Tournament Scoring

KevinM wrote:

Wouldn't VTES as an all-or-nothing game mean that every table would turn into high-risk high-reward decks, because no one likes repetitive play where they are constantly "losing"? So every casual game would become like Day1 of a continental championship?

At least there would be fewer table time outs.

I find it can be sometimes contradictory to expect players to maximize their VPs in a given game, when the format they are playing is a tournament consisting of more than one game

The number of players in the tournament also affects gameplay. In a smaller tournament, 1 game win is often enough to get to the finals. A player may play differently if he or she has a game win already, or knows that another player at his or her table has a game win.

Remember in the recent Olympics, when Badminton teams were throwing games because the tournament structure encouraged it? They eliminated the teams for unsportsmanlike conduct.

I am of two minds on this: yes, it is unsportsman-like to throw a game. But if the game is part of a larger tournament, then the goal is to win the tournament. If you can lose the game and still win the tournament, then that is a problem with the organization of the tournament.

Maybe the V:EKN tournament rules could be improved. I'm not sure how much the proposed changes would affect anything. The math may be harder, but thematically, the second suggestion by Kuta is appropriate. A vampire should never be satiated... even with the game win he or she should always want more... be it blood of victory points.

direwolf wrote:

I am of two minds on this: yes, it is unsportsman-like to throw a game. But if the game is part of a larger tournament, then the goal is to win the tournament.

...in a sportsmanlike manner. That is clearly, obviously known to be true.

direwolf wrote:

If you can lose the game and still win the tournament, then that is a problem with the organization of the tournament.

No, because at all times, if one acts unsportsmanlike, one deserves the appropriate punishment, and it does not indicate anything wrong with the tournament in any way.

Having said that, I do tend to agree that the current GW/VP/TP-structure is not completely satisfactory, and I've been advocating the complete abolishment of the 'Withdraw' rule for years as anti-PTW.Kuta often comes up with wacky, untenable rules changes, but they most often lead to interesting discussions, so I am all for hearing what he has to say and even trying some of his ideas out from time to time.

Wedge wrote:

V.P.s and T.P.s are only awarded to the game winner.

Scoring will be pretty monotonous and in BIG tournaments checking out the qualified players will be difficult as you'll need to draw lots to see who will be the lower quarter of the qualified players from all the people who have 0 points...

Not good.

Kevin, I don't think you meant casual games, rather any tournament may see increased aggression. Any change in meta would be from player perception, not a shift in the rules, we are still required to play to win now.

Lonkka, That is one of the reasons I included the other option. To be honest, I don't see the deals Reyda and Souli where talking about anymore. It could be because, no deal is binding, and my play group feels it is bad form to take a death before dishonor attitude when playing "Vampires". Or those of us who are skilled at deal making don't it is worth the trouble. Or the % of players who aren't aware of game state is low or high, whatever. All deals should be short term ones, anything else you should not accept.