About deals and withdrawing

Non-existant user wrote:

Fact is: there are not many ways to make it work differently. Kingmaking is part of any interactive multiplayer game. You can make it less relevant by removing second place, but then you cannot run tournaments. After 3 rounds, there is a high probability that several players have the number of GWs, so a tie breaker is needed. Heck, even with the current GW+VP+TP system, it still comes down to a coin toss sometimes. So VPs are needed in the formula and as long as you have VPs, you will have kingmaking and table splitting deals.

Missed this very astute post earlier. Tournaments usually have a winner. Points and tie-breakers determine this. The key is making sure the metrics used both accurately represent the goals of the game being played, and the goals of the tournament event. Boris also correctly noted that these are not perfectly in synch currently. They are close, but can they be better? Perhaps.

Non-existant user wrote:

Here are two possible options:

1) Get rid of withdrawing altogether. It adds nothing to the game and is never used except in table splitting deals. There is a reason it was downgraded to 0.5VPs in the tournament rules.
2) Change the PTW rules to force a player to maximise his VPs even if he has the GW, so that the duel must always be played out. That would actually fit the tournament definition of winning better since VPs are a part of tournament scoring. 1GW5 is better than 1GW3, that should reflect in the PTW definition. Table splitting deals would still be possible, but everyone in the deal would have to earn their own VPs by ousting non-cooperative preys.

I am not a fan of #1. Withdrawing should be a *very* rare occurrence, but when it legitimately happens (not part of a deal), that's fine by me.

While I don't think a change in the PTW rules is needed (#2), I think that the tournament scoring could possibly provide better incentives for PTW and (simultaneously) disincentives against king-making. But, my ideas for that are for another thread and another time.

Fine.

Suoli wrote:

I'm not necessarily looking for a counter-argument. I just want you to acknowledge and understand that there is another completely valid position on deal making that a significant portion of the players agrees with. Not because they can't build decks, are sore losers or whatever other discrediting characteristic you might attribute to them but because they genuinely enjoy playing that way. This shouldn't be that hard to believe.

It's not really "counter argument" i want to provide, but maybe shed another light on the game that tournament players don't always realize or remember.
I know for sure that there is a completely valid position, since it's the one i am "attacking" in a way. Just look at the visceral reaction from Ohlmann in the beginning : it was like i was a madman just by saying the tournament rules are flawed.
You are expressing the "mainstream opionion" here, the one validated by most serious tournament players. I am not discrediting your opinion in any way, but i have at heart to point valuable things : for example, when you talk about "prey-to-the-left".

Suoli wrote:

reyda wrote:

Suoli wrote:

A player with a "prey-is-to-the-left" mentality only has to interact with the players next to him. A table politician, on the other hand, has to not only interact with every player at the table but recognize who and how those players are or should be interacting with each other as well.

But what is so bad with "prey is to the left" (and i guess "predator is to the right" ) mentality ? There are players whith this mentality, who are also capable of making very good choices, who interacts with other players ingame a lot, but still consider that their source of VP is ousting their prey.

Did I say it's bad? Good for them if they get a kick out out of it.

Is it grossly exagerating your words, to say you have a low opinion of those players ? Would you tell me sincerely that i misake your words for what they are not ?

It's a way of thinking that bugs me, since the way you describe it, one way to play is considered "superior". You cannot ask me to view your opinion as totally respectable and not at least trying to behave the same towards mine because i might side with the "player-to-the-left" specie.

my theory may be bad, or maybe simply annoying, but i'd like any tournament to consider it like some tried to do instead of dismissing it totally.
Again I love the game and would not have those lenghty discussion if it was not the case.

suoli wrote:

Can you speak on behalf of Richard Garfield? Not that it matters. Arguments based on perceived designer intent are meaningless.

Garfield wrote a book about jyhad, sitting on my shelf, where he describes lenghty most of his choices.
Of course, the game has evolved since, and some things got better, some things got worse.

The game has been changed by the tournament players to fit their needs.

Suoli wrote:

The only thing that matters is whether deal making as an emergent property of the game is a good thing or a glitch.

that's the problem.
A glitch in a video game can be fun. It may be cool to walk through walls (idclip anyone ? ) but does it make the game more interesting in the long run ?

