file Play to win

19 Aug 2019 14:38 #96357 by cordovader
Replied by cordovader on topic Play to win

The matter has already been heavily discussed for more than 10 years. Here's one of the occurence:

groups.google.com/d/msg/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/UNgikrN6FR8/h1g_VQYuFXoJ

> Q 3: Is self ousting illegal when a player can not reasonably
> get any more victory points or a GW?
No.

4.8. Play to Win
One aspect of sportsmanlike conduct is that players must not play toward goals that conflict with the goal of the game as stated in the V:TES rulebook (e.g., attacking certain players on the basis of their V:EKN ratings or overall tournament standing, etc.). 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.


Basically, if 0 VP is the maximum number of VP you can get, you are free to get your 0 VP anyway you want, including by self-ousting.


I edited my post because what cordovader wrote is convincing.

So the only question remains is what is wrote at the beginning of point 4.8 Is it "sportsmanlike" to on purpose deny other player VPs by self-ousting


Well so let’s put it in a different way :

There are 5 players on the table
A > B > C > D > E

Let’s say that A plays Tupdog and C Arika.
So A is really afraid of C and rushes crosstable since the beginning. E helps C by rescuing and so on. B and C are low on pool and A is going to snipe 2 VPs with a chance to win.

Is it sportsmanlike to transfer out as C, to try and limit A’s game win and thus helping E to be able to stand a chance against A?

Well, IMHO it’s not less sportsmanlike than doing nothing and letting A snipe 2 VPs, since doing nothing is the same as doing something (you are influencing on the results by either choice).

I guess that it’s legit to discuss if a player should be allowed to transfer his last pool or not, but this is a different question (I have seen judges forbidding that by stating that the player still had chances of making better than 0, which is logic).

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

More
19 Aug 2019 16:18 - 19 Aug 2019 16:23 #96360 by Tadori
Replied by Tadori on topic Play to win

The matter has already been heavily discussed for more than 10 years. Here's one of the occurence:

groups.google.com/d/msg/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/UNgikrN6FR8/h1g_VQYuFXoJ

> Q 3: Is self ousting illegal when a player can not reasonably
> get any more victory points or a GW?
No.

4.8. Play to Win
One aspect of sportsmanlike conduct is that players must not play toward goals that conflict with the goal of the game as stated in the V:TES rulebook (e.g., attacking certain players on the basis of their V:EKN ratings or overall tournament standing, etc.). 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.


Basically, if 0 VP is the maximum number of VP you can get, you are free to get your 0 VP anyway you want, including by self-ousting.


I edited my post because what cordovader wrote is convincing.

So the only question remains is what is wrote at the beginning of point 4.8 Is it "sportsmanlike" to on purpose deny other player VPs by self-ousting


Well so let’s put it in a different way :

There are 5 players on the table
A > B > C > D > E

Let’s say that A plays Tupdog and C Arika.
So A is really afraid of C and rushes crosstable since the beginning. E helps C by rescuing and so on. B and C are low on pool and A is going to snipe 2 VPs with a chance to win.

Is it sportsmanlike to transfer out as C, to try and limit A’s game win and thus helping E to be able to stand a chance against A?

Well, IMHO it’s not less sportsmanlike than doing nothing and letting A snipe 2 VPs, since doing nothing is the same as doing something (you are influencing on the results by either choice).

I guess that it’s legit to discuss if a player should be allowed to transfer his last pool or not, but this is a different question (I have seen judges forbidding that by stating that the player still had chances of making better than 0, which is logic).


Off course is better to act as a suicide bomber and blow up yourself for benefit of others, make a statement and decide who lives or dies, win and lose. with absolutely no benefits for you. And saying it's playing to win is a joke but an official joke as we can see

If the situation on the table developed like this it means negotiations failed and you die like a man. Self-ousting is toxic unnecessary mechanic that create favoritism(I don't like my pray so i will kill myself to help my predator, or may my predator is my friend or kinsman I prefer he will win ). One player by killing himself without any gain decide who will get point and live, show me any other competitive game in which you can do that. To make thing worse this rule is open to interpretation so every judge can decide differently.

I hope BC and VEKN will analyze this option and remove it from this game asap.
Last edit: 19 Aug 2019 16:23 by Tadori.
The following user(s) said Thank You: Bloodartist

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

More
19 Aug 2019 17:04 - 19 Aug 2019 17:15 #96361 by elotar
Replied by elotar on topic Play to win
Tadori, as it was shown to you - this topic was discussed thousand times. There is no difference between self ousting to help your predator and not self ousting when you got no chance to do anything meaningful and help your prey. There is nothing fair in forbidding one while we have the other. Actually self ousting looks more beneficial for the game here because it moves the game forward.

But anyway - by reanimating this long buried topic without adding anything new to it you are expressing serious disrespect for fellow players. This one is much worse than self ousting. ;)

:splat: NC Russia
:DEM::san::nec::cap4:
Last edit: 19 Aug 2019 17:15 by elotar.

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

More
19 Aug 2019 17:08 #96363 by Tadori
Replied by Tadori on topic Play to win
Agree to disagree but as you said it was discussed so I have no more to say.

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

More
19 Aug 2019 19:10 #96364 by Pyrocuror
Replied by Pyrocuror on topic Play to win
This would prevent the single best line of play in VTES which is life-booning a transfering out player, so I'm in favor of keeping the rules as they are.
The following user(s) said Thank You: Nac

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

More
19 Aug 2019 19:41 #96367 by cordovader
Replied by cordovader on topic Play to win
Well, I think you are quite disappointed about someone doing this to you, but if you want to play rush combat deck you have 2 choices :
- you want the player in the game
- you want the player out of the game

If you want the player out, why should you care about a self-oust

If you want the player in the game, you should dose the pressure you put on him to let him stay (for example letting him know that you would rush him only if he does this and that for your own survival but letting him a chance to play).

Just saying.

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

More
Moderators: AnkhaKraus
Time to create page: 0.105 seconds
Powered by Kunena Forum