lightbulb EC 2017 - Questions to judges

21 May 2017 18:04 #81970 by ReverendRevolver
So on self ousting:
Is it still legal (regardless of accidental occurrences)
To self oust if doing so is the optimal outcome concerning playing to win:

I'm first seed at finals, 3players remain. If my prey gets my predator, they win by 1vp, if my predator gets me I win, since my predator must still play to maximize vps .

Or am I crazy? I can legally play AI if Lutz bleeds me for 4 and I have 3 pool, no ready minions, and asked the table if anyone will eagle sight, as I can optimize my 0 vps as I see fit, as far as I know.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
21 May 2017 21:52 #81974 by jamesatzephyr

I'm first seed at finals, 3players remain. If my prey gets my predator, they win by 1vp, if my predator gets me I win, since my predator must still play to maximize vps .

Or am I crazy? I can legally play AI if Lutz bleeds me for 4 and I have 3 pool, no ready minions, and asked the table if anyone will eagle sight, as I can optimize my 0 vps as I see fit, as far as I know.


Assuming that we're back in the situation where you can self-oust, and you're in the final round, the way the final is scored as of 2008 changes the considerations in the final round. There are two outcomes in the final: one, you win; two: you come joint second. There's no risk assessment of playing for second place over fifth place (and potentially different prizes) - it's just first, or joint second. Thus LSJ ruled that since everyone in the game has an infinitesimal theoretical chance of winning, and cannot worsen their outcome (because they come joint second), everyone in the final should try to come first at all times.

[LSJ 20071204]

> Basically: during a 2008 final, if a player reasonably tells he can't play
> for first place anymore,
> why that player should go on playing the final round ?

No. Just the opposite.

With no risk assessment to fall back on, any chance for first place, no matter
how slim, is better than self-ousting.

That is, 0.001% * win + 99.999% * 2nd > 100% * 2nd, so PTW means you go for the
0.001% shot.



[LSJ 20071204] (a different one in the same thread):

> I think the change really propogates to go for the win instead of
> chickening for 2nd because of rating/prizes. I really like that. But as
> pointed out elsewhere there is now the problem of random kingmaking in
> case of a lost cause.

No. As pointed out elsewhere, there is now none of that. Any player still in the
game has a chance at 1st vs. 2nd (and nothing else), so must try for 1st.




The difference in preliminary rounds is that you may be in a situation where your outcome is made worse by a particular action. There might be a theoretical one in a million chance that you could get a sweep if you drew exactly the right cards in exactly the right order, but if you get it wrong, you'll leave yourself tapped out and get ousted with 0VP. So you choose to play for a solid 2VP on the table instead - and 2VP is better in a preliminary round than 0VP.

In the final, all outcomes that don't lead to you winning are treated exactly the same. If you come second with 1VP and I come second with 0VP, we're treated exactly the same - we both came second, with no tie breakers applied. If there are prizes, we should get exactly the same prizes because we both had exactly the same result - second.

This rules change in 2008 (announced at the end of 2007, hence the rulings above) was to stop, stymie or reduce a number of the situations that occurred in finals to do with table-splitting deals, players playing for second (rather than fifth), king-making etc.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
22 May 2017 12:03 #81986 by TapeTaChatte
at the moment, yes, especially because somebody might play a Life boon, so even when playing AI, your game is not technically over

IC Organized play coordinator
Please contact me with any OP query using the mail in my profile

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
22 May 2017 13:54 #81992 by jamesatzephyr

at moment, yes,


Except that that is exactly the opposite of LSJ's ruling on self-ousting in the finals that I just quotes. If you're intentionally self-ousting, meaning to leave the game while coming joint second, you are not playing to win.

especially because somebody might play a Life boon, so even when playing AI, your game is not technically over


There may be an argument that if you reasonably believe that someone else will keep you in the game for some reason, self-ousting in the final might be legal in that situation. But if you are self-ousting to come joint second, you are not playing to win.

Please, please, please read the two rulings from LSJ above, particularly the words: "any chance for first place, no matter how slim, is better than self-ousting". If you are aiming for joint second, you are not playing to win.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
22 May 2017 14:33 #81993 by TapeTaChatte
Yeah I have read both answers, and mine does not contradict with them.

I think I have just proven you how sometimes ousting yourself can bring you a way of playing to win.

What LSJ is saying in his ruling is that you must play to win, he is not giving you any indication of how you need to manage that. I have already won games, even in rounds, by being life booned. I have even made deals involving me being life booned at some point of the deal (also read - the stories of Uncle TTC - Tale #7, the life boon and the domain challenge :woohoo: :woohoo: )

Getting bled for 4 and playing AI at 3 pool might be playing to win in some situation (i.e you know you die either way, but hope you can be life booned and it's better if Lutz burns for you to play the remaining of the game)

Getting bled for 4 and not playing AI at 3 pool might be playing to win in some situation (i.e you know you die either way, but hope you can be life booned and your only way to win the finals with 2 minuts left is to play anarch revolt with your master phase action so you can't play that Ai).

Ultimately, if a play is arguable, it is the judge's responsibility to ensure that PTW is applied correctly, even in rounds.

Example:
In the 2017 EC final, I let myself die to my predator without resisting because I thought the best way for me to win was to hope for an eagle's sight at some point... even if that meant dying in the process. That's what PTW meant to me at that moment, even if it seemed like a crazy move.
On the opposite, some players will tell you that in my position the best way was to defend myself. Maybe they are right. It's a choice. The important part is that there was a way to the win in both stories told.

Example 2:
On some tournaments in my career, some plays were so stupid they were cancelled by the judge, for example a player ousting himself with Anarchist Uprising. But if this player explains the judge that his goal is to have his ally play his delaying tactics so he can then call a neonate breach to kill his prey, and that accepting risk of death in the process is worth it... who are we to judge and prevent that? It's difficult to prevent people from playing their game if they find right reasons for their behavior. Of course, if they tell you "nah I just want to die and bring somebody with me" that's a different matter.

So at the end, it's a judge call, but the judge should keep in mind what he has seen in the game previously when taking his decision (one people and another with very bad relations, out of game considerations, two people knowing each other, and so on)

IC Organized play coordinator
Please contact me with any OP query using the mail in my profile

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
22 May 2017 16:11 #81995 by jamesatzephyr

Yeah I have read both answers, and mine does not contradict with them.


Except... it contradicts them.

Revolver asks if he can self-oust in order to optimise his zero VPs in the way he sees fit. Not to pull off some risky strategy, not to try and pull off some clever card cancellation trick, but to get zero VPs. LSJ expressly days that you must play for first place, and playing in order to come second is exactly, completely the opposite of that - but is Revolver's stated intent. You say yes, you can do that. That is expressly, entirely, completely 100% the opposite of what LSJ said - in the final, you must play for first place and Revolver says he isn't doing that.

You are wrong.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
Moderators: AnkhaKraus
Time to create page: 0.065 seconds
Powered by Kunena Forum