PDA

View Full Version : Throwing Matches for a Friend/Guildmate



hex_colin
06-14-2013, 09:02 PM
I wonder if Crypto has giving any thought to how to deal with situations where players in tournaments throw matches to give their friends better seedings in the next round and/or help get them through to the next round.

How does it work in live sanctioned (WotC/Crypto) tournaments nowadays? Do people get DQ'd for obvious slow/weak play?

Aside from my age, that was the biggest contributor to me giving up playing MtG at live events - I lost count of the number of times I got obviously screwed by 2 other players cutting such a deal.

C

Omniloathe
06-14-2013, 09:07 PM
and how are they going to get matched vs their friends in the first place?

quaza
06-14-2013, 09:09 PM
I'm not aware that getting a higher ranking results in larger prizes. Even if it does though, it's pointless because:

1) Throwing a match and raising their rating results in them being less likely to win in future matches.
2) In a tournament, if you wished for the prize to go to them and you were also participating, you could simply win and hand the prize off.
3) If you were honestly competing against your friend, and you helped them win when it didn't otherwise harm you, then you will likely still face them, forcing the issue.

BlueRider
06-14-2013, 09:12 PM
In WoW a player may concede at any time for any reason. The only exception to this is if the other player is offering them prizes or money/stuff for them to concede. That's cheating and carries a pretty hefty penalty for both players.

There is no problem with a player conceding to another player on their team because the other player has the better tie breakers and has a better chance to make it to the top 8, or wherever they make the cut.

Shadowelf
06-14-2013, 09:12 PM
Aside from official cze tournaments, with money on the line which i think may be monitored, all the other matches will be up to the players to decide.

jaxsonbateman
06-14-2013, 09:14 PM
It's a fine practice - if your W/L tally is such that someone else can beat you (to top 8 as is usually the case) by doing this, then you're the one who should have won more and taken it out of their reach. Effectively, to make this kind of thing impossible they'd have to disallow people from conceding games, and that's just insane.

hex_colin
06-14-2013, 09:15 PM
and how are they going to get matched vs their friends in the first place?

They both enter the same 8 person draft. After the prelims, 4 people advance to a semi-final round, 2 matches, winners face off in the final. They could easily be playing a prelim match where one of them already had enough points to advance and the other would only advance if they won, freezing out another player who would have otherwise advanced.

hex_colin
06-14-2013, 09:19 PM
In WoW a player may concede at any time for any reason. The only exception to this is if the other player is offering them prizes or money/stuff for them to concede. That's cheating and carries a pretty hefty penalty for both players.

There is no problem with a player conceding to another player on their team because the other player has the better tie breakers and has a better chance to make it to the top 8, or wherever they make the cut.

But that's unfair to people who play a tournaments without friends participating, and gives certain people an unfair advantage. It might be legal, but it's ethically dubious.

BlueRider
06-14-2013, 09:19 PM
They both enter the same 8 person draft. After the prelims, 4 people advance to a semi-final round, 2 matches, winners face off in the final. They could easily be playing a prelim match where one of them already had enough points to advance and the other would only advance if they won, freezing out another player who would have otherwise advanced.That's not possible, or I'm completely misunderstanding what you're saying. In a single elimination tournament only the players who win their matches advance. If you're playing your friend and concede then there's no way you could advance as well.

Edit:
Effectively, to make this kind of thing impossible they'd have to disallow people from conceding games, and that's just insane.
This essentially. You can't force people to play if they are unwilling/unable to continue playing.

jaxsonbateman
06-14-2013, 09:26 PM
But that's unfair to people who play a tournaments without friends participating, and gives certain people an unfair advantage. It might be legal, but it's ethically dubious.
I wouldn't say it's ethically dubious. If they had had their match, the player who won could have won anyway, and you'd be in exactly the same position. The reason you didn't top 8 isn't because one player conceded, it's because you didn't win enough before that to take yourself out of calculations to fail.

I'd say it's more ethically dubious to force someone to play when they don't want to.

As for it happening, it won't happen in your typical draft queue or constructed queue. It tends to happen at tournaments that have a swiss portion (either constructed and/or draft sections), followed by a top-X portion. In the last couple of rounds of swiss people will start seeing if they have the chance to progress or not - and if they do, and they match up with a friend, one of them might concede. Though typically at that point the friend would also have a chance to get through. Usually what happens is if two people are playing, its final round, one of them could miss out if they lose but they'll both make it if they draw - they draw. And again, that's perfectly fine. And this more often than not (from my experience) happens with people who aren't actually friends, and are just interested in progressing.

Shadowelf
06-14-2013, 09:28 PM
That's not possible, or I'm completely misunderstanding what you're saying. In a single elimination tournament only the players who win their matches advance. If you're playing your friend and concede then there's no way you could advance as well.


Let's say for the sake of arguement that ur sitting at 17-0 and ur buddy is 14-2-1; you are locked in for top8, while he absolutely needs the win. Wouldn't giving him the match advance u both at the expense of someone with the same win % as ur friend?

hex_colin
06-14-2013, 09:28 PM
That's not possible, or I'm completely misunderstanding what you're saying. In a single elimination tournament only the players who win their matches advance. If you're playing your friend and concede then there's no way you could advance as well.

There are lots of formats where you play swiss/round-robin first and then a top 4/ top 8, etc. advance to single-elimination.

hex_colin
06-14-2013, 09:29 PM
Let's say for the sake of arguement that ur sitting at 17-0 and ur buddy is 14-2-1; you are locked in for top8, while he absolutely needs the win. Wouldn't giving him the match advance u both at the expense of someone with the same win % as ur friend?

Exactly...

hex_colin
06-14-2013, 09:36 PM
I'd say it's more ethically dubious to force someone to play when they don't want to.


They voluntarily entered a tournament - it's reasonable to expect that they should play in, and attempt to win, all the games required for that tournament.

Masquerade
06-14-2013, 09:43 PM
If they want to throw a match, let them. Who cares >_<

If anything, intentional draws are the issue...

jaxsonbateman
06-14-2013, 09:48 PM
Maybe I'm a bit too hard-nosed or competitive when it comes to this, but I'm firmly of the opinion that if someone were to take that last place in a top-X at your expense by having a friend concede to them in the last round, then it was your fault for not winning enough to be in such a position that you could get jumped.

Furthermore, the actual odds of two friends getting into the final round against each other are pretty slim.

And then furthermore, if only one of those two players could have actually jumped you (if they could both jump you then the discussion is meaningless as you wouldn't have made it anyway), then even non-friends would often reach the same conclusion in a competitive environment. Final round, player A "hey mate, look at our standings - I can make top 8 if I win, you can't - concede?", player B "sure".

TheKraken
06-14-2013, 10:00 PM
I agree with Hex_Colin in the sense that skill and cards should determine the winner but that's not always the case.

One thing that could help deter players from fixing the system are the players themselves. What I mean by that is if CZE has a good replay system, this will in turn, make it obvious for those trying to take advantage of a situation and would damage their integrity. I think that would keep most from doing it.

hex_colin
06-14-2013, 10:02 PM
I guess I was more interested in ways for the game to work out that it was happening.

Presumably the AI could work out the best possible outcome for a given turn and give you a score based on how close you got. Large deviations between the 2 would be fine at lower rankings, but would potentially get you flagged the higher your ranking. I would imagine that over time, it would be easy to work out which games were tanked and which were not.

That way, if you wanted to throw a game, you'd at least have to put some thought into it :P

BenRGamer
06-14-2013, 10:02 PM
Personally, people may call it crazy, but I think you should be unable to concede in tournaments. They might not be able to punish you for throwing the match, but can very well make you visibly have to throw the match.

hex_colin
06-14-2013, 10:05 PM
Personally, people may call it crazy, but I think you should be unable to concede in tournaments. They might not be able to punish you for throwing the match, but can very well make you visibly have to throw the match.

Agreed! No agreements to draw!

Kietay
06-14-2013, 10:06 PM
This is not a problem at all. If you are good enough it wont effect you. If you missed a spot because someone gave a by to their friend, then you need to do better so it wont matter if they do that or not. Achieving yourself is often the solution to most problems in life. If you lost a tournament because of some point swapping you likely weren't going to win anyways.

Rtsands45
06-14-2013, 10:06 PM
MTG you are awarded 3 pts for a win, 1 pt for a draw, and 0 for a loss

In MTG you may:

1) Concede to your opponent at anytime during the match.
2) Intentionally draw(ID) your round

If however you offer your opponent a bribe of packs or some other incentive for either of those outcomes you have violated the floor rules and are DQed without prize for collusion/bribery.

