PDA

View Full Version : Option to split in finals



Bloodslave
05-01-2015, 09:42 AM
I didn't a thread on it already when I looked, but is there a plan to enable us to split the prizes in the finals of an 8 man tournament in the future?

As it stands, if players want to split one player has to concede and gives up a 4th chance to spawn a primal pack.

nicosharp
05-01-2015, 09:47 AM
Colluding will never be supported in-game. (I think its fair to call it that, not bad, but should be an agreement between players, not a feature within the game)

MatWith1T
05-01-2015, 09:54 AM
I actually like using the fact that they'll have 5 primal chances on 4 packs as incentive to convince someone to split with me :)

Gwaer
05-01-2015, 09:56 AM
I'll split if I get the shot at the primals any day.

Piecetinker
05-01-2015, 09:56 AM
I didn't a thread on it already when I looked, but is there a plan to enable us to split the prizes in the finals of an 8 man tournament in the future?

As it stands, if players want to split one player has to concede and gives up a 4th chance to spawn a primal pack.

If your opponent is trustworthy you can exchange information for easier contact (such as Skype). Then ask your opponent to get a screenshot of their rewards when the rewards are given out so that there is proof of your gains. Both of you exchange screenshots and proceed how to divvy up the rewards.

I have done this with PhoenixMD in the VIP Sealed queues and do not regret it.

zadies
05-01-2015, 02:06 PM
Until I see how they handle qualifying points for the 100k tournament I am going to have to say having this in client is a horrid idea... I think the reason that all the prize generated can spawn primals is exactly to de-incentivize this sort of behavior.

Vorpal
05-01-2015, 02:55 PM
I didn't a thread on it already when I looked, but is there a plan to enable us to split the prizes in the finals of an 8 man tournament in the future?

As it stands, if players want to split one player has to concede and gives up a 4th chance to spawn a primal pack.

Maybe I simply don't understand what is being asked for but how is this different than what happens normally?

zadies
05-01-2015, 02:56 PM
He wants an option that says lets collude and split the prizes built into the client.

Vorpal
05-01-2015, 02:58 PM
Wouldn't the number of packs generated (and hence # of primal chances) be the same in both cases though?

Turtlewing
05-01-2015, 03:24 PM
Maybe I simply don't understand what is being asked for but how is this different than what happens normally?

Normally the rewards for first and second are distributed with 1st place getting more, and in order to split the prize the player who conceded has to trust the player who took 1st to fork over a portion of the prize.

Adding an option to let both players agree to split the prize would enforce the split preventing the player who got first from agreeing then keeping the entire 1st place prize.

It would also indicate that splitting the prize is viewed as legitimate by CZE rather than a form of cheating (players have differing opinions on that).

It may also enable splitting the "ratting points" or whatever credit towards invitational tournaments you get for taking 1st instead of second which normally would not be something players can transfer.


Wouldn't the number of packs generated (and hence # of primal chances) be the same in both cases though?

Yes, but the player who gets rewarded the first place prize gets more primal rolls than the player who got second place. And primal are rare enough that fairly splitting them can be problematic as they're very valuable and splitting a single primal pack isn't trivial.

Having the client distribute the prizes wold mean each player gets the same number of primal rolls and sidestep the question of how to fairly split primal packs.

Bloodslave
05-01-2015, 09:39 PM
Colluding will never be supported in-game. (I think its fair to call it that, not bad, but should be an agreement between players, not a feature within the game)

Is it actually collusion though? In real life tournaments players in the finals are allowed to intentionally draw and split the prize pool.

edit: found an old thread on prize splitting in the final round only: http://forums.cryptozoic.com/showthread.php?t=26886

The question was never resolved as to whether it is officially condoned or not. Then if it is, will there be a mechanism to prevent scamming?

Sparrow
05-02-2015, 06:54 AM
If people want to split in the finals I have no problem with it. I think requiring players to work out the details on their own will result in less splitting, which I also have no problem with.

Shivdaddy
05-02-2015, 07:54 AM
Splitting the finals is not collusion. Slap yourselves for saying it is.

Malicus
05-02-2015, 09:11 AM
I'll split if I get the shot at the primals any day.

Yeah I am with you - I don't tend to ask for them but I will do them when asked and getting the extra primal chance is sweet.

A note on this - If you ask for the split you need to concede (or play it out if discussed) asking for a split then asking them to concede is poor etiquette.

