PDA

View Full Version : Prize Splitting



Xtopher
08-10-2013, 05:12 PM
EDIT: For people that have come late to thread, the issue is now focused on prize splits in the final round only.

Prize splitting in drafts, sealed, or constructed events is an issue that I've seen people rage for and against. Personally, I have no problem with prize splitting in the final round, providing there is no further enticement or bribery occurring. For example, the way prize splitting should work is Player A says, "Hey, want to split?" and then Player B says "yes" or "no". If "yes" either player could choose to concede or the match could be played out, but the prizes would be split after the event.

Should CZE:

A) Implement a binding prize splitting option for the final round.
B) Not implement an option, but leave it up to an honor system for the players to follow through on the split.
C) Implement a binding prize split option that allows for agreeing to prize splits before the final round.
D) Not implement an option for prize splitting before the final round, but again leave it up to each player's integrity.
E) Outlaw prize splitting before the final round.
or F) Outlaw prize splitting altogether.

Personally, I think if it's going to be legal to prize split, the game design should include a way to make the agreement binding, even though I've never been ripped off on an agreement to split prizes.

I don't know what the rules are for the WoW TCG with regard to prize splitting, but that would give some insight into CZE's philosophy behind splitting.

I understand that some people regard prize splitting as cheating, even if it's within the rules, and I respect that position and understand the philosophy behind it. I really don't care what two people choose to do in the final round, though, since they are the only ones affected by their decision (in most cases).

Where does everyone else stand on prize splitting?

Icepick
08-10-2013, 05:17 PM
Took me a moment to work out what you were talking about - might want to make it clear you're talking about the prizes for draft tournaments ;)

Anyway, as I understand it, any kind of tournament win will gain you points towards entry in the World Tournament thing. I don't remember where this was discussed, one of the Kickstarter videos I think so I'm working from memory, but if that is the case I imagine they are going to want to discourage prize splitting as much as possible, if the possibility of earning or losing out on points if you throw a match wasn't enough to do that by itself.

Xtopher
08-10-2013, 05:25 PM
I edited my OP to better reflect what I was referring to.

If there's any discussion between players about who will concede and the disposition of tournament points that would cross the line into bribery or collusion. If qualifying points are on the line as well as packs then the players could agree to prize split with neither conceding and play the match out to see who wins the QP's.

Bribery and collusion are going to happen regularly, regardless of what the rules are. It would be useful, though, to have a legal and safe method to prize split if it's going to be allowed.

Shadowelf
08-10-2013, 05:32 PM
It was an article Icepick http://hextcg.com/game/tournaments/

Well there will be people that will be far away from qualification thresholds and will be willing to split a prize; In fact i can't see how cze can prevent this from happening. Even if a 'concede' option isn't offered, people can still choose to lose intentionally. Maybe if it is a high end tournament cze may choose to spectate the match and choose not to award the price? Sounds extreme though

hacky
08-10-2013, 05:34 PM
No idea how you'd expect prize splits to happen in automated HEX tournaments such as drafts, but here's the WoWTCG policy on prize splits. Note, however, that the context for this is live tournaments...

3.11 Prize Splits
Players playing in single-elimination finals may chose to split prizes. Only prizes offered
to first and second place may be negotiated in the prize split; nothing may be added from
outside the official, advertised prize pool, including cash and additional product. Players
may never concede for prizes. All negotiations must be done in the presence of the head
judge. After split negotiations, a player may choose to drop prior to the final match in
order to preserve their rating. In such cases, the remaining player in the tournament wins
vs. a bye in the final round.

-- from CZE Official Tournament Policy
http://www.cryptozoic.com/sites/default/files/uploads/files/cryptozoic_tournament_policy_20120717.pdf

TL;DR - no prize splits before final round, no concessions for prizes.

Shadowelf
08-10-2013, 05:46 PM
Thanks for the info hacky

Hex being digital though, makes the presence of a head judge kinda difficult; and even if cze decides to spectate the match, this has to be in real time and not using playback support, so that players and cze can work on the terms beforehand. It would be a pain though to track whether the other player has been bribed into conceding, as players can use alternate means of communication like pms or irc channels

Maphalux
08-10-2013, 05:47 PM
I dislike prize splitting because it emphasizes the rewards over the play and competition which is what the game is really about. And I especially dislike how a person is often treated like they are in the wrong if they decline a prize split and want to play the games out as it is supposed to be done.

There probably isn't any way to outright stop prize splitting from happening though. So, instead, I think CZE should incentivize people to not prize split but I am admittedly at a loss as to what exactly they could do to make it unfavorable to do so.

RobHaven
08-10-2013, 06:16 PM
In poker, I see prize splits happen all the time in live tournaments, but I don't think I ever saw it online. Poker and Hex losing some of there parallels in this context because poker is played for profit, but Hex is primarily for fun. Additionally, Hex finals can only take so long whereas poker heads up can last forever.
Prize splits are usually done to avoid a drawn out game and allow both players to increase profitability (per hour) by taking their share and moving on. It's not always a 50/50 split - sometimes the split is based on a percentage of table chips (so if I have 60% of the chips, we'd split the prize 60/40).

I'm okay with in Hex, but I think any sanction/ranked/whatever game should have to be played out.

Xtopher
08-10-2013, 06:55 PM
I dislike prize splitting because it emphasizes the rewards over the play and competition which is what the game is really about. And I especially dislike how a person is often treated like they are in the wrong if they decline a prize split and want to play the games out as it is supposed to be done.

There probably isn't any way to outright stop prize splitting from happening though. So, instead, I think CZE should incentivize people to not prize split but I am admittedly at a loss as to what exactly they could do to make it unfavorable to do so.

Maphalux, not everyone sees games as a competition where the best player must be determined, but simply as a fun activity. A prize split, in a draft for example, that allows both players to draft again for free is very appealing to a lot of players. It's not so much about maximizing rewards, as it is maximizing play time. Anything that de-emphasizes competitiveness and contributes to a more friendly, laid back experience is a huge plus for me.

As far as how a player may be treated for refusing a split, unfortunately the reality of online games is that people are going to be unfairly abused for all kinds of things. Having a thick skin is kind of a prerequisite when involved in any kind of online competition. Just block them and move on.