I have intentionally drawn and scooped to friends. There is nobody to blame for not making top 8 because of a record but yourself. You cannot force somebody to play a match they have to interest on winning. A judge cannot sit there and watch and decide if they are making the correct plays or not. Judges enforce the rules of the game not play the game for another person.

Sometimes at large tournaments you want to get something to eat if you are in such a commanding lead that both you and your opponent are X-0 then it is to both of your advantage to draw and rest for the top 8.

As to the person who had the example of a 17-0 playing a 14-3, under Swiss pairings this would never happen. A tournament to warrant that many rounds most likely would not have an X-0 playing an X-3. Also a tournament with that many rounds would be a two day tourney assuming 60 minutes of total gameclock between the two players(17 hours) of playing.

TheKraken
06-14-2013, 10:09 PM
I guess I was more interested in ways for the game to work out that it was happening.

Presumably the AI could work out the best possible outcome for a given turn and give you a score based on how close you got. Large deviations between the 2 would be fine at lower rankings, but would potentially get you flagged the higher your ranking. I would imagine that over time, it would be easy to work out which games were tanked and which were not.

That way, if you wanted to throw a game, you'd at least have to put some thought into it :P

I like that concept, Colin, but I don't think it would be easy to implement. AI would have to analyze every turn for every game. That will need a lot of power.

hex_colin
06-14-2013, 10:13 PM
You cannot force somebody to play a match they have to interest on winning. A judge cannot sit there and watch and decide if they are making the correct plays or not. Judges enforce the rules of the game not play the game for another person.

Happens all the time at Poker tournaments - the floor can penalize/DQ for slow/easy play and/or collusion.

In a TCG tournament, almost every time you don't play out your match to win, you've altered the course of the tournament in some way.

Also, as Cory has pointed out numerous times, we need to stop thinking about this TCG in terms of the non-digital ones that have gone before. If we could usefully (and accurately) use the AI and associated software to police this, why wouldn't we?

hex_colin
06-14-2013, 10:17 PM
I like that concept, Colin, but I don't think it would be easy to implement. AI would have to analyze every turn for every game. That will need a lot of power.

I think it's pretty easy early on in the game. Obviously, on later turns it would get more and more complex. That being said, I don't think it's a challenge for the sort of computing horsepower that's easily available today though.

BenRGamer
06-14-2013, 10:19 PM
I have intentionally drawn and scooped to friends. There is nobody to blame for not making top 8 because of a record but yourself.

Isn't that the very definition of cronyism? It's not what you know, it's not how well you play the game, it's who you know, who your friends are.

Kietay
06-14-2013, 10:25 PM
Happens all the time at Poker tournaments - the floor can penalize/DQ for slow/easy play and/or collusion.

In a TCG tournament, almost every time you don't play out your match to win, you've altered the course of the tournament in some way.

Also, as Cory has pointed out numerous times, we need to stop thinking about this TCG in terms of the non-digital ones that have gone before. If we could usefully (and accurately) use the AI and associated software to police this, why wouldn't we?

Because policing pointless things is bad. There is nothing wrong about giving your friend a by. If you get knocked out of the next bracket because of it then you did not play well enough to win the tournament, it is that simple. There are way too many threads lately which are pushing to control the way people play.

Disappointing :c

BenRGamer
06-14-2013, 10:31 PM
...so people not wanting you to control tournaments is bad now?

BlueRider
06-14-2013, 10:31 PM
So I'm playing in a tournament when my internet connection goes down. Half an hour later I manage to get it working again and reconnect. I've already lost my match because my clock ran out while I was disconnected. How would you suggest I be penalized?

hex_colin
06-14-2013, 10:41 PM
So I'm playing in a tournament when my internet connection goes down. Half an hour later I manage to get it working again and reconnect. I've already lost my match because my clock ran out while I was disconnected. How would you suggest I be penalized?

You get the benefit of the doubt once per tournament? If it happens in X number of tournaments, you stop getting the benefit of the doubt?

I agree that it's difficult. But if those were the rules, they'd be just like the multitude of others that were in place.

Also, in significant tournaments where cash and/or significant prizes were at stake, they'd be in-person and this would be largely irrelevant.

Rtsands45
06-14-2013, 10:46 PM
How about this situation. You and your friend are both X-1. You both get paired up. Neither of you will make top 8 with X-1-1 records. You know because of tiebreakers you have 0 percent chance at making top 8 if you win, but because of the tiebreakers your friend will make top 8 with an X-1 record. You have a better deck than your friend, but gain no value in knocking him out of the top 8.

Conceding the match to your friend would be the most reasonable answer to get someone to the top 8. Much playtesting goes on in TCGs to learn to make the correct plays and the best line of play. Why should you be forced to do something that has no positive outcome for you.

Also, its not about who you know it is about how well you play. If you go X-0 at a tournament you deserve to have the opportunity to Draw the last round or concede the last round to get your teammate in the top 8. If you didn't choose the correct deck and scrubbed out then its your own fault for your standing at the tournament.

hex_colin
06-14-2013, 10:48 PM
Because policing pointless things is bad. There is nothing wrong about giving your friend a by. If you get knocked out of the next bracket because of it then you did not play well enough to win the tournament, it is that simple. There are way too many threads lately which are pushing to control the way people play.

Disappointing :c

You letting your friend win might be ok with you and others in this thread, but there is a significant population that might be put off by the same behavior. It has the potential to not be in the best interests of building the strongest and most inclusive community possible.

It's not controlling how you play other than to have you make a reasonable attempt to win every match you're supposed to play.

Your friend might have half a win more than me because you let him win. In that case he did not play well enough to win/advance - he was handed it by you. There are lots of situations where the "you should have played better argument falls down". It's a TCG, no one, even the "best" player in the world, can expect a 100% win rate.

Rtsands45
06-14-2013, 10:51 PM
Isn't that the very definition of cronyism? It's not what you know, it's not how well you play the game, it's who you know, who your friends are.

No Ben, you must play well in order to have the benefit of drawing. I have been in multiple tournaments where I have drawn with total strangers just because I don't want to play the last round. I reiterate it is one's own fault if one cannot make themselves be in that position to do that. You don't have to know people most people who are smart realize they are going to make top 8 either way there is no benefit to them playing it out.

hex_colin
06-14-2013, 10:52 PM
How about this situation. You and your friend are both X-1. You both get paired up. Neither of you will make top 8 with X-1-1 records. You know because of tiebreakers you have 0 percent chance at making top 8 if you win, but because of the tiebreakers your friend will make top 8 with an X-1 record. You have a better deck than your friend, but gain no value in knocking him out of the top 8.

Conceding the match to your friend would be the most reasonable answer to get someone to the top 8. Much playtesting goes on in TCGs to learn to make the correct plays and the best line of play. Why should you be forced to do something that has no positive outcome for you.

Also, its not about who you know it is about how well you play. If you go X-0 at a tournament you deserve to have the opportunity to Draw the last round or concede the last round to get your teammate in the top 8. If you didn't choose the correct deck and scrubbed out then its your own fault for your standing at the tournament.

Bottom line - you colluded and fixed the results of the tournament.

Now, unfortunately, that may be legal, but it's not ethical or fair to the person you screwed over.

Kietay
06-14-2013, 10:52 PM
Sands knows his stuff! You can't force people to not do what the best choice for them is. Remember the summer Olympics badminton matches? If it is in your benefit, people can and should do it. The tournament organizers are at fault if they set up a system where it is easier to get ahead by throwing games in most situations.

Yes the situation can occur no matter the tournament set up but it is extremely minimal and it is very unlikely you actually lost multiple times due to friends working together rather than you simply losing too many games yourself.

Moral of the story is design things to work right, and dont punish people for doing everything they can to gain every advantage they can.

jaxsonbateman
06-14-2013, 10:58 PM
Isn't that the very definition of cronyism? It's not what you know, it's not how well you play the game, it's who you know, who your friends are.
Been AFK for a bit, but I had to reply to this. It's entirely how well you play, because in the end, as we've said numerous times, if a player had actually performed well enough this wouldn't have been an issue.

hex_colin
06-14-2013, 10:59 PM
OK, let's say it's business as usual in TCG tournaments. You can intentionally draw or intentionally lose.

Should your rating should get pummeled as a result?

That would seem to be fair - you lose less rating the closer any loss is, and more for lopsided losses. Intentional draws and losses would be considered worse than the most lopsided losses.

hex_colin
06-14-2013, 11:01 PM
Been AFK for a bit, but I had to reply to this. It's entirely how well you play, because in the end, as we've said numerous times, if a player had actually performed well enough this wouldn't have been an issue.