I wouldn't object to a formal split system, sometimes I am just tired of my deck by the finals.

Banquetto
05-02-2015, 03:46 PM
Splitting the finals is not collusion. Slap yourselves for saying it is.

It's always going to be controversial, though, so let's stop that argument before it starts.

Sparrow
05-02-2015, 07:54 PM
A note on this - If you ask for the split you need to concede (or play it out if discussed) asking for a split then asking them to concede is poor etiquette.
Any split that is conditional upon a specific player conceding (as opposed to agreeing to split and playing it out or someone spontaneously conceding after agreeing to split) does cross the line from okay behavior to collusion. Still, though, I don't care what people do in the finals so I'm okay with it.

nicosharp
05-03-2015, 07:58 AM
It's always going to be controversial, though, so let's stop that argument before it starts.

I think Shiv meant the slap yourself part as more of a joke based on a post I made a long time ago. I said "Colluding", but mainly used that word because I could not pull the word out of my brain that I was looking for. I don't think its that bad either, but don't think they will provide a mechanism ever in game to support it. Anyways, I already explained this in my OP.

Ariathor
05-03-2015, 10:28 AM
I know they're never going to do it, so all discussion on this topic is purely theoretical, but I believe splitting is very useful for the game.

If you think about it, starting a Hex tournament is not only a huge time commitment, it's also an extremely VARIABLE time commitment. One of the reasons Hearthstone is so popular is the small duration of the games. A league like system would be in my opinion ideal, especially for constructed or sealed formats, but in the meantime anything that helps minimize the time commitment is good in my book.

Malicus
05-03-2015, 06:48 PM
I hear the argument that they wont or cant do it but I dont get it. Condoning but not supporting a system has never seemed like the best option to me since it just opens up the possibility of abuse.

The only reason I could foresee for them not implementing splits is if prizes were not able to be split such as if something like magics QPs were attached to 8mans. In the same vein though they could simply adjust such a system to award 3 for 1st and 1 for 2nd and make splitting an option again so even that is not insurmountable if it is planned accordingly.

zadies
05-03-2015, 08:21 PM
From the tournament rules from the WoWTCG

http://www.cryptozoic.com/sites/default/files/uploads/files/cryptozoic_tournament_policy_20120717.pdf

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.

I don't see them splitting qp due to the second bolded part. Given the 1st bolded part and most people only concede to split the prizes... unless your doing it due to time constraints which would imply your not instantly starting a new tournament then your really colluding.

Bloodslave
05-03-2015, 11:29 PM
From the tournament rules from the WoWTCG

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...



I don't see them splitting qp due to the second bolded part. Given the 1st bolded part and most people only concede to split the prizes... unless your doing it due to time constraints which would imply your not instantly starting a new tournament then your really colluding.

I'm not clear on why exactly splitting the prize pool is collusion beyond saying "splitting is collusion".

Can we just get some orange text in here? Is splitting the prize in the finals allowed or is it not?

Gwaer
05-04-2015, 02:20 AM
It's not supported by the client. So it isn't supported by hex. If someone doesn't send you your share then support can't help you. But you also won't get banned for splitting. So the answer is it depends. there are no judges to watch and adjudicate. So split at your own risk.

BKCshah
05-04-2015, 04:32 AM
Hmm, I would think that it would be pretty trivial to verify the details of a split for customer support. All discussions would be done through the client. Here's a screenshot with the chat. I don't recall what HEX did regarding the 'mail' scams. I thought that they took action in those cases. Prize splitting is really no different imo.

Also, the word 'collusion' should be removed from this discussion. There's nothing secretive, illegal or harmful to other players about the only two remaining players splitting their prizes to move on with their day in whatever way they deem fit.

ossuary
05-04-2015, 05:04 AM
It's not a question of whether or not support can verify that a split was decided upon - they certainly can. It's a question of whether or not it's their job to "fix" it if a player agrees to split and then doesn't (hint: it isn't). The system does not support splitting, therefore any agreement by the players outside of the game system to split the prize pool falls under caveat emptor. It's not against the rules, but it's not enforced, either.