On the issue of QP's, if an even number of QP's is in the prize pool for 1st and 2nd place, it would be easy to split the QP's too. It's when the packs/QP's are an odd number that issues of bribery will come up. So, if CZE wants to discourage splitting, make the prize pool for 1st and 2nd an odd number of items so that any attempt by players to decide who concedes to who becomes a case of collusion/bribery.

Ideally, though, I hope for an even split because I'd really prefer to skip the last round and start another draft.

Kami
08-10-2013, 07:41 PM
I dislike the idea of a prize split in cases where RNG/luck is not a huge factor solely due to the fact it encourages mediocrity. I prefer everyone playing their best (sportsman-like conduct) and having a good game.

This is primarily from my experiences playing chess competitively. However in the case of Hex where RNG/luck is a huge factor (due to draw), I'd say if they want to split the pot, go for it, but I think there should be a penalty for tournament points earned because it becomes a method to game the system.

hex_colin
08-10-2013, 08:14 PM
However in the case of Hex where RNG/luck is a huge factor (due to draw), I'd say if they want to split the pot, go for it, but I think there should be a penalty for tournament points earned because it becomes a method to game the system.

This is similar to a topic we had way back when the KS was still going on. I'm against people conceding no matter what the circumstance. I agree with your sentiment - a win because someone conceded should be the worst possible win (from a tournament points/rating gain perspective) and a loss by conceding should be the worse possible loss (most tournament points/rating points you can lose). So, anyone would have the option to concede, but there would be a rating penalty for doing so.

Malicus
08-10-2013, 08:16 PM
I am against the idea of concession to favour a specific person in tournaments but for draft where it is just 1 and 2 and no one else is affected I am not averse to split.

As far as points for winning a draft though if QPs are awarded for a 2nd place both should receive those points, if points are only awarded for first place then neither should be awarded QPs. Split has benefits of surety so a small drawback in the generation of QP seems fitting as a balance. This also gives a clear reasoning for playing out games to mitigate the issue of people complaining about non-splits.

Before drawing cards in the final a button should come up where you can select request split - if the other player accepts or also selects request split things are split. I would also like to see your history if such a thing exists stating that the result was a split.

keldrin
08-10-2013, 08:48 PM
I'm going to have to lean towards being against splits.
I can see the reasons. Including, a tournament that took longer than you budgeted time for.
But, in the end, playing in a tournament, I think that it should come down to play.

funktion
08-10-2013, 11:20 PM
While I can see that it seems most people so far lean towards disabling splitting, it's something I feel pretty strongly that it should be allowed. For me the drawbacks of disabling it outweigh the cons of allowing it.

Really though we've already had this discussion about a month ago on these forums.

All that I will add to this is that there was quite a big controversy regarding a very similar situation to "splitting" in the 2012 olympics for women's badminton. We actually started discussing the controversy at the pub the night after and I was the only one who initially was arguing very strongly that the ruling went against the precedent which was set by many major sports and competitive events. I think in situations like the 2012 one, most of the time it's considered "business as usual" but when it makes outsiders (officials) look bad all the sudden they get upset and punish the "culprits." The way I feel is that the people have done well enough the rest of the competition that they should be able to decide if they don't want to exhaust themselves in a match that IT IS NOT IN THEIR FAVOR TO WIN.

hacky
08-10-2013, 11:21 PM
I prize split to save time - if I'm at an event and it's past midnight, I'll offer the split with my final opponent.

I prize split when the split is greatly beneficial to both players - if the difference between 1st and 2nd place in a draft finals is a $100 loot card versus a $20 loot card, I'll offer the split, and we both immediately get $60 (vendors are at the venue).

I prize split when I'm facing a friend or teammate. I don't mind even conceding to them if it means getting someone farther in the event (such as making a playoff cutoff).

Now, this is all for live events. I don't expect the capability to prize split anywhere in HEX short of a live event. I'll play you for that extra 4 packs in Draft all night. ;)

Kroan
08-10-2013, 11:34 PM
Splitting the prizes is not an option in MTGO, but done frequently. I've rarely seen this not working out. There is no way of "drawing" in online enviroment, resulting in less frequently splitting in higher tournaments.

Basically splitting should be a gentleman-agreement. If you don't trust the other person, don't use it. It should not be facilitated by the client.


This is similar to a topic we had way back when the KS was still going on. I'm against people conceding no matter what the circumstance. I agree with your sentiment - a win because someone conceded should be the worst possible win (from a tournament points/rating gain perspective) and a loss by conceding should be the worse possible loss (most tournament points/rating points you can lose). So, anyone would have the option to concede, but there would be a rating penalty for doing so. Wait, what? No way. If I want to concede in a control mirror because my opponent will win, but still needs 10 turns, I want to concede so I can play the next game and still have an option of winning instead before my time runs out.

Conceding should NEVER be punished.

Punishing would only punish people who have a fair use of conceding. All other people who want to lose to help someone else (I can't imagine this scenario, but ok) will just not play anything and let their opponent win that way...

In real life MTG the option of intentional drawing exists, which some consider "unfair". However, this is not an issue online, since there are no draws.

Xtopher
08-10-2013, 11:39 PM
I don't have a problem with someone conceding to a friend, if that's all it is. I'm curious to see, though, how cze handles a guild with a lot of entrants in a big event maneuvering a guildie into a high finishing spot. This kind of behavior is problematic, imo.

Kroan
08-10-2013, 11:44 PM
I don't have a problem with someone conceding to a friend, if that's all it is. I'm curious to see, though, how cze handles a guild with a lot of entrants in a big event maneuvering a guildie into a high finishing spot. This kind of behavior is problematic, imo.

A) So the rest of guild pays for the prizes he might not even win? That sounds horrible.
B) He still has to be paired against his guildmates that need to win the same amount as him (as in, if they want to have a chance to face him, they have to win once if he won the first round, ect., ect.)
C) He still has to beat anyone else he face's against.

Also consider the prizepool from a regular draft; Let's assume it's 12 boosters (8+4). If a whole guild joins they pay 8 tickets and 24 boosters. In return they get 12 boosters. That's horrible EV for the guild.