Again, I could have exactly the same record as your friend after you gifted him a win, but there was a tiebreaker that fell in his favor. You can't use that "performed well enough" argument in that case.

jaxsonbateman
06-14-2013, 11:05 PM
Again, I could have exactly the same record as your friend after you gifted him a win, but there was a tiebreaker that fell in his favor. You can't use that "performed well enough" argument in that case.
Yes, I can. Because if you had performed well enough my friend's record wouldn't have been an issue. You didn't perform well enough so it was left up to tiebreakers outside of your control.

If I'm not mistaken, no pro level Magic player has made this kind of statement (that IDs and concessions are unfair).

Rtsands45
06-14-2013, 11:07 PM
You letting your friend win might be ok with you and others in this thread, but there is a significant population that might be put off by the same behavior. It has the potential to not be in the best interests of building the strongest and most inclusive community possible.

It's not controlling how you play other than to have you make a reasonable attempt to win every match you're supposed to play.

Your friend might have half a win more than me because you let him win. In that case he did not play well enough to win/advance - he was handed it by you. There are lots of situations where the "you should have played better argument falls down". It's a TCG, no one, even the "best" player in the world, can expect a 100% win rate.

No offense Colin but you seem a bit defensive about this topic so I will assume you don't play tcgs. Or perhaps you haven't played in larger tournaments.

Playing 60 minute rounds for 8+ rounds straight drains you mentally. People are very prone to play mistakes later in tournaments because of the constant stress. Now you are telling me that a person has no right to concede/draw their match in the last round of the tournament if they are already locked for top 8? The MTG community is well known for this. Its not cheating in the floor rules. It is 100% completely legit.

Also, the fact that you are relating tournaments to people having half a win more is also over exaggerating. Differences between places in larger tournaments can be anywhere from .1% win/loss ratio to .001% win/loss ratio.

Rtsands45
06-14-2013, 11:10 PM
OK, let's say it's business as usual in TCG tournaments. You can intentionally draw or intentionally lose.

Should your rating should get pummeled as a result?

That would seem to be fair - you lose less rating the closer any loss is, and more for lopsided losses. Intentional draws and losses would be considered worse than the most lopsided losses.

Yeah, in Magic they took away rating about 2 years ago I believe, as it had nothing to do with matchmaking during the tournaments.

hex_colin
06-14-2013, 11:14 PM
No offense Colin but you seem a bit defensive about this topic so I will assume you don't play tcgs. Or perhaps you haven't played in larger tournaments.

Not being defensive. Just trying to have a discussion about how things could be different in a digital TCG, especially where you can have a "memory" of everything a player has ever done in the game, tournaments, etc. I've played in lots of tournaments, starting back with Unlimited/Revised/Legends Magic. Not so much recently though...

I'm more than happy to play in tournaments where you can intentionally draw or lose, I'd just never do it, even if I had no chance of progressing.

More than anything, I'm playing Devil's Advocate. Which is basically adult trolling :P

hex_colin
06-14-2013, 11:18 PM
Yeah, in Magic they took away rating about 2 years ago I believe, as it had nothing to do with matchmaking during the tournaments.

The more I think about it - your rating (or whatever we end up being ranked by) should be an important part of the tournament scene in this game. And every game should contribute. That way people will be protective of it.

And, since everything is digital, it's easy to track it over time, and from tournament to tournament, etc.

jaxsonbateman
06-14-2013, 11:19 PM
I think, the issue is that you're going to get lots of people on different sides of the fence on this. I can actually understand exactly where you're coming from Colin - it'd suck if you were so close to reaching the top-X in a tournament, and then someone through clever use of concessions or intentional-drawing managed to grab that last spot. I'm not going to say "to a friend" anymore, as in my experience more often than not this happens between strangers/acquaintances more often than it does close friends. Usually it's two people in the last round who have seen the standings and know what's what.

The thing is, if this were to be disallowed, you'd get the more competitive players being annoyed that they don't have the option anymore. It's a completely even playing field - anyone can concede and ID - so it's not like it advantages anyone. But if you take it away, you are rewarding those who have less chance of making the top-X and punishing those who have more chance.

To use an analogy, in Poker (note: the last serious event I watched was the 2011 WSOP final table) at the final table all the players were allowed to talk to their crews regularly, and get delayed-but-accurate information about what previous hands their opponent's had flopped. That's a huge bit of information, but because everyone got to do it there was no issue.

Of course, we have no idea what they're going to allow and disallow in terms of bigger tournaments...

Rtsands45
06-14-2013, 11:26 PM
Not being defensive. Just trying to have a discussion about how things could be different in a digital TCG, especially where you can have a "memory" of everything a player has ever done in the game, tournaments, etc. I've played in lots of tournaments, starting back with Unlimited/Revised/Legends Magic. Not so much recently though...

I'm more than happy to play in tournaments where you can intentionally draw or lose, I'd just never do it, even if I had no chance of progressing.

More than anything, I'm playing Devil's Advocate. Which is basically adult trolling :P

Ok, lets assume somehow Hex is able to support a Cash tournament of $50k total prize money divided 1st-64th. You and your wife are playing in this Hex tournament. Last round you get paired up against one another and you are both X-2. Your wife has a shot at making top 8 if she wins, but her deck is a bad matchup against yours. And you, because of tiebreakers are already knocked out of top 8 contention have the better deck. Do you concede to your wife or crush her without remorse to show her you are man?

hex_colin
06-14-2013, 11:28 PM
I think, the issue is that you're going to get lots of people on different sides of the fence on this. I can actually understand exactly where you're coming from Colin - it'd suck if you were so close to reaching the top-X in a tournament, and then someone through clever use of concessions or intentional-drawing managed to grab that last spot. I'm not going to say "to a friend" anymore, as in my experience more often than not this happens between strangers/acquaintances more often than it does close friends. Usually it's two people in the last round who have seen the standings and know what's what.

The thing is, if this were to be disallowed, you'd get the more competitive players being annoyed that they don't have the option anymore. It's a completely even playing field - anyone can concede and ID - so it's not like it advantages anyone. But if you take it away, you are rewarding those who have less chance of making the top-X and punishing those who have more chance.

I get that. If no one knew each other going in it would be a completely level playing field, but inequalities start to emerge as groups of people enter together, etc. This is definitely the predominant ruleset now and I wouldn't expect it to change in the future, no matter what arguments I put forth in this thread.

Maybe the ideal solution is to have a another, different, tournament ruleset for people who don't like intentional draws/losses. That's the advantage of a large virtual community, right - lots of choices!


To use an analogy, in Poker (note: the last serious event I watched was the 2011 WSOP final table) at the final table all the players were allowed to talk to their crews regularly, and get delayed-but-accurate information about what previous hands their opponent's had flopped. That's a huge bit of information, but because everyone got to do it there was no issue.

I play a lot of poker - and I'm still not sure how I feel about this development actually. But it's definitely different - if 2 people at that table had a deal to not play against each other, and someone found out, they'd both be DQ'd and be pariahs in the community.

hex_colin
06-14-2013, 11:29 PM
Ok, lets assume somehow Hex is able to support a Cash tournament of $50k total prize money divided 1st-64th. You and your wife are playing in this Hex tournament. Last round you get paired up against one another and you are both X-2. Your wife has a shot at making top 8 if she wins, but her deck is a bad matchup against yours. And you, because of tiebreakers are already knocked out of top 8 contention have the better deck. Do you concede to your wife or crush her without remorse to show her you are man?

You're clearly not married! Crush her without remorse every time! ;)

Rtsands45
06-14-2013, 11:33 PM
I assume Hex will be much like MTGO where you have your clock and if you run out then you will lose the match. But, I assume they will have a concede button. If you know you cannot win at any point in the current game you can concede to conserve your play clock for games 2 and 3. Nobody wants to be forced to play out games only to lose the match because their own play clock ran out.

hex_colin
06-14-2013, 11:34 PM
Ok, lets assume somehow Hex is able to support a Cash tournament of $50k total prize money divided 1st-64th. You and your wife are playing in this Hex tournament. Last round you get paired up against one another and you are both X-2. Your wife has a shot at making top 8 if she wins, but her deck is a bad matchup against yours. And you, because of tiebreakers are already knocked out of top 8 contention have the better deck. Do you concede to your wife or crush her without remorse to show her you are man?

I'd like to think we'd play the game to the best of our abilities. I don't expect everyone to have the same worldview as me - I understand the dilemma though. I'd like there to be some ongoing cost (reduced rating) associated with taking the loss.

