TIE Breaker for finals

Also, this would skew the meta in the same way changing the round time from 2 to 3 hours.
Now Walls are far stronger.

I say no change, because:
-As explained above, it would skew the meta a bit. Might not be enough to create a problem, but IF we want to benefit "saying alive", then one of those players did not or could not do it correctly.
-This happens in what? 8% of Finals? Less?
Should we change something fundamental in the game because of a little problem?
I just don't think we should change that much of the game. A guys has an advantage because he did better in the prelims? I think that's great.
I always take that into account in the Finals I'm in.

I love you Swedes (my adopted brethren), but I think we are so idle without a company releasing the game that we look for things to discuss that otherwise we would not even give two cents.
I think this goes into the category of "Una tech must be banned".

Ashur wrote:

As always, it´s not possible to discuss things at an internet forum without people actively trying to misunderstand and getting nasty. If you disagree, please just state your arguement and refrain from the insults.

My point is: It´s fucked up that that someone EVER should end up in a situation when he/she only plays someone else´s victory. This has nothing to do with "lore" thank you very much, it´s just common sense.

I'm gonna assume you're talking about me, since you didn't say who was actively misdunderstanding and being nasty.
By no means did I missunderstood on purpose.
The nasty bit is subjective.


This game allows for players to cross table rush you and king make.
It is legal to stop a player from playing or winning, under (wrong) assertions.

What you speak of is something that people should be aware 100%: if a player is top seed in a final, allowing him to have 2 vps is a good way not to win.
That is my point.

Asbur: we all love you man. Please relax a bit.

Its funny how people have different views from the same thing.
I always felt that being top seed brings along a stigma that is detrimental to the top seed player.
For instance, it is the player that has the hardest time to make deals with anyone.

Maybe I think that way because my playgroup is filled with inexperienced players and being Tiago Brum is an issue all in of itself.
It is normal, being the most experienced and owning all the cards I would want, I guess.

Anyway, even in EC Finals, being top seed is only good IF you're experienced and know what you're doing in sitting.
But once the game starts, you're number one to go.
The second seed guy/girl wants you dead and will always shut down any deal you might try.

Also I think this discussion differs allot depending the decks that are in game.
Top seed with Ventrue Grinder or Tzimmy Wall (Tzimmy!) is completely different than !Malk S&B.

I just think it's one of those things that people should be aware IF they wanna win.
Like don't let Una grow, or learn to stop Imbued.

Ashur wrote:

Yes, this is how it is. But is it good? My point it that it´s worth discussing if the tournament rules should promote this. I think top seed is strong enough as you get to pick seating.

You have to tie-break somehow.[0] Is it bad that it works this way? If you want to change things, the work has to be to demonstrate that the old way is problematic and/or the new way is significantly better.

Then, if the current "top seed wins tie-breaks" is problematic for whatever reason, why is the current suggestion better - or even good? It tilts the game towards wall decks, and is that good for the game?[1] Wall decks have a tendency to slow games down, especially those involving cross-table blocking - Eagle's Sight et al - and that ability is very useful in a final to control the way the table falls in this situation. But having extra incentives to play such decks almost certainly leads to more time-outs, and I don't see more time-outs being something that people want to see increase as a deliberate measure, or something they'd want to accept as reasonable collateral damage for a change.

That's not to say that you couldn't change the tie-break criteria, but I'm not at all sure that the suggestion is a good one.


[0] Well, technically you don't. You could declare joint winners. This is not problem free, as it essentially brings back some of the problems that previously existed in the game - two players make a deal that leads to a tie, leading to table-splitting, so they both "win". The "one player is first, everyone else joint second" structure is good at eliminating that.

[1] The game as a whole, not whether it's a rational choice for an individual player. Players will often do whatever they can to win within the current structure/card set etc., but that doesn't mean it's good for the game as a whole.