Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Final Symptoms and Proposed Remedies - Page 3

Last response: in Video Games
Share
Anonymous
April 2, 2005 3:53:00 AM

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

"James Coupe" <james@zephyr.org.uk> wrote in message news:ZOGcTsWLDdTCFwZL@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk...
> 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.

Directly quoted in previous post - thus, reference to "crack pipe" is
bizarre.
Anonymous
April 2, 2005 5:07:20 AM

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

In message <00l3e.15287$TZ.14243@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.
>
>Directly quoted in previous post

I wrote at the start of this little sub-thread:

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".

Note the inclusion of the word "deck", not cards or specific plays. The
point being made has *always* been about the deck, your delusions
notwithstanding.

--
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 5:07:21 AM

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

"James Coupe" <james@zephyr.org.uk> wrote in message news:0+aXf3Y4IeTCFwPd@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk...
> In message <00l3e.15287$TZ.14243@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.
>>
>>Directly quoted in previous post
>
> I wrote at the start of this little sub-thread:
>
> 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".
>
> Note the inclusion of the word "deck", not cards or specific plays. The
> point being made has *always* been about the deck, your delusions
> notwithstanding.

And I've always been referring to decks as well. I'm confused why you think
otherwise.

There's an obvious issue that seems to explain out differences that I've
raised time and again. I would suggest that your need for pissiness with
references to "crack pipes" and "delusions" has to do with a desire to
evade it instead of just addressing it head on. That's unfortunate as I
feel like it's extended this exchange far beyond what should have been
necessary.

Fred
Related resources
Can't find your answer ? Ask !
Anonymous
April 2, 2005 12:19:29 PM

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

On 1 Apr 2005 14:12:21 -0800, Robert Goudie <robertg@vtesinla.org> wrote:

>> > 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 see that the reasoning is sound. It's just that I never saw any problem
with the old rules (even though I understand the problems others might
have had with them), and I have some problems with the new rules (even
though I understand they do solve some of the problems with the old
rules).

Frankly, I've never seen too much collusion in our local games. Pre-GW
people were shooting at 5 VPs; now they are shooting for 3.

>> 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).

Well, I'm not quite sure. ;)  While I know that DCI sanctioned VTES
tournaments, I don't think our tournaments were sanctioned. They
were rather unsanctioned tournaments, probably a hybrid of the DCI
VTES tournaments and the DCI magic tournaments (at least as far as
CLs are concerned). Unless DCI sanctioned VTES tournaments with 4CL...

Hazy, hazy little thing. Nevertheless, I've never really noted table
splits being an issue. When people play fair, they shoot for the 5 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.

Well, not from my local little mudpond perspective. ;) 

I think that the consistency in the rules is good. But the play-to-win rule
is probably the most unenforcable to begin with. Since poor play cannot be
judged against, only the most blatant examples of collusion can be
detected/thwarted - which would still be most blatant examples of
collusion
if the rule simply said "you need to get as many VPs as possible".

To sum it up: I think that this issue is related to the eternal struggle of
the "fair play" issue. Sure, 2 VPs are fine without breaking a sweat, but
5 VPs are far better. If the tournament is big enough to require 9-10 VPs
to make the finals, a losing split would not be any more profitable than
under the GW rule. Also, my problems with the current system also relate
to the same issue (fair play). People eager to split tables because 3 VPs
are enough, etc...

--
Bye,

Daneel
Anonymous
April 2, 2005 12:47:02 PM

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

On Fri, 1 Apr 2005 15:43:29 -0700, Frederick Scott
<nospam@no.spam.dot.com> wrote:

> 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.

Exactly. You are trying to win (say, by being first seed and playing so
that the table times out), but you are still not playing fair.

> 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.

Well, this is a different thing. I believe that finals tending to time
out happens as a result of a number of reasons, like (in no particular
order):

- People in good seeding positions stalling in a subtle way to reduce
the number of turns played, thus strengthening their positions.

- People being keener on making deals and communicating game status to
utilize their verbal skills in an attempt to secure their victory (if
possible) or the best status they can achieve.

- People playing decks that are designed to take whole tables and as a
result support reactive play.