Rtsands45
06-14-2013, 11:36 PM
I'd like to think we'd play the game to the best of our abilities. I don't expect everyone to have the same worldview as me - I understand the dilemma though. I'd like there to be some ongoing cost (reduced rating) associated with taking the loss.

What would rating be used for?

hex_colin
06-14-2013, 11:36 PM
I assume Hex will be much like MTGO where you have your clock and if you run out then you will lose the match. But, I assume they will have a concede button. If you know you cannot win at any point in the current game you can concede to conserve your play clock for games 2 and 3. Nobody wants to be forced to play out games only to lose the match because their own play clock ran out.

I'd rather the play clock for each game was independent for exactly this reason. Game 1 of a match should have no bearing on the other 2 games.

BenRGamer
06-14-2013, 11:40 PM
Eh, I just think there should be more integrity in this. Even if "you should have played better," if it wasn't you, it'd be someone else. No one else should get screwed just because you have a friend.

Miwa
06-14-2013, 11:42 PM
Maybe I'm a bit too hard-nosed or competitive when it comes to this, but I'm firmly of the opinion that if someone were to take that last place in a top-X at your expense by having a friend concede to them in the last round, then it was your fault for not winning enough to be in such a position that you could get jumped.

This. If you want to advance, win. It's no-one's fault but your own if you didn't win enough.

hex_colin
06-14-2013, 11:43 PM
What would rating be used for?

Seeding in all phases of a tournament, for determining participation in invite-only tournaments, etc. You could ID/concede, but if you were marginal for the Top 64/128 invites next week, you might decide to play to maintain/improve your ranking. Of course, if you were Top 5, it might not matter and you could ID/concede with impunity - one of the benefits of sustained excellence.

And the rating system could be pretty complex too since the game could take care of it automatically. You're 7-0 and you'll make the Top 8 no matter how every other match goes - conceding might impact you relatively little. Whereas, you're 6-1 and your result impacts the fortunes of 3 other players, conceding/ID might impact your rating more because of the impact on everyone else.

BenRGamer
06-14-2013, 11:44 PM
This. If you want to advance, win. It's no-one's fault but your own if you didn't win enough.

But then, how? You clearly didn't win enough if you needed your friend to concede to you to get that far, how does that make you better?

jaxsonbateman
06-14-2013, 11:52 PM
But then, how? You clearly didn't win enough if you needed your friend to concede to you to get that far, how does that make you better?
Because you were higher placed when your friend conceded (you didn't need them to concede; you needed to win one way or another) so that the other person in contention had no chance of progressing.

Effectively, if you and player X both have the chance of progressing, except your chance becomes 0 if they actually win, then by statistics and probability they should get through more often than you. And I have no problem with a system that actually lets them bypass the randomness of a game if their opponent agrees.


Two things though. Firstly, at least from my experience you rarely find yourself in a match where only one player is in contention. Typically, either both are or neither are.

Second, you guys are focusing on 'friends' too much. This happens more often than not with people who you wouldn't call friends (they might know each other casually but are in different play groups and never see each other outside of events), and are just two random players who know how to read the placings and know when to concede/ID and when to not.

Rtsands45
06-14-2013, 11:57 PM
Seeding in all phases of a tournament, for determining participation in invite-only tournaments, etc. You could ID/concede, but if you were marginal for the Top 64/128 invites next week, you might decide to play to maintain/improve your ranking. Of course, if you were Top 5, it might not matter and you could ID/concede with impunity - one of the benefits of sustained excellence.

And the rating system could be pretty complex too since the game could take care of it automatically. You're 7-0 and you'll make the Top 8 no matter how every other match goes - conceding might impact you relatively little. Whereas, you're 6-1 and your result impacts the fortunes of 3 other players, conceding/ID might impact your rating more because of the impact on everyone else.

If you rely on rating to determine seeding of each round you create a discrepancy among players. Each tournament should be handled where players have "fresh" records and be seeded according to their record and a match-win percentage otherwise the discrepancy creates a burden on the community where players cannot play one another in tournaments because of their rating. Leading to low rating players having almost no chance against the high rated players because you pass a bunch of low rated players through the tournament playing against people who shouldn't be ranked as high as they appear in the standings. This would in fact be a broken system which would ultimately lead to the utter demise of HEX.

BenRGamer
06-14-2013, 11:57 PM
Eh, I just think it kinda cheapens that part of the game. If some guy just up and lets you get into the final rounds by conceding at the very start of the match, and you win the tournament, did you really earn it?

Rtsands45
06-14-2013, 11:59 PM
Because you were higher placed when your friend conceded (you didn't need them to concede; you needed to win one way or another) so that the other person in contention had no chance of progressing.

Effectively, if you and player X both have the chance of progressing, except your chance becomes 0 if they actually win, then by statistics and probability they should get through more often than you. And I have no problem with a system that actually lets them bypass the randomness of a game if their opponent agrees.


Two things though. Firstly, at least from my experience you rarely find yourself in a match where only one player is in contention. Typically, either both are or neither are.

Second, you guys are focusing on 'friends' too much. This happens more often than not with people who you wouldn't call friends (they might know each other casually but are in different play groups and never see each other outside of events), and are just two random players who know how to read the placings and know when to concede/ID and when to not.

This is exactly what I have been trying to convey.

Rtsands45
06-15-2013, 12:03 AM
Eh, I just think it kinda cheapens that part of the game. If some guy just up and lets you get into the final rounds by conceding at the very start of the match, and you win the tournament, did you really earn it?

Most likely you did earn it because you eventually have to face the other people and win. Also, a lot of playtesting goes into tournament decks if any decent prizes are being given out. The amount of hours you put in to playtest each week to figure out the correct plays and lines of play is in fact because you spent more hours than your opponent knowing the ins and outs of the game. I would really like to know how many of you are tournament players in tcgs and which one(s).

hex_colin
06-15-2013, 12:06 AM
If you rely on rating to determine seeding of each round you create a discrepancy among players. Each tournament should be handled where players have "fresh" records and be seeded according to their record and a match-win percentage otherwise the discrepancy creates a burden on the community where players cannot play one another in tournaments because of their rating. Leading to low rating players having almost no chance against the high rated players because you pass a bunch of low rated players through the tournament playing against people who shouldn't be ranked as high as they appear in the standings. This would in fact be a broken system which would ultimately lead to the utter demise of HEX.

How is seeding according to win-loss record in later rounds any less broken? With intentional draws/concessions you've invalidated win-loss records as a tool for ranking people properly.

Also, you could have a ranking over all time (or specific periods, e.g yearly) for invitational tournaments, etc. and a tournament-specific ranking that took into account your win-loss record and was impacted by intentional draws/concessions. That way, your concession might make your road to the win harder by giving you a harder opponent in the quarter finals than you might otherwise have had.

Sholynyk
06-15-2013, 12:07 AM
.... Why would anybody have a problem with a stronger player surrendering a match to a weaker player to help them place? If you are truly competing that would just allow you to have a free win over a harder opponent than you would otherwise have doesn't it? Or am I missing something here? While that one win on the weaker opponent might get him a little closer to getting a small prize I would think that would give you a better chance at the grand/er prizes. So to me it seems like it works out evenly...

hex_colin
06-15-2013, 12:16 AM
How is seeding according to win-loss record in later rounds any less broken? With intentional draws/concessions you've invalidated win-loss records as a tool for ranking people properly.

Also, you could have a ranking over all time (or specific periods, e.g yearly) for invitational tournaments, etc. and a tournament-specific ranking that took into account your win-loss record and was impacted by intentional draws/concessions. That way, your concession might make your road to the win harder by giving you a harder opponent in the quarter finals than you might otherwise have had.

To be clearer, each of your wins and losses would be given a quality rating that would be combined to give your tournament rating to be used in subsequent phases of the tournament. 20-0 win = highest quality win. 1-0 win = low quality win. Concession win = lowest possible win. 20-0 loss = bad loss. Concession = worst possible loss. You get the idea...

Miwa
06-15-2013, 12:16 AM
But then, how? You clearly didn't win enough if you needed your friend to concede to you to get that far, how does that make you better?
It doesn't. Neither does it matter. When you are in a competition, stop worrying about the other guys, and worry about yourself. Complaining about people with a better record than you is *edited*. The winners played themselves into a position where they could skip out on their last games.

This even happens in the NFL with teams throwing their last games, because they didn't need any more wins. If you need the other guy to lose to make the playoffs, you have no one to blame but yourself for not winning your own games.

hex_colin
06-15-2013, 12:20 AM
This even happens in the NFL with teams throwing their last games, because they didn't need any more wins. If you need the other guy to lose to make the playoffs, you have no one to blame but yourself for not winning your own games.