At worst, if a player reports another player to support for this, the offending player will get a warning for scamming (a very low level of scamming, but scamming none-the-less). The "wronged" player will NOT be given the product they feel they are entitled to by support.

darkwonders
05-04-2015, 05:25 AM
Splitting ends up being the most important during a final round of say a VIP tourney. While unlikely, it's possible for a 1-2 to be faced up against a 2-1 (it's happened to me). In that case, it would be nice of the 2-1 guy to split the prize with the 1-2 guy, giving the 1-2 guy those sweet AA cards in exchange for the packs the 2-1 would have won if he would have gone 3-1 :)

Turtlewing
05-04-2015, 09:58 AM
I'm not clear on why exactly splitting the prize pool is collusion beyond saying "splitting is collusion".

Can we just get some orange text in here? Is splitting the prize in the finals allowed or is it not?

Agreeing to concede a game for payment is generally considered collusion (if I pay your next draft entry so you will concede and I'll advance that's cheating). Splitting the final round prize with your opponent who concedes is a form of paying them to concede, so logically it is a subset of collusion.

However it is a sufficiently popular practice among the competitive circuit of enough games that many games put restrictions on it and write in an exception for it in their official tournament rules to avoid having to ban enough of their top players to cause a PR problem.

BKCshah
05-04-2015, 10:20 AM
Let's use darkwonders' example: VIP 1-2 vs 2-1. This one would be considered cheating (paying for a concession). Why? Because the prize payout isn't the same for each player. The 1-2 player means +2 packs + 2 alternate arts. The 2-1 player winning means +4 packs. If the 1-2 player gives the 2-1 player 4 packs to concede, he has paid the 2-1 player 2 extra packs which were not in the 'prize pool' for the match. This is against pretty much all rules regarding splitting prizes in TCGs.

Agreeing to split winnings that are earned in that round is fine. Adding outside compensation from other round winnings or outside items (additional packs/cards) is cheating.

In some games, it really matters how it is discussed as well. This is where the guidelines get strange. When I ask for a split, I suggest that the coin flip winner gets the 5 packs and ships one to the other player. Probably lose alot of chances at primals since some people only respond after the flip, but what are you going to do. I've not asked a player to concede, just on a method of determining who will be conceding.

Bloodslave
05-04-2015, 10:51 AM
So I see two consecutive posts with the same definition of collusion but very different conclusions with regards to the ethical status of splitting finals winnings.

I guess unless I see otherwise, I'll assume splitting is governed the way Ossuary has described it.

stiii
05-04-2015, 11:18 AM
It's not supported by the client. So it isn't supported by hex. If someone doesn't send you your share then support can't help you. But you also won't get banned for splitting. So the answer is it depends. there are no judges to watch and adjudicate. So split at your own risk.

Surely the OP is asking for this option?

Bloodslave
05-04-2015, 11:20 AM
Surely the OP is asking for this option?

Exactly.

Ju66ernaut
05-04-2015, 12:04 PM
I'd support a splitting option for the finals of tournaments. I do it all the time and would appreciate a more streamlined method.

Gwaer
05-04-2015, 12:18 PM
I don't think they should support it simply because I don't think people should feel pressured to split. If someone can send you a split request and you're not interested it makes you look bad for not accepting. Never mind that this split interface would have to be able to take things into account that are random, like primal packs. It has the potential to make people angry or upset, causing slow playing or other types of abuse because they're unreasonable (in the angry persons mind, anyway). Two people who want to split, will split anyway. I've split many times even when AA are on the line. And I've gotta trust the guy to send me what was agreed upon. The hex community is rather trustworthy in that regard. But I really don't think it should be supported in client because splitting should never just be an easy thing to do. If it were it could begin to become the norm, everyone splits in the last round, and that's not really okay. To me. Others obviously disagree.

Ju66ernaut
05-04-2015, 01:17 PM
@Gwaer

That's fair.

magic_gazz
05-04-2015, 01:38 PM
you're not interested it makes you look bad for not accepting. Never mind that this split interface would have to be able to take things into account that are random, like primal packs

It doesn't make you look bad for not accepting and if someone takes offence to that, they would take offence to it if the interface is there or not.

The split interface does not have to handle primals at all, they are generated when prizes are given based on each pack.

This whole thread feels like some people don't want people to split prizes for "reasons" and are just using any arguments they can, even if they don't really give any real reason not to do it.

If you don't want to split prizes then no one can force you. Adding in a feature that helps people who do want to is not a bad thing and does not affect you unless you want it to.

Its like ladder. Lots of people want it, I don't care about it, but I don't go round saying we shouldn't have it because I don't want it.

