| Register Now | |
| My Points | |
| My Games | |
This is the place to talk about all elements of A Game of Thrones LCG.
| Page 7 of 8 (120 messages) | « First page... 5 6 7 8 ...Last page » |
AGoT DC Meta said:
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 actually like these suggestions and think something like them could be implemented with a modicum of refinement. They're in concert with the rules on "unsportsmanlike conduct"---personally, I think the excruciating time spent on dealmaking, discussion, gaming out scenarios that made it such a crushing NPE was a factor. Not only were the decks an interlocking juggernaut, they were also so evenly matched that outcomes were determined on the slimmest of margins, almost requiring a degree of consent that needed a spreadsheet of outcomes to accept or decline. Maybe we need a stalemate rule?
But particularly the third bullet point above could be implemented. Don't try to coerce or cajole your opponents with metagaming about overall tournament standings. Obviously there'll be awareness and cunning players will try to navigate those waters, but leave it out of the table talk. Focus on the game, and if you need somebody's help to win, then just say "are you ok with coming in second?" and leave them to work out the implications for themselves.
“Does it disturb anyone else that "The Los Angeles Angels" baseball team translates directly to "The The Angels Angels?” —Neil Degrasse Tyson
Bloomington/Normal Gaming: www.meetup.com/bn-bareg
Without reading too much - and whipping myself for even talking about competative melee - it is like pornography. I know it when I see it ~and it turns me on. 
Anytime 14 people bring a deck that is almost the same, it is hard to say that people did not collude ahead of time. However, personally I would just warn them and then check out results and watch games. If a higher than normal % of said 14 decks get 1st and 2nd, using each other's cards to get there…well it is pretty cut and dry.
The funny thing is, no one really has much respect for the two titles that are not the Joust title. No offense to the French winner in that I heard was REALLy good - and heck I didn't even know who won overall (let's just say it wasn't mentioned once in 4 hours of bar-agot-talking time). Who are considered the best players? All people who consistently play well in Joust. Funny that FFG still ties 66% of the prizes to melee *shrug*
King eh, very nice...
I won the overall title Rings. My game with you not withstanding I had a great run in both tournaments. Finished 6th(3rd after DQ's) in melee, and 5th in joust, you were my only loss in Swiss and Bruno is the one that knocked me out in the top 8 round.
Dobbler said:
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?
If I get this correctly, you're saying that because the whole DC meta brought the same deck it is collusion, but if a couple people had the exact same decks from different metas it's not collusion when the games play out exactly the same? The reason the whole DC meta brought and played this deck is because it was the best deck. I don't think anyone playing this deck had a 4th place finish (except when 4 were at the same top 16 table and the DQ). For the swiss that's 10 players in 3 games for a total of 30 times the deck was played. Outside the one table with 3 of the decks in the 3rd round, I think the deck took 3rd in only one other swiss game. That's a 93% rate for 1st or 2nd assuming memory serves me correctly.
If before going into a game we pre-determined everyone's placing then there would be collusion. We didn't do that. We went into every game to win. When in games where they were paired infinite strip became possible at some tables. At other tables it never happened. When it did, both players tried to be the one to finish first by either specifically targeting military challenges to keep the other DC metamate's Viper from not kneeling, removing opponent's characters with watchful servant or secret alliance, and canceling make an example. All control decks are stronger when paired with other control. When two great control decks sit down together it's not collusion for them to make an in game deal to control the other two players to reduce the variables and each try to get ahead in that push for 1st place. In fact, to do otherwise would be outside the player's best interest and could cause suspicion of collusion with the rush player being protected against self interest. Just because those two control decks are played by members of the same meta or are identical doesn't make it collusion. I think this is especially true for a meta with a history of having multiple players take the same deck to a tournament.
Without Signature
Brian, intent has everything to do with it. If players intend to make their own deck better by encouraging someone else to use the same deck, you have colluded. Its really that simple. You are welcome to keep arguing that collusion wasn't involved, however, I've had conversation with at least half of the people using this deck from that metagroup and its clear the intent was there.
Now, Worlds is over, the DQ ruling won't change, hellholt engineer will soon be errata'd and hopefully FFG will modify the sportsmanship language to offer some more definition and parameters on what collusion looks like. I think its time to stop arguing on what exactly the DC meta did, and start moving forward to fix a problem that was distasteful to so many players. I had 2+ players from my own meta mention that they may not ever want to play competitive melee again because of Worlds.