But it dilutes the product, makes fans angry, and results in a loss of revenue... There are consequences.

Just because ID/concessions are commonplace in TCG tournaments doesn't mean they don't have an impact on the communities.

hex_colin
06-15-2013, 12:24 AM
Complaining about people with a better record than you is simple losers attitude whining.

Also, this has been a reasonable discussion thus far. This is verging into name-calling territory, and thus not cool.

tautologico
06-15-2013, 12:29 AM
This happens a lot in Magic tournaments, two players get to the last round of day 1 or last round before top 8 and they're both locked-in to advance, so they agree to a draw; or one of them may concede the game, but I think this is rarer.

I've never seen any Magic player complain about this. If two players are close in rating and one of them advances because the other player in his match concedes, well, he could very well have won the game by himself and advanced. If you play really well you won't need any concessions, but if you don't you must rely on luck, like being matched with someone who can agree to concede to you.

It's a matter of luck. What's the difference between 1) losing your spot in a top8 because the other guy got matched with someone who agreed to concede; and 2) losing your spot in a top8 because you've been mana flooded in both games of your match? In both cases the cause you lost top8 was not 100% tied to your skill in this specific round, but luck. It's a TCG, you have to accept the possibility of losing for no fault of your own, and this can happen in many ways, including players conceding to others.

Based on the OP you seem to have experienced this and not liked it, but it's a fact of playing a TCG. If your score is good you will advance, if not you may need to depend on luck.

Rtsands45
06-15-2013, 12:34 AM
As much as I would like to put out a chart of a tournament and tell you all of the different tie breakers for determining placement in what I view as a tried and tested game MTG has it right. I will just refer you to this article. It explains how tiebreakers work.

http://blogs.magicjudges.org/rulestips/2011/12/what-tiebreakers-are/

hex_colin
06-15-2013, 12:39 AM
As much as I would like to put out a chart of a tournament and tell you all of the different tie breakers for determining placement in what I view as a tried and tested game MTG has it right. I will just refer you to this article. It explains how tiebreakers work.

http://blogs.magicjudges.org/rulestips/2011/12/what-tiebreakers-are/

I'm well aware of the rules of current MtG tournaments. All I'm suggesting is that, given that everything is digital and therefore extremely easy to track, the tiebreakers (essentially a rating) could be even more granular, consider the scale of each loss/victory, and take into account ID/concessions, especially if those would impact the fortunes of others who played all of their matches.

hex_colin
06-15-2013, 12:43 AM
Based on the OP you seem to have experienced this and not liked it, but it's a fact of playing a TCG. If your score is good you will advance, if not you may need to depend on luck.

I've clarified a couple of times that even though I don't especially like it, I'm more than happy to work under the rules that are in place. And there's always luck involved...

The great thing about Hex is that Crypto is re-imagining what a TCG is. That could also include not blindly copying the established ways of running tournaments. It's at least worth a discussion, which is what I've been doing all day :)

Dralon
06-15-2013, 12:50 AM
if a player had actually performed well enough this wouldn't have been an issue.

Everyone is saying just 'play better' and you won't be in that situation. However in the example, didn't the player that got' screwed over' by just missing the top 8, play just as well as the player that got into the top 8 who was 'conceded' to by a fortunate pairing?

Again, it may be legal, like the badminton olympics concessions, but it is smarmy and not in my definition of fair competition. I am also perfectly fine being in the minority view on that if that is the case, and the way things are run.

Avignon
06-15-2013, 12:57 AM
I've clarified a couple of times that even though I don't especially like it, I'm more than happy to work under the rules that are in place. And there's always luck involved...

The great thing about Hex is that Crypto is re-imagining what a TCG is. That could also include not blindly copying the established ways of running tournaments. It's at least worth a discussion, which is what I've been doing all day :)

You have generated a good conversation Colin. I am sure they re-invent many things while keeping others similar. I am an advocate of them changing the way priority works to be less tedious, but if it doesn't happen that way then so be it.

With this particular issue, to someone who is not in an elite team of 20 or so who make up a large part of the tournament, it will seem like a big disadvantage to be "on your own". Best thing to do is team up in a "guild" that focuses on PvP and work with each other also.

An argument could also be made that people who have producer tier have an unfair advantage as they have access to all the cards where others have to try and collect them before the tourney. As ridiculous as this might seem, I am sure someone out there will bring it up at some point as "pay to win" and curse Colin and others, when it is so far from the truth it isn't funny. I think that "throwing games" is in a similar position, valid point of view but nothing that can't be worked around by getting involved with the community.

Rtsands45
06-15-2013, 12:59 AM
I'm well aware of the rules of current MtG tournaments. All I'm suggesting is that, given that everything is digital and therefore extremely easy to track, the tiebreakers (essentially a rating) could be even more granular, consider the scale of each loss/victory, and take into account ID/concessions, especially if those would impact the fortunes of others who played all of their matches.

That link is to give anyone who hasn't played a tcg an understanding of how tiebreakers work and how position can be affected.

So you are saying the higher rated players have the edge with tie breakers because of their rating? I believe that would discourage newer players to play in pvp tournaments at all if they will just be automatically knocked out by someone who has played the game since the beginning.

I believe the design team wants Hex to be unlike any other TCG where you can basically modify your cards to suit your needs PVE-wise. Cory is always talking about a sandbox tcg. I believe for their tournaments they will go with the "if it is not broke don't fix it" way of thought.

In a tcg unlike the WOW mmorpg pvp is not relevant on how fast you can run around a pillar spamming your abilities, rather it is dependent on your ability to come prepared to a tournament and read your opponent's plays. Everybody can come to the same tournament with the exact same deck, and the players who can plan for future turns and outbluff their opponents will win more often than those who miss that 1 point of damage because they were afraid to trade card for card.

hex_colin
06-15-2013, 01:07 AM
So you are saying the higher rated players have the edge with tie breakers because of their rating? I believe that would discourage newer players to play in pvp tournaments at all if they will just be automatically knocked out by someone who has played the game since the beginning.

Not at all. Everyone starts the tournament with no rating. They get rated on the quality of their wins and losses in a more granular way that the current MtG tiebreakers. Additionally, intentional draws/concessions would have a small, but consequential (and potentially dependent on the impact of the draw/concession on other people with similar records), impact on the ratings when it came time to decide Top 8 and rankings with the Top 8.

In that scenario 3 people with 7-1 records might end up ranked in a different order depending on whether or not concession(s) were involved. So, you might have been 7-0 and a close loss would have gotten you the #1 rank in the Top 8, but a concession dropped you to #3 instead. Now you have to play #6 in the quarterfinals instead of #8. You still made it, but you concession had consequences for your future draws in the tournament. You still have the option to concede because you earned it, but it might make the road ahead more difficult.

Also, on the bubble, a slightly lower ranked concession win might be the difference between not making the Top 8 and making it.

MicZeSeraphin
06-15-2013, 01:15 AM
Since it hasn't been mentioned here yet.

If CZE follows the same tournament guidelines in Hex and in WoW:TCG, draws will not be possible.

Conceding to somebody is still allowed, but it is impossible to intentionally draw, since draws don't exist in WoW:TCG.

Then again they might go with a different system for Hex.

LargoLaGrande
06-15-2013, 01:18 AM
Not at all. Everyone starts the tournament with no rating. They get rated on the quality of their wins and losses in a more granular way that the current MtG tiebreakers. Additionally, intentional draws/concessions would have a small, but consequential (and potentially dependent on the impact of the draw/concession on other people with similar records), impact on the ratings when it came time to decide Top 8 and rankings with the Top 8.


How are you calculating tiebreaks more granularly than the way MtG does it? I believe your example on the previous page used life totals, but that's a pretty terrible way to do tiebreaks unless it's part of a much more complicated system. Telling someone that you won a game at 2 life means very little in relation to how well the game actually went, that 18 damage could have been done during a very close race situation that came down to a topdeck war that you won, or it could have been done by your own Pact of Pain because you were in such control of the game at every moment that nothing your opponent did mattered.

funktion
06-15-2013, 01:20 AM
I've read the first couple pages, this is 8 pages long though and I just got home after a long day so going to catch up later. But I see many arguments put forth here that I feel are fundamentally flawed:
-One friend can concede to another in a single elimination tournament and the both benefit... this is NOT TRUE, by definition one of the two people is getting eliminated
-The two players are ethically obligated to play out the match. I DISAGREE. This situation applies to longer tournaments with swiss pairings to determine top 8, day 2, etc... If both players have made it to x-1 and are garunteed to make it to the finals if they draw or that one of them will make it if they win while the other will not it is their own perogative in how they decide to act. If either of them had lost earlier they would not be in this situation, but winning the entire way through the tournament got them to this point, they got here by their own skill already after multiple rounds of winning. If they didn't deserve to make it to the finals, then they never would have made it to the finals.

