About deals and withdrawing

Suoli wrote:

" I'm not frustrated or angry. "

Yes, I know. It has nothing to do with your personnality : I was just pointing at the first argument I was served on this topic by previous poster.

Suoli wrote:

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

Because like you saw just above, when you try to talk about it you are branded as a "poor player", "prey to the left mentality" (i heard it many times, not just from you), and plain "stupid".

As I stated before, I used them deals. I know how they works. I think in the end, they supercede the cards, and I am here to mostly play cards. If i really want to impress & seduce someone with my talking skilzz, i can still go to any bar and try my luck with no card game involved

Suoli wrote:

Again you imply that deal making was not explicitly designed into the game and therefore it should be removed. That's nonsense.

I do not imply it, I am 100% positive about it. I wrote like 3 times that table splitting deals (the one we talk about here) are a fabrication of tournament players. How can i be more precise, should I tattoo it on my forehead or what ?
more seriously : The designer wrote a book about the game. No deals involved. The designer wrote card texts about the game. No deals involved.
There is no reference to tablesplitting deals except in tournament rules. And they appear quite lately, which is several years after the game was printed.

Removed or not removed, that is the question.
But there is no question whether it was explicitely designed where there is a clear answer stating it is not part the original game.

suoli wrote:

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

Mmm, I am discussing at the moment. I did not came here with nuclear weapons to force you into repent of your kingmaking. I want to see if there is an alternative to turn 5 chose 3 or 2 VPS.
I want to know if the game can be better be removing a rule that gives a good reason to play to lose in the disguise of play to win (oh the irony).
That's all.

Reyda wrote:

Because like you saw just above, when you try to talk about it you are branded as a "poor player", "prey to the left mentality" (i heard it many times, not just from you), and plain "stupid".

You'll have to take that up to them. I only speak for myself.

As I stated before, I used them deals. I know how they works. I think in the end, they supercede the cards, and I am here to mostly play cards.

I still don't agree that deals supercede the cards. If anything, it's the other way around: the conditions of deals are primarily dictated by cards, mechanics and the actions of players. Saying that deals make cards obsolete is like saying that forests make trees obsolete.

If i really want to impress & seduce someone with my talking skilzz, i can still go to any bar and try my luck with no card game involved

If you want to play V:TES without talking, there's a very popular tournament format for- oh, wait, it wasn't prestigious enough for you.

I do not imply it, I am 100% positive about it. I wrote like 3 times that table splitting deals (the one we talk about here) are a fabrication of tournament players. How can i be more precise, should I tattoo it on my forehead or what ?
more seriously : The designer wrote a book about the game. No deals involved. The designer wrote card texts about the game. No deals involved.
There is no reference to tablesplitting deals except in tournament rules. And they appear quite lately, which is several years after the game was printed.

Removed or not removed, that is the question.
But there is no question whether it was explicitely designed where there is a clear answer stating it is not part the original game.

Do you have a quote of Richard Garfield saying that deal making is not and should not be an implicit part of the game?

And again, it wouldn't matter if you did. It would have zero impact on the legitimacy of deal making as a part of the game. Can we drop this now?

Mmm, I am discussing at the moment. I did not came here with nuclear weapons to force you into repent of your kingmaking.

"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 !"

Sorry but that does sound a little aggressive. I'm willing to accept that that wasn't your intention.

I want to see if there is an alternative to turn 5 chose 3 or 2 VPS.
I want to know if the game can be better be removing a rule that gives a good reason to play to lose in the disguise of play to win (oh the irony).
That's all.

Why do you call it "play to lose"? Getting some victory points instead of no victory points is not a loss. Getting the game win by helping someone else get victory points is definitely not a loss.

Also, I would seriously consider promoting Silence of Death more heavily. There's no reason why it shouldn't get equal official standing with the regular format as long as enough players support it. Everybody wins. Is there some reason you consider this a bad option?

So you bring the " how do you know about designer'intent ? " argument and then you just say it's not valid anyway ? Okay, I accept that too.

Suoli wrote:

Why do you call it "play to lose"? Getting some victory points instead of no victory points is not a loss. Getting the game win by helping someone else get victory points is definitely not a loss.

I am saying one big thing. Lets re-do it again.

You have a victory point system.
this system is used in tournaments.
this system, under the name "play to win", gives incentive to players to king making, since securing the position of kingmaker allows you to gain 1 to 2 points.
This system gives a good reason to play *not to* win to players willing to kingmake.

Getting victory point out of a planned loss is something validated only by a flawed system.

You are presenting the idea that players like table splitting deals because it's a cool addition ton v:tes.
I am presenting the idea that in the end it's not a cool addition for the reasons.

I think that if there was no incentive to play for 1 or 2VP, then Nobody would like to kingmake.

Can i be more clear ?

Reyda wrote:

Getting victory point out of a planned loss is something validated only by a flawed system.

But you're not getting a VP due to a planned loss — it's not like players start the game planning to loose. Due to events that occur within the game players may find themselves in a position where they're unable to win — maximising VPs in that situation makes sense, regardless of the means.

Reyda wrote:

I am saying one big thing. Lets re-do it again.

You have a victory point system.
this system is used in tournaments.
this system, under the name "play to win", gives incentive to players to king making, since securing the position of kingmaker allows you to gain 1 to 2 points.
This system gives a good reason to play *not to* win to players willing to kingmake.

I disagree. The system might give incentive to make king makers but it does not give incentive to plan to become a king maker. I've never seen players actively strive to be second from the start and I've never seen someone being fully content with it. It's a role that you might get after failing to be the king but never a primary objective.

Getting victory point out of a planned loss is something validated only by a flawed system.

Planning to lose when you have a reasonable shot at winning is already illegal under the play to win rules.

You are presenting the idea that players like table splitting deals because it's a cool addition ton v:tes.
I am presenting the idea that in the end it's not a cool addition for the reasons.

I think that if there was no incentive to play for 1 or 2VP, then Nobody would like to kingmake.

Can i be more clear ?

I don't think anybody currently likes to be the king maker rather than the king. Sometimes it just happens to be the only thing left to play for.

Furthermore, what would a player be expected to do when he has no reasonable chance to gain the game win? Help someone else by self ousting? Help someone else by trying to survive? Rush crosstable? Decide by a coin flip? If there is nothing left to be gained, all of those options are equally valid.

Without te Vp crumbles, the only option remaining would be : Play. The. Game.