Tournament Scoring

I think that if two players get at least three VPs at the table, each of them deserves at least a GW - if not two - for breaking the mechanics of the VP awarding

But giving a GW at 3+ VPs doesn't solve the problem Reyda sees. If you've ousted 3 preys and are in a duel, you'd still be free to withdraw, and "no longer" play the game anymore.

For your considerations...

V.P.s and T.P.s are only awarded to the game winner.

or

V.P.s are only awarded to the game winner.


So on a table that fell 3:1:1:0:0 it would be recorded 3:0:0:0:0

There could be a last man standing clause in the case of ties (i.e. 2: 2: 1 or 0.5)
It seems likely that this would increase "coin flips" to get into the finals in small tournaments, but I don't necessarily think this is worse then what we now have.

It's really nice to see fresh ideas.
Of course, a first shot at anything being never perfect (i don't count those haiku & tank masters here ), we'll need some revision and discussion to propose an alternatives who give players an incentive to play the game.

Wedge wrote: For your considerations...

V.P.s and T.P.s are only awarded to the game winner.

or

V.P.s are only awarded to the game winner.


So on a table that fell 3:1:1:0:0 it would be recorded 3:0:0:0:0

There could be a last man standing clause in the case of ties (i.e. 2: 2: 1 or 0.5)
It seems likely that this would increase "coin flips" to get into the finals in small tournaments, but I don't necessarily think this is worse then what we now have.

Wouldn't VTES as an all-or-nothing game mean that every table would turn into high-risk high-reward decks, because no one likes repetitive play where they are constantly "losing"? So every casual game would become like Day1 of a continental championship?

KevinM wrote: Wouldn't VTES as an all-or-nothing game mean that every table would turn into high-risk high-reward decks, because no one likes repetitive play where they are constantly "losing"? So every casual game would become like Day1 of a continental championship?

At least there would be fewer table time outs.

I find it can be sometimes contradictory to expect players to maximize their VPs in a given game, when the format they are playing is a tournament consisting of more than one game

The number of players in the tournament also affects gameplay. In a smaller tournament, 1 game win is often enough to get to the finals. A player may play differently if he or she has a game win already, or knows that another player at his or her table has a game win.

Remember in the recent Olympics, when Badminton teams were throwing games because the tournament structure encouraged it? They eliminated the teams for unsportsmanlike conduct.

I am of two minds on this: yes, it is unsportsman-like to throw a game. But if the game is part of a larger tournament, then the goal is to win the tournament. If you can lose the game and still win the tournament, then that is a problem with the organization of the tournament.

Maybe the V:EKN tournament rules could be improved. I'm not sure how much the proposed changes would affect anything. The math may be harder, but thematically, the second suggestion by Kuta is appropriate. A vampire should never be satiated... even with the game win he or she should always want more... be it blood of victory points.