| Register Now | |
| My Points | |
| My Games | |
This is the place to talk about all elements of A Game of Thrones LCG.
| Page 5 of 8 (120 messages) | « First page... 3 4 5 6 7 ...Last page » |
Dobbler said:
If you bring any deck that intentionally get exponentially better when a metamate uses the exact same deck, intentionally work together with metamates, get warned and then continue to work exclusively to lock out other players in games, then yeah, I'm guessing there is a chance you get DQed.
And despite all of this being true, it seems entirely possible, highly probable even, that if that last challenge hadn't taken so long, and if the attempt to arrange the ranking of the four players instead of just winning the game hadn't been so glaingly obvious, the DQ wouldn't have happened, and we wouldn't discuss any of this.
This forum hates signatures
Dobbler said:
It was the "in practice" use that created the collusion problem. Specifically, when two metamates are at a table and ALWAYS take away all of the other 2 players' icons, but RARELY take away each other's icons, there is something else going on. That was why they were warned after Round 1 (based on how they played the deck) rather than before Round 1 (based on the decklist). No matter what the other players at the table had or how deals with them might have been more beneficial to an individual player, those factors were never explored or even considered. In most cases, they stuck to the pre-arranged strategy to effectively turn the 4-player Melee into a 2-player Melee.
If stripping a mirrored deck's icons results in all your icons being stripped for no challenges, no renown, no uo power (mutually assured destruction) and stripping opponents' icons protects you from challenge claim and guarantees uo power (uo plus active red viper is minimum of 6 power per turn) what reason does someone have to play the deck any other way regardless of whether the person sitting across the table is from their meta or not? It's not pre round determination that decides the result, it's playing the cards on the table to your own interest making the best deal for you in round.
Without Signature
HoyaLawya said:
Dobbler said:
It was the "in practice" use that created the collusion problem. Specifically, when two metamates are at a table and ALWAYS take away all of the other 2 players' icons, but RARELY take away each other's icons, there is something else going on. That was why they were warned after Round 1 (based on how they played the deck) rather than before Round 1 (based on the decklist). No matter what the other players at the table had or how deals with them might have been more beneficial to an individual player, those factors were never explored or even considered. In most cases, they stuck to the pre-arranged strategy to effectively turn the 4-player Melee into a 2-player Melee.
If stripping a mirrored deck's icons results in all your icons being stripped for no challenges, no renown, no uo power (mutually assured destruction) and stripping opponents' icons protects you from challenge claim and guarantees uo power (uo plus active red viper is minimum of 6 power per turn) what reason does someone have to play the deck any other way regardless of whether the person sitting across the table is from their meta or not? It's not pre round determination that decides the result, it's playing the cards on the table to your own interest making the best deal for you in round.
But Brian, herein is where that argument falls short. Since you guys all brought that same deck, there was predetermination. So you are right, if you sat at a table with a random opponent using the hellholt/Scourge tactics, and then proceeded to say "I won't remove your icons if you don't remove mine", there was no pregame intent. But because that entire metagroup made the conscious choice to bring it AND use it together, you have both premeditated intent and collusion.
In 2011 I would have applauded this move as the smartest move in the history of Game of Thrones Melee at a world championship event. But that was BEFORE we had collusion rules. When FFG decided to institute collusion rules, things changed.
I will agree with papalorax and anyone else who states that the collusion rules are too loose and open for interpretation. That was basically my point of creating this thread.
If what the DC group did isn't collusion, then what is?
Without Signature
Ratatoskr said:
if the attempt to arrange the ranking of the four players instead of just winning the game hadn't been so glaingly obvious, the DQ wouldn't have happened, and we wouldn't discuss any of this.
the problem i have with this is that, in trying to cut a deal with dennis to end the game with me in second, i wasn't doing anything to attempt to "arrange the ranking of the four players"; having watched the video from the final round, i still don't see how it can be interpreted that way. the only thing rushing through my mind, as i was trying to coax dennis in that final round, was "how do i engineer this situation so my final placement at this table is as high as possible, and so that i get to go to sleep as soon as possible?" i would have been satisfied with second place, which was the highest place it seemed i could get at the table, whatever the placement of the other three. i was hoping to hoodwink dennis in an epic backstab to snag first, in the off chance that the others were too fatigued to see my path to 15 power if dennis military challenges me and rick redirects as i would have expected him to. of course, i was attempting this at the margins, knowing that the highest i was likely to get was indeed second; and rick stripped the viper's icons, seeing this himself, in which case i was stuck trying to make that second place deal.
