based on a lot of factors (a good deal of
which are random).

> And, yes, there's chance. But people build decks which mitigate that in
> all manner of ways. If I am 10% more likely to get a "good" crypt than
> you, that's good for me. Sure, probability says that you might get it
> all three rounds and I might not. But people play the odds as they see
> fit.
>
> Additionally, there are some decks which are particularly fragile and
> require good hand cycling and "good luck" a lot more than other decks -
> that is simple probability. However, when they work, they can work
> well. When they fail, they can fail extremely badly. Yer pays yer
> money, yer takes yer choice.

Yes, I agree.

> Perhaps exploring the full implications for many deck-styles is
> "restatement of the point" - that the original proposition is flawed.
>
> For me, however, it's providing an informed basis for an opinion and a
> number of inter-related points which would need to be addressed.

Fair enough, point taken.

>>> These decks aren't part of the problem, and I'm not sure that action
>>> which discourages them in favour of moving towards "speed oust OR
>>> defend
>>> against speed oust" (which an early grab VP rule does) is sensible, as
>>> a
>>> result.
>>
>> But the other problem is that we are having a time limit.
>
> You don't need to have one - certainly not in the finals.

[snip argument]

No can do. Untimed finals are impossible. Or rather, they are only
possible in theory. There are practical reasons that prevent an
untimed final from being feasible. Especially if some people
travelled to the event.

>> I see tables
>> timing out as a big problem. I see the prevalence of reactive play as a
>> poor alternative to the perceived mindlessness of weenie computer
>> hacking
>> (or somesuch). The balance should, IMHO, be found and encouraged, with
>> neither super-aggressive, nor highly reactive plays being rewarded too
>> much.
>
> Highly reactive plays are hardly rewarded too much as it is. Unless a
> deck can repeatedly apply forward pressure, it can't win - the GW rule
> tells it that. Half a VP won't let it win.
>
> However, if by highly reactive play you mean things like 6 DIs and 6 DT,
> that's hardly an issue. A deck being aware of its flaws and providing
> flexible defence to suit those flaws is something that absolutely should
> be in the game, or you end up with multi-player solitaire, just waiting
> until the first person does it right.

I think we are approaching the same thing from different sides. You are
saying that having flexible denial-type defences in a deck do not condemn
that deck to passivity. I completely agree. But I'm not arguing that. I'm
arguing that decks need to shoot at the Game Wins, and that purpose is
served better by navigating the table, and trying to play in a way that
leads to victory by virtue of preventing anyone from winning until the
opportune moment comes to strike and take it all. This play style is
quite capable of contributing to a time out.

--
Bye,

Daneel
Anonymous
April 2, 2005 1:50:21 AM

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

In message <opsokjkcgso6j3lh@news.chello.hu>, Daneel <daniel@eposta.hu>
writes:
>On 31 Mar 2005 11:18:39 -0800, Robert Goudie <robertg@vtesinla.org> wrote:
<table splitting>
>> Essentially we were rewarding 2 VP losses almost as much as we were
>> rewarding wins and the choice of finalists based on VPs gave incentive
>> for players to choose to lose.
>
>I agree with this. Introducing the GW rule is a good alternative to
> posting a judge beside every table who can watch whether players
> play fair. But doing so alters the game in other ways as well.

Having a judge positioned by every table to ensure fair play wouldn't
stop the particularly nasty gang-up/roll-over table-splits, though.
Table-splitting is playing fair.

--
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/
Anonymous
April 2, 2005 1:55:53 AM

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

On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 15:14:40 -0700, Frederick Scott
<nospam@no.spam.dot.com> wrote:

> OK, I've seen that stuff, too. In this case, I think I'm being
> semantically whip-sawed between alterntative definitions of "wasting
> time". If there's a point to it - even if that point doesn't advance the
> cause of maximizing the chances of having the game end before time - then
> it's not bad play, IMHO. At least, not from the perspective of the
> individual player's best interests. I'm not sure if I just disagree with
> Damnans about this point or if he has some other type of play or
> situation
> he's thinking of when he talks about "wasting time".

I'm pretty sure the question is not whether "wasting time" is good for
the person doing it. The question is rather along the lines of whether
doing so is "fair", "in the spirit of sportsmanship", "nice", etc.

--
Bye,

Daneel
Anonymous
April 2, 2005 1:55:54 AM

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

"Daneel" <daniel@eposta.hu> wrote in message
news:o psokppnwuo6j3lh@news.chello.hu...
> On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 15:14:40 -0700, Frederick Scott <nospam@no.spam.dot.com> wrote:
>
>> I'm not sure if I just disagree with Damnans about this point or
>> if he has some other type of play or situation
>> he's thinking of when he talks about "wasting time".
>
> I'm pretty sure the question is not whether "wasting time" is good for
> the person doing it. The question is rather along the lines of whether
> doing so is "fair", "in the spirit of sportsmanship", "nice", etc.