The more i consider it, the more i thing it's a glitch. Because most of the time, it supercedes the prey-predator rules, and even the content of each player's deck. It also destroys almost all preparation a player did during his previous turns in a given game.
When the talking goes proeminent above the gaming, there is a problem. Again, it's only my opinion.

How about I tell you what I think so you don't have to guess?

Refusing to make deals is a clear handicap. I don't care how good you are, you'd be better if you made deals. But that's not a point I was trying to make or discuss at length. It's not really relevant.

The tournament system as it is now, litteraly forces you to make a deal.

Think about the people on the other end of a deal.
So you make a really balanced deck. Your seating is okay, not perfect but ok. You play 45 minutes the best you can. But someone who is not your prey, not your predator has decided you have to die now, because he needs 1 VP to make someone else win. I'm sorry to use such a basic exemple here, but when you sum it up it's just this : one guy throws every other player's clever decisions to go into kingmaking. He plays to lose and make you lose. That's insane if you think about it. The aim of any game is to win.
It does not feel ok to me anymore, and that's why I want to discuss it.

they have a saying in los angeles : "Wanna game ? We can have fun. Or we can play v:tes".
It's exactly how i see it now.
I don't want to drive the discussion to "toolboxy vs focused". The argument "table splitting is a tool fabricated by tournament players to prevent harm restulting from bad seating" still stand strong in my opinion.

Suoli wrote:

Why the need to frustrate other players just because you cannot adapt the metagame ? It's one of the very thing that baffles me (the other being the hatred for lutz )

Why do you say that a deal maker can't adapt to the metagame? Is he not already adapted if he wins through deal making?

Because adapting to a metagame is a matter of deckbuilding before gaming and taking decisions during gaming. In other words I am not adapting to the spanish metagame if i start talking in spanish at a table in mallorca.

Suoli wrote:

It's difficult to accept one's fate when seating between a tupdog and Ozmo, but sometimes it's just where you seat. Build accordingly, and maybe your deck will be a bit less strong, but you'll have reasonnable chances at winning -or at least you are not forced to kingmaking.

This ventures into a completely different topic. Focused vs. well-rounded decks has nothing to do with deal making.

why is it another topic ? Putting a fear of mekhet is not making it toolboxy ! It just gives you a chance to trump an inner circle and avoid being on the lose end of a deal, for exemple. you have to sacrifice slots to make your deck more viable.
If you don't want to do it, you can still rely on table splitting : that's what most experienced players do it, and it's not insulting them to say so...

Suoli wrote:

I think deals became a standard in tournament games for wrong reasons, and maybe it's time to change it and reward players for playing the original game.

What exactly are you implying with that? That players who make deals are playing wrong?

Not at all. They are playing by making the best *of the tournament rules*.

the same rules that have changed in the past and can change again if people ask for it.

We could include splitting deals in the rules, and add a penalty/bonus victory point if a deal is completed / disabled by the other players. We could think about something. If there is enough people willing change.

Reyda wrote:

Is it grossly exagerating your words, to say you have a low opinion of those players ? Would you tell me sincerely that i misake your words for what they are not ?

It's a way of thinking that bugs me, since the way you describe it, one way to play is considered "superior". You cannot ask me to view your opinion as totally respectable and not at least trying to behave the same towards mine because i might side with the "player-to-the-left" specie.

This is what I had to say about players who don't like making deals:
"Of course, many players hold the opposite view and I have nothing but respect for them. If someone doesn't want to negotiate, fine, that doesn't take anything away from me."

I still maintain that not making deals is a clear handicap, but, again, each to his own.

A glitch in a video game can be fun. It may be cool to walk through walls (idclip anyone ? ) but does it make the game more interesting in the long run ?

There are many examples of glitches and other unforeseen playstyles that sometimes single-handedly made certain games a success. Of course, in those cases everybody starts calling it a feature, not a glitch.

The more i consider it, the more i thing it's a glitch. Because most of the time, it supercedes the prey-predator rules, and even the content of each player's deck. It also destroys almost all preparation a player did during his previous turns in a given game.
When the talking goes proeminent above the gaming, there is a problem. Again, it's only my opinion.