--
Bye,

Daneel
Anonymous
April 2, 2005 3:24:38 PM

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

In message <opsolikz0ro6j3lh@news.chello.hu>, Daneel <daniel@eposta.hu>
writes:
>I see that the reasoning is sound. It's just that I never saw any problem
> with the old rules (even though I understand the problems others might
> have had with them), and I have some problems with the new rules (even
> though I understand they do solve some of the problems with the old
>rules).
>
>Frankly, I've never seen too much collusion in our local games. Pre-GW
> people were shooting at 5 VPs; now they are shooting for 3.

Collusion is nothing to do with it. Confusing collusion with the game-
win rules is simply asking for trouble. Collusion is players taking
action outside the framework of the game to alter the results in some
pre-determined fashion. This is emphatically NOT the same as table
splitting.

Though table splitting can be one way in which collusion is
accomplished, that is far from certain. Pre-determined action to remove
someone from a table ("He stole my girlfriend - let's get him!") could
also potentially be collusion. As a judge, you might prefer to act
under a different term, however - perhaps sportsmanlike conduct.

However, confusing collusion with legitimate deal-making to take
advantage of the in-game situation as it stands right now (resulting in
an entirely legal but distasteful and problematic table split) is simply
wrong.


>>> 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).
>
>Well, I'm not quite sure. ;)  While I know that DCI sanctioned VTES
> tournaments, I don't think our tournaments were sanctioned. They
> were rather unsanctioned tournaments, probably a hybrid of the DCI
> VTES tournaments and the DCI magic tournaments (at least as far as
> CLs are concerned). Unless DCI sanctioned VTES tournaments with 4CL...

The DCI and Wizards had various different rules at different points, and
sometimes followed them and sometimes didn't, even when Wizards were
running the tournament. Sometimes, some cards were restricted. I have
vague memories of a 6CL, 2CL-restricted-list for the obvious
strong/staple cards at the time. (I never played in these tournaments.)


>Hazy, hazy little thing. Nevertheless, I've never really noted table
> splits being an issue. When people play fair, they shoot for the 5 VPs.

There's nothing necessarily unfair about people playing for a good,
solid 4VP (say) instead of a highly risky 5VP. e.g. the 5VP result
requires them to throw down a Life Boon, and bring them precariously
close to being ousted in the process - a risk they don't want to take.

Different people have different risk assessments, and thinking "Well, I
can keep this five pool and get a lot of VP, just not all of them" is
perfectly reasonable play.


>To sum it up: I think that this issue is related to the eternal struggle of
> the "fair play" issue. Sure, 2 VPs are fine without breaking a sweat, but
> 5 VPs are far better. If the tournament is big enough to require 9-10 VPs
> to make the finals, a losing split would not be any more profitable than
> under the GW rule. Also, my problems with the current system also relate
> to the same issue (fair play). People eager to split tables because 3 VPs
> are enough, etc...

With seating choice in the final being a significant boost (especially
with the withdrawal of Dramatic Upheaval and Kindred Restructure), there
is still a strong incentive for players to get more VPs. Even in a
relatively small tournament, I'd much rather have 3GWs and 15VP than
3GWs than 9VP, to pick my seating.


However, if the proposal is to reward sweeps more highly, that's
actually easier with a rule which doesn't act solely on VPs.

Consider: some people will take 1VP as a throwaway scrap on a table
where they're screwed. So I get 4VP and you get 1VP for helping, say.
I'm still very nearly at sweep level, and have only lost 20% of it.

So: If you want to reward sweeps more highly and provide a stronger
incentive for them (which seems a perfectly reasonable aim), have an
extra tick box somewhere for "sweeps", or make a sweep GW worth more
than a non-sweep GW.


Example (ranking sweeps above GWs): You win three games with 3VPs in
each, but no sweeps. I win one game with a sweep, and no other VPs.
Since I have a sweep, I rank higher than you. Handing out the spare 1VP
(in the 4VP/1VP situation above) will ruin my chance.

Now, that to me seems distasteful.