I don't see a strong argument being put forth that says there is actually anything wrong with conceding. You've gotten far enough by your own merits that if you want to lose or draw on purpose that's up to you.

Edit: after reading a bit further it seems that jax largely was able to describe the same sentiments I have, and most of the arguments AGAINST being able to throw a match seem like emotional ones rather than logical ones to me

LargoLaGrande
06-15-2013, 01:21 AM
Since it hasn't been mentioned here yet.

If CZE follows the same tournament guidelines in Hex and in WoW:TCG, draws will not be possible.

Conceding to somebody is still allowed, but it is impossible to intentionally draw, since draws don't exist in WoW:TCG.

Then again they might go with a different system for Hex.

How can draws not exist? Are WoW:TCG tournaments not run with timed rounds?

Rtsands45
06-15-2013, 01:22 AM
Not at all. Everyone starts the tournament with no rating. They get rated on the quality of their wins and losses in a more granular way that the current MtG tiebreakers. Additionally, intentional draws/concessions would have a small, but consequential, impact on the ratings when it came time to decide Top 8 and rankings with the Top 8.

In that scenario 3 people with 7-1 records might end up ranked in a different order depending on whether or not concession(s) were involved. So, you might have been 7-0 and a close loss would have gotten you the #1 rank in the Top 8, but a concession dropped you to #3 instead. Now you have to play #6 in the quarterfinals instead of #8. You still made it, but you concession had consequences for your future draws in the tournament. You still have the option to concede because you earned it, but it might make the road ahead more difficult.

I believe Dominic Toretto(Vin Diesel) from Fast and Furious said it best, "It doesn't matter if you win by an inch or a mile; winning's winning."

By having an engine follow a match and rate people how well they played seems very very arbitrary. A computer AI can never think like a human currently. Should you get a low score because your opponent comboed out on you and you could do nothing about it? No, that matchup was unavoidable. I prefer to play control decks. I see everything in play as a resource hand, life, discard, and deck. Should I get get lower quality for my wins if I end each game with less than 5 life? By introducing an AI script to decide "how well" you played you are undermining your own argument because you are indeed taking the value of winning out of human players hands and having places decided by arbitrary numbers assigned by the system.

Avignon
06-15-2013, 01:23 AM
How can draws not exist? Are WoW:TCG tournaments not run with timed rounds?

They don't exist as simultaneous fatal damage leads to a replay of the round.

Also timed rounds leads to 3 more turns each when time is called (sort of, depending on whose turn it is and who went first). At that point the person with the most damage loses. If damage is equal then it goes on a round by round basis until their is a difference (I think). It almost never happens to get that far.

LargoLaGrande
06-15-2013, 01:26 AM
They don't exist as simultaneous fatal damage leads to a replay of the round.

So what happens if I and some other jerk take decks that cannot actually win a game (or can but are just durdley to the extreme) to a tournament and get paired against each other round 1? What if we're terrible at the game and take forever to play? Does round 1 just keep going for the three hours it takes for my opponent to durdle me to death?

Skirovik
06-15-2013, 01:28 AM
So you have 2 players in a similar position but one person gets to advance because their opponent conceded to them. That is not luck. That is collusion. Despite what you may think, that sort of thing is NOT allowed in Poker (arguably the biggest "card" game in terms of players and money). Honestly, it shouldn't be allowed in any professional sport in which prizes are on the line.

Player A should not get into the top 8 because his opponent let him in. He should have gotten into the top 8 because he won enough games or had the best tiebreaker. This does not matter who the player is. It is unfair and unethical to control the results of a tournament not through honest play, but through deal-making.

Once again, I don't care what game we are talking about here. In a tournament format, where prizes are on the line, this is collusion. Collusion is not fair play and as such has no place in a tournament environment.

Avignon
06-15-2013, 01:30 AM
803.5
If a loop
involves
neither optional actions nor triggered effects, and no player is able and
willing to break it,
the game is a draw.

Well there ya go, never seen it, may never see it, but WoW TCG can have draws hah.


But then this:

3.4
Match Outcome
A match outcome is not considered final until the match result has been reported to the
scorekeeper. In most cases this will be when the match r
esult slip is turned in
to a tournament official. At local level events with few players, this may be when the players
verbally report the result to the scorekeeper.
Players may concede a game or match for any reason, provided they do not accept
compensation for their concession. Offering or
accepting a bribe is grounds for
disqualification, as described in the penalty guidelines.
Players may not randomly determine the outcome of a match.
3.5
Match Draws
Matches in CZE sanctioned tournaments may not end in draws. If players are still playing
when time in the round is called, refer to end of match procedure for the game to
determine the winner of the match.

Rtsands45
06-15-2013, 01:31 AM
They don't exist as simultaneous fatal damage leads to a replay of the round.

Also timed rounds leads to 3 more turns each when time is called (sort of, depending on whose turn it is and who went first). At that point the person with the most damage loses. If damage is equal then it goes on a round by round basis until their is a difference (I think). It almost never happens to get that far.

I previously posted that they will probably call it autoloss if your clock runs out much like MTGO, so there will probably be no going to time in HEX.

hex_colin
06-15-2013, 01:32 AM
I believe Dominic Toretto(Vin Diesel) from Fast and Furious said it best, "It doesn't matter if you win by an inch or a mile; winning's winning."

By having an engine follow a match and rate people how well they played seems very very arbitrary. A computer AI can never think like a human currently. Should you get a low score because your opponent comboed out on you and you could do nothing about it? No, that matchup was unavoidable. I prefer to play control decks. I see everything in play as a resource hand, life, discard, and deck. Should I get get lower quality for my wins if I end each game with less than 5 life? By introducing an AI script to decide "how well" you played you are undermining your own argument because you are indeed taking the value of winning out of human players hands and having places decided by arbitrary numbers assigned by the system.

It doesn't matter what the specific criteria are (life point totals, which turn you won/lost on, specific to certain deck archetypes, etc.). You decide on some metrics, model how they'd work, test them, and see if they'd give reasonable/expected results.

The key point is that a intentional draw/concession is a "bad" win or loss depending on what side of it you're on, and impacts your rating disproportionately as a result. Not enough to be 7-1 win-loss and be overtaken by a 6-2, but potentially enough to end up at the bottom of the 7-1 heap depending on whether or not other concessions were in play. And, a concession at 7-0 that doesn't impact the any other player in rest of the standings (because they're all at 5-2 say) is less bad than a concession to someone who is 6-1 that potentially impacts multiple people who played all of their matches and are at 6-2.

funktion
06-15-2013, 01:34 AM
In that scenario 3 people with 7-1 records might end up ranked in a different order depending on whether or not concession(s) were involved. So, you might have been 7-0 and a close loss would have gotten you the #1 rank in the Top 8, but a concession dropped you to #3 instead. Now you have to play #6 in the quarterfinals instead of #8. You still made it, but you concession had consequences for your future draws in the tournament. You still have the option to concede because you earned it, but it might make the road ahead more difficult.

In regards to this as well of a couple of your posts directly preceding, my response is this; There is no such thing as a close win and a close loss, whether you had 1 life left or 200 really doesn't have any impact on how close the game was, both of those games could have been equally close. There is really no metric with which to measure how close a game was, and for pairings there is no need for such a metric.

In case it has not already been stated, MTG (and many other competitive events) use a system in which people with the same win loss records are not necessarily tied, your rank is further determine by the match win / loss and round win / loss records of all the opponents which you face. The better the people which you beat do, the better your tiebreakers are.

Furthermore I've seen it argued (or maybe I misunderstood the context) in this thread that rating should determine pairings, if what people are talking about is that ELO should determine your initial pairings and perhaps those of subsequent rounds; the definitive answer is NO IT SHOULD NOT. This undermines the whole point of swiss pairings for larger tournaments. I hope this isn't what people were arguing for and I hope I just misunderstood. If anyone thinks that ELO should play a role (besides potentially granting byes above a threshold) then I will gladly explain why they should not.

Avignon
06-15-2013, 01:34 AM
oh wow, check this out hahaha

A
9.
End of Match Procedure
When time is called at the end of the round, players finish the current turn and then play
either three or four additional turns, depending on who went first in the game. If time is
called on the turn of the
player who went first, players play three additional turns, and otherwise, they
play four additional turns. In non-team formats, the player who went
second should always have the last turn.
Once additional turns have been completed, the match winner is determined by following
these instructions:
If a player has more game wins than his or her opponent, he or she wins the
match.