Think about the people on the other end of a deal.
So you make a really balanced deck. Your seating is okay, not perfect but ok. You play 45 minutes the best you can. But someone who is not your prey, not your predator has decided you have to die now, because he needs 1 VP to make someone else win.

You seem to be of the opinion that negotiations exist separately from the gameplay and dynamics of a given table. This has not been my experience.

Deals are made as a result of and a reaction to the state of the table. They have very clear root causes that develop throughout the course of the game. A good player should be able to influence where the political atmosphere of a given table is headed. If a player doesn't have the ability or will to manipulate the table to a state where they have a diplomatically strong position then he, in my opinion, didn't play well enough.

If you get screwed by a table split it's because someone else made that deal viable through his own actions (or inactions) while you were unable or unwilling to see the signs and stop this from happening. Prey-predator mechanics are no excuse for not recognizing your real enemies.

I'm sorry to use such a basic exemple here, but when you sum it up it's just this : one guy throws every other player's clever decisions to go into kingmaking. He plays to lose and make you lose. That's insane if you think about it. The aim of any game is to win.
It does not feel ok to me anymore, and that's why I want to discuss it.

You focus on the losing end of the deal. Another way to sum it up would be "one guy makes sound decisions to create a situation where he can get a game win by giving out one or more vp's". That doesn't sound bad to me at all.

Suoli wrote:

Why do you say that a deal maker can't adapt to the metagame? Is he not already adapted if he wins through deal making?

Because adapting to a metagame is a matter of deckbuilding before gaming and taking decisions during gaming. In other words I am not adapting to the spanish metagame if i start talking in spanish at a table in mallorca.

I would argue that deal making is a decision taken during gaming. It's really not at all the same as changing languages.

Suoli wrote:

It's difficult to accept one's fate when seating between a tupdog and Ozmo, but sometimes it's just where you seat. Build accordingly, and maybe your deck will be a bit less strong, but you'll have reasonnable chances at winning -or at least you are not forced to kingmaking.

This ventures into a completely different topic. Focused vs. well-rounded decks has nothing to do with deal making.

why is it another topic ? Putting a fear of mekhet is not making it toolboxy ! It just gives you a chance to trump an inner circle and avoid being on the lose end of a deal, for exemple. you have to sacrifice slots to make your deck more viable.
If you don't want to do it, you can still rely on table splitting : that's what most experienced players do it, and it's not insulting them to say so...

It's a different topic because the topic under discussion is deal making and whether it's good or bad for the game. I don't know why you are intent on attributing table splitting to players who build focused (or would you rather say boring and overpowered?) decks. Frankly, it reeks of rhetoric.

We could include splitting deals in the rules, and add a penalty/bonus victory point if a deal is completed / disabled by the other players. We could think about something. If there is enough people willing change.

Absolutely. Like I said, though, Silence of Death exists for those who really can't stand deal making. I would promote that over taking something away from the players who really like deal making.

Suoli wrote:

I still maintain that not making deals is a clear handicap, but, again, each to his own.

Dude. Please. Can you stop saying one thing in a sentence, and then a different thing in the next ?
First you say some guys have "play to the left mentality".
then you say, "oh but i respect that"
then "i never said it was a bad thing"
and finally "it is a clear handicap for them".

Is it possible for you to stand on firm ground when you are saying something instead of trying to say subtle things ?
My feeling, when i read this is there is on one hand Suoli gently speaking with me about deals, assuring me they are the best thing since mayonnaise, and on the other hand the bad Suoli sending subliminal messages and winking to his fellow tournament players, half saying "prey to left players are, like you handicapped monkeys, and think like monkeys. Oh and i respect that. Here, toss them a Silence of death banana so they stop question what we are doing on the *real* tournament scene".

Suoli wrote:

Reyda wrote:

A glitch in a video game can be fun. It may be cool to walk through walls (idclip anyone ? ) but does it make the game more interesting in the long run ?

There are many examples of glitches and other unforeseen playstyles that sometimes single-handedly made certain games a success. Of course, in those cases everybody starts calling it a feature, not a glitch.

