Fantasy Flight Games [Forum 1. AGoT General Discussion] - Leading publisher of board, card, and roleplaying games.

0

HoyaLawya said:

papalorax said:

Shikaku said:

There is no one best deck. They could have come up with other competitive decks that could have won on their own

Let's see - this deck got three people to the final table of the world championships in melee. I will use that as my reasoning to refute your point…

What is your statement based on?

papalorax said:

Shikaku said:

There is no one best deck. They could have come up with other competitive decks that could have won on their own

Let's see - this deck got three people to the final table of the world championships in melee. I will use that as my reasoning to refute your point…

What is your statement based on?

Not only that, this deck won a first round table on turn two against two brothers who openly said they were working together.

A good comparison for this deck is to an arsenal of nuclear weapons. As Dennis mentioned in his report, during testing there were many decks with locations that kneel during challenges and could combo off the engineer and scourge. What happens when one country has a stockpile of nukes? They control international relations, just like this deck controls the flow of a game, stripping icons, discarding cards with house dayne skirmisher, removing characters from challenges, canceling responses, and trading titles with myrcella.

Once one has a stockpile, everyone else wants it too. That's why the whole DC meta wanted to play this deck. It was a clear winner. To extend the nuclear weapon analogy, when two of these decks are at a table it's a cold war of mutually assured destruction. The card interactions force the best interest to be to strip the other two for uo power, then wait until you can afford to try to backstab the other person and take the win. You have to do it at the last minute and without your scourge, or you lose all your icons too.

Someone asked why some players didn't go with a different deck and add tech against this one. The best defense against a stockpile of nukes is to have your own. As far as I can tell, Star Wars cards aren't legal in a thrones tournament, even if FFG blew us away with possibly their best tournament support ever by giving free copies to pre-registrants.

LOL yeah let's compare an AGOT Melee tournament to Nuclear weapons and call it a fair analogy. You say analogy I say drama queen hyperbole.

What's the worst that can happen in each scenario? Let's see - the end of your civilization as you know it vs losing a melee tournament - sounds about right.

Without Signature

7

27

Dobbler said:

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.

Where do you think they'll land on this, Greg? Backtracking on collusion rules would be admitting that the 2012 worlds ruling was excessive, in a way. I think it more likely they'll add something.

So what would a stipulation such as "abuse of combos in mirrored decks is prohibited," for example, add? The worst possible outcome is if FFG does no clarifying, and everyone is walking on eggshells.

DC Meta

"…to strive, to seek, to find,not to yield."

0

papalorax said:

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.

Why? The rules state you cannot make deals before games - they certainly do not say you can't play the same deck. You are assuming that they had made a deal. The deck clearly stood on its own without friends help…so perhaps they all agreed it was the best option.

Of the three in the final - who should have broken out to work with the other guy?

That's not all the rules say can get you DQ'd sure that's collusion but there's other stuff listed as well. Further, what you're essentially saying is that the above facts should be completely ignored when evaluating whether someone is actually colluding or not and to do so would be just ridiculous.

Without Signature

0

dcdennis said:

Dobbler said:

It's not the plots making it impossible for Mathieu to attack that evidence collusion and unsportsmanlike conduct; it was the fact that they effectively ignored him, playing the game as a 3-player Melee.

this is completely false. Matheiu made it very clear in swiss (i played at his table round 2) and early on in the final table that he was not open to ANY deals. he was offered them repeatedly for plot swapping and the standard 'i wont attack you etc..' type deals, and he refused to make any deals. He wanted to play it completely solo. I would appreciate people not perpetuating this rumor because it is just not true. We 'ignored him' because he wasn't interested in negotiating.

He didn't want to make deals with what he rationally thought to be 3 colluders. That's different in my book.

Without Signature

2

0

AGoT DC Meta said:

Dobbler said:

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.

Where do you think they'll land on this, Greg? Backtracking on collusion rules would be admitting that the 2012 worlds ruling was excessive, in a way. I think it more likely they'll add something.

So what would a stipulation such as "abuse of combos in mirrored decks is prohibited," for example, add? The worst possible outcome is if FFG does no clarifying, and everyone is walking on eggshells.

i was thinking more along the lines of maybe they could start designing cards that cant be abused. but thats just me :P

[11/14/2012 10:07:06 PM] [REDACTED]: the game is just so much more fun these days with dennis involved

5

29

AGoT DC Meta said:

Dobbler said:

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.

Where do you think they'll land on this, Greg? Backtracking on collusion rules would be admitting that the 2012 worlds ruling was excessive, in a way. I think it more likely they'll add something.

So what would a stipulation such as "abuse of combos in mirrored decks is prohibited," for example, add? The worst possible outcome is if FFG does no clarifying, and everyone is walking on eggshells.