The bigger the tournament, the worse the payout gets.

Xtopher
08-11-2013, 12:24 AM
I wasn't thinking of drafts, but something along the lines of a 200+ player tourney with serious prizes on the line.

Kroan
08-11-2013, 12:27 AM
I wasn't thinking of drafts, but something along the lines of a 200+ player tourney with serious prizes on the line.

As I said, the bigger the tournament, the worse the payout relative to the amount of players get. Besides that, he still has to win against other players he's paired of. If he only faces guildies, that means his guildies won just as much, making them rightfully win the tournament.

DreamPuppet
08-11-2013, 12:51 AM
In poker, I see prize splits happen all the time in live tournaments, but I don't think I ever saw it online.

My friend use to play online poker for a living and splits happened all the time, both players agreed to the terms, hit the button asking for assistance from a support person, wait 5-10 minutes, support guy shows up and asks if both people agree to the terms and if they still do the money appears in their accounts.

Maphalux
08-11-2013, 06:45 AM
I support Hex_Colin's idea of a concession giving the worst possible results to the person conceding. I don't feel that the person who was conceeded to should be punished though because a person can concede the game without the other guy's awareness or approval. It could be used to push a friend ahead of the guy you were matched up with in tournaments if you could impact their rating just because you walked away from the match. But make conceding very punishing to the person doing it. That will make people think twice about doing so.

Xtopher
08-11-2013, 07:22 AM
No. People should be able to end a game whenever they choose. There are many legitimate reasons for conceding a match that go beyond the issue of doing someone a favor or collusion. Game clock management is probably the most significant reason, but there are many others.

Besides, how do you suggest punishing someone that concedes beyond them taking the loss? Anything I can think of would be grossly unfair as their are too many legitimate reasons to concede.

It's odd. People get really extreme when discussing issues of conceding and prize splits. However I think if there's bribery or collusion involved, the penalty should be harsh. DQ at a minimum, banning for a period of time for repeat offenders.

Like I said earlier, not everyone sees game playing as a matter of honor or something where the best player must be determined. Most people play for fun. Personally, I've always thought it respectful when my opponent concedes to me or I to him when the game outcome is a foregone conclusion. A lot of people see it that way.

jaxsonbatemanhex
08-11-2013, 07:34 AM
I've always believed that prize splitting (that is, intentional drawing) and conceding are fine, as long as bribery isn't involved. If you want to ID the final match of a tournament because you're both gunning for world tournament points, that should be fine - anyone who might fail to make the cut of the world tournament as a result had the power in their hands to make it; they didn't miss out as a result of the ID, they missed out as a result of them not winning enough matches/tournaments. Same for a concession in that situation (ie. one player in the final match doesn't care about WT points, whereas the other does).

In a bigger tournament, I also feel that the same is fair for making it to the top 8/16/32/64. Two players intentional drawing to both make it into the top 8 isn't what causes players to miss out, it's those players not performing well enough in prior matches to put their result in the hands of the results of other players. Same for a concession by one player who can't make it, to allow another player to go through - that concession isn't why a lesser placed player doesn't make it through; it's the lesser placed player not performing well enough.

Admittedly, I have quite a cutthroat attitude towards this, but my opinion on life in general is that when you actually care enough about something that it agitates you that you don't get there, you should be looking at yourself to improve, and not looking at factors outside of your control like this.

Of course, if they didn't allow IDs and concessions I'd be fine with that too - whatever the rules are, I'll play within them. I just don't think there's an issue with IDs and concessions.

Punk
08-11-2013, 07:41 AM
It's going to happen a lot anyway.. might as well just put in a button for it. At least for non-premier events.

Jormungandr
08-11-2013, 08:11 AM
I think I'd prefer a way to do this through the in-place system, simply to reduce/eliminate the possibility of fraud. People will do this on their own since they're used to it from MTGO, and if it becomes a common thing without an infrastructure that supports it, scammers will attempt to get "free" packs this way as a natural consequence. Anywhere there's a situation that relies on good faith on the part of both parties is vulnerable to scamming. Tech support will probably be able to intervene in some cases, but if it's not officially sanctioned, you may still lose out on packs this way.

Alternatively they could just flat out say that this isn't allowed in Hex in the official rules, and then have penalties for being involved in a situation like this. (Offering a split, agreeing to a split, etc.) But that seems like that, too, could be a problem, especially to new players coming from MTGO to Hex who may suggest a split from past MTGO experience, and get punished for it, causing them to have a bad experience and potentially not come back to Hex afterwards.

Shadowelf
08-11-2013, 08:20 AM
I don't really mind prize splitting unless it is happening in major tourneys finals (equivalant of gps, pro tours, worlds qualifiers) or bribery is involved; in the first case it will be making a mockery of game and in the second it simply shouldn't be tolerated under any circumstances. Still remember waiting till really late to watch some starcity games magic finals, only to learn that the players decided to split the prize, and the final match was cancelled;

Xtopher
08-12-2013, 04:10 PM
So, it's a split decision on prize splitting. I realize it's one of those issues where if you're against it, you're not likely to change your mind.

The only problem I see with prize splitting in the final round is when it's a qualifying tournament and the tournament that you're trying to qualify for has a finite number of slots available. It would be irksome to think you have enough QP's and then you get edged out because a prize split occurred. But, that issue is easily fixed, I think, if there's a static threshold you have to meet to qualify for the event.

Deathfog
08-12-2013, 04:24 PM
Lot of fighting game sponsors have pulled out support for players/teams/events due to people throwing finals or otherwise colluding on the outcome to the detriment of the audience looking for a good game. There was a big case a few weeks ago that really caused problems for the people involved.

Anything that encourages poor performance in a public spectacle grade tournament is a very bad thing.

Maphalux
08-12-2013, 06:01 PM
Good point, Deathfog. If CZE wants HEX to be an e-sport, they will have to seriously consider the ramifications of allowing prize splitting to occur.

heavyhitter86
08-12-2013, 06:05 PM
[deleted post]

Xtopher
08-12-2013, 07:22 PM
Good point, Deathfog. If CZE wants HEX to be an e-sport, they will have to seriously consider the ramifications of allowing prize splitting to occur.
If it's a question of a spectator match, there's no reason the pair in the final round could not play for the title, while agreeing to prize split. So, no, not a good point.