Excuse me, but i know of only one glitch who became game standard : The chain combo system of Street Fighter 2 (actually a result of "cancel" animation). All the other were wiped out, because they were abuses from players. Bunny hop from CS ? Not anymore. Hover walk from Tribes ? Not anymore. In video gaming environment, most glitchy games get fixed for everyone's satisfaction. Of course, some guy who mastered the art of silly moves will get upset. But all the community benefits from a new deal.

But no, Vtes is not like this. Vtes tournament scene is made of serious players. A better species maybe ? They will not allow anyone to touch their precious kingmaking rules. And when you try to even discuss it, you are "frustrated" and "angry".

Suoli wrote:

Deals are made as a result of and a reaction to the state of the table. They have very clear root causes that develop throughout the course of the game. A good player should be able to influence where the political atmosphere of a given table is headed. If a player doesn't have the ability or will to manipulate the table to a state where they have a diplomatically strong position then he, in my opinion, didn't play well enough.

I understand your explanations, but come on : at some point it all comes down to reality, namely, which cards you are playing.
I cannot pass myself as a player who is not stealthbleeding if the first vamp out is dolphin black and the first card played Kindred spirits.

Yes, a player should be able to influence the table, I never tell anything different, really, but at some point, what your deck does is what your deck does. If I play an ahrimane deck with raven spies, it's maintly to intercept stuff. Someone tells me "ok, interecept nothing except him, guaranted 2VP". What's the incentive of playing the *card game* then ?

Suoli wrote:

If you get screwed by a table split it's because someone else made that deal viable through his own actions (or inactions) while you were unable or unwilling to see the signs and stop this from happening. Prey-predator mechanics are no excuse for not recognizing your real enemies.

No no, the deal does not come from my inability as a player to see it coming. The deal does come from the inability of another player to fight it out. Or the ability of another player to manipulate someone less clever / or someone who has an aversion for risk.

So what would you suggest ? That i do the table splitting deal with this hopeless player myself ?
So the only answer to a table splitting deal is a table splitting deal ?
It does not make sens to fight an artificial problem with the exact same artificial problem.

Suoli wrote:

You focus on the losing end of the deal. Another way to sum it up would be "one guy makes sound decisions to create a situation where he can get a game win by giving out one or more vp's". That doesn't sound bad to me at all.

It's as valid to say " A player uses long tirades and a loophole in tournament rules to get away with bad seating, by temporary slaving a willing victim who also gets to lose".
Two faces of the same coin.

The tournament rules give *incentive to Play to Lose* in form of VP crumbles.
Remove this incentive and Nobody will deal anymore ! They'd better fight it out and play the game as it is designed !
Do you think I am insane because i write this simple thing ??

Glitch creates problem. Remove glitch, remove problem.

Suoli wrote:

reyda wrote:

Suoli wrote:

Why do you say that a deal maker can't adapt to the metagame? Is he not already adapted if he wins through deal making?

Because adapting to a metagame is a matter of deckbuilding before gaming and taking decisions during gaming. In other words I am not adapting to the spanish metagame if i start talking in spanish at a table in mallorca.

I would argue that deal making is a decision taken during gaming. It's really not at all the same as changing languages.

No. Metagame has a definition you are chosing to ignore, and it has nothing to do with table talk. By definition, deal making has nothing to do with adapting to metagame. It's almost the opposite : you can and generally will use deals to avoid the metagame interaction which are an obligation in other card games...

suoli wrote:

Like I said, though, Silence of Death exists for those who really can't stand deal making. I would promote that over taking something away from the players who really like deal making.

No. Not this banana.

for the TL; DR people !

The tournament rules give *incentive to Play to Lose* in form of VP crumbles.
Remove this incentive and Nobody will deal anymore ! They'd better fight it out and play the game as it is designed !

Reyda wrote:

Dude. Please. Can you stop saying one thing in a sentence, and then a different thing in the next ?
First you say some guys have "play to the left mentality".
then you say, "oh but i respect that"
then "i never said it was a bad thing"
and finally "it is a clear handicap for them".