I believe there is a 0% chance they remove the collusion rules.

Based on my conversations with Steve Horvath at Worlds, the current wording on collusion and sportsmanship in the tourney document was a starting place, but he also didn't indicate to me that they had intentions of trying to draw stricter lines of definition. So they might have plans of adding more definition to the sportsmanship section in the tourney document, but they also may not.

I would imagine that after this past weekend that FFG will have plenty of discussions on how they want to proceed forward.

Also, keep in mind that Nate was the one who made the DQ ruling in the final Melee game at worlds. Nate works for FFG and is a direct representative of the company. Ktom, on the otherhand, is more of a middle man. Would the community have acted or felt differently if Ktom had made the DQ call? And remember, FFG does not rule over every regional or large scale event. Often there will be a TO (like Ktom) who will have to make a judgement call at an event not hosted or run by FFG. Directing ire at an employee paid to be at an event is one thing, directing ire at someone volunteering their time is another.

Without Signature

5

29

dcdennis said:

AGoT DC Meta said:

Dobbler said:

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.

Where do you think they'll land on this, Greg? Backtracking on collusion rules would be admitting that the 2012 worlds ruling was excessive, in a way. I think it more likely they'll add something.

So what would a stipulation such as "abuse of combos in mirrored decks is prohibited," for example, add? The worst possible outcome is if FFG does no clarifying, and everyone is walking on eggshells.

i was thinking more along the lines of maybe they could start designing cards that cant be abused. but thats just me :P

Both in Joust and in Melee, cards slip through the playtest process as broken. It happens and is unfortunate. After playing this game for 9 years, I've seen cards abused in both scenarios.

Without Signature

2

0

what about adding a clock system like poker has? if anyone at the table thinks any one decision is taking excessively long, they can call a clock, at which point the decider has a preset amount of time, usually 1 or 2 mins, to make the call, or pass his action.

[11/14/2012 10:07:06 PM] [REDACTED]: the game is just so much more fun these days with dennis involved

0

1

KhalBrogo said:

That's not all the rules say can get you DQ'd sure that's collusion but there's other stuff listed as well. Further, what you're essentially saying is that the above facts should be completely ignored when evaluating whether someone is actually colluding or not and to do so would be just ridiculous.

No - what I am stating is the collusion rules were put in place to prevent people from deciding ahead of time how they would fix a game they are in together (which is the charge against Corey and Erick -- although both would be smart enough to have done the same thing without discussing it)….in fact, Corey and Erick played identical decks which would have made it an easy inclusion into the rules if they wanted. They also could have taken action before round 1 and said DC meta is DQ'd for acts against the integrity of the game (which would have been ridiculous as well).

The only logical conclusion is something was done during the last part of the final game which made the judges believe collusion occurred. It seems like it would be very easy to point this out…although from what I have read no one can point to a single thing that would indicate collusion.

Rick was DQ'd and it sounds like he was barely involved in the end game discussions.

The 4th player made it clear from the start he was in for making deals - which means any claims of not working with him crazy.

What happened was FFG decided to take action against players that they don't particularily like because the heat of day built to a point they didn't like. It was a cowards decision. It was the terrible culmination of a stupid rule put in place to stop behavior that is impossible to stop….in a format created to exemplify the behavior they wanted to stop. Insanity.

Without Signature

0

papalorax said:

KhalBrogo said:

That's not all the rules say can get you DQ'd sure that's collusion but there's other stuff listed as well. Further, what you're essentially saying is that the above facts should be completely ignored when evaluating whether someone is actually colluding or not and to do so would be just ridiculous.

No - what I am stating is the collusion rules were put in place to prevent people from deciding ahead of time how they would fix a game they are in together (which is the charge against Corey and Erick -- although both would be smart enough to have done the same thing without discussing it)….in fact, Corey and Erick played identical decks which would have made it an easy inclusion into the rules if they wanted. They also could have taken action before round 1 and said DC meta is DQ'd for acts against the integrity of the game (which would have been ridiculous as well).

The only logical conclusion is something was done during the last part of the final game which made the judges believe collusion occurred. It seems like it would be very easy to point this out…although from what I have read no one can point to a single thing that would indicate collusion.

Rick was DQ'd and it sounds like he was barely involved in the end game discussions.

The 4th player made it clear from the start he was in for making deals - which means any claims of not working with him crazy.

What happened was FFG decided to take action against players that they don't particularily like because the heat of day built to a point they didn't like. It was a cowards decision. It was the terrible culmination of a stupid rule put in place to stop behavior that is impossible to stop….in a format created to exemplify the behavior they wanted to stop. Insanity.

I would say the opposite. It was very brave of them to do what what they did.

Moreover, don't think the rule is stupid, rather it's necessary for what they want the melee to be.