whether anyone finds dealing with opponents to jockey for final placement in a tournament melee game distasteful, i sincerely don't care; it isn't against the rules, never has been against the rules, cannot reasonably be made to be against the rules, and isn't ethically ambiguous to some large portion of the community, even if it is distasteful to a good many others. unfortunately, i agree that it probably had something to do with the final ruling, even if not stated; one of the many reasons i remain dumbfounded by the call, even if my caring has subsided.
edit: i should also note that i would have made the same exact deal with matthieu had he (1) offered it to me and (2) been able to deliver on the offer. but after dennis first attempted to cut the same deal with him, it was clear he was found final table placement-making distasteful, for whatever respectable reasons i'm sure he has. furthermore, even if he had made the deal, it could not have been credible; i could not make the deal with a player who had no ability to go on and win the challenges in the face of the icon strip potential of the other two players. whether or not the reader believes this to be the truth, here, too, i don't care; indeed, it's been an engrossing source of amusement over the last few days, reading statements from players who accused us of "witch hunting" and "personal attacks" based on no solid evidence in another thread, now engaging in the same behavior.
indeed, this, as many others have said, was matthieu's biggest problem in this game; in rick's words, "he brought a rush deck to a control party." a player without the ability to make and deliver on credible threats in melee table full of control decks is screwed, as i found out both in the melee final table and in a game earlier with two other metamates, in which my hellholt engineers either didn't show up or got destroyed.
if control continues to be viable in melee, as it now is for the first time, the community should get used to watching games that look exactly like that melee final table. i imagine that most competitive melee players have seen many games in which three rush decks blew out the poor sap who showed up with an uncompetitive control deck to a melee tournament; usually that guy has some ability to influence the game, but no ability to get anything better than fourth himself. apparently it comes as a surprise to everyone that this is exactly what the reverse situation looks like, except in slow motion. if the designers continue to push melee control strategies as hard as they have in the last however many chapter packs, get used to it, as games that look exactly like the 2012 worlds melee final table will become rather a rather frequent (and, to the victims and bystanders, often agonizing) thing.
Twn2dn said:
Dobbler said:
widowmaker93 said:
Remember when Melee was a viable format for competitive play? Me neither.
That is simply nowhere near the truth. The melee game has absolutely grown on me over the years. I would still play in Melee worlds even if it no longer factored into the overall championships. Some people might find aspects of it not to their liking. Thats fine. But it is still a viable format for competitive play.
I agreed 100% up until the November 9 ruling. Frankly, there are now so many murky rules and even murkier enforcement that it's just not fun, and I certainly can't consider it a serious format. I enjoy playing control decks, and it seems to me the vast majority of decks (probably all of the decks) that will be affected by the murkiness of this collusion ruling will be control decks. Had DC brought rush decks to the melee, nobody would be complaining if three were at the finals table. Since they brought control, they were disqualified.
Does this mean that any group of metamates who bring the same control decks to melee should be DQ'd, while bringing rush decks is OK? I guess it really comes down to whether they win. If you don't win with your control deck, as Chad pointed out in another thread, then you're OK. But if you win, better watch out because winning with the same deck = collusion.
Twn2dn said:
. If you don't win with your control deck, as Chad pointed out in another thread, then you're OK. But if you win, better watch out because winning with the same deck = collusion.
Hyperbole
Although prepared for martyrdom, I preferred that it be postponed.
jack merridew said:
Twn2dn said:
. If you don't win with your control deck, as Chad pointed out in another thread, then you're OK. But if you win, better watch out because winning with the same deck = collusion.
Hyperbole
Pedantry
Pobeditel.
Dobbler said:
I will agree with papalorax and anyone else who states that the collusion rules are too loose and open for interpretation. That was basically my point of creating this thread.