Example (ranking sweeps as a better GW): You win three games with 3VPs
in each, but no sweeps. That garners you 3VPs. I win two games with
sweeps (5VPs in each), but no other VPs. A sweep is worth 1.5GW. So
with my two sweeps, I have 3GW. (It might be better to use the term
"final points" or somesuch.) Since I have 3GW and 10VP, I would get
into the final before you.

Example (as above, but a tie): You win three games with 3VPs in each,
but no sweeps. I win two games with sweeps (5VP in one, 4VP in
another), but no other VPs. We both therefore have 3GW and 9VP. We
would tie. How to break this tie? Reward consistency or sweeps, choose
your poison.


In the VP only scenario, I can give away 1VP in each of those rounds,
and still get 8VP - pretty close. But in a system based on the above,
I'd be a whole GW "point" down, which is much more costly. And
*perhaps* in the other round, I'd now be able to bargain for a VP, since
the sweep isn't as important to them. So I get 9VP, say?

This then rewards winning, but could reward "better" winning better than
currently. That is, we already rank a GW and sweep higher than a GW and
3VP, but plausibly it might not be rewarded enough.

***********************************************************************
Whether that's good or not is emphatically NOT something I'm addressing
now, or whether the examples I give are the best possible systems.
***********************************************************************


Now, the specific formulation of these criteria is just something I've
very hurriedly constructed. But it provides players with their own
stronger incentive to get sweeps, and potentially eases a number of the
concerns about rewarding players for not playing to win that Robert
describes which are certainly well-founded.

Of course, any fiddling with the system would no doubt bring in its own
problems for judges.

I'm not here (see emphatic disclaimer above) too interested in the
specific implications of specific systems, rather the general
implications of that sort of fiddling.

--
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 11:19:33 PM

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

salem a écrit :
> 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...


you mean in the next combat ? providing the rusher is not put out of the
equation by PTO / Banishment / Sensory dep and co... :) 
Anonymous
April 4, 2005 1:30:35 PM

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

On Sat, 2 Apr 2005 11:24:38 +0100, James Coupe <james@zephyr.org.uk> wrote:

> However, confusing collusion with legitimate deal-making to take
> advantage of the in-game situation as it stands right now (resulting in
> an entirely legal but distasteful and problematic table split) is simply
> wrong.

Whatever. Unsportsmanship be it then; that is a much broader concept.

> There's nothing necessarily unfair about people playing for a good,
> solid 4VP (say) instead of a highly risky 5VP. e.g. the 5VP result
> requires them to throw down a Life Boon, and bring them precariously
> close to being ousted in the process - a risk they don't want to take.
>
> Different people have different risk assessments, and thinking "Well, I
> can keep this five pool and get a lot of VP, just not all of them" is
> perfectly reasonable play.

The example is a bit rectified. I wouldn't use that as a counterexample.

There is a thin line between playing to get as many VPs as possible and
possibly falling short by a VP or two despite honest efforts, and
playing to get 3 VPs because that is safer and basically playing to set
up the table so that you can find someone who will give you the table
for 2 VPs.

> With seating choice in the final being a significant boost (especially
> with the withdrawal of Dramatic Upheaval and Kindred Restructure), there
> is still a strong incentive for players to get more VPs. Even in a
> relatively small tournament, I'd much rather have 3GWs and 15VP than
> 3GWs than 9VP, to pick my seating.

True. But the difference between 1st and 5th pre-finals is far-far less
than the difference between 5th and 6th.

> However, if the proposal is to reward sweeps more highly, that's
> actually easier with a rule which doesn't act solely on VPs.

Not necessarily to reward sweeps. I'm not sure that scoring 2 VPs
shouldn't be worth the same in a 1-1-1-2 or a 3-2 situation. In fact,
the former might indicate a quickly desintegrating table where you
could have gotten 2 VPs with a Frederick the Weak multi-rush deck just
by virtue of being there, and the latter might be an epic battle of
wits and skill against a powerful prey, two incompetent "allies" who
don't recognize the dynamics of the table, and say a (D) rush predator
who is focused on pummeling your minions "Cause its kool" even though
he has no Fames.

This is all to say the GW rule isn't necessarily a bed of roses. The
alternative would be, "acquire as many VPs as possible". I'm not sure
it's feasible, though.