Further, actually it is not impossible to stop that behavior because it was stopped in finals.

The problem is that the rules are subjective and many things can count as evidence of collusion. You are trying to say that there must be one single thing that sufficiently illustrates collusion. That's never how this is going to work. Things of this nature usually require a totality of circumstances evaluation and in that regard I think they were justified.

Without Signature

0

Wow, I would have thought of going up to the World Championship to meet some of these people that I read about and listen to, but had a wedding to attend. This is surely a pretty astounding amount of information to process since I came back.

So if I understand things right, the multiplayer format is played as a 1 versus many format, like Halo Deathmatches, instead of something like CT/Terrorist games in Counterstrike?

Also, the tournament rules seem to state that some level of "sportsmanship" is expected out of all participants, but is a bit vague on that meaning, which leaves it up to the TOs and potentially public perception at large.

It seems then, that we have an issue of what is legal vs. what is ethical. From what I can gather after poring through all this stuff, it seems like there've been problems a couple times with the same people who want to keep pushing the boundaries of the established rules. What does that say about someone's character that they keep doing that? In different workplaces all over, there are quite a few actions that would be strictly legal, but not ethical, so people don't do them (we won't get into Wall Street style actions right now, as that's a whole different argument).

"A nation can survive its fools, even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within….for the traitor appears not to be a traitor…he rots the soul of a nation…he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist." - Cicero

8

20

Wait, you mean Eric was colluding because they gimped the weakest player and shut him out of the game?

Hate to break it to ya, but if you are actually playing to win a melee, the best path is to utterly gimp a player and use him to farm unopposed power. Its why I hate the format.

1

2

0

I wonder which is the better option:

1. Adding stricter collusion rules/better definitions, or;

2. Adding changes to the format that work to discourage collusion. For example, something that only rewards 1st place, or something similar.

I don't know if #2 is possible - I don't play enough melee to know how to work out different options and how they would work. I'm just thinking of some way that people would not want to collude - that encourages every person to play to win and not play to set up the order of finish. Or making it a team competition (2v2), etc.. Or perhaps deckbuilding rules. I don't know.

Without Signature

0

1

MeatLoafX said:

1. Adding stricter collusion rules/better definitions, or;

They could say - you are not allowed to make deals in melee at any time. I find the negotiating and coaching simply awful, but I know lots of people really like that aspect of melee. But to try and say in game is o.k., but if we perceive something out of game is not o.k….its will just lead to mud. Honestly that is the only thing you could do…pick one extreme or the other, not the soft middle.

Without Signature

7

27

Dobbler said:

I believe there is a 0% chance they remove the collusion rules.

Based on my conversations with Steve Horvath at Worlds, the current wording on collusion and sportsmanship in the tourney document was a starting place, but he also didn't indicate to me that they had intentions of trying to draw stricter lines of definition. So they might have plans of adding more definition to the sportsmanship section in the tourney document, but they also may not.

I would imagine that after this past weekend that FFG will have plenty of discussions on how they want to proceed forward.

Also, keep in mind that Nate was the one who made the DQ ruling in the final Melee game at worlds. Nate works for FFG and is a direct representative of the company. Ktom, on the otherhand, is more of a middle man. Would the community have acted or felt differently if Ktom had made the DQ call? And remember, FFG does not rule over every regional or large scale event. Often there will be a TO (like Ktom) who will have to make a judgement call at an event not hosted or run by FFG. Directing ire at an employee paid to be at an event is one thing, directing ire at someone volunteering their time is another.

Well, all I can say is it will be interesting to see what happens to the tourney rules, and how they think they can fix this. "Starting place" to me would indicate additions. When I was a Resident Hall Director and I'd sit over sanctioning college students for breaking rules, the focus was on the impact of one's behavior on one's self and others, including the frequency and severity, not the rule itself. I could see there being a list of behaviors that in and of themselves aren't collusion, but should be paid attention to, both for the TO and for the players. Some examples of such things may be:

Frequency and severity of your deal-making with meta-mates to the detriment of others at the table
Frequency and severity of pwning one specific player, especially if he/she is not a meta-mate
Discussion of table placement as leverage for deal-making

I don't know how helpful it would be for the people who are "rule-centric" in the sense that if it's not a rule it can't be broken, but it can at least provide a firmer ground for TOs to back up their decisions, and for players to have some basis for making decisions in deckbuilding and during gameplay.

That being said, I don't think these would work as actual rules since they are so ephemeral, and I agree that there shouldn't be collusion rules at all.

TL;DR - a bunch of touch-feely crap I got from working in student affairs for too long, suggesting that FFG not create "rules" per se, but rather guidelines for melee behavior.

DC Meta

"…to strive, to seek, to find,not to yield."

Register Now
My Points
My Games