About deals and withdrawing

Suoli wrote:

I think it's unfair to implicate deal making as a cause for timeouts. From what I've seen, negotiating out of gridlocks is more likely to resolve the game and prevent timeouts than cause them.

I don't think it's unfair to implicate deal-making as an occasional source of a time-out. Usually, that's not the case, to be sure and I don't mean to imply that deal-making is a major cause. Heck, I made a nice deal just 1 month ago to secure victory at a final table. Nonetheless, there certainly are people who, when sitting on 2 VPs, are willing to talk a lot about this or that minor detail to exhaust valuable time.

But, this is drifting a bit from the original post, which was mainly to show the mechanics of how a withdraw deal would be tourney legal. Just by pointing out such a deal is a rational choice to make doesn't imply that the poster advocates that course of action all the time. It's just another option.

Suoli wrote:

Reyda wrote:

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

Playing for VPs is playing the game.

Yes. Under current tournament rules. (Hey, I'll never get tired of this !)

For you information : under former tournament rules, playing to get 1,5 VP was ok too. Some people raised voice. It was changed.
Under other tournament rules, withdrawing granted 1 VP. some people objected and it was changed too.

so I want to create a discussion to maybe make things change.

- Again.
The current games give incentive to play to lose. (never tired either)
so why should i play to win then ? Being the puppet of another player grants me 2VP, why should I fight and get maybe 1 or 1,5 VP if there is a coalition of players that splits the table and has most chance of destroying my efforts ?

you still did not answer

You said nobody likes being the kingmaker, but there is one on every table ! How can players be so willing to lose if it's so unenjoyable ? Because : VP crumbles.
I am foreseeing your next answer, which will be "playing for VPs is playing the game / not playing to lose".

Suoli wrote:

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.

I have seen this.

Player A sees his predator's first few minions/cards/actions and says, "Oh crap, I know I cannot handle your deck, so help me oust my prey and I will weaken my next prey and not oust him until you oust me. In fact, at that point, I will act to help you get the GW."

Even as a judge, how are you going to stop such a deal when the justification is "I am in a lost position anyway, so I am playing to get 1 VP as opposed to 0 VP, which is maximising VPs and thus play to win"?

In case I get nitpicked on, there is nothing wrong with maximising VPs when losing, but there is something wrong with the current rules that allow Player A's predator to accept the deal because he can get a easy GW out of this.

I have to side with Reyda on this. How will you feel if you were Player A's prey or grand prey? You made no silly mistakes and have not taken the position of the table threat and yet you are suddenly faced with 2 predators, one of whom will keep flinging his resources against you with no thought towards defense. Is it fair then, that the current rules allow for kingmaking?


Also, we seem to have gone a fair ways off from the original topic of withdrawals as part of a valid deal.

Reyda wrote:

- Again.
The current games give incentive to play to lose. (never tired either)

This is false. The current rules give incentive to keep on playing even when you can't get the game win. They don't give incentive to try to lose.

so why should i play to win then ? Being the puppet of another player grants me 2VP, why should I fight and get maybe 1 or 1,5 VP if there is a coalition of players that splits the table and has most chance of destroying my efforts ?

How is playing for 1,5 vp over 2 vp "playing to win"?

you still did not answer

You said nobody likes being the kingmaker, but there is one on every table ! How can players be so willing to lose if it's so unenjoyable ? Because : VP crumbles.
I am foreseeing your next answer, which will be "playing for VPs is playing the game / not playing to lose".

Who said they are willing to lose? Who is this player who intentionally puts himself in a position where he can't win?

I will weaken my next prey and not oust him until you oust me

Isn't this completely against rules, if it comes to 3 player table? The deal would make you suicide instead of trying to get GW? Probably the only way out of this deal would be backousting, but I doubt this would be wanted by the predator (as it would make him target of the table)?

the1andonlime wrote:

Player A sees his predator's first few minions/cards/actions and says, "Oh crap, I know I cannot handle your deck, so help me oust my prey and I will weaken my next prey and not oust him until you oust me. In fact, at that point, I will act to help you get the GW."

I have to side with Reyda on this. How will you feel if you were Player A's prey or grand prey? You made no silly mistakes and have not taken the position of the table threat and yet you are suddenly faced with 2 predators, one of whom will keep flinging his resources against you with no thought towards defense. Is it fair then, that the current rules allow for kingmaking?

I would feel like I failed if I allowed such a pact without interfering or undermining it somehow. For example, as A's grandprey I could offer to back oust, help him survive his predator or, if the situation is dire, threaten A's predator by promising to give A another vp if the deal goes through. These are just some examples, with the point being that deals are not something that is completely out of your control. If you see a pact forming against you it's up to you to take countermeasures.

There's also A's point of view to consider. Is it any fairer that he should lose with no recourse just because he had bad luck with seating?