Masquerade
08-12-2013, 10:00 PM
I think it should be an option. Maybe top 4 or top 8 if big enough give everyone an option. If everyone votes for splitting, split, but if even one person is against, don't.

ShadowTycho
08-13-2013, 01:01 AM
I think prize splitting shouldn't be punished by any in game thing.
nor should it be supported.

If you want to split the pot in the final 2 of a tournament, go ahead and work it out with your opponent...
and then one of you concedes and has to trust the other to give him his take, just like in real life.
if he chooses to walk way with you earnings, to bad. you surrendered.

majin
08-13-2013, 02:27 AM
i like this idea but there might be some tourneys where this will be hard to implement

egs.

1. price is odd (eg 15 plats), how will it be decided who gets 8 and who gets 7
2. there is a single card involve in the price, how can it be split?
3. if there is a combination of a specific card and (plats and/or packs), how can you split the prize when the price of a card is dynamic (unless the system will get the average price on the AH which is still debatable), also who will get which price especially if the card price is higher than the (packs and/or plat)

IF this will be implemented then all future prices should be designed to be splittable to avoid issues like this

OR this might be available on most tourneys but not all (those which prizes falls among the 3 that I mentioned above)

Xtopher
08-13-2013, 03:37 AM
I read a suggestion on how to address some of this, majin, on the MTGO forums a while ago. When you hit the split button, a screen pops up with all the prizes and a box for each player. Players can then move prizes from box to box proposing splits, until both players push accept or one player pushes decline. Chat would be disabled during this stage.

ZeroCool
08-13-2013, 05:21 AM
You're quite foolish if you ever "concede", especially in a Draft. Tournaments are in place for a reason, to see who the best player/team really is. Conceding and splitting the awards are pretty lame and I really don't think it should be permitted.

jaxsonbatemanhex
08-13-2013, 06:06 AM
You're quite foolish if you ever "concede", especially in a Draft. Tournaments are in place for a reason, to see who the best player/team really is. Conceding and splitting the awards are pretty lame and I really don't think it should be permitted.
To be fair, this isn't necessarily the case. If you're in a tournament with a top-x split, you have nothing to gain from winning your last round (that is, your tiebreakers are too poor to make the cut even with the win and there's no other incentive to win), but your opponent is guaranteed to go through if they beat you, then you might be a nice person and not make them sweat on the result. While you might consider that neutral, and neither foolish or wise, then consider that if good will like this is seen more and more, it might happen to you in the future.

Having said that, I don't have any issue with letting the games decide either if there is a no concession/ID stance taken.

hammer
08-13-2013, 06:20 AM
To be fair, this isn't necessarily the case. If you're in a tournament with a top-x split, you have nothing to gain from winning your last round (that is, your tiebreakers are too poor to make the cut even with the win and there's no other incentive to win), but your opponent is guaranteed to go through if they beat you, then you might be a nice person and not make them sweat on the result. While you might consider that neutral, and neither foolish or wise, then consider that if good will like this is seen more and more, it might happen to you in the future.

Having said that, I don't have any issue with letting the games decide either if there is a no concession/ID stance taken.

The logic is slightly flawed in that being nice to your opponent and scooping them into the top 8 you are denying someone else the chance to legitmately play into the top 8.

Xtopher
08-13-2013, 06:24 AM
You're quite foolish if you ever "concede", especially in a Draft. Tournaments are in place for a reason, to see who the best player/team really is. Conceding and splitting the awards are pretty lame and I really don't think it should be permitted.
Your perspective is completely alien to me.

First off, the subject of why someone would concede in a round has already been covered in this thread. There are legitimate reasons to do so that go beyond wanting to give your opponent a win.

Secondly, the purpose of tournaments is to 1) Make money for CZE and 2) Entertain the participants. Who ultimately wins is a secondary issue as to why tournaments exist.

Lastly, it's fine if you think prize splitting is lame. You don't have to do it. Why you would want to suck enjoyment out of the game for people that do is kind of disturbing. I don't understand that attitude at all. If it doesn't affect you, don't worry about what others do.

In general, I'm not seeing very solid objections to why prize splitting shouldn't be allowed. The legitimate issues peeps have brought up have been addressed. The rest of the objections seem kind of emotional and seem to indicate that people want to force people to play the game in a certain way. OTOH, no one that's for prize splitting is suggesting to force anyone to prize split that doesn't want to. Shrug.

Edit: I just want to point out that I've narrowed my OP down to the issue of prize splits in the final round. It does bother me somewhat when people concede in earlier rounds resulting in a negative impact on other people in the event. But ultimately, if someone wants to strategically ID, that's their right.

jaxsonbatemanhex
08-13-2013, 06:24 AM
The logic is slightly flawed in that being nice to your opponent and scooping them into the top 8 you are denying someone else the chance to legitmately play into the top 8.
I've always held the opinion that if a person doesn't make the top X because they needed other people to lose in order to get in, then it is that person's fault for not putting them into a position where other results didn't matter, not the fault of anything else that happened in the final round. But I tend to be pretty hard nosed when it comes to competitive gaming. ^^

RobHaven
08-13-2013, 07:03 AM
I think it should be an option. Maybe top 4 or top 8 if big enough give everyone an option. If everyone votes for splitting, split, but if even one person is against, don't.
This is exactly how it works in poker. The larger the player pool/paying spots, the more people that are typically involved in a split (often called a chop). Regardless of the number of players who say yes, if one player says no then the split option is off the table until the dissenting player(s) have been knocked out or change their mind.

I understand the issues concerning spectators and ranking points, but why not just keep it to casual matches? Or low-level points matches where the points are split or decided by the final match (after split agreement)? I've heard this recommended a few times, but I'm not sure I saw* an explanation for why this wouldn't work (besides collusion, which I understand is a very real thing).


* I have the memory of a goldfish. If I didn't read it in the last 5 minutes, I may as well have not read it at all.

