About deals and withdrawing

Suoli wrote: There's also A's point of view to consider. Is it any fairer that he should lose with no recourse just because he had bad luck with seating?

Uh, I just thought that someone sitting down at the table with no chance not to be quickly ousted was just an inherent part of the game. I certainly don't notice many VTES players expressing sympathy for the bad luck of that person.

AaronC wrote: Uh, I just thought that someone sitting down at the table with no chance not to be quickly ousted was just an inherent part of the game.

Sure, just as much a part of the game as getting screwed by a table split.

Suoli wrote:

AaronC wrote: Uh, I just thought that someone sitting down at the table with no chance not to be quickly ousted was just an inherent part of the game.

Sure, just as much a part of the game as getting screwed by a table split.

No. I disagree here.

Table split deals are not inherent to the game, just inherent to the accepted norm of playing the game.

The rules tell you that you must have a prey and a predator until there is only one person left at the table, or you are ousted. That implies that, at some point in time, your predator will be capable of ousting you even if you pull the greatest play of he century. Unless you are going to be the last man standing, it is inevitable.

The rules don't tell you that every game should have a table split deal because at some point, someone will be losing.

Personally, I feel that VPs should be maximised even after a GW, and that accepting a deal that will give you a GW, but require you to give up VPs that you can reasonably get should not be allowed by the rules.

the1andonlime wrote:

Suoli wrote:

AaronC wrote: Uh, I just thought that someone sitting down at the table with no chance not to be quickly ousted was just an inherent part of the game.

Sure, just as much a part of the game as getting screwed by a table split.

No. I disagree here.

Table split deals are not inherent to the game, just inherent to the accepted norm of playing the game.

The rules tell you that you must have a prey and a predator until there is only one person left at the table, or you are ousted. That implies that, at some point in time, your predator will be capable of ousting you even if you pull the greatest play of he century. Unless you are going to be the last man standing, it is inevitable.

The rules don't tell you that every game should have a table split deal because at some point, someone will be losing.

The issue being discussed was whether occasionally being steamrolled without any chance to survive is an inherent part of the game. I don't agree that it is any more or less inherent to the game than occasional table splits. I'm not sure how what you're talking about relates to this.

Personally, I feel that VPs should be maximised even after a GW, and that accepting a deal that will give you a GW, but require you to give up VPs that you can reasonably get should not be allowed by the rules.

No objections here. If VPs count toward tournament ranking it only makes sense that every player should try to maximize their VPs, whether they're getting the game win or not.

Also, it should be noted that in larger tournaments not only GWs, but VPs as well decide who's going to the finals. 3 GWs is usually enough to get there, but you should always try to maximize your VPs as well if you're playing well with a grander goal in mind. Giving out free VPs to others isn't a great plan.

The question is so intervined, though, that I'm not going to touch it any further. There are a multitude of opinions, options and case spesific examples to consider, and there's really no one right answer here, nor is there only one spesific question either.

I enjoy dealmaking in this game and will always try and get as many victory points as possible in a losing position. But I understand there is a problem and these are my suggestions:

1. Remove the possibility to withdraw from the game. Seriously - it adds nothing interesting at all and is, in today's tournament play, only used in shady deals. It also consumes time since there is always someone at a table who doesn't know the rules for withdrawal and needs to be reminded.

2. Remove the possibility for a player with a secured game win to self oust giving away victory points.

I don't see any of my suggestions removing any of the good parts of table politics but they put an end to some of the bad parts.

What do you think?