TIE Breaker for finals

I agree with Ankha.

Randy wrote:

I think that one strong argument is that it is unintuitive that a player not in the game has a chance to win it.

It works in exactly the same way for the earlier rounds - the Game Win can go to someone who's been ousted.

V:TES isn't, and has never been intended to be, a last-man standing game. The whole point of V:TES's multiplayer structure is that you get players with totally different incentives, and if one of my cross-table "allies" is proving to be troublesome, getting rid of them may be good for me (e.g. they're no longer contesting my Inner Circle title) but it's also a conflict for me (it helps someone else get a step closer to winning). Richard Garfield was very careful in not setting up a game that is solely social because of the distinct aims we each have, but where alliances and scheming have a part to play.

If we play the earlier rounds with one set of rules, it's generally much better for us all if we can play the final with the same set - so if 'winning' means being last man standing in the final, it should probably mean it in the earlier rounds. Otherwise you can create a situation where the 'best' deck in the earlier rounds is screwed by the change in format of the later round, which is odd.[0] Moving to a last-man standing game also radically alters the desirability and viability of certain deck types. Back-ousting with bleeds, for example, becomes potentially much stronger, because then a given player has two effective predators - their real predator, and the !Malkavians back-ousting them with Kindred Spirits. Potentially very unpleasant. It also (potentially) massively increases the incentives to dogpile someone.

Can we also re-write the rules of chess? It's weird that I can beat you, even though you might have more pieces on the board.


[0] We already have that to a limited extent with the tweaks to how you get the win in the final (e.g. the tie-break), but that's a relatively minimal tweak overall.

I Think you got me wrong, My intent was to give the tiebreak in a 2-2 split in the final to last man instead of seed and not giving the win to a person with 2 vps if he or she is last person and there is another with more.

SO
Winner of a final is:
1. The person with most VPs when the game has ended
2. Highest seed in the case of a timeout and there is a tie for most VPs
3. Last person on the table when there is no timeout but there is a 2-2 split.

I myself dont know if this would promot "better" play but it feels wierd when you sit there and you are fighting for another players win.

Randy wrote:

I Think you got me wrong,

Well, you said:
So I'm figuring that you, you know, think that it's "unintuitive" that a player who is not in the game has a, how do you put it, chance to win it.

Why is it only weird in a 2-2 split?

I strongly disagree with the idea of last man standing winning over another player with 2 VPs and here is why:

1. If the higher seated player manages to gain 2 VPs he deserves the win more than the player who is last man standing, since that player only ousted 1 other player and merely got his second VP as a result of being last man while the first player actually killed 2 other players
2. The first player in that scenario got his 2 VPs earlier in the game, that means it took him less time hence he was more effective in scoring those VPs.
3. This is the most important one. Changing the rule like this would give a very bad incentive to the top seated player. If he had a choice of scoring 1 VP and than running down the clock by playing very defensivly vs. scoring 2 VP and loosing the final to the last man standing it is clear what would happen. This would result in even more incentive for higher seated players to play slow games in order to tie for VPs and win based on seating instead of winning by max. amount of VPs.