Malicus
08-13-2013, 07:25 AM
I've always held the opinion that if a person doesn't make the top X because they needed other people to lose in order to get in, then it is that person's fault for not putting them into a position where other results didn't matter, not the fault of anything else that happened in the final round. But I tend to be pretty hard nosed when it comes to competitive gaming. ^^

I understand this notion but when your performance is potentially greater than theirs up to that point and they get a pass and you take a bad beat that can be a rough notion to accept since you weren't beaten on an even playing field. I agree that you should win on your own merits but part of that should be that everyone else has to do the same.

Potentially depending on how tie breakers are applied this could be even more devastating if essentially the bye has a large impact on tie break, this only matters if the relative abilities of those you beat is taken into account for tie breakers (ideally for me tie breaks would be based on the records of who you lost to in a round robin since that is more telling in a situation where concessions from top ranks is possible though head to head record is even better if everyone played). Not sure which methods are used for tie breaks in magic or what Hex will employ.

jaxsonbatemanhex
08-13-2013, 07:43 AM
This is all opinion now with no right or wrong, but I wouldn't feel bad or hard done by if I didn't make the cut because someone else ID'd or had a player concede to them. Depending on why I lost my games, I'd either say to myself "I should have played better if I wanted to make the cut", or "I should have chosen a better deck for the meta". IMO the best way to improve at something like a TCG is to look inwards when things don't work out and see where you can improve, rather than blaming factors outside your control.

I wouldn't have considered my performance greater than their's if they made it and I didn't. If they get a bye for some reason, then that's also outside my control. In terms of winning on their own merits, I consider that if they've put themselves in a position where a win will guarantee they get through, then they have won on their own merits, even if that final win comes on the back of the concession (as they put them in a position where a concession would be enough in the first place).

Really though, the amount of times that one player in a final round match definitely can't make the cut even if they win, and the other definitely can if they win, is very few. Almost every time either both players will have a chance (or already be placed highly enough to be guaranteed), or neither player will have a chance. Intentional draws are much more commonplace, and also cause much less debate.

ShadowTycho
08-13-2013, 01:41 PM
Isn't this the sort of thing that the Chinese got in massive trouble for in the London Olympics?
Why yes it is. (http://espn.go.com/olympics/summer/2012/badminton/story/_/id/8221408/2012-london-olympics-eight-badminton-players-disqualified-trying-lose-matches)

loosing because there is no incentive to win, while the fault of the organizer of the tournament is unsportsmanlike.
in the words of the Olympic comity:
this is "conducting oneself in a manner that is clearly abusive or detrimental to the sport."

You can justify it however you want to make your self feel better, but in a real competition behaving like this should have you thrown out on your butt(and that's what was done).

jaxsonbatemanhex
08-13-2013, 02:04 PM
Now, I'm remembering this off the top of my head as it's 5AM here and I can't be arsed reading the story again, but IIRC the key difference between the badminton scenario and how Magic operates is that in the badminton scenario, they couldn't concede to achieve their desired result, so they threw matches, which could be considered collusion.

Magic, however, doesn't have this issue - I don't know precisely what the difference is between it and the badminton, but with Magic you're allowed to concede whenever you want, and in terms of the tournament standings it's exactly as though you lost.

So, the key point here is whether or not CZE will allow concessions or intentional draws. If they do, then no-one will be getting thrown out on their arse. If they don't allow it, and people try to engage in it in some underhanded sort of way and get caught, they will get punished.

Though, 2 points. Firstly, very few games these days don't allow concessions. So I'd be surprised if they didn't let a player concede from a game if they want to, for whatever reason. Secondly, having played Magic for many a year now, its been my experience that intentional draws (which are far, far more commonplace than the one-player-can-make-it-other-can't-so-one-who-can't-concedes scenario) and concessions do not have a negative impact on the game. But then, I consider myself to be quite understanding.

Xtopher
08-13-2013, 02:49 PM
I think with the badminton it was 2 Chinese teams playing against each other and neither wanted to win because they'd have a tougher pairing in the next round.

As far as intentional draws and prize splitting, there's nothing unsportsmanlike about it in Magic. It's the rules of the game.

Maphalux
08-13-2013, 05:31 PM
No, it is not part of the game. There is a reason MTGO doesn't allow for intentional draws or prize splitting in the interface.

Xtopher
08-13-2013, 05:50 PM
No, it is not part of the game. There is a reason MTGO doesn't allow for intentional draws or prize splitting in the interface.

I wasn't talking about MTGO. I was referring to paper Magic. However, prize splitting is legal on MTGO, as well as conceding, and they did have an automated split option in drafts, but I don't know if it's still there.

I still don't understand the adamant objection to what two consenting people do, in the final round of an event, that doesn't affect anyone else, but I don't think I'm going to get anyone to rationally address that point beyond talking about their feelings.

zadies
08-13-2013, 06:03 PM
In a truly competitive play to win mentality the idea that is being proposed here is anthmea. If you had double elimination in football for the finals and your team did this you would want to kill them... or your opponents would.

funktion
08-13-2013, 06:04 PM
The logic is slightly flawed in that being nice to your opponent and scooping them into the top 8 you are denying someone else the chance to legitmately play into the top 8.

I disagree, the logic is sound. Whether you were scooped into top 8 or just won every single round you getting there was just as legitimate as anyone else who made it there. Once again, this is the second time this topic has come into discussion on these forums.

I'm fine with whatever they implement, but I don't agree with you that anyone's achievements are any less or more legitimate than anyone else's. In general there are many more aspects involved when someone gets "scooped in" that you are overlooking.


Isn't this the sort of thing that the Chinese got in massive trouble for in the London Olympics?
Why yes it is. (http://espn.go.com/olympics/summer/2012/badminton/story/_/id/8221408/2012-london-olympics-eight-badminton-players-disqualified-trying-lose-matches)

loosing because there is no incentive to win, while the fault of the organizer of the tournament is unsportsmanlike.
in the words of the Olympic comity:
this is "conducting oneself in a manner that is clearly abusive or detrimental to the sport."