> Consider: some people will take 1VP as a throwaway scrap on a table
> where they're screwed. So I get 4VP and you get 1VP for helping, say.
> I'm still very nearly at sweep level, and have only lost 20% of it.
>
> So: If you want to reward sweeps more highly and provide a stronger
> incentive for them (which seems a perfectly reasonable aim), have an
> extra tick box somewhere for "sweeps", or make a sweep GW worth more
> than a non-sweep GW.
>
> Example (ranking sweeps above GWs): You win three games with 3VPs in
> each, but no sweeps. I win one game with a sweep, and no other VPs.
> Since I have a sweep, I rank higher than you. Handing out the spare 1VP
> (in the 4VP/1VP situation above) will ruin my chance.
>
> Now, that to me seems distasteful.

Indeed.

> Example (ranking sweeps as a better GW): You win three games with 3VPs
> in each, but no sweeps. That garners you 3VPs. I win two games with
> sweeps (5VPs in each), but no other VPs. A sweep is worth 1.5GW. So
> with my two sweeps, I have 3GW. (It might be better to use the term
> "final points" or somesuch.) Since I have 3GW and 10VP, I would get
> into the final before you.
>
> Example (as above, but a tie): You win three games with 3VPs in each,
> but no sweeps. I win two games with sweeps (5VP in one, 4VP in
> another), but no other VPs. We both therefore have 3GW and 9VP. We
> would tie. How to break this tie? Reward consistency or sweeps, choose
> your poison.

Dunno, TPs could serve that very purpose. Anyway, I kind of like the
fraction GW idea that gives you extra incentive to win "well".

Maybe you could do something like this:

winning a table by 2 VPs: 0.66... Final Points
winning a table by 3 VPs: 1 Final Point
winning a table by 4 VPs: 1.33... Final Points
winning a table by 5 VPs: 1.66... Final Points

This way, your Final Points directly reflect the degree of success you
had at a table you've won. In the above mentioned 1-1-1-2 vs. 3-2
case you'll have a winner with 0.67 FPs in the first case and a winner
with 1 FP in the second. It still wouldn't address the "problem" of
2 VPs being 2 VPs regardless of how the table turned out. But I guess
such random factors are considered to balance out over the long run...

> In the VP only scenario, I can give away 1VP in each of those rounds,
> and still get 8VP - pretty close. But in a system based on the above,
> I'd be a whole GW "point" down, which is much more costly. And
> *perhaps* in the other round, I'd now be able to bargain for a VP, since
> the sweep isn't as important to them. So I get 9VP, say?
>
> This then rewards winning, but could reward "better" winning better than
> currently. That is, we already rank a GW and sweep higher than a GW and
> 3VP, but plausibly it might not be rewarded enough.
>
> ***********************************************************************
> Whether that's good or not is emphatically NOT something I'm addressing
> now, or whether the examples I give are the best possible systems.
> ***********************************************************************
>
> Now, the specific formulation of these criteria is just something I've
> very hurriedly constructed. But it provides players with their own
> stronger incentive to get sweeps, and potentially eases a number of the
> concerns about rewarding players for not playing to win that Robert
> describes which are certainly well-founded.
>
> Of course, any fiddling with the system would no doubt bring in its own
> problems for judges.
>
> I'm not here (see emphatic disclaimer above) too interested in the
> specific implications of specific systems, rather the general
> implications of that sort of fiddling.

Nice assessment. I see some merit in rewarding sweeps better than 2-3
splits, if for nothing else than to finally give an advantage to
4-player tables. Giving 1.5 GWs for a sweep means that a single sweep
ranks higher than a single no-sweep GW, and two sweeps rank as high as
three non-sweeps. I think there may be merit in this idea, somewhat
discouraging splits...

--
Bye,

Daneel
Anonymous
April 5, 2005 11:00:26 PM

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

In message <opsopa6ye1o6j3lh@news.chello.hu>, Daneel <daniel@eposta.hu>
writes:
>On Sat, 2 Apr 2005 11:24:38 +0100, James Coupe <james@zephyr.org.uk> wrote:
>
>> However, confusing collusion with legitimate deal-making to take
>> advantage of the in-game situation as it stands right now (resulting in
>> an entirely legal but distasteful and problematic table split) is simply
>> wrong.
>
>Whatever. Unsportsmanship be it then; that is a much broader concept.