If both players have an equal number of game wins, compare damage on heroes.
The player whose hero has more damage loses the match. If damage is tied, play
continues until damage totals change, at which point the player whose hero has
more damage loses the match. This is a pre-priority check.

If both players have an equal number of game wins and are between games,
they play an additional game. Each player plays two turns. After those turns, compare
damage on heroes. The player whose hero has more damage loses the match. If
damage is tied, play continues until damage totals change, at which point the
player whose hero has more damage loses the match. This is a pre-priority check.

Scale
06-15-2013, 01:36 AM
Now I don't have much opinion on a lot of this, especially given I have very little experience of the format. However here's how I see it.

I will probably be sitting in the bottom of these tables for some time and I'm well aware of it, if by some fluke I'm close and I miss out for these reasons I can say yeah, I'd probably feel a little cheated...
That being said you lose out in competition it's part of what happens, and really it shouldn't be the people at the top that police this kind of thing, because well the processing and the oppertunity for false accusation just get drastic and bad and it turns alot of people off. probably as many as the getting screwed the other way.

What's worse in my opinion is that the proposed change seems to penalise those who are winning because it means they would have to play something out when it makes no difference to them (in fact is slightly in their favour to drop it and be fresh for the next round whether it's a friend or not).

I think the thing here that gets people rialed is the idea you do it 'for a friend' or that they're 'getting cheated out'.
Now it's been said by a number of people (who I'm gonna guess are way more expereinced in all this than me) that this is if anything more common against people you don't know (if only because of the luck of the draw being that way more often than not) and as such I think that pretty much discounts the first argument. It also means any policing on 'because they're your friend' is likley to draw false posatives if you'd have done it irrispective and just this time so happened to draw against a friend.

The 'getting cheated' is slightly harder to deal with but really for me it comes down to this, the enviroment hex is aspiring to seems to promote a lot of tornement and interplay in the community, so if you lose, ok it might hurt. depending on what you missed out it might hurt a lot, but that is life in any competition, nothing is completly fair and there will always be something that atleast some people feel is unfair. You can't please everyone, you just can't it's a sad fact but it's true.
So the best advice here is to take away from that tornement the knowledge you've gained and set that to work and to try again on a new one.

For many of us, myself included this will be an uphill struggle. But we should take that as a challenge and use it to improve ourselves, rather than trying to penalise the people who're doing well by denying them the chance of a bit've respite if they're already essentially winning.

I hope I haven't offended anyone, but that's how I see if from my lowly little spot down here ;) take care all and happy hexing.

funktion
06-15-2013, 01:36 AM
How can draws not exist? Are WoW:TCG tournaments not run with timed rounds?

Actually this largely depends on how they are timed. If the rounds are timed with a chess clock (as they should be in any digital game) then it is impossible to draw based on time.

LargoLaGrande
06-15-2013, 01:36 AM
I previously posted that they will probably call it autoloss if your clock runs out much like MTGO, so there will probably be no going to time in HEX.

That's what I would assume too. There are no draws on MODO for the same reason, and WotC has stated that the only reason draws exist are as a concession to the constraints of running a physical tournament (also why Shaharazad is banned in everything, and Top is banned in modern).

Rtsands45
06-15-2013, 01:39 AM
So you have 2 players in a similar position but one person gets to advance because their opponent conceded to them. That is not luck. That is collusion. Despite what you may think, that sort of thing is NOT allowed in Poker (arguably the biggest "card" game in terms of players and money). Honestly, it shouldn't be allowed in any professional sport in which prizes are on the line.

Player A should not get into the top 8 because his opponent let him in. He should have gotten into the top 8 because he won enough games or had the best tiebreaker. This does not matter who the player is. It is unfair and unethical to control the results of a tournament not through honest play, but through deal-making.

Once again, I don't care what game we are talking about here. In a tournament format, where prizes are on the line, this is collusion. Collusion is not fair play and as such has no place in a tournament environment.

I am not really seeing how this fits the definition of collusion. Many players in MTG do this. There is no deal making going on as you both would be disqualified without prize. If lets say you tell them in chat to concede to you for 30 packs yes I agree it is. If, however, your opponent concedes/IDs and you both are in agreement and nothing is being offered there in fact is no collusion sir.

LargoLaGrande
06-15-2013, 01:40 AM
oh wow, check this out hahaha

A
9.
End of Match Procedure
When time is called at the end of the round, players finish the current turn and then play
either three or four additional turns, depending on who went first in the game. If time is
called on the turn of the
player who went first, players play three additional turns, and otherwise, they
play four additional turns. In non-team formats, the player who went
second should always have the last turn.
Once additional turns have been completed, the match winner is determined by following
these instructions:
If a player has more game wins than his or her opponent, he or she wins the
match.

If both players have an equal number of game wins, compare damage on heroes.
The player whose hero has more damage loses the match. If damage is tied, play
continues until damage totals change, at which point the player whose hero has
more damage loses the match. This is a pre-priority check.

If both players have an equal number of game wins and are between games,
they play an additional game. Each player plays two turns. After those turns, compare
damage on heroes. The player whose hero has more damage loses the match. If
damage is tied, play continues until damage totals change, at which point the
player whose hero has more damage loses the match. This is a pre-priority check.

Ok, thanks for finding this for me. I guess a form of sudden death makes sense, but I'm coming from MTG where the decks that go to time are mainly control decks, and they can easily go half an hour without any damage being taken on either side which is why that surprised me initially.

funktion
06-15-2013, 01:45 AM
I'll end any "unintentional draw" talk right now, as it seems there's still some confusion. It's a digital game, it will use a chess clock, if the game draws dude to a literal infinite loop (see LSV oblivion ring fiasco) then you just start another game in the round and keep going. So long as neither player's clock has run out, there is no possibility for there to be an unintentional draw based on time in the round.

As far as intentional ones go:
-both players agree to draw (don't see why there should be anything wrong with this, even if you're in the school of thought that concessions should not be allowed)
-simultaneous fatal damage (we'll see how cze wants to handle it, but for the sake of the game and keeping options open I would just count it as a draw and move on to the next round, each player gets 1 point for a draw rather than a single player getting 3 for a win)

Arbiter
06-15-2013, 02:42 AM
Actually this largely depends on how they are timed. If the rounds are timed with a chess clock (as they should be in any digital game) then it is impossible to draw based on time.

MTGO could, and this game could also. This was because MTGO allowed 30 minutes for each player within a one hour round, but 3 (or maybe 5) minutes was allowed for sideboarding which didn't count to either players clock. This meant that draws could and did happen. Big tournaments, every round usually ran to time.

tautologico
06-15-2013, 08:13 AM
I don't see how using metrics to rate a win would work well. Anything you do there would have an impact in the metagame because people would want to get higher ratings, obviously. So you started wanting to avoid IDs and conceded games and now you're basically restricting the kinds of strategies people can use competitively in tournaments. As mentioned above, if you rate by the life total of the winning player, you're effectively discouraging people from playing with control decks or more slow strategies and the metagame can quickly become an aggro-combo fest. This could be terrible for the game, a much more damaging effect than simply letting people concede or draw.

Also if players can't concede it means that even when a game is in a situation that both players see that the outcome is determined, it must play to conclusion until one of them is dead. This may also be a problem. In StarCraft for example it is rare that a game is played to the end, because to end a game one of the players have to destroy everything the other player has, and this takes a lot of time. Usually the losing player understands he has no way to win and concedes. If StarCraft players were forced to play every game until the very end, tournaments would become very boring very fast. In Magic it's less pronounced but it's often that games end by one player conceding because he/she understands the game is lost and there's no need to drag it to the end.

Malicus
06-15-2013, 09:16 AM
Finally got to the end :).

For me the idea of conceding without playing has negative connotations as it isn't really in the spirit of true competition.

I do not know of anyway to remove it so I will just state the aspects of the situation that I do not like.

This removes some of the truth from the outcome - by conceding if you had no chance to advance so that your opponent can you are potentially giving them an advantage over whoever does not advance, a person making a choice is determining the outcome rather than the competition itself.

Similarly if someone already advanced concedes they are potentially giving an advantage over whoever does not advance, a person making a choice is determining the outcome rather than the competition itself.

There was a comparison made to the person who lost and the person who advanced through the win and suggesting that they deserved it more because the other person lost and they had a chance to win or lose. This is a false equivalence because the actual calculation should occur with the same number of played games - until that final game is played the result of either final game is irrelevant to the evaluation of the 2 records. One player was forced to play and lost and the other did not have to play and was granted a win - you cannot say the player granted the win played better since the only difference in their performance is this game which is no game at all for the concession.

