About deals and withdrawing
28 Jan 2013 20:59 - 28 Jan 2013 21:02 #44564
by Jeff Kuta
So, just throwing this out there...
What if Game Wins were only awarded when there is a "last man standing?"
It would put the premium back on earning VPs and thus making the game come to a conclusion faster (so a GW could then be awarded as well). This would break some of the contradictions that Boris mentions (though it's a bit off topic for this withdraw discussion, except in the context of finishing the game. It would also truly invalidate any deals in the two-player game since getting more VPs (and faster) is ALWAYS a good thing.
When you are anvil, be patient; when a hammer, strike.
pckvtes.wordpress.com
@pckvtes
Replied by Jeff Kuta on topic Re: About deals and withdrawing
That is not how the tournament rules are currently written.
Although it is indubitably a worse result for the tournament, E has the right to prefer a GW2.5 to a GW4. In the tournament rounds, the PTW rule does not match the definition of winning.For tournaments, playing to win means playing to get a Game Win if it is reasonably possible, and when a Game Win is not reasonably possible, then playing to get as many Victory Points as possible.
So, just throwing this out there...
What if Game Wins were only awarded when there is a "last man standing?"
It would put the premium back on earning VPs and thus making the game come to a conclusion faster (so a GW could then be awarded as well). This would break some of the contradictions that Boris mentions (though it's a bit off topic for this withdraw discussion, except in the context of finishing the game. It would also truly invalidate any deals in the two-player game since getting more VPs (and faster) is ALWAYS a good thing.
When you are anvil, be patient; when a hammer, strike.
pckvtes.wordpress.com
@pckvtes
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
28 Jan 2013 21:38 - 28 Jan 2013 21:42 #44565
by Ankha
Is it worth changing the tournament rules?
For my part (and apparently some of you disagree), I like it that way. Even when situation is desesperate, if there's still hope, you are (or D is in my example) still in the game.
You can't win because your predator has a deck that screws yours? Your predator has crashed on your vampires and is now dead while you struggle to survive? There's always a possibility to deal, bargain, make clever choices.
"Your prey is on the left, bwaaaah, kill it" is the exact opposite of that, and can be very annoying (especially when it brings nothing to the player crashing himself on his prey while his predator just wait for the moment to strike and take 2 VPs).
Some people (usually the same that thinks that D should try ousting E and die in the process) miss that psychologic point. Why on earth does D want his VP? Why doesn't he die? Why doesn't he take pleasure in being crushed and denied his chances?
Because he plays to win. Without fighting spirit, the game would be dull.
Replied by Ankha on topic Re: About deals and withdrawing
Question is: is it bad that a deal where E scores GW 2.5 in order to give 1 VP to D?
That is not how the tournament rules are currently written.
Although it is indubitably a worse result for the tournament, E has the right to prefer a GW2.5 to a GW4. In the tournament rounds, the PTW rule does not match the definition of winning.For tournaments, playing to win means playing to get a Game Win if it is reasonably possible, and when a Game Win is not reasonably possible, then playing to get as many Victory Points as possible.
So, just throwing this out there...
What if Game Wins were only awarded when there is a "last man standing?"
It would put the premium back on earning VPs and thus making the game come to a conclusion faster (so a GW could then be awarded as well). This would break some of the contradictions that Boris mentions (though it's a bit off topic for this withdraw discussion, except in the context of finishing the game. It would also truly invalidate any deals in the two-player game since getting more VPs (and faster) is ALWAYS a good thing.
Is it worth changing the tournament rules?
For my part (and apparently some of you disagree), I like it that way. Even when situation is desesperate, if there's still hope, you are (or D is in my example) still in the game.
You can't win because your predator has a deck that screws yours? Your predator has crashed on your vampires and is now dead while you struggle to survive? There's always a possibility to deal, bargain, make clever choices.
"Your prey is on the left, bwaaaah, kill it" is the exact opposite of that, and can be very annoying (especially when it brings nothing to the player crashing himself on his prey while his predator just wait for the moment to strike and take 2 VPs).
Some people (usually the same that thinks that D should try ousting E and die in the process) miss that psychologic point. Why on earth does D want his VP? Why doesn't he die? Why doesn't he take pleasure in being crushed and denied his chances?
Because he plays to win. Without fighting spirit, the game would be dull.
Prince of Paris, France
Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
Time to create page: 0.096 seconds
- You are here:
-
Home
-
Forum
-
V:TES Discussion
-
Card Balance & Strategy Discussion
- About deals and withdrawing