Better to add a feature for splitting than having to deal with people offering splits and not paying up.

ossuary
05-04-2015, 01:39 PM
I definitely don't want the option built into the client, because not only would it encourage the behavior and make people feel pressured like Gwaer was talking about, but it would also mean more work for support - if you allow a function in client, then people will contact support to deal with issues around it: I meant to split but it didn't work, I hit split by accident, give me my packs and that primal my opponent got, I only meant to split the packs give me back the AAs, etc. It would be a nightmare, and there's no reason to build it into the system. Far better to make it allowed but not supported, and let the players sort it out themselves.

funktion
05-04-2015, 01:49 PM
Not sure if this has been brought up yet... but how do you split in a tournament when the first place person gets something unique? An example could be the AA filk apes from the set 2 release ques.

Most answers are gonna start with something like "Well in that case you could..." which are just going to further complicate things. Offering splits is something that seems pretty simple on a player to player level but once you start adding in some of these extra factors it can get pretty complicated. In many cases you might have to still play it out for the prize that actually matters and split the rest in which case why bother supporting it with the client, it is just going to confuse players while not really satisfying the reason they wanted the feature in the first place.

magic_gazz
05-04-2015, 01:50 PM
I definitely don't want the option built into the client, because not only would it encourage the behavior and make people feel pressured like Gwaer was talking about, but it would also mean more work for support - if you allow a function in client, then people will contact support to deal with issues around it: I meant to split but it didn't work, I hit split by accident, give me my packs and that primal my opponent got, I only meant to split the packs give me back the AAs, etc. It would be a nightmare, and there's no reason to build it into the system. Far better to make it allowed but not supported, and let the players sort it out themselves.

If people feel pressured to split when offered, then they have a problem that they need to deal with. Offering a spilt it not offensive and if you feel pressured by it then it is a YOU problem and not a feature problem As I have already said, it being a feature or offered in chat would not change the amount of "pressure" these poor souls are feeling.

Should we not have trading in the game incase people accidentally make a trade and contact support for a takeback? That's the argument you are making here.

They would not know their opponent got a primal, just like now you don't know if the guy with 1 win gets a primal.

Easy to make events with AA's not splitable. Only events with prizes that can be split evenly should be able to be split.

Again it seems people are giving "reasons" not to have this feature that are not really very good.

BKCshah
05-04-2015, 01:50 PM
I'm not going to argue the opinion regarding if it's bad that splitting becomes the norm. I disagree regarding the pressure to split. But I guess some people could be jerks about it feeling that splitting is owed to them.

However, the primal pack item you mentioned makes little sense to me. The system would just assign each player the number of normal packs. If a primal is won off the packs, it is that individual players. Others may disagree with this perspective and feel they deserve half the primal value. Long term it shouldn't make a difference.

I tried to figure out the theoretical value of the primal if won by the 5 pack player in a split. Set 1 pack, no compensation needed since you both earned the same quantity. Set 2 pack, 2 extra packs/rolls but it could have been on one of your 'earned' packs. This gets more complex than I care to calculate. IMO an in-game system just removes this concern and makes it easy. Everyone rolls their 2% chance on their 4 packs and life goes on.

magic_gazz
05-04-2015, 01:52 PM
If I ask someone to give me their collection are they going to feel pressured to give it to me?

Yeah some people might push for the split, but those people would do it anyway feature or not.

Selanius
05-04-2015, 02:57 PM
I support this option being added eventually.

I think this should be so low on the list of priorities that it should be years before it is implemented. Why would we waste development resources when we don't have a campaign mode, authenticator, double backs, guild support, set 3, stat tracking, official play/ranked, etc etc etc

strylght
05-04-2015, 03:20 PM
Gazz, you claim "reasons" but you haven't addressed the one regarding the workload for support.
If CZE don't want to force their support department to deal with the inevitable problems that will arise as a result of having this as a feature, is that not their prerogative?

Personally, I'd be a bit pissed off if my support tickets for bugged out drafts and the like start to take longer to be resolved due to the addition of a feature whose function can be (and indeed is) carried out just fine through chat and mail. (disclaimer: hypothetical, I have never submitted a support ticket personally)

Also, as Selanius says above me, let's let CZE get a bit closer to finishing the game before we start demanding these kinds of quality-of-life indulgences, eh?

