Forum der deutschen VTES-Community

Ich würde gerne mal allgemein die Meinungen zu folgender Sache hören.

Bei Final-Spielen ist mir aufgefallen, dass es teilweise zu extrem langen aber weitgehend sinnlosen Diskussionen kommt. Das ist schon bei normalen Turnier-Spielen so, da aber für einen guten Spieler viel soziale Fähigkeit dazugehört, verstärkt sich das noch enorm in Final-Spielen.

Es geht dabei nicht um Deals, sondern um das mehrfache Durchsprechen von Möglichkeiten, Stärken und Schwächen einer Spielsituation. Neben anderen Gründen ist das m.E. auch ein Grund, dass Finale meisten extrem langweilig sind. (Sind wir ehrlich, das Finale vom Deutschen Qualifier war kein gutes Spiel.)

Obwohl das Finale der Deutschen Meisterschaft ein tolles Spiel war (und damit m.E. die Ausnahme), gab es auch hier nach etwa einer Stunde diese extreme Situation. Muß es wirklich sein, dass ein Spieler seinem Prey einen Deal vorschlägt und nachdem alle Bedingungen und einige Argumente für und gegen diesen Deal klar sind, er das Spiel etwa 5-10 Minuten anhält, weil sich sein Prey nicht entscheiden kann? Was bedeutet, dass das ganze für und wider mehrfach durchgekaut wird. Und wie wir sehen konnten, war ja das ganze wie so oft völlig witzlos, weil der Fortgang des Spiels sich sowieso nicht an die Planungen und Vorhersagen hält.

Es fällt auf, dass die Spieler, weil sie selbst involviert sind oder weil sie in dieser Situation nicht die anderen verärgern wollen, hier eigentlich nie wegen "Stalling" (was es faktisch ist) den Judge anrufen. Ich frage mich daher, ob es nicht für einen guten Spielablauf und spannende Finale nötig ist, dass die Judges in Zukunft von selbst hier früher eingreifen und unnütze Diskussionen beenden.

(Um Mißverständnisse zu vermeiden. Diese Überlegung ist in keiner Weise gegen Erol gerichtet. Er hat gut gejudgt. Dasselbe ist mir z.B. beim GQ passiert.)

In bad english:

I have noticed that their are often very long and unnecessary discussion in final games. That is often in normal tournament games. You need some social skills to be a good player, so it is more often so in finals.

I am not talking about deals, but about long discussions who is the strongest player, what will happen if different things or deals are done. These discussion IMO are also the cause that many finals are very boring.

Even that the final of the german championship was a wonderful and thrilling game (an exception IMO) there was such a situation after one hour. Is it really necessary that a player who offers his prey a deal, after all rules and arguments of the deal are said, stops playijng for 5-10 minutes, because his prey doesnt decide, if he wants to accept the deal? What happened: the same arguments were repeated. And afterwards nothing happened like it was proposed.

I noticed, that players, who are themself involved and dont want to be the "bad guy" never call the judge because of "stalling". I ask myself, if it wouldnt be better for a good pace of the game and for thrilling finals that judges in the future intervene and stop unnecessary discussions.

Could I have a translation in English please ? subject seems interesting, from what I understand

Decebalus wrote: Es fällt auf, dass die Spieler, weil sie selbst involviert sind oder weil sie in dieser Situation nicht die anderen verärgern wollen, hier eigentlich nie wegen "Stalling" (was es faktisch ist) den Judge anrufen. Ich frage mich daher, ob es nicht für einen guten Spielablauf und spannende Finale nötig ist, dass die Judges in Zukunft von selbst hier früher eingreifen und unnütze Diskussionen beenden.

Ich rufe nie den judge wegen stalling weil selbst wenn er was macht, was in der Praxis immer schwierig ist, dann bin ich hinterher der Arsch am Tisch und der Betroffene macht meist dumme Kamikaze-Aktionen -> Schuss ins Knie, daher lieber 0,5-1,5 einstecken und Maul halten.

I do not call the judge for stalling even if it happens. Because normally there is not much he can do AND if you call the judge you are the bad guy on the table and the person you accuse of stalling will be pissed of and will do stupid things against you. Better shut up and take your 0,5-1,5 VPs

Klar wäre es sinnvoller wenn judges hier pro-aktiv eingreifen, aber der judge sollte halt auch a) so "unsichtbar" wie möglich bleiben und b) will sich evtl. auch keine langfristigen Diskussionen einhandeln. Ich habe da schlechte Erfahrung mit deutlichem Eingreifen, was zwar von der Sache her gut war aber zu endlosen Nachdiskussionen geführt hat.