No, that's also entirely wrong. Taking the best action available to you
in the game is never unsportsmanlike conduct in any way, shape or form.

Attempting to portray behaviour that is, for one reason or another,
undesirable as being illegal is unhelpful in the extreme.

There is nothing unsporting about taking the best option available to
you. You yourself have been arguing that people should play for the
strongest win they can get. That's what these sorts of table splits
entail. Collusive table-splits are a separate matter entirely.


One of the factors that a number of people seem to ignore or be unable
to understand, for whatever reason, is that there is a strong and
sizeable difference between:

- behaviour which "we" don't like and which is harmful to the game in
some form, but which is permitted by the rules
and
- behaviour which is illegal.

Collusion and unsportsmanlike conduct fall into the latter category.

The sorts of table-splitting which the Game Win rule addressed falls
into the former category.


<Life Boon>
>> Different people have different risk assessments, and thinking "Well, I
>> can keep this five pool and get a lot of VP, just not all of them" is
>> perfectly reasonable play.
>
>The example is a bit rectified. I wouldn't use that as a counterexample.

I don't believe "rectified" means what you think it does. As a result,
I don't know what you mean.

(# To set right; correct.
# To correct by calculation or adjustment. See Synonyms at correct.)


>There is a thin line between playing to get as many VPs as possible and
> possibly falling short by a VP or two despite honest efforts, and
> playing to get 3 VPs because that is safer and basically playing to set
> up the table so that you can find someone who will give you the table
> for 2 VPs.

Sure. And because my risk assessments differ from yours, my "honest
efforts" will differ from yours. That is, where I see 5 VPs, you may
only see 3. Where I see a GW, you may see a valiant second place.

Bottom line: I may not take the same risks you take, even if they can
get me a better result overall if I deem the risks to be too risky.

Thus, even if available, it is perfectly legitimate play for me to not
go for all five VPs, even if I could (in theory) get them.




>> With seating choice in the final being a significant boost (especially
>> with the withdrawal of Dramatic Upheaval and Kindred Restructure), there
>> is still a strong incentive for players to get more VPs. Even in a
>> relatively small tournament, I'd much rather have 3GWs and 15VP than
>> 3GWs than 9VP, to pick my seating.
>
>True. But the difference between 1st and 5th pre-finals is far-far less
> than the difference between 5th and 6th.

In that you get into the finals, yes.

However, once in the finals (including the pre-seating), the element of
choice in the seating is often crucial or, at the very least, extremely
significant.


>> However, if the proposal is to reward sweeps more highly, that's
>> actually easier with a rule which doesn't act solely on VPs.
>
>Not necessarily to reward sweeps. I'm not sure that scoring 2 VPs
> shouldn't be worth the same in a 1-1-1-2 or a 3-2 situation. In fact,
> the former might indicate a quickly desintegrating table where you
> could have gotten 2 VPs with a Frederick the Weak multi-rush deck just
> by virtue of being there, and the latter might be an epic battle of
> wits and skill against a powerful prey, two incompetent "allies" who
> don't recognize the dynamics of the table, and say a (D) rush predator
> who is focused on pummeling your minions "Cause its kool" even though
> he has no Fames.

They "could" represent lots of things. 2-1-1-1-0 could just as easily
represent a table on which 5 world class players are sitting.


>> Example (as above, but a tie): You win three games with 3VPs in each,
>> but no sweeps. I win two games with sweeps (5VP in one, 4VP in
>> another), but no other VPs. We both therefore have 3GW and 9VP. We
>> would tie. How to break this tie? Reward consistency or sweeps, choose
>> your poison.
>
>Dunno, TPs could serve that very purpose. Anyway, I kind of like the
> fraction GW idea that gives you extra incentive to win "well".

TPs, for reference, would solve that based on consistency. Since I have
two real-GWs, I have come first on two tables, but (joint) last on
another. Since you have three real-GWs, you have come first on three
first places. TPs will then reward consistency.


A minor difficulty here might be that in the lead positions, you're
rewarding sweeps but at the edge condition (5th/6th) you're rewarding
consistency. This is potentially awkward.


