Re: Tournament rules for 2008

In message <Xns99FF72A2BCF0Fatomweaver@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, atomweaver
<atomweaver@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
James Coupe <james@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
news:pTvFe7zsHJWHFwjl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:
This re-institutes playing for a poor second place in order to get a
cut of the boosters by, effectively, instituting prize-splitting (now
banned) automatically at the rules level.


Pish.

No.

For what you say to be true, 5 or 10 boosters would have to be
sufficient motivation in itself to not play for first place,

Not especially.

Two players - let's say, you and me - are sat on a table. I'm in a
really shitty position. I'm obviously going to play to win, but things
are really bad for some reason. I don't have a great deal of likelihood
of going anywhere without some help. You, on the other hand, can
probably get a VP or maybe two, but if you can keep me on the table, you
think you can get the win.

Now, assume we're playing on a preliminary table - normal rules, game
wins, VPs matter etc. I might be able to hang on for 0.5VP, I might
get ousted, it's pretty seriously unlikely I'll get a VP on my own. You
say "Hey, I've got this really neat idea. How about we..." and you come
up with a VP split deal. Do I take it or don't I? Maybe I don't think
it's good enough, maybe I don't think it will work, maybe I don't like
VP split deals, maybe you pissed me off in an earlier round by burning
Saulot and I hate you for it. But, suppose I take it. Is it in my
interests? Yes, if it works. And we (you, me, the table, the judge
etc.) judge it to be a good risk if someone quibbles. Is it a good deal
for you? Sure it is! You've gone from 1 or 2 VPs to a pretty good
chance of a table-win.


Now repeat in the final. I'm pretty certain that I can't go anywhere
too well. Under the new rules, I'm still going to play for first
because it can't hurt me.

Let's say that the prize is something like 10 boosters each for the
second place people, and more boosters, a trophy, a piece of artwork,
and bragging rights for the winner - you've just become the LSJLand
Continental Champion, after all.

Specifically, in the new rules, I have no reason to help you secure a
game win. Short term deals? Absolutely. I'll rescue your Nergal to
stop him being eaten if you lend me some votes with Ferraile, for
example. Medium term deals? Probably. Man, it's some cocktastic Legacy
of Pander deck that's going to roll the table. Kill it. Then we'll
fight it out like men. Long-term VP split deals? Not in my interest
really. I have no interest (from the game) in helping you win. I mean,
you might be my mate, and we can't do a lot about that in the rules
structure, but you can't give me your prizes, you can't bribe me with
stuff, you're the one with the bragging rights and your name on the
trophy. I have no incentive not to try to win myself. I'll get 10
boosters anyway.

But go back to the preliminary stages, and think "Why would I give up my
chance to win to come second?" Well, it's a better outcome for me than
I reasonably expected otherwise. So I was happy with the 2 VP you let
me have, and you were happy with the table win you secured.

Now, the final. I will get 10 boosters anyway. Reasonably, I don't
think I can do massively better than joint 2nd. Someone else is just
too good for me, the nemesis to my deck, whatever. Now, using exactly
the same deal as we used above in the preliminary round, I don't think I
stand a reasonable chance of winning. Very unlikely, sure. But if I
think that I'm going to get 10 boosters and go home, or I could play for
the reasonable chance of 20 boosters (10 + 2*5, say), you're going to
have players who are willing to do that.

In the old (current) version, we already had players who were willing to
negotiate to get second place, if it meant that they did better than
they thought they would. And there would be many people who might make
that deal from your side, too - you get 3VP, a game win, 25 boosters
(10+5*3), bragging rights, trophy, artwork. Yeah, 35 boosters would be
hot, but this way you secure the game win. And you needed my help to do
that in a reasonable way. So you get all the cool stuff, I get 20
boosters, everyone else gets 10.

There will be many players who'd make such a deal, if they thought they
were going to go home with less. Would you? Would I? Maybe, maybe
not. Would other people? I'd be willing to bet money on it that it
would happen.



If you feel 5 boosters is sufficent to motivate players into taking
losing deals, the do as the part you snipped said; alter the numbers as
appropriate. Make boosters/VP equal two (or one, or zero), and re-allocate
excess boosters either to the winner's prize package, or the standard prize
given each finalist, or both.

If I think I have a one in a million shot at winning, because if you
don't help me *right now* the chances of me not getting ousted next turn
are next to impossible, why would I not accept your offer a losing deal?

--
James Coupe
PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D YOU ARE IN ERROR.
EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 NO-ONE IS SCREAMING.
13D7E668C3695D623D5D THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.
.