Time limit variant for finals

The finals are already dissimilar to the preliminary rounds. Why are we trying to make it more dissimilar instead of less?

The proposal ends up creating a different game of VtES in the finals.

We've mentioned this elsewhere, but it bears repeating here (since it is more similar to how the preliminary rounds are played): what if the final seating was randomized and seeding only affected ties?

Ankha wrote:

If there's 15 minutes left (out of x hours), the player who has to score two VPs for the game win may just give up, because after all, even if he gets the VP, he won't have time to get the second VP he needs (it works also if he needs three VPs).

But your explanation of the incentive was baed on the fact that a player who is not currently first gets a VP in the final few minutes then gets an extra 10 minutes. So that's getting two VPs in the final 15 minutes. If a player can't get 2 VPs in 15 minutes, your incentive effect that you extolled apparently isn't an incentive. And if they can't get 2 VPs in 5+10 minutes, they certainly can't get 2 VPs in 5 minutes. So you seem to be arguing against yourself.

Ankha wrote:

With extra time, there's still a chance he manages to get his second VP.

Except, there's also the chance that another player on the table comes and eats his face with the extra time.

Consider the situation where the same player can lunge to get 1VP. That makes them win - either because that's the only VP on the table, or because they (for example) are the second seed and the fourth seed has 1VP too, so the second seed will win. (Many other options are possible.) Under the current situation, that player may lunge in the last two minutes of the game, and win. Under an altered situation, they may lunge, get that VP, and then - in the extra ten minutes - have their predator come and eat their face because they're tapped out from lunging. So they don't do it. So the player is disincentivized to lunge in the first place.

Ankha wrote:

I think this would make the end games more interesting for everyone in some games.

And less interesting in others, where the extra ten minutes hurts the player who could create it.


You are not positing a one-sided change where some end games are made more interesting, and everything else remains as it is. You are suggesting a change where a whole variety of end games change in a whole variety of different ways: some may be more exciting (player who lunges can get 2VP, not just 1), some will be less interesting (player who would lunge doesn't, because what's the point in letting themself be ousted?), and some will be different (this player wins rather than that player). It's not at all clear either that the change of outcomes will improve things, rather than increasing player caution due to the uncertainty. At 8 (or possibly 18) minutes to go, a player looking at their minion phase and wondering whether to play cautiously, because they might get bled again. That probably leads to a less exciting, and potentially less interesting, outcome.

Only an idea about the "player does nothing" part, what if we have in finals first,second,third...place?
I think that in this scenario the player will go for his VP, because he is alone 2nd in the tournament, will not give up and the most other players will play faster because they will also go for a VP.
Maybe the problem is that now 4 players a 2nd so they will not risk too much.
As said, only an idea.

There used to be 3rd, 4th and 5th place but that caused people to do deals ("I'll help you win and you help me get 2nd place") so it was decided that all non-winning players are 2nd place.

Which is all good.

No need to touch that old can of worms even with a 10ft pole!