You can justify it however you want to make your self feel better, but in a real competition behaving like this should have you thrown out on your butt(and that's what was done).

It's funny, I mentioned this exact same situation somewhere on the first or second page of this thread. I couldn't disagree with you more. This is SOOOOO common place in so many major sports and activities that I find it funny that the olympic commitee singled out that particular case. That case was EXTREMELY controversial, and not because of the actions of the players, but instead because of the ruling. Or at least that's how I see it.

I think Jax was able to better describe my feelings here a few posts back. Really though I think this is one of those threads where each person is going to just state the way they feel (myself included) I'm totally fine with whatever they implement, but I do feel that at the very least there should be an option to ID.

Maphalux
08-13-2013, 06:14 PM
I object because I think it is incredibly unsportsmanlike and promotes bad behavior by people who only care about getting the most packs possible and play as many drafts as they can, as quickly as possible. This is a game. It is meant to be played. The prizes are secondary and should never become more important than the actual play which is what prize splitting promotes.

If CZE officially sanctions and supports prize splitting and intentional draws, I'll shut my yap about it. In fact I hope that if it is imbedded into the game interface that there is a button so I can click no and the match starts immediately. That way I don't have to listen to my opponent whine or hold the match hostage if they won the option to go first.

Bovisrex
08-13-2013, 06:34 PM
I gotta say I agree with Xtopher, there really isn't a good reason not to allow it, especially in a 8 man. It's an entirely voluntary activity that doesn't hut anyone, adding a system to the game just helps prevent fraud. Wanting to play more is one of the big reasons to prize split, especially in an 8-4. Splitting results in 6 packs a piece, or exactly enough product to play two more drafts without buying more packs.

Xtopher
08-13-2013, 06:40 PM
In a truly competitive play to win mentality the idea that is being proposed here is anthmea. If you had double elimination in football for the finals and your team did this you would want to kill them... or your opponents would.

I can understand that. I just don't have that mentality, I guess.

Gwaer
08-13-2013, 06:45 PM
I dunno, I think a lot of being truly competitive is the desire to play more games. More packs generally means being able to play more games for less money, or even for free if you can sell them for entry fees. Splitting might net two people another free round, where before one person would have gotten 2.5 free rounds, and the other .5

zadies
08-13-2013, 08:23 PM
So playing and losing is competitive even if you lose all the time... due to it letting you play more games... not sure how you fit the definition of competitive in there.
comˇpetˇiˇtive [ kəm péttətiv ]
involving attempt to win: involving or decided by competition
wanting to beat others: inclined toward wanting to achieve more than others
better than competition: as good as or slightly better than others because of being good value or worth more

Gwaer
08-13-2013, 08:46 PM
Losing doesn't get you packs, which is a huge portion of your entry fee to each "tournament" Most competitive players just want to play as many tournaments as possible, so splitting in the end provides them that opportunity. Losing does not.

I think this definition of what it is to compete is most telling

compete[kəmˈpiːt]vb(intr; often foll by with) to contend (against) for profit, an award, athletic supremacy, etc.; engage in a contest (with)[from Late Latin competere to strive together, from Latin: to meet, come together, agree, from com- together + petere to seek]


If splitting is the most likely scenario that awards you profit, then it is perfectly within the realm of competition. if you have a chance of ending up with 8 or 4 packs, it might be in your best interest to both walk away with 6.

Malicus
08-13-2013, 09:05 PM
Losing doesn't get you packs, which is a huge portion of your entry fee to each "tournament" Most competitive players just want to play as many tournaments as possible, so splitting in the end provides them that opportunity. Losing does not.

I think this definition of what it is to compete is most telling

compete[kəmˈpiːt]vb(intr; often foll by with) to contend (against) for profit, an award, athletic supremacy, etc.; engage in a contest (with)[from Late Latin competere to strive together, from Latin: to meet, come together, agree, from com- together + petere to seek]


If splitting is the most likely scenario that awards you profit, then it is perfectly within the realm of competition. if you have a chance of ending up with 8 or 4 packs, it might be in your best interest to both walk away with 6.

i have no objection to splitting in a final though it strikes me as somewhat cowardly, risk aversion is a part of competition but hardly the part of competition which should be encouraged imho. I am unlikely to split since I would rather go out fighting than take the safe path and surely part of the fun of draft is trying to win?

my only objections to concessions go beyond a finals situation where there is impact on parties outside of the split/concession and hope systems like tie breaks take the possibility of such activities into account.

apologies I know I am somewhat repeating parts of my earlier posts.

majin
08-13-2013, 11:59 PM
the main reason why i am okay with this idea is this is still optional

i know others see it negatively but if you're competitive enough and reach the top spots, you can just say "no" to the deal and having this feature is just an added bonus

if i have a good deck and i believe in my skills then i won't be using it but still having the options for everyone is still a good feature for me

ShadowTycho
08-14-2013, 12:10 AM
the main reason why i am okay with this idea is this is still optional

i know others see it negatively but if you're competitive enough and reach the top spots, you can just say "no" to the deal and having this feature is just an added bonus

if i have a good deck and i believe in my skills then i won't be using it but still having the options for everyone is still a good feature for me

okay but why then should it be officially supported. players can work this out by just having one of them conceded and splitting the pot regardless of the system. If both people want to do it, i have trouble thinking of ways to prevent them from doing it.
so people can do it weather people like it or not.
this makes the question, should it be officially supported?

I say no. If you want to concede the match and split the pot you should have to front the risk of the other guy ripping you off.
that way its the risk of loosing the match versus the risk of the other guy taking his winnings and not sharing.

I also can see many a person walking away with a pot laughing at the idiot that let them win with their terrible deck.

Malicus
08-14-2013, 12:20 AM
okay but why then should it be officially supported. players can work this out by just having one of them conceded and splitting the pot regardless of the system. If both people want to do it, i have trouble thinking of ways to prevent them from doing it.
so people can do it weather people like it or not.
this makes the question, should it be officially supported?

I say no. If you want to concede the match and split the pot you should have to front the risk of the other guy ripping you off.
that way its the risk of loosing the match versus the risk of the other guy taking his winnings and not sharing.