A concession based on self interest should be acceptable. A concession specifically to advance another is collusion whether this is formalised or not, rewarded or not. Now this would be virtually impossible to police so I understand it will not be but it bothers me that people are content with such decisions being made by individuals which impacts on others beyond the skill they demonstrate.

The only thing I can think of is requiring concession before knowing the actual person you will play? Assuming the structure had enough variance that you would not know who you are playing until you are actually paired but you know the rankings before hand so such concessions can be based strictly on your own position rather than the individual you face.

jaxsonbateman
06-15-2013, 09:34 AM
As I've stated before, I don't have a problem with the practice, and if it makes it into Hex I won't break a sweat. It's not unfair; everyone has access to it.

Do I mind if they don't allow concessions in these circumstances? Nah, I'll live. The issue is, policing it. A player should be allowed to concede if they want to, but then proving it was to get the other player ahead could be tricky. Imagine if they somehow contacted each other outside of the game - there'd be no way to verify what happened. At least if it's within the rules, it's available to everyone (similar to checking hands 15 minutes later in WSOP final events).

Ultimately - I must stress, I don't mind either way which way they go with it. I will say that my philosophy, and I think the philosophy for any player aiming to do well is: whatever happens, the power lies with you. If this makes it into Hex and you don't want to be 'burnt' by it, focus on playing well enough to get beyond its reach, rather than on what you perceive to be fair or unfair.

Malicus
06-15-2013, 09:47 AM
I think "its available to everyone" is a particularly poor argument since it completely ignores what is actually happening. The reality is it can in theory happen to anyone which is true but this isn't the flip of a coin.

In this scenario someone makes a decision and one person gets an advantage and the other is screwed. Playing to the best of your ability should always be your goal but to play to the best and then lose not because someone played better but because someone else decided to give them an advantage sucks and the reality is the power doesn't lie with you it lies with the player choosing to concede and that is what I do not like about it especially if they do it for reasons other than pure self interest.

jaxsonbateman
06-15-2013, 09:53 AM
Everyone's going to have a different opinion on it. I don't have a qualm with someone doing that and knocking me out. The thing is, overall they did play better than me. They played better than me for enough rounds that they knew going into the last that a win would guarantee them a place, so their opponent obliged. If I had played better than them to the point where I was the one who'd get through if we both won, then I would say I had played better than them to that point.

Effectively, it's not a coin flip situation - given that there are 4 realistic outcomes (both win, both lose, you win they lose, they win you lose) the only way you're making it through is if you win and they lose, so that's a 25% chance without considering other factors like decks and playing ability and whatnot. If they've played well enough to get themselves into that 75% position, I'm not going to get upset when they turn it into 100% thanks to their opponent recognizing this. In a vacuum, they should go through.

Again, I must stress that I don't mind either way how this goes. However, I for one don't see it as unfair and not an issue, and I know others agree.

Rtsands45
06-15-2013, 10:05 AM
Most people who are complaining about this sound as if they have never played in a tcg tournament in their life. We are theoretically talking about Swiss matchups, which rely on the deck pilot to have to be good in that situation. In a tournament that is 8+ hours long with no breaks just game after game after game you have to find time to eat and go to the bathroom yourself. The grind of such a long tournament takes a lot out of you mentally. If I were locked into a top 8 position and a concession would not knock me out I would concede the last round to anyone(even a stranger) for an hour to collect myself and prepare for the top 8.

However, if Hex will be like MTGO, tournaments won't be Swiss cut to top 8. They will be a whole swiss tournament then top 8 players based on standings would be the final results. No cutting to top 8.

If you come to a tournament with lets say more likely 8 friends. The probability you will be playing a late round against one of them is pretty low. I am assuming hex will have 250-500ppl for large tournaments. If you go to the Daily constructed event which may have 8 people this is affecting nothing as only packs are really up for winning.

Malicus
06-15-2013, 10:09 AM
I don't think choice should come into it and either player can be on the wrong side of that 75% scenario, the 25% player can be gifted a win and the 75% player may play out a loss, advancing the 25% player.

If everyone always conceded then the game would be determined at the 25/75 chance and honestly I would have no problem with that, the fact that someone has to choose to concede and effects the make up of the tournament in that way is what bothers me since it isn't based on performance.

Malicus
06-15-2013, 10:12 AM
If I were locked into a top 8 position and a concession would not knock me out I would concede the last round to anyone(even a stranger) for an hour to collect myself and prepare for the top 8.


This is the reasoning I have no problem with and would prefer such a choice able to be made since it is done simply to improve your chances without consideration of the rest of the field. My issue is when choices are made to influence the others - passing to advance your opponent over another etc.

stiii
06-15-2013, 10:25 AM
The reason you can concede to anyone in magic is that you can't prevent it. Human judges weren't able to tell if people were trying to throw matches so some AI program would have no clue.

If you used some tie breaker method that gave better breakers from certain matches you'd be even worse off in this situation because the players would just play the game in such a way that results in whatever gives the best breakers.

Punk
06-15-2013, 10:34 AM
I wonder if Crypto has giving any thought to how to deal with situations where players in tournaments throw matches to give their friends better seedings in the next round and/or help get them through to the next round.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with this.


Do people get DQ'd for obvious slow/weak play?

This isn't relevant because there is a Chess Clock system set in place. Slow play is only hurting yourself.

Showsni
06-15-2013, 12:31 PM
Being in a position where you can safely concede to let someone else through is pretty rare; I think we're better off looking at the Intentional Draw, which comes up a lot more often.

Here's the situation being posited:

In a tournament with a Swiss round followed by a cut to top 8 (or whatever number), you can end up in a position during the final round where a draw is good enough to guarantee a position in top cut for both you and your opponent. Provided you don't offer any monetary/physical reward, both of you can agree to draw without playing the match out and advance (this is currently legal in Magic the Gathering, for instance). If you had played the match out, and one person had lost, that would have freed up a spot in the top 8 for someone else to take, who hadn't been doing as well as either of you up to this point.

So the question is whether we should allow the two players who are doing better so far to agree to a gentlemanly draw, ensuring they both continue; or whether we should force the two players to play their match out, knocking out one of the better players and allowing someone else currently lower in the standings a chance to advance.

Personally, I see nothing wrong with allowing intentional draws. True, it does mean that a few of the last round matches become pointless, in essence deciding a few members of the top 8 based only on previous rounds; but then again, that's always going to be an issue with Swiss cut to top 8 (whoever's on X-0 is going to get in regardless of their last round too). This isn't really a case of friends colluding; usually IDs are done amongst total strangers (that's certainly been my experience when IDing during MtG tournaments).

Maybe the person who would have had a chance to advance if one of the people above them had suffered a loss would feel a but aggrieved; but really, that's just a fact of the tournament. It's like missing Top 8 based on a slight tiebreaker margin - if you'd won all your matches you wouldn't have had to leave yourself up to tiebreaker luck. To be honest, missing Top 8 from poor tiebreakers, also no fault of your own, is probably a lot more common than missing Top 8 because some people IDed.

stiii
06-15-2013, 12:55 PM
People can't Intentional Draw on magic online due to the clock and I'm pretty sure Hex will have a clock as well.

justfletch
06-15-2013, 01:12 PM
I'm pretty sure I've seen a clock in the video demos.

BenRGamer
06-15-2013, 03:07 PM
I'm pretty sure I've seen a clock in the video demos.

It's a chess style clock which means you get a separate timer, if yours runs out, you lose. If theirs runs out, they lose. They don't both run at the same time, so a draw is impossible.

Punk
06-15-2013, 04:28 PM
It's a chess style clock which means you get a separate timer, if yours runs out, you lose. If theirs runs out, they lose. They don't both run at the same time, so a draw is impossible.

A draw due to time running out is impossible. If both players are at 1 life and I cast a spell that deals X damage (X being greater than or equal to 1) to all players and troops, this would result in a draw. As of right now, this type of card does not exist. I am sure it will at some point in this games future.

Facilier
06-15-2013, 07:03 PM
There is a lot of argument in this thread about how conceding may or may not be wrong, but not a lot of suggestions of how it could possibly be policed if it were deemed wrong by CZE.

Even if a Concede button is not available, wouldn't players still have an opportunity to play out a loss, deliberately playing badly and typing "Oh Woe is me" in the chat?

I think this is one of the situations where the mechanisms for policing this alleged wrong are far more terrifying than the action itself.