Without Signature
We can agree that what was done is done and hope that FFG provides some clarity to the melee rules.
Without Signature
HoyaLawya said:
We can agree that what was done is done.
That's a semantically null sentence.
[11/14/2012 10:07:06 PM] [REDACTED]: the game is just so much more fun these days with dennis involved
dcdennis said:
HoyaLawya said:
We can agree that what was done is done.
That's a semantically null sentence.
We can disagree that what was not done was not done?
Dobbler said:
I had 2+ players from my own meta mention that they may not ever want to play competitive melee again because of Worlds.
I may never want to play competitive melee again because of Worlds, but I think you and I disagree on the collusion here (given I don't assume intent to collude…at least, I don't feel there's adequate proof revealed that all 10 players were intending to collude, and definitely not Rick).
Honestly, I'm not sure there's anything FFG can do that will convince me to take competitive melee seriously, short of (a) apologizing that they got it wrong, or (b) scrapping collusion rules altogether (which would be sort of an admission of guilt without actually admitting they got it wrong).
Edit: If the three players DQ'd all "admitted" that they were colluding, I would be convinced, though the timing still irks me. And for that matter, if all 10 were colluding, why weren't all 10 DQ'd and their points taken away? The inconsistency just kills me.
"I have been reading the rules forums, just to prove to my wife that I can become more obsessed about something." - - note from an anonymous gamer awaiting the release of his new obsession
Meta info: New York City
Reference: CardGameDB ; Agotcards.org; Dabbler; OCTGN plugins/macros; OCTGN player list
dcdennis said:
HoyaLawya said:
We can agree that what was done is done.
That's a semantically null sentence.
dcdennis said:
HoyaLawya said:
We can agree that what was done is done.
That's a semantically null sentence.
I thought the grammar police on homophones would recognize an idiom. Fyi, it means we can leave the past behind and let the thread die. Then again, with who I'm talking to I should know better than to expect that to happen.
Without Signature
@Dobbler - I agree that intent to cheat is the issue. But how does FFG respond and write an adequate rule that is enforceable and clear to all players? I recommend that the player community write the rules for them. One person from each meta could act as lead. I'll draft up the approriate rules; route them for concurrence and comment, and then we can submit them to FFG.
If new rules get made, they should be moved out of the sportsmanship section and into a new section called something else (e.g., cheating).
If I am at a table with a friend, I will take actions that make me win first and foremost. But given the choice between 2 actions that both make me win equally--1 that hurts my friend, 1 that doesn't--I am going to select the one that doesn't hurt my friend (is that cheating?--I don't see how they could effectively regulate that if it is cheating).
As far as sportsmanship (or, respect for one's opponent) goes, there should be warnings and penalties for unsportsmanlike conduct (like in football). For example, if I would have taunted you in our joust Top-8 match, a judge could have come over an slapped me with a warning. Another taunt or flipping the table, and I get disqualified. You should be able to be a "bad sport" in competition (with varying degrees of penalty, of course); you should not be allowed to cheat.
In the end, getting the right melee rules should be an iterative approach. We should start with a set of defined rules and incrementally change them until people stop finding holes in them.
Yolo!
DCs proposed set of rules for regulating competitive melee behavior:
<rules>
</rules>
Crystal clear, easy to enforce, unlikely to create much controversy once people accept them for what they are, and extremely likely to work out in practice.
Well that sounds fun. Then I could stab my opponents for the win.
It's sad to point out, but for any game to be competitive, there must be rules that generate a common and equal playing ground for competitors.
"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
What really worries is not how to define a collusion, but how to recognize a colluder and what to do if I encounter one? Should I inform local authority, start a new thread at these forums about the colluder in question or warn him that they cut off one finger per collusion in Japanese AGoT community?
BBSB12 said:
What really worries is not how to define a collusion, but how to recognize a colluder and what to do if I encounter one? Should I inform local authority, start a new thread at these forums about the colluder in question or warn him that they cut off one finger per collusion in Japanese AGoT community?
Actually, I think you skip straight to actually cutting the finger off. :p
| Page 7 of 8 (120 messages) | « First page... 5 6 7 8 ...Last page » |
Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Contact | User Support | Rules Questions | Help | RSS