About deals and withdrawing

Reyda wrote:

2- It is in fact kingmaking. By agreeing to be on the lose end of a deal, you are playing to lose. The fact that you gain 1 or 2 VP while someone else grabs GW3 makes you playing to lose, not playing to win. And that is a FACT my dear, not an opinion.

Well, it's not a fact either, no matter how you try to put it. Except maybe on finals

In VtES, you're playing for maximum victory point, even if you don't like that. It's both in the rule and for tie breaking after GW for final

Now, you can stop stupid comparison, and state directly your position : "I want people to only play for the first place on the current table and nothing else should matter, especially not trying to actually be in the final". Which you didn't do. You just said that it was unsportmanship to do that, which it isn't.

(and by the way, even if we change the rule so that only GW count, not doing anything and/or not doing deal is kingmaking in the exact same way, just not for the benefit of the same player)

Reyda wrote:

In a sense, yes. It's exactly what I wrote, and I don't really understand the need for reiteration.

So, it has nothing to do with sportmanship, since the bad attitude consist to trying to win.

Ohlmann wrote:

Reyda wrote:

2- It is in fact kingmaking. By agreeing to be on the lose end of a deal, you are playing to lose. The fact that you gain 1 or 2 VP while someone else grabs GW3 makes you playing to lose, not playing to win. And that is a FACT my dear, not an opinion.

Well, it's not a fact either, no matter how you try to put it. Except maybe on finals

In VtES, you're playing for maximum victory point, even if you don't like that. It's both in the rule and for tie breaking after GW for final

Would you be surprised if I tell you i fracking know this ?
The problem is : why then not systematically make an alliance with the strongest so you scavenge 2 VP out of your *defeat* ?
Oh wait : that's what most people do in tournaments.
Can you tell me if it is intuitive to you, that in most tournament you have to gain one table, and just beg for crumbles to get to the finals ?

I know how tournament works. I played tournaments. I played tournaments before you went into V:tes, maybe. I saw tournament rules change too. I went to finals, with old and new rules. I won tournaments with old and new rules (and 100% of the time without table splitting, mind you). I am in the oh-so-cool vtes hall of fame, so maybe you could give me some credit ? Is it because i am angry and frustrated that i post this, rather than wanting for something better ? No, but it is your conclusion, and i can't do a damn thing about it.

Now, you can stop stupid comparison, and state directly your position : "I want people to only play for the first place on the current table and nothing else should matter, especially not trying to actually be in the final". Which you didn't do. You just said that it was unsportmanship to do that, which it isn't.

I am trying to point something that amounts to a flaw : you are supposed to sit at a table to win a game, in most games. Why should vtes have an exception clause to reward someone from losing ?

I am asking a question, I am saying that i think something is wrong.
You could chose to ignore me, yet you are biting on my sack as if i made a "your mom" joke. You are incredible, man. Does it offend you so much that I may think differently than you do about tournament rules ? If it is the case, why not provide good arguments in favor of Table splitting ? What were you doing the last two posts ?

(and by the way, even if we change the rule so that only GW count, not doing anything and/or not doing deal is kingmaking in the exact same way, just not for the benefit of the same player)

Oh. So this is your argument ? May I tell you that I think you are lying a bit here ?
But no, you might not understand, and it will give you another opportunity to belittle your interlocutor instead of trying to use your brain for, you know, reasoning.

Ohlmann wrote:

Reyda wrote:

In a sense, yes. It's exactly what I wrote, and I don't really understand the need for reiteration.

So, it has nothing to do with sportmanship, since the bad attitude consist to trying to win.

UNDER CURRENT TOURNAMENT RULES. Let me put that in caps for you because you are clearly not understanding.

Man, I've seen more calm and interesting talks on m:tg forums, which is quite something.

Is it even possible to have a civil and constructive discussion here ?
Can we discuss about the tournament rules or is it a taboo ? Did i offend anyone's god or creed by just saying "there maybe something wrong with current tournament rules" ?

Ankha wrote:

Hey Reyda, we both know we have different view of the game. You prefer to score 0 VP if you can't get the GW.

For my part, *I* find unsportsmanlike not to act according the goal of the game which is to "accumulate the most victory points" (rulebook, chapter 1). Such a player is unreliable and spoils the game, just like any player who doesn't play to win.

It's not really true : i am not willing to split a table, but i will play the game the way it is designed. I will attempt to kill my preys in successive order to obtain the game win because i think it's the right thing to do.

you say that not willing to split tables is unsportsmalike. I say negating 3 other players by ruining their games to offer the game to a person in a stronger position is what's unsportsmanlike. Allow me to disagree here.

The only case where I could agree with you is when the player accepting the deal is a bad player manipulated by the other player that is *wrongly* convinced he can't do more points just by himself.

Fine. But how do you draw the line ?

But we've already discussed of this so it's pointless to continue here.

we discussed it on the french forum. I think it's okay to talk about here. Some people here may have different opinions ? Any way, a forum is for discussion with other players, so why not discuss about it ?

Your example is nonsensical because you're comparing VTES to duel games. VTES is a multiplayer game, and the only game I can think of where scoring points even if you don't win has an importance. If you want to compare VTES to other games, find relevant games.

I am not. I play multiplayer boardgames, that allow you to finish 2nd. Is it cool to finish second ? Yes, sure. Better than last. But you are not supposed to do all you can to help the first player achieve his goal in order to secure your second place. You are supposed to give the best of yourself to finish first : that's sportsmanship. If we apply the vtes tournament rules to other games, then suddelny they are not worth playing anymore.

There is a basis of vtes: prey-predator relationship. Garfield, designer of vtes explained he did not want to have a multiplayer game were "ganking on the first" was the norm, since those interactions were unbalanced.
The current tournament rules have, again in my opinion, a giant loophole that makes it "pleasing and serving the first for crumbles". Is it the way the game was designed ? I strongly think not. And I also think it affects the metagame in a dramatic way but that's another story.

As a final note, withdrawing is not always the best strategy as you may not be in finals because of the VP you left behind.

Anyway, the topic was about "how to withdraw", not "is is moral to withdraw or not" (since it's perfectly legal according to the rules).

According to the rules. That changed in the past. That may change again. But before that, it's worth discussing.

Never lay down for anybody.
Always play for the game win, not for vp's.

If you have to die, die gracefully, and do not drag others down (unless they effin deserved it).

Always remember who dealbroke, and make them pay, that way less people will dealbreak you.

Play to win. Have fun. There is no fun in gaining one measly vp opposed to burning out in a blaze of glory trying to get it all.

Just some personal preferences, a simple 2 pool from a dedicated assamite player. Carry on

Pendargon wrote:

Always remember who dealbroke, and make them pay, that way less people will dealbreak you.

NIT: This is illegal if done in any game other than the one in which the deal was broken.