If what the DC group did isn't collusion, then what is?
Now that you agree with me I will stop…that was I all I wanted :)
The Cossack said:
jack merridew said:
Twn2dn said:
. If you don't win with your control deck, as Chad pointed out in another thread, then you're OK. But if you win, better watch out because winning with the same deck = collusion.
Hyperbole
Pedantry
"A pedant is a person who is excessively concerned with formalism and precision, or who makes a show of his or her learning."
calling a hyperbolic statement hyperbole would fall firmly in the category of keeping a discussion honest.
Although prepared for martyrdom, I preferred that it be postponed.
jack merridew said:
"A pedant is a person who is excessively concerned with formalism and precision, or who makes a show of his or her learning."
calling a hyperbolic statement hyperbole would fall firmly in the category of keeping a discussion honest.
Thanks for making a show of your learning there. ;P
Pobeditel.
Dobbler said:
papalorax said:
Frankly FFG made the wrong decision in 2011 GenCon melee. They had the choice to celebrat Corey and Erick achieving the ultimate in teamwork, deal making, back stabbing, etc…or they could demonize it and say it has no place in their game. They made the wrong choice. They choose to go down the road of an policy that will be impossible to be equally enforced hoping people would act different…now they have this mess.
I have to admit, I was surprised when FFG decided to try and regulate collusion. I figured Melee tournaments would always be a game of collusion, backstabbing, deal making, etc both inside and outside the actual game play.
Dobbler said:
I figured Melee tournaments would always be a game of collusion, backstabbing, deal making, etc both inside and outside the actual game play.
I agree. I know I am way in the minority on this topic, but I believe Collusion is what makes Melee, well Melee. embrace it.. Just imagine all the scheming and conniving that would occur next year when we have the DC Meta vying with So CAL meta and Missouri Meta's. How Nedly would that be! What alliances would be made with those areas with smaller meta's such as TN, or better yet the OCTGN meta. When would the alliances break? Ahhh such questions. Such potential fun.. My mouth is watering just thinking about the possibilities…
Melee - Collusion - Embrace It
~ducks back behind the wall as the arrows fly.
orclrob said:
I agree. I know I am way in the minority on this topic, but I believe Collusion is what makes Melee, well Melee. embrace it..
I don't think you are in the minority - whether it's because people like the collusion or realize you can't get rid of it…lots of people likely agree.
finitesquarewell said:
the problem i have with this
Please note that I didn't comment on whether I thought the DQ was justified or not. Maybe I shouldn't have used the words "glaringly obvious" in my previous post either. I'm just saying that it seems likely that the DQ might not have happened without the talk about "making Erick second" while agonizing about the best way to make that last challenge.
I'd like to say that I did find the personal attacks levelled at the protagonists of this piece unnecessary and distasteful. Thankfully, most of the discussion has been civil and matter-of-fact.
Since you brought it up yourself, let me take this opportunity to say that I did find the Penfold thread distasteful in the extreme as well. But let's not open that particular can of worms here.
This forum hates signatures
papalorax said:
orclrob said:
I agree. I know I am way in the minority on this topic, but I believe Collusion is what makes Melee, well Melee. embrace it..
I don't think you are in the minority - whether it's because people like the collusion or realize you can't get rid of it…lots of people likely agree.
I am not opposed to doing away with the anti-collusion rules in melee.
But if they decide to keep anti-collusion rules in place, we need a stronger definition of what that means.
Without Signature
The Cossack said:
jack merridew said:
"A pedant is a person who is excessively concerned with formalism and precision, or who makes a show of his or her learning."
calling a hyperbolic statement hyperbole would fall firmly in the category of keeping a discussion honest.
Thanks for making a show of your learning there. ;P
it was a show of your misuse of the word. . . . . =/
Although prepared for martyrdom, I preferred that it be postponed.
FFG made it clear by way of their actions that bringing the same deck as people you know, and playing that deck, is not collusion.
If FFG thought it was collusion, they would have disqualified certain participants in the melee after round 1.
Yolo!
| Page 5 of 8 (120 messages) | « First page... 3 4 5 6 7 ...Last page » |
Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Contact | User Support | Rules Questions | Help | RSS