1. Forum
  3. V:TES Discussion
  5. Generic V:TES Discussion
  7. Optimal seatings changes

file Optimal seatings changes

03 Nov 2014 13:28 #67175 by BenPeal
Replied by BenPeal on topic Re: Optimal seatings changes

Question is: would you favor the transfers so they are more equitably distributed, or the VPs (ie: how many times you sit at a 4-players table)?


I would rather the VPs be more equitably distributed than the transfers.


I guess you have to balance your data.

Because going from 0.5 to 0.56 for the VP is no big deal but going from 0.93 to 0.31 for transfers is more important (IMO).


Except that the score of the game is based on Victory Points, not transfers.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
03 Nov 2014 19:49 #67191 by Lönkka
Replied by Lönkka on topic Re: Optimal seatings changes

Except that the score of the game is based on Victory Points, not transfers.

Indeed it is, but getting stuff out one round earlier might make the difference between getting most/more (if any) Victory Points though...

Ain't so simple but I kind trust that you guys are way ahead o me thinking these things out...
Finnish :POT: Politics!

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

  • Lönkka
  • Lönkka's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Antediluvian
  • Antediluvian
  • War=peace, freedom=slavery, ignorance=strength
More
06 Nov 2014 13:38 - 06 Nov 2014 17:03 #67266 by Ankha
Replied by Ankha on topic Re: Optimal seatings changes


17 players: 13 16 7 1 6 | 17 3 11 2 | 4 8 15 10 | 5 12 9 14
Rule 2 KO.
Rule 3 KO. Absolute deviation is: 0,558823529411765 => 1 have 10 VP | 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 13, 16 have 9 VP | 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, 17 have 8 VP
(Current seating has a better absolute deviation 0.5: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 11, 13, 17 have 9 VP | 7, 9, 10, 12, 14, 15, 16 have 8 VP)
Rule 8 KO. Absolute deviation is: 0.311418685121107 => 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 have 5 transfers | 2 have 6 transfers | 9 have 7 transfers
(Current seating has an absolute deviation of 0.93)

EDIT: THERE IS a seating with a VP absolute deviation of 0.5 and a better transfer absolute deviation:

11 8 6 10 7 | 9 4 14 1 | 5 3 15 2 | 12 17 13 16

3. Available VPs are equitably distributed.
KO. Absolute deviation is: 0,5 =>
  • 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11 have 9 VP
  • 9, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 have 8 VP

8. Starting transfers are equitably distributed. [NOAL]
KO. Absolute deviation is: 0,816608996539792 =>
  • 11 have 3 transfers
  • 6, 12, 14 have 4 transfers
  • 1, 3, 4, 5, 8, 10, 15 have 5 transfers
  • 2, 7, 9, 17 have 6 transfers
  • 13, 16 have 7 transfers

There's still one player with only 3 transfers which is lame.

With the seatings that favor transfers:
  • 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 have 5 transfers
  • 2 have 6 transfers
  • 9 have 7 transfers

The VP distribution is:
  • 1 have 10 VP
  • 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 13, 16 have 9 VP
  • 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, 17 have 8 VP

Basically, we have one more player with 8 VPs, one more player with 10 VPs instead of two players with 9 VPs

The player with 10 VP has the lowest transfers though (5).
The player with the most transfers (7) has the lowest VPs (8).


Thoughts?
Prince of Paris, France
File Attachment:
Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director
Last edit: 06 Nov 2014 17:03 by Ankha.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
07 Nov 2014 07:48 #67289 by Timo
Replied by Timo on topic Re: Optimal seatings changes
Seems fair to me.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
07 Nov 2014 14:04 - 07 Nov 2014 14:05 #67306 by Ankha
Replied by Ankha on topic Re: Optimal seatings changes
Hmpf. I've rewritten a faster algorithm, and discovered that there was a better seating for

17 players: 9 16 11 6 10 | 13 3 7 1 | 4 8 2 14 | 5 12 17 15
Rule 2 KO.
Rule 3 KO. Absolute deviation is: 0,5 => 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, 10, 11, 16 have 9 VP | 7, 8, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17 have 8 VP
(Current seating has a the same absolute deviation)
Rule 8 KO. Absolute deviation is: 0,311418685121107 => 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 16 have 5 transfers | 15 have 6 transfers | 17 have 7 transfers
(Current seating has an absolute deviation of 0.93)

So it's the best of the two worlds.
Prince of Paris, France
File Attachment:
Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director
Last edit: 07 Nov 2014 14:05 by Ankha.
The following user(s) said Thank You: Lönkka

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
12 Nov 2014 14:07 - 12 Nov 2014 14:07 #67367 by Timo
Replied by Timo on topic Re: Optimal seatings changes
I was looking for hese famous "rules" and was amazed to find that i was not allowed to have a player be twice in the 5th seat but nothing prevented a player to be twice in the 1st seat.

I don't understand he reason behind this rule.

What I understand in here that LSJ considered (back in 2002) that 5th was the worst place.

I disagree ! IMO, 1st is the worst case scenario 1 alone transfer is meaningless in most deck because you can't influence out a meaningfull vampire with only 1 transfer (I mean except in dedicated decks like LOP or DBR).

So why forbidding a player being 5th twice while allowing a player to be 1st twice.

And in the case of a 5 players tournament, we have player 2 being 1st twice and 2nd the 3rd time (for a cumulative total of 4 transfers in his firt turns) while player 4 have 12 transfers being 4th twice and 5th the 3rd time !!

I found this to be strange...

So what is your view of it ?
Last edit: 12 Nov 2014 14:07 by Timo.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
Moderators: Ankha, Kraus
  1. Forum
  3. V:TES Discussion
  5. Generic V:TES Discussion
  7. Optimal seatings changes
Time to create page: 0.167 seconds
Powered by Kunena Forum