Of course the judge should often act more pro-active but this is difficult since he should not affect the outcome of the game by himself and as a judge you dont want to be the cause for big discussions in the forums afterwards, i (personally) have a lot of bad experience with pro-active judging.

Please reply in English!

Decebalus wrote: Es fällt auf, dass die Spieler, weil sie selbst involviert sind oder weil sie in dieser Situation nicht die anderen verärgern wollen, hier eigentlich nie wegen "Stalling" (was es faktisch ist) den Judge anrufen. Ich frage mich daher, ob es nicht für einen guten Spielablauf und spannende Finale nötig ist, dass die Judges in Zukunft von selbst hier früher eingreifen und unnütze Diskussionen beenden.

In really depends on what you call "unnütz" (unnecessary). From my point of view in the final (being the aforementioned prey, and btw I object to the term "couldn't make up his mind") both me and the French player (who's name escapes me, sorry) where in a disadvantageous situation (as opposed to Robert F.), but with leeway to influence the table cross-table (as opposed to Lukas and Fabian). Therefore deal possibilities and different alliances were discussed, while people suggested what impact these proposed actions would have.

As long as you do not propose a general ban on deals, it must be allowed to discuss these matters in some depth. I had to bring the possibilities of what I could offer (the contestation) to the other guy's attention, and it was still a complicated decision to take, which as a matter of principle I never do on gut feeling. Obviously I could have dealt for second place with Robert F., but would you call this in the spirit of the game? Wasn't it the fact that we had this prolonged discussion which led to a risky deal that made the final interesting?

Additonally I find the suggestion of stalling - at least as far as yesterday's game is concerned - slightly absurd: We were nowhere near the time limit, the table could be sealed one way or the other within a few actions.

Finally while I sympathize with your wish for more "thrilling" final games, I think that this is a motivtaion for, but never an argument in the discusssion you opened.

Cheers

sk.

If only I can understand the first post.

Julien M. wrote:If only I can understand the first post.

Please translate, Bacillus, because you can it best as it was your post.

As far as I perceived, Robert M. played on right after Erol's urge to decide what he wants to do. I think players should have some time to think in critical moments. 5 Minutes for a dealproposal seems appropriate to me. After that a Judge should step in. If that isn't enough to speed up a decision a good solution of this problem could be to give the table additional time. So nobody can complain about somebody, who needs the time to think and on the other hand nobody can abuse the patience of Judges and fellow players.

In my opinion especially proposing and discussing the SAME deal each round should be stopped. But this doesn't happen at this final so this may be rather off topic. I saw it before and this is disgusting.

translation included at the top.

the scavenger wrote: In really depends on what you call "unnütz" (unnecessary). From my point of view in the final (being the aforementioned prey, and btw I object to the term "couldn't make up his mind") both me and the French player (who's name escapes me, sorry) where in a disadvantageous situation (as opposed to Robert F.), but with leeway to influence the table cross-table (as opposed to Lukas and Fabian). Therefore deal possibilities and different alliances were discussed, while people suggested what impact these proposed actions would have.

I call a discussion "unnecessary" when arguments are repeated, when players argue absolutely silly things because it is in their interest, when the discussion isnt going to a decision but only to talk. You are right that only the judge can decide, what is unnecessary - but it is his job.

Sorry, you are right. For us it looked like you wanted not to accept the deal, because you were very silent. If you had said: "Can i have a minute to think about it." nobody would have been against it. But do you really think, it was helpful for you that the french guy and Lukas talked all the time you made your decision? I didnt noticed that there were after the first few minutes any arguments not heard before. And maybe it escaped you but the break was really very long.

As long as you do not propose a general ban on deals, it must be allowed to discuss these matters in some depth. I had to bring the possibilities of what I could offer (the contestation) to the other guy's attention, and it was still a complicated decision to take, which as a matter of principle I never do on gut feeling. Obviously I could have dealt for second place with Robert F., but would you call this in the spirit of the game? Wasn't it the fact that we had this prolonged discussion which led to a risky deal that made the final interesting?