I also can see many a person walking away with a pot laughing at the idiot that let them win with their terrible deck.

Honestly the buyer beware is the least desirable outcome for me, I would either see it accepted and supported or prohibited as against tos to prevent people getting ripped off or to at least make it very clear that it is an unsupported transaction. The most likely victims of scamming will be newer players and I would prefer the community experience be positive for them. I do not see why bad behaviour shouldn't be programmed against where possible and punishable by rules where not.

jaxsonbatemanhex
08-14-2013, 12:21 AM
okay but why then should it be officially supported. players can work this out by just having one of them conceded and splitting the pot regardless of the system. If both people want to do it, i have trouble thinking of ways to prevent them from doing it.
so people can do it weather people like it or not.
this makes the question, should it be officially supported?

I say no. If you want to concede the match and split the pot you should have to front the risk of the other guy ripping you off.
that way its the risk of loosing the match versus the risk of the other guy taking his winnings and not sharing.

I also can see many a person walking away with a pot laughing at the idiot that let them win with their terrible deck.
Well their deck can't be too terrible if they made it to the finals. >.>

Also, I can't imagine this happening in anything but a bigger tournament with bigger prizes - and IMO, it's a good showing of sportsmanship that the final 2 people (or final 8 as is often the case) agree to share the prizes between them. I don't know how they'd handle it online, but in the case of physical Magic the prizes get divided up like that, but the players still play for ranking.

In terms of prize splits, they do harm to no-one, especially if CZE gets the players to still play their matches and just alter the prize payout to accommodate the split.

Concessions should never be disallowed, and if a player sees that their opponent will definitely make it through the cut if they concede and they want to concede for that reason, I see no issue. I will note again however that this is a pretty rare occurrence where one player definitely gets through, and the other can't get through even if they win. I've never seen it happen myself.

Intentional draws should also be fine - they reward people who do well enough early on, by guaranteeing them their spot. Longer tournaments also require a lot of stamina, so being able to effectively skip your last 2 matches can be a godsend. In any case, they've been around in Magic for years, and wouldn't you know, the competitive community doesn't have a problem with them.

ShadowTycho
08-14-2013, 08:54 PM
I really don't see cryptozoic taking a radically different stance then the DCI which is as follows:
Players may concede a game or match at any time within the following guidelines. The conceded game or match is recorded as a loss for the conceding player. If a player refuses to play, it is assumed that he or she concedes the match.

The following actions are prohibited:

Offering or accepting a bribe or prize split in exchange for the concession, drop, or draw of a match
Attempting to determine the winner of a game or match by a random method, such as a coin flip or die roll

If a player refuses to play, it is assumed that he or she has conceded the match
A wonderful and in depth discussion is detailed here (http://www.starcitygames.com/magic/misc/5034_FINAL_JUDGEMENT_Concessions_and_Prize_Splits. html)
There are ways to split prizes without penalty under the DCI rules, but they are not part of the rules and most importantly one player has to drop out of the tournament and the other is on his honor to actually share the prize.

jaxsonbatemanhex
08-14-2013, 09:20 PM
We have to determine if we're still talking about prize splitting (like the OP suggests), or we're talking about intentional draws (I think we have to accept that the only way to stop concessions to allow someone else to make a cut is to stop concessions entirely, which I don't see happening).

If we're talking about prize splitting, then I'm also going to assume we're talking about only the non-points prizes like boosters getting split.

Basically, I see no harm in this. 8 players make the top 8 of say a world tournament qualifier, and agree to split the booster prizes on offer. Instead of the prize structure being something like 16-8-4-4-4-4-2-2, each player gets 5.5 boosters (they could randomly determine which 4 players get 6, and which 4 get 5). Those players would still play on to see what ranking everyone gets, it's just that in terms of the booster prizes they all get an equivalent amount instead of the normal division. I see no issue with this at all, and that's how it's done with Magic tournaments like a PTQ - players agree to evenly split the prizes, but still play on to see who gets what ranking in the tournament.

While I'm not opposed to point splitting being offered aswell, I have no problems with it not being allowed either. But booster splitting for bigger tournaments should be an option IMO.

Xtopher
08-14-2013, 09:57 PM
Jaxson, do you think the process should be honor system or automated?

I went into this topic assuming prize splits and conceding without incentive would be legal. As long as there is no collusion or bribery there's nothing unethical happening.

jaxsonbatemanhex
08-14-2013, 10:02 PM
It'd be nice if it were automated, but with Magic I believe it is honor system (with the tournament organiser being the one who does the split). If they wanted to automate it it could be a tricky one - perhaps a button when a top-X split happens, that asks players to vote on whether they want to split or keep the prizes according to their rank, with a 75%+ vote meaning a split occurs.

I think the easiest way for it to be done would be similar to the poker example someone gave earlier in the thread - when it gets to the top-X, the players submit a ticket and wait for a GM, who can then organise the split.

Of course, how it could best be implemented would largely depend on how they plan to run bigger tournaments. For small stuff like on-demand queues, I don't think it's necessary (and I know I wouldn't be looking for a prize split if I entered an on-demand queue).

Malicus
08-15-2013, 02:10 AM
It'd be nice if it were automated, but with Magic I believe it is honor system (with the tournament organiser being the one who does the split). If they wanted to automate it it could be a tricky one - perhaps a button when a top-X split happens, that asks players to vote on whether they want to split or keep the prizes according to their rank, with a 75%+ vote meaning a split occurs.

I think the easiest way for it to be done would be similar to the poker example someone gave earlier in the thread - when it gets to the top-X, the players submit a ticket and wait for a GM, who can then organise the split.

Of course, how it could best be implemented would largely depend on how they plan to run bigger tournaments. For small stuff like on-demand queues, I don't think it's necessary (and I know I wouldn't be looking for a prize split if I entered an on-demand queue).

If play is continued then those who choose not to split should be able to choose not to take the split card value and instead take their prize with only the split prizes being divided amongst the splitters (if that makes sense) you would of course have to make this choice pre-play. It would be interesting if say the top 2 ended up opting out of the split though for the most part the others wouldn't be worse off. Mostly I just feel you should never be forced to accept a split so 100% or opt out,

jaxsonbatemanhex
08-15-2013, 02:15 AM
Perhaps it should only be a split if every player agrees then. I don't know if anyone does any sort of not-everyone-agrees split in Magic; every tournament I've been to with splits, we all agreed to it.

