Tournament Scoring

Ankha wrote: Being incentive to score the more VP won't resolve case #1. But if you still want to be incentive, why not double VPs if you have the GW?

A person with a GW always beats a person without a GW regardless of the VPs each has and 2 individuals with same number of GWs often don't have the same number of VPs with the exception of very low numbers(1 or 2) of GWs and then its unlikely the multiplier would create much separation anyway.

So, what I'm saying is this seems only a workable solution if GWs go away other than to count as a multiplier. This could lead to interesting scenarios where someone that can't manage a GW, but consistently scores numerous VPs might sneak ahead of someone with a single GW, which is not such a terrible notion. Not sure if this would lead to more or less table splitting deals, however.

Robba Yaga wrote: So, what I'm saying is this seems only a workable solution if GWs go away other than to count as a multiplier. This could lead to interesting scenarios where someone that can't manage a GW, but consistently scores numerous VPs might sneak ahead of someone with a single GW, which is not such a terrible notion. Not sure if this would lead to more or less table splitting deals, however.

Back in the day, GWs didn't exist. It was all about VPs. Somewhere along the way, it was decided that someone who earned 3 VPs in two separate games deserved better standing than another who earned 5 VPs in one game and 1 VP in another. Game Wins were born, and the metagame evolved. (It was ridiculous when everyone gamed the system--"Untap. Discard. Done."--to withdraw for a full VP as tables became close to timing out. Fortunately, that went away.)

I think most people would agree that "not all game wins are equal", meaning that 5 VP sweeps are much more convincing than 2.5-4.0 VP wins. While VPs as second tie-breaker represent the differences, I don't think they are enough for the "diminishing returns" reasons stated previously.

Another possibility would be to keep track of another statistic, VPs from Game Wins, that would be used as a first tie-breaker beyond Game Wins.

This doesn't necessitate any multiplier math, but it certainly emphasizes the need to continue earning VPs when a Game Win is secure.

Jeff Kuta wrote:

KevinM wrote: Kuta often comes up with wacky, untenable rules changes, but they most often lead to interesting discussions, so I am all for hearing what he has to say and even trying some of his ideas out from time to time.

Unusual and untried does not necessarily equal wacky and untenable.

I never said that it did.

And it is the nature of progress that the new becomes the old and the old fades to history.

This is an easily disprovable maxim, so I reject it. Some things will change and some (most?) won't. I agree that further testing is necessary in any case.

Jeff Kuta wrote: And it is the nature of progress that the new becomes the old and the old fades to history.

KevinM wrote: This is an easily disprovable maxim, so I reject it. Some things will change and some (most?) won't. I agree that further testing is necessary in any case.

I think it's more of a tautology. If you progress, you move forward from a previously existing state.

Propose. Debate. Test. Implement. Re-evaluate. Sounds like a good plan.

This thread is quickly reminding me of a series of "conversations" i had witha friend of mine(a vtm player) in high school. A debate upon and debating upon debating.

While the circular logic of anargument argument for arguments sake does make me all glittery eyed and nostolgic, im actually interested inthe subject origional subject matter. So, Kevin and Kuta, differing opinions and views abound, but is there eventhe remotest of possibility of a change being thought up that does these things:

Fulfills the purpose of points inthe first place, in providing fair and reasonable ranking

Is more fair than the current, i believe almost-but-not-quite-good system for the above

And doesnt make heads explode due to math.

There are alot of smart folks who play this game. Sometimes im even in that demigraphic. But not when trying to assign quantitative values to simething that is often so case by case that its half qualitative data onthefirst level. Too much thinking and toomany opinionsfor me to come up with anything that is all 3 of the above.

Jeff Kuta wrote: Another possibility would be to keep track of another statistic, VPs from Game Wins, that would be used as a first tie-breaker beyond Game Wins.

So instead of the current GW-VP-TP, GW-VP from GW-VP from rest-TP? That could work, it decreases the incentive for the winner to let VPs go. What worries me a bit is that it favors trick decks that can guarantee a sweep if they get going such a turbos, Una,...