file Play to win

20 Aug 2019 17:21 #96410 by Mewcat
Replied by Mewcat on topic Play to win
Self ousting is the highest expression of free will. Taking away the option is pointlessly cruel.
The following user(s) said Thank You: self biased

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

More
20 Aug 2019 21:35 #96421 by Trochomancy
Replied by Trochomancy on topic Play to win
Ankha's proposal is great. Hoping to see it someday as an official (tournament) rule. Self ousting should be prevented as it enables kingmaking by giving VP or even GW away. Transferring to one pool is fine. You are easy to oust, but predator needs to have at least one ready minion or master to do it.

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

More
21 Aug 2019 00:43 #96424 by kschaefer
Replied by kschaefer on topic Play to win

"For tournaments, playing to win means playing to get a Game Win if it is reasonably possible, and when a Game Win is not reasonably possible, then playing to get as many Victory Points as possible, and if no more Victory Point are possible, not being ousted."


I don't see how this does anything. If by the current play-to-win rules, I can earn 0.5 by staying in the game, then I have to stay in the game. If I cannot, then what changes with this addition is that I have to stay in a game in which my outcome is already known.

Thanks, but no-thanks. I'd prefer to have the option to leave the game.

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

More
21 Aug 2019 06:52 - 21 Aug 2019 06:54 #96427 by PetriWessman
Replied by PetriWessman on topic Play to win

I don't see how this does anything. If by the current play-to-win rules, I can earn 0.5 by staying in the game, then I have to stay in the game.


It changes the fact that you'll have to see if you can actually stay in the game, instead of doing things based on whether you think you can stay in the game. Those are two quite different things. Sometimes people self-oust for petulant or illegal reasons (help friend, etc), and this takes that option away. Game state can and does change, sometimes in very surprising ways. I've been in lots of games where I was absolutely sure I was going to get ousted... and then I wasn't and got 0.5 VP.

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.
Last edit: 21 Aug 2019 06:54 by PetriWessman.
The following user(s) said Thank You: Lönkka, Trochomancy

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

More
21 Aug 2019 08:18 - 21 Aug 2019 08:20 #96430 by Kraus
Replied by Kraus on topic Play to win

I don't see how this does anything. If by the current play-to-win rules, I can earn 0.5 by staying in the game, then I have to stay in the game.


It changes the fact that you'll have to see if you can actually stay in the game, instead of doing things based on whether you think you can stay in the game. Those are two quite different things. Sometimes people self-oust for petulant or illegal reasons (help friend, etc), and this takes that option away. Game state can and does change, sometimes in very surprising ways. I've been in lots of games where I was absolutely sure I was going to get ousted... and then I wasn't and got 0.5 VP.

Table splits have been a strategy for a long time now, where if a player sees that they reasonably cannot make a GW but will help someone else get it and then settle it so that the winner will self oust - or of similar sorts - so that the other one can have 2 points.

Allowing withdrawals as a part of a deal and a table split can be used to same effect.

Would this addition affect those table splits and self ousting in those situations?

In all honesty I would've always liked to have a clause and instructions about how to legally split tables in the tournament rules, so that all participants would know how they work, would be informed that it's a possibility, and to outline rules how it's done cleanly.

"Oh, to the Hades with the manners! He's a complete bastard, and calling him that insults bastards everywhere!"
-Nalia De-Arnise

Facebook @ VtES: Joensuu
www.vekn.net/forum-guidelines
Last edit: 21 Aug 2019 08:20 by Kraus.

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

More
21 Aug 2019 08:44 #96432 by drnlmza
Replied by drnlmza on topic Play to win

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.


A significant issue these discussions is that people aren't clarifying what the problem they want to solve is. "Self-ousting is a problem, we should ban it" isn't a basis for discussion, because self-ousting is never the actual problem people are arguing about.

If the problem is that PTW is hard to judge (and it can be), that needs to be addressed. Reworking the rule may help, but I doubt there's a simple fix that will actually help - adding more guidance in the judge's guide seems a better fix, but there may well be other ways of dealing with it. But that's entirely unrelated to self-ousting. Removing that option doesn't make PTW violations any easier to judge.

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.

However, statements like "predator needs to have at least one ready minion or master to do it." aren't about any of the above. That's an argument about "why don't the rules force the table to fold in a way that's more favourable to certain statergies", and that discussion needs a lot more justification about why favouring those approaches would be good for the game, rather than just saying "ban self-ousting".

--
National Coordinator
South Africa
The following user(s) said Thank You: Kraus, Tadori

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

More
Moderators: AnkhaKraus
Time to create page: 0.222 seconds
Powered by Kunena Forum