Play to win

drnlmza wrote:

PetriWessman wrote:

Most importantly, this takes away the massive judge headache of having to rule if someone's statement of "I have no chance of staying in the game" is actually true. Play the game, see what happens.

If the problem we're trying to solve is people self-ousting becuase of colliusion or out of game considerations, the rules cannot fix that. There are far too many options available to a player to ensure they are ousted, and distinguhsing poor play from intentional bad play requires a judgement call, and always will. (this is a specific subset of "PTW is hard to judge").

If the problem is people sefl;-ousting because they're bored, or otherwise not having fun, trying to change the rules to force them to stay and play is an utterly terrible idea, and the proposal still leaves a lot of room for people to check out of the game anyway, If this is the problem, it may indicate mechinical problems in the game that needs to be addressed.

This is a very good statemnt. One of the problem with self-ousting someone get the VP and pool not in correct timing. Because he gets it out of turn and that disbalances the table.
As you said maybe there is a need for a withdraw mechanic, that will allow a player to live a table but will not affect the timing. Perhaps predator will score VP immediately but will get 6 pool at the beginning of his turn, it will create better table balans and allow someone to leave if his tilted. Or the VP will be given to the last palyer left on the table.

That way you can use Ankhas definition of PtW and have an option to leave the table if you dont have fun.

drnlmza wrote:

A significant issue these discussions is that people aren't clarifying what the problem they want to solve is.

They are playing tupdogs or something degenerated like it, nuke their predators vampires and then want him to stay in the game giving free pool and other protection against grand predator.

This is the real problem they are trying to solve with all this "fairness arguments".

elotar wrote:

drnlmza wrote:

A significant issue these discussions is that people aren't clarifying what the problem they want to solve is.

They are playing tupdogs or something degenerated like it, nuke their predators vampires and then want him to stay in the game giving free pool and other protection against grand predator.

This is the real problem they are trying to solve with all this "fairness arguments".

Actually, there was Combat preying on Legionnaires preying on something preying on bh bleed, and it's bh bleed who transfered out to help his french friend.

Lech wrote:

Actually, there was Combat preying on Legionnaires preying on something preying on bh bleed, and it's bh bleed who transfered out to help his french friend.

If you're claiming this behaviour was in violation of the play to win rule, a) you need to provide a lot more information about the game state to justify that claim and b) this is a matter that should be taken up with the relevant tournament organisers and judges, since it's a violation of the existing rules.

If it wasn't in violation of the PTW rule (i.e. the bh bleed player wasn't going to get a VP whether he transferred out or not), what is the problem with what happened?

It was kingmaking that was made by bleeder who seemingly run out of options in that very moment, and was under impression he would be dead next turn (which might to be false, given game state). It's hard to judge if he would get any vp or not, it was not far from time out so perhaps he might, but he didn't even tried, so he played out of spite to deny his grandprey VP (and most likely GW).

Which game exactly are you talking about?