>Maybe you could do something like this:
>
>winning a table by 2 VPs: 0.66... Final Points
>winning a table by 3 VPs: 1 Final Point
>winning a table by 4 VPs: 1.33... Final Points
>winning a table by 5 VPs: 1.66... Final Points

If calculating based off the "degree" of winning, you'd need to have
some option for half VPs, too. Or even for outright calculation of the
points based on the VP differential.

This is because of:

a) games timing out
b) a judge having the authority to award partial (note: not half) VPs in
order to rectify a game situation - this generally isn't wanted,
as a real player would be better, but sometimes necessary.


However, it should be noted that this is essentially counting only the
VPs won by the table winner - which is another suggestion people have
given in the past. (Then resolving ties based on ALL VPs.)

i.e. if you simply count the VPs that the table winner gets, then a
2-1-1-1-0 winner gets 2 points, a 3-x winner gets 3 points, and so on -
which is simply your table above, multiplied up.

Treating is a "Only VPs got by a winner count, then break ties based on
the rest" is a lot simpler. Google should have some discussion of this
archived, as I'm 90% certain it's been discussed at some length before.


>Nice assessment. I see some merit in rewarding sweeps better than 2-3
> splits, if for nothing else than to finally give an advantage to
> 4-player tables. Giving 1.5 GWs for a sweep means that a single sweep
> ranks higher than a single no-sweep GW, and two sweeps rank as high as
> three non-sweeps. I think there may be merit in this idea, somewhat
> discouraging splits...

If the criterion is that winning "better" (i.e. getting closer to a
sweep) is more desirable than winning in a manner which allows for
tossing VPs casually around, a linear progression of scores won't cut it
as a player tossing away a VP isn't punished any more than the VP they
throw away. A curve, or series of levels (of which "reward a sweep with
an extra VP" is a very simple example of a level), which rewards the
better positions more is more likely to do what you need.

--
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 7, 2005 1:16:09 AM

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

On Tue, 5 Apr 2005 19:00:26 +0100, James Coupe <james@zephyr.org.uk> wrote:

>> Whatever. Unsportsmanship be it then; that is a much broader concept.
>
> No, that's also entirely wrong. Taking the best action available to you
> in the game is never unsportsmanlike conduct in any way, shape or form.

Selecting that best action in good faith is sportsmanship. Selecting
it otherwise is unsportsmanship. If the rules inspire you to go for
5 VPs, you should only resort to going for 4 VPs if you can no longer
rationally achieve 5 VPs. Going for 3 VPs because you think that is
enough, or because that seems safer in the long run is not doing it
in the spirit of sportsmanship.

If you have no rational chance to go for more than 2 VPs, and you split
the table, you did not play in an unsportsmanlike manner.

> <Life Boon>
>>> Different people have different risk assessments, and thinking "Well, I
>>> can keep this five pool and get a lot of VP, just not all of them" is
>>> perfectly reasonable play.
>>
>> The example is a bit rectified. I wouldn't use that as a counterexample.
>
> I don't believe "rectified" means what you think it does. As a result,
> I don't know what you mean.
>
> (# To set right; correct.
> # To correct by calculation or adjustment. See Synonyms at correct.)

Sorry you're right, I meant "polarize".

>> There is a thin line between playing to get as many VPs as possible and
>> possibly falling short by a VP or two despite honest efforts, and
>> playing to get 3 VPs because that is safer and basically playing to set
>> up the table so that you can find someone who will give you the table
>> for 2 VPs.
>
> Sure. And because my risk assessments differ from yours, my "honest
> efforts" will differ from yours. That is, where I see 5 VPs, you may
> only see 3. Where I see a GW, you may see a valiant second place.
>
> Bottom line: I may not take the same risks you take, even if they can
> get me a better result overall if I deem the risks to be too risky.
>
> Thus, even if available, it is perfectly legitimate play for me to not
> go for all five VPs, even if I could (in theory) get them.