1. Some players have a very strict adherence to the prey-predator relationship.

2. I have no problem with this.

3. Those players are not playing as well as they could be playing. In other words, they are playing with a handicap.

4. All of these statements are internally consistent.

You are aware of the non-offensive uses of the term "handicap", right?

Is it possible for you to stand on firm ground when you are saying something instead of trying to say subtle things ?
My feeling, when i read this is there is on one hand Suoli gently speaking with me about deals, assuring me they are the best thing since mayonnaise, and on the other hand the bad Suoli sending subliminal messages and winking to his fellow tournament players, half saying "prey to left players are, like you handicapped monkeys, and think like monkeys. Oh and i respect that. Here, toss them a Silence of death banana so they stop question what we are doing on the *real* tournament scene".

You have a wild imagination. I never called anyone a retard. I did say that some players are playing with a handicap. There's a difference.

Reyda wrote:

Excuse me, but i know of only one glitch who became game standard : The chain combo system of Street Fighter 2 (actually a result of "cancel" animation). All the other were wiped out, because they were abuses from players. Bunny hop from CS ? Not anymore. Hover walk from Tribes ?

Going off-topic here but skiing is what made Tribes.

But no, Vtes is not like this. Vtes tournament scene is made of serious players. A better species maybe ? They will not allow anyone to touch their precious kingmaking rules. And when you try to even discuss it, you are "frustrated" and "angry".

I'm not frustrated or angry. You are imagining things. As I've already said, my goal is to bring to your attention the other side of the argument. It would do you well to truly understand the opposing position if you want to be taken seriously and have a serious discussion about the issue.

Yes, a player should be able to influence the table, I never tell anything different, really, but at some point, what your deck does is what your deck does. If I play an ahrimane deck with raven spies, it's maintly to intercept stuff. Someone tells me "ok, interecept nothing except him, guaranted 2VP". What's the incentive of playing the *card game* then ?

I'm not sure I clearly understand you here.

Suoli wrote:

If you get screwed by a table split it's because someone else made that deal viable through his own actions (or inactions) while you were unable or unwilling to see the signs and stop this from happening. Prey-predator mechanics are no excuse for not recognizing your real enemies.

No no, the deal does not come from my inability as a player to see it coming. The deal does come from the inability of another player to fight it out. Or the ability of another player to manipulate someone less clever / or someone who has an aversion for risk.

So what would you suggest ? That i do the table splitting deal with this hopeless player myself ?
So the only answer to a table splitting deal is a table splitting deal ?
It does not make sens to fight an artificial problem with the exact same artificial problem.

Or you could create a situation where the table split is unviable before it happens. Or team up with the other players. Hard to say without having a specific table as an example.

The tournament rules give *incentive to Play to Lose* in form of VP crumbles.
Remove this incentive and Nobody will deal anymore ! They'd better fight it out and play the game as it is designed !

Again you imply that deal making was not explicitly designed into the game and therefore it should be removed. That's nonsense. Whether the original designer foresaw deal making or not is absolutely irrelevant to the question at hand. But if that's really what you want to debate, I would say that shady conspiracies and ruthless politics are appropriate for a game about methuselahs.

Do you think I am insane because i write this simple thing ??

I think you are self-centered for wanting to impose your own preferences on everybody else without giving any thought to other views.

Glitch creates problem. Remove glitch, remove problem.

You think there's a problem. Others don't.

Suoli wrote:

I would argue that deal making is a decision taken during gaming. It's really not at all the same as changing languages.

No. Metagame has a definition you are chosing to ignore, and it has nothing to do with table talk. By definition, deal making has nothing to do with adapting to metagame. It's almost the opposite : you can and generally will use deals to avoid the metagame interaction which are an obligation in other card games...

That's like saying that rushing a bleeder is the same as subverting the metagame. Deal making is a part of the game. Making deals is playing the game as much as rushing a bleeder is.

suoli wrote:

Like I said, though, Silence of Death exists for those who really can't stand deal making. I would promote that over taking something away from the players who really like deal making.

No. Not this banana.

So the only acceptable solution to you is that everybody plays the way you want? Is there no compromise that you would be happy with?