You are right, your decision made the final thrilling. And it is acceptable that the deal was discussed in some depth. But there was IMO more talk then was necessary to decide about the deal. And for me it looks like you didnt accept the deal because of the brilliant game analysis of the french guy or the trustful arguments of Lukas but because you wanted to play high risk for first place. I am full sympathy of that decision.

Additonally I find the suggestion of stalling - at least as far as yesterday's game is concerned - slightly absurd: We were nowhere near the time limit, the table could be sealed one way or the other within a few actions.

I dont have the tournament guide at hand, but i dont think that the time limit is a necessary part of "stalling". A player who is wasting the times of his play mates is "stalling" even if their is enough time. IMO in the discussion was a point when the judge should have told the french guy to not longer stop playing. If he asks you a question and you dont answer, he dont get the right to talk without end.

Finally while I sympathize with your wish for more "thrilling" final games, I think that this is a motivtaion for, but never an argument in the discusssion you opened.

I dont agree. That many VTES players have no interest in the VTES tournament scene has something to do with our playing style. If we think, deals are part of the game and make the game better, we have to show that deals and arguments can be made fast, brilliant and sportsmanlike. I have seen game discussions that were interesting and duells of brilliant minds - we dont need boring and pointless discussions.

But maybe the final of the GQ is no good example for the problem i am adressing. Because it was a fascinating and thrilling game - except for the five minutes in the middle IMO.

Frank

Decebalus wrote:That many VTES players have no interest in the VTES tournament scene has something to do with our playing style. If we think, deals are part of the game and make the game better, we have to show that deals and arguments can be made fast, brilliant and sportsmanlike. I have seen game discussions that were interesting and duells of brilliant minds - we dont need boring and pointless discussions.

I'm completely and absolutely with you in this point! Cheers, man!

:iamwithstupid:

Decebalus wrote:And for me it looks like you didnt accept the deal because of the brilliant game analysis of the french guy

Thank you for that

I agree on many points in this thread. One thing that astonished me was that Erol ask Robert to decide something about the deal, instead of asking Marius to play (because if I remember well, it was Marius turn)

First, the rules-mongering...

Decebalus wrote:I dont have the tournament guide at hand, but i dont think that the time limit is a necessary part of "stalling". A player who is wasting the times of his play mates is "stalling" even if their is enough time.

Decebalus is right here. Stalling can happen any time in the game - it just tends to get more flak when it happens near the time limit of a game.

Tournament Rules wrote:5.3. Slow Play
Players must take their turns in a timely fashion. Whereas taking a reasonable amount of time to think through game strategy is acceptable, playing excessively slowly or stalling for time is not. If a judge determines that a player is stalling for time or playing excessively slowly at any point during the tournament, the responsible player will be subject to the appropriate provisions of the V:EKN Penalty Guidelines.

Judges' Guidelines wrote:141. Slow Play - Playing Slowly
Definition:
Players who take longer than is reasonably required to complete game actions are engaged in slow play. If a judge believes that a player is intentionally playing slowly to take advantage of a time limit, that player is guilty of Stalling (section 162).

Example:
(A) A player is unsure of with which minion to block, and spends five minutes trying to decide.

Philosophy:
Slow Play penalties do not require a judge to determine whether a player is intentionally stalling. All players have the responsibility to play quickly enough so their opponent is not at a significant disadvantage because of the time limit. A judge should take into consideration the tournament scores when deciding if this should be upgraded to a Stalling penalty.

Penalty:
Caution. In addition to the penalty, the judge may assign extra time to the game if he or she feels it is appropriate. The option to add extra time should be used sparingly in order to avoid tournament delays.

In my humble opinion, to apply this rule to situations like the lengthy discussion in the DM finals would not be reasonable. Nobody was intentionally stalling.

Furthermore, I wholeheartedly agree with

Thea Bell aka Johannes wrote:Of course the judge should often act more pro-active but this is difficult since he should not affect the outcome of the game by himself and as a judge you dont want to be the cause for big discussions in the forums afterwards,

and

Julien M. wrote:One thing that astonished me was that Erol ask Robert to decide something about the deal, instead of asking Marius to play (because if I remember well, it was Marius turn)

Very fine observation!

Decebalus wrote:

the scavenger wrote: In really depends on what you call "unnütz" (unnecessary). From my point of view in the final (being the aforementioned prey, and btw I object to the term "couldn't make up his mind") both me and the French player (who's name escapes me, sorry) where in a disadvantageous situation (as opposed to Robert F.), but with leeway to influence the table cross-table (as opposed to Lukas and Fabian). Therefore deal possibilities and different alliances were discussed, while people suggested what impact these proposed actions would have.