It all depends. If we're talking about time a player is spending trying
to table talk potential deals that might have some realistic chance of
happening, this is certainly "fair" in the sense of tournament rules.
"In the spirt of sportsmanship" and "nice" sound like concepts that
are extremely hard to pin down in such a context. If you're geuinely
trying to win the finals by legal means, this is close enough to being
"in the spirit of sportsmanship" by me.

On the other hand, deliberately engaging in activities without a genuine
intent to accomplish anything except make time pass in order to time
out the existing status even if you know you can't really be called on
it wouldn't be sporting, no. That would qualify as "wasting time" in
my book. But I don't perceive it's the issue in the types of stalemated
finals I tend to see. I usually find most quality players are remarkably
conscientious about that.

Fred
Anonymous
April 2, 2005 2:01:26 AM

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

On Fri, 1 Apr 2005 21:50:21 +0100, James Coupe <james@zephyr.org.uk> wrote:

> In message <opsokjkcgso6j3lh@news.chello.hu>, Daneel <daniel@eposta.hu>
> writes:
>> On 31 Mar 2005 11:18:39 -0800, Robert Goudie <robertg@vtesinla.org>
>> wrote:
> <table splitting>
>>> Essentially we were rewarding 2 VP losses almost as much as we were
>>> rewarding wins and the choice of finalists based on VPs gave incentive
>>> for players to choose to lose.
>>
>> I agree with this. Introducing the GW rule is a good alternative to
>> posting a judge beside every table who can watch whether players
>> play fair. But doing so alters the game in other ways as well.
>
> Having a judge positioned by every table to ensure fair play wouldn't
> stop the particularly nasty gang-up/roll-over table-splits, though.
> Table-splitting is playing fair.

Not necessariy. Table-splitting can be fair. It can also be not fair.

Before the GW rule a 3-2 split was a 3-2 split. Now it is kind of like
an 5-2 split. Seems like more VPs are available for the splitting...
But that doesn't make splits any less nasty when gone about in a
subtly unfair way. It takes away some of the motivation.

--
Bye,

Daneel
Anonymous
April 2, 2005 3:21:39 AM

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

In message <opsokpywnqo6j3lh@news.chello.hu>, Daneel <daniel@eposta.hu>
writes:
>On Fri, 1 Apr 2005 21:50:21 +0100, James Coupe <james@zephyr.org.uk> wrote:
>> Having a judge positioned by every table to ensure fair play wouldn't
>> stop the particularly nasty gang-up/roll-over table-splits, though.
>> Table-splitting is playing fair.
>
>Not necessariy. Table-splitting can be fair. It can also be not fair.

Sure, illegal play isn't fair - but that's really irrelevant to the
point. The only play that a judge could intervene on, however, is
illegal play.

The GW rule addressed some play that was perfectly fair but problematic
for other reasons. Placing a judge next to tables would IN NO WAY have
affected the same play, because the plays being addressed were entirely
legal and sensible at that time. That each player has a mutually
exclusive primary victory condition (getting a GW), where the compromise
is really awkward for one of them, provides a very different social
dynamic.


Illegal play is always illegal, of course. But a judge can't stop
players making legal plays, however distasteful or problematic they
might be. A change to the rules provides a different set of plays that
players will want to make. It is not the judge's role to enforce some
set of moral standards on the game, other than following the rules.


>Before the GW rule a 3-2 split was a 3-2 split. Now it is kind of like
> an 5-2 split. Seems like more VPs are available for the splitting...
> But that doesn't make splits any less nasty when gone about in a
> subtly unfair way. It takes away some of the motivation.

Under the old system, this would be problematic. Under the new system,
it doesn't matter how many VPs you get if you don't have (enough) GWs.
Though you can still want VPs even with the GW - in order to get the
best seating in the final, for instance.

Also, bear in mind how this combines with play to win. When GWs are a
defining criteria, you need to play for those first and foremost. This
can also make a number of deals (though not all) more difficult to
strike, since you will often be giving up a GW you could have attained.

Is it perfect? No, of course not. But the table-splitting pre-GW was
extremely, extremely nasty. We're not seeing that under the GW rule.

--
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/
Anonymous
April 2, 2005 3:22:58 AM

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

In message <opsokppnwuo6j3lh@news.chello.hu>, Daneel <daniel@eposta.hu>
writes:
>I'm pretty sure the question is not whether "wasting time" is good for
> the person doing it. The question is rather along the lines of whether
> doing so is "fair", "in the spirit of sportsmanship", "nice", etc.

If a player isn't displaying sportsmanlike conduct, is playing slowly or
is stalling, this can already be addressed under the standard rules.

--
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/
Anonymous
April 2, 2005 3:52:59 AM

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

In message <cZj3e.14986$TZ.10555@okepread06>, Frederick Scott
<nospam@no.spam.dot.com> writes:
>Look, we just got started in this little sub-thread because you claimed
>"flexible defense isn't reactive".

No, I didn't.

Fred. PUT. THE. CRACK. PIPE. DOWN.

--
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/
!