ShadowTycho
08-15-2013, 02:20 AM
Perhaps it should only be a split if every player agrees then. I don't know if anyone does any sort of not-everyone-agrees split in Magic; every tournament I've been to with splits, we all agreed to it.

i would vehemently oppose any system that forced a split on someone who wanted to compete.

jaxsonbatemanhex
08-15-2013, 03:40 AM
In the last few posts we've been talking about still competing, just splitting the prizes. Or do you mean, forced a split on someone who didn't want to split?

Edit: in any case, I can agree that imposing splits when 100% of players don't want it probably isn't a good system. Tbh, I never even considered it prior to Malicus bringing it up as every time I've seen a split mentioned, every player wanted it.

houjix
08-15-2013, 07:20 AM
Sanctioned prize splitting should be finals only. It's less messy that way.

To solve any worries with QPs, just make first and second the same. Crypto did this with their qualifiers for Realm Championships, which made splitting much easier as the only thing to split was packs and maybe some promos.

Xtopher
08-15-2013, 09:38 AM
Sanctioned prize splitting should be finals only. It's less messy that way.

To solve any worries with QPs, just make first and second the same. Crypto did this with their qualifiers for Realm Championships, which made splitting much easier as the only thing to split was packs and maybe some promos.

It's good to know there's precedent for this within CZE.

Lafoote
08-15-2013, 03:15 PM
Any suggestion prize splitting should be done on the side is absurd. The diversity of players in an online environment includes many good, and many bad individuals. Anyone suggesting an 'honor system' has spent little time in online. An even split, negotiated automatically, with a random determination for odd loot is the way to go.

Xtopher
08-15-2013, 03:24 PM
I can honestly say I've never been ripped off on the "honor system", but MTGO is a smallish community and if you're ripping people off, word will spread. I'd prefer automated, of course, because there's always a small niggling doubt, but first off I want to be assured that prize splits are legal.

heavyhitter86
08-15-2013, 03:40 PM
I am glad we got this conversation back to what I had initially thought it would be which is prize splitting while still play the games to determine a winner. I wholeheartedly support this and if people want to decide to minimize the risk of a poorer prize for finishing 6th or 8th then they should be allowed to before they play, if everyone is on board.

stiii
08-15-2013, 05:22 PM
Any suggestion prize splitting should be done on the side is absurd. The diversity of players in an online environment includes many good, and many bad individuals. Anyone suggesting an 'honor system' has spent little time in online. An even split, negotiated automatically, with a random determination for odd loot is the way to go.

I've done hundreds of finals splits on magic online on the side and never had a problem. In practise people don't care that much over $6.

Zarien
08-16-2013, 04:20 AM
What stii said. In practice people just don't care enough normally to rip someone off. I think sanctioned final round prize splitting would be fine if it was binding. Just because like many said, you can't stop it if they want to do it anyways.

Maphalux
08-16-2013, 11:13 AM
Well since people are so honest then there is no reason to make it a function of the game. Keep it just like Magic. Someone has to drop and the other person is on the honor system to fork over the prize. I don't think CZE should be getting involved in this. They have no incentive to do so. Prize splitting enables people to play more for free. That is not a favorable outcome for a company looking to actually profit from its product.

jaxsonbatemanhex
08-16-2013, 11:35 AM
Well since people are so honest then there is no reason to make it a function of the game. Keep it just like Magic. Someone has to drop and the other person is on the honor system to fork over the prize. I don't think CZE should be getting involved in this. They have no incentive to do so. Prize splitting enables people to play more for free. That is not a favorable outcome for a company looking to actually profit from its product.
When this occurs in Magic, the tournament organizer facilitates this. So while you could say it's the honor system, what tournament organizer of a tournament that actually has a top-X split and enough prizes to warrant a split is going to risk the backlash of 8 competitive players and not actually give out the boosters? :-P

In regards to Hex, such a system would only be offered at big enough tournaments to warrant a top-X split, such as a world qualifier, a regional, or whatever big tournies Hex has. It'd be no hassle for them to give players a short break before the finals begin, and during that time a GM could be notified and organise the split (who even knows if prizes given out at such a big event would be automated).

As for more players playing for free? The same average booster quantity per player is going out in this case. There are no more free games via a prize split than via a non-split; if 48 boosters go out between the 8 players, then there are 16 'free' drafts between them, whether it's a staggered amount, or whether it's each player getting 3 each.

Honestly, I can live without prize splits, but the system certainly isn't negative or a problem at all. In fact, I'd say it leans more on being a positive system - players who actually care about the prize boosters have the potential of playing in a finals series and not worrying about not getting many boosters if they get knocked out in the first final.

Xtopher
08-16-2013, 11:36 AM
Well since people are so honest then there is no reason to make it a function of the game. Keep it just like Magic. Someone has to drop and the other person is on the honor system to fork over the prize. I don't think CZE should be getting involved in this. They have no incentive to do so. Prize splitting enables people to play more for free. That is not a favorable outcome for a company looking to actually profit from its product.

It doesn't change the number of prizes going into the system so overall it wouldn't have any effect on how much is spent by players. I agree, though, that CZE has little incentive to create an option like this if it wasn't in their original plans. It really just depends on their philosophy on the kind of environment they want to have in game. My main goal is to make sure it's legal to prize split, because there's a demand for it. The arguments against have been very weak.

Edit: Also, want to clear up an often cited misconception: it's not necessary for anyone to drop from the tournament or concede to have a prize split.

Maphalux
08-16-2013, 11:55 AM
That's true. They could just play out the games and then, regardless of the outcome, split. Hopefully that is what happens in higher level tournaments because it would really suck for spectators to not get to watch a final match due to a split.

jaxsonbatemanhex
08-16-2013, 11:59 AM
Players do still play with a prize split, and points aren't split. Only the boosters are split. That is, if they follow the Magic version of prize splitting. ^^