I call a discussion "unnecessary" when arguments are repeated, when players argue absolutely silly things because it is in their interest, when the discussion isnt going to a decision but only to talk. You are right that only the judge can decide, what is unnecessary - but it is his job.

Fully agree, but obviously it is in the interest of the players profiting from a no-deal situation to load any discussion with "unnecessary talk", especially when they know the judge will step in and force the continuation of the game. That's why I first said "Let's wait one more round" in the admittedly long discussion - I wanted to put a stop to that and give the French player time to think about my proposal without everybody else interfering.

Decebalus wrote:Sorry, you are right. For us it looked like you wanted not to accept the deal, because you were very silent. If you had said: "Can i have a minute to think about it." nobody would have been against it. But do you really think, it was helpful for you that the french guy and Lukas talked all the time you made your decision? I didnt noticed that there were after the first few minutes any arguments not heard before. And maybe it escaped you but the break was really very long.

You're right, I should have made it more clear that I wanted to think about it. Actually I was very quiet on purpose, because I had the impression the French player was a little nervous - it's a good psychological trick, especially when everybody else is throwing a verbal smoke screen.

Decebalus wrote:

As long as you do not propose a general ban on deals, it must be allowed to discuss these matters in some depth. I had to bring the possibilities of what I could offer (the contestation) to the other guy's attention, and it was still a complicated decision to take, which as a matter of principle I never do on gut feeling. Obviously I could have dealt for second place with Robert F., but would you call this in the spirit of the game? Wasn't it the fact that we had this prolonged discussion which led to a risky deal that made the final interesting?

You are right, your decision made the final thrilling. And it is acceptable that the deal was discussed in some depth. But there was IMO more talk then was necessary to decide about the deal. And for me it looks like you didnt accept the deal because of the brilliant game analysis of the french guy or the trustful arguments of Lukas but because you wanted to play high risk for first place. I am full sympathy of that decision.

Well, it was complicated - that's why it took so long. You might remember that at first I was flat out refusing Marius' proposal because it seemed very unlikely to work. Then I started thinking: I had to calculate my pool level, the timing of the ousts (the Dragonbound was very critical), how to survive the obvious possibility of a deal-break by Marius etc. But you are correct: It remained a high risk, but with a wealth of options. I wanted to play for first place - and truth be told I loathed another 2-1-1 deal in a GC final (see last year).

Decebalus wrote:

Additonally I find the suggestion of stalling - at least as far as yesterday's game is concerned - slightly absurd: We were nowhere near the time limit, the table could be sealed one way or the other within a few actions.

I dont have the tournament guide at hand, but i dont think that the time limit is a necessary part of "stalling". A player who is wasting the times of his play mates is "stalling" even if their is enough time. IMO in the discussion was a point when the judge should have told the french guy to not longer stop playing. If he asks you a question and you dont answer, he dont get the right to talk without end.

Well, Hardy had the relevant text. IMHO stalling is defined by the intention: It says " If a judge believes that a player is intentionally playing slowly to take advantage of a time limit, that player is guilty of Stalling." Nobody was trying to take advantage of the time limit, because a) it was far away, and b) the table was as already mentioned in a state where a few action would decide how it collapsed.

sk.

hardyrange wrote:

Tournament Rules wrote:5.3. Slow Play
Players must take their turns in a timely fashion. Whereas taking a reasonable amount of time to think through game strategy is acceptable, playing excessively slowly or stalling for time is not. If a judge determines that a player is stalling for time or playing excessively slowly at any point during the tournament, the responsible player will be subject to the appropriate provisions of the V:EKN Penalty Guidelines.

Judges' Guidelines wrote:141. Slow Play - Playing Slowly
Definition:
Players who take longer than is reasonably required to complete game actions are engaged in slow play. ...

Example:
(A) A player is unsure of with which minion to block, and spends five minutes trying to decide.

Philosophy:
Slow Play penalties do not require a judge to determine whether a player is intentionally stalling.

Ok. My wording was wrong. I am not talking about "stalling" (i.e. intentionally playing slow) but about "slow play". And yes, it was Marius who played slow, not Robert. I often will not answer a deal proposal - usually that has the unspoken message: It is to early, but we can talk about that later.