Indeed. Poor play is allowed. You can well be scared of a predator
playing a Frederick the Weak Multi-Rush deck when you are having
out 9 War Ghouls, and go on to torporize every other minion at the
table and then transfer out in the name of poor play (you assess
that it would be too risky to go for a VP). You are entitled to
that. This basically makes most of the unsportsmanship rules
unnecessary, by the way, as you can just "play poorly".

>>> With seating choice in the final being a significant boost (especially
>>> with the withdrawal of Dramatic Upheaval and Kindred Restructure),
>>> there
>>> is still a strong incentive for players to get more VPs. Even in a
>>> relatively small tournament, I'd much rather have 3GWs and 15VP than
>>> 3GWs than 9VP, to pick my seating.
>>
>> True. But the difference between 1st and 5th pre-finals is far-far less
>> than the difference between 5th and 6th.
>
> In that you get into the finals, yes.
>
> However, once in the finals (including the pre-seating), the element of
> choice in the seating is often crucial or, at the very least, extremely
> significant.

If you make it into the finals, you can win it (= chance to be first).
If you don't, you're stuck with your former position.

>>> However, if the proposal is to reward sweeps more highly, that's
>>> actually easier with a rule which doesn't act solely on VPs.
>>
>> Not necessarily to reward sweeps. I'm not sure that scoring 2 VPs
>> shouldn't be worth the same in a 1-1-1-2 or a 3-2 situation. In fact,
>> the former might indicate a quickly desintegrating table where you
>> could have gotten 2 VPs with a Frederick the Weak multi-rush deck just
>> by virtue of being there, and the latter might be an epic battle of
>> wits and skill against a powerful prey, two incompetent "allies" who
>> don't recognize the dynamics of the table, and say a (D) rush predator
>> who is focused on pummeling your minions "Cause its kool" even though
>> he has no Fames.
>
> They "could" represent lots of things. 2-1-1-1-0 could just as easily
> represent a table on which 5 world class players are sitting.

I'm glad you agree with me.

>>> Example (as above, but a tie): You win three games with 3VPs in each,
>>> but no sweeps. I win two games with sweeps (5VP in one, 4VP in
>>> another), but no other VPs. We both therefore have 3GW and 9VP. We
>>> would tie. How to break this tie? Reward consistency or sweeps,
>>> choose
>>> your poison.
>>
>> Dunno, TPs could serve that very purpose. Anyway, I kind of like the
>> fraction GW idea that gives you extra incentive to win "well".
>
> TPs, for reference, would solve that based on consistency. Since I have
> two real-GWs, I have come first on two tables, but (joint) last on
> another. Since you have three real-GWs, you have come first on three
> first places. TPs will then reward consistency.
>
> A minor difficulty here might be that in the lead positions, you're
> rewarding sweeps but at the edge condition (5th/6th) you're rewarding
> consistency. This is potentially awkward.

Dunno, I still suspect most of the "edge condition" scores to be around
2 - 2.5 GWs. If we are talking about instances where two players have
3 GW and 9-12 VPs (one player made two sweeps, the other made three
non-sweep GWs) then TPs would indeed favor the player with three normal
GW-s, but that would not be 5th-6th place, but rather around 2nd-3rd.
I would not expect sweeps to become significantly more common.

> However, it should be noted that this is essentially counting only the
> VPs won by the table winner - which is another suggestion people have
> given in the past. (Then resolving ties based on ALL VPs.)

Yes. However, what was considered in the past may well be reconsidered
in the present, for the situation is at least somewhat different.

>> Nice assessment. I see some merit in rewarding sweeps better than 2-3
>> splits, if for nothing else than to finally give an advantage to
>> 4-player tables. Giving 1.5 GWs for a sweep means that a single sweep
>> ranks higher than a single no-sweep GW, and two sweeps rank as high as
>> three non-sweeps. I think there may be merit in this idea, somewhat
>> discouraging splits...
>
> If the criterion is that winning "better" (i.e. getting closer to a
> sweep) is more desirable than winning in a manner which allows for
> tossing VPs casually around, a linear progression of scores won't cut it
> as a player tossing away a VP isn't punished any more than the VP they
> throw away. A curve, or series of levels (of which "reward a sweep with
> an extra VP" is a very simple example of a level), which rewards the
> better positions more is more likely to do what you need.

--
Bye,

Daneel
!