Gwaer
05-04-2015, 03:27 PM
Yea, sorry. I've been using the internet for too long to buy people not being upset when you choose not to split, and trying to make you suffer for that decision. 'it's part of the interface the devs clearly meant for us to use it'. From a development perspective they should always prefer that you play out the games, if there's no downside to splitting a large contingent of players who just want to profit rather than play will have everything they need to be excessively pushy.

The support issue is another good one. Even at physical tournaments in order to split you have to stop playing and sit and wait for a judge. A lot of the time you can finish your last match and just move on in the amount of time you're waiting for a judge, there's always pressure just to finish the game, and move along. Making it too easy is the wrong message from the devs IMO.

Also, like I said, I'm pro splitting. I have split the finals before and I will do it again, unless the devs just come right out and say that splitting is illegal. I just don't think it should be part of the actual coding of the game for tons of reasons.

Shivdaddy
05-04-2015, 06:20 PM
I find it weird people would not want the option to split.


"I don't think they should support it simply because I don't think people should feel pressured to split."

How is this any different from when someone messages them and ask if they would like to split?

"I definitely don't want the option built into the client, because not only would it encourage the behavior and make people feel pressured like Gwaer was talking about, but it would also mean more work for support - if you allow a function in client, then people will contact support to deal with issues around it: I meant to split but it didn't work, I hit split by accident, give me my packs and that primal my opponent got, I only meant to split the packs give me back the AAs, etc."

Terrible example. It would obviously be well laid out. How many people contact support because they meant to draw but hit play? Same with muligan.

"..but how do you split in a tournament when the first place person gets something unique? "

Again it would be well laid out, not like it would just be a surprise. I would assume in the something unique case, splitting would not be an option.

poizonous
05-04-2015, 06:34 PM
If you feel pressured into splitting because the option is in the client than I dont know what to tell you. I fully 100% support a splitting feature, and I for one would be totally shocked if CZE would come out and say this splitting is not allowed. Just sounds too controlling and I dont understand why splitting would not be allowed, it has 0 difference in payout, the client is still giving out the same amount of rewards

Gwaer
05-04-2015, 08:22 PM
It's less feeling pressured because the option exists, and more since the option exists people feel they are justified to pressure into splitting.

Bloodslave
05-04-2015, 09:03 PM
It's less feeling pressured because the option exists, and more since the option exists people feel they are justified to pressure into splitting.

I dunno, I feel like you're projecting here. I played MTGO when splitting was an option in the client. In my personal experience having the in game option made it easier to handle over all. I'd often decline the split when offered b/c I felt confident in my deck and wanted to play it out. I never received any abuse for declining the split, for winning with dumb cards however...

Anyway, when they removed that option I felt some pressure whenever a split was offered regarding the negotiation of who concedes and then having to trust that they'd make good on their promise with no real way of punishing the cheaters (though rare they are).

magic_gazz
05-04-2015, 09:29 PM
Im more concerned about some guy on the internet not giving me prizes we agreed to than I am about some guy on the internet being mean because I wouldn't split.

It might sound mean, but if you are worried about feeling pressured, you need to toughen up. Its a person on the internet, who not only will you probably never meet, they are so insecure they need to get upset about people not splitting with them. You cant be worried about them.

Gwaer
05-04-2015, 10:12 PM
If you're concerned about not getting what you're promised then don't split, play it out, that should always be the default state of the game... Playing the game.

poizonous
05-04-2015, 10:24 PM
If you're concerned about not getting what you're promised then don't split, play it out, that should always be the default state of the game... Playing the game.

Im not sure I entirely agree with you here Gwaer, in regards to your first point, that is even more of a reason for a split option to be in game. Then there will be no worries about getting your prize for splitting since the game will automatically do it.

And your second statement about the default state of game being to play the game. To an extent I agree, but if you are in the finals of the tournament (And I am talking more along the lines of bigger tournaments when they get implemented) sometimes you just want to take your prizes and save time, you shouldnt have to play it out just because

Sparrow
05-04-2015, 10:25 PM
Not sure if this has been brought up yet... but how do you split in a tournament when the first place person gets something unique? An example could be the AA filk apes from the set 2 release ques.
This is the process.

1. Agree to split.
2. One player concedes OR
3. The match is played out.

That's exactly how legal splitting works. There's no discussion about who concedes. My advice is if you care about more than just winning boosters then either don't split or agree to split, but don't concede.

Whether CZE would DQ a player for offering a quid pro quo for a concession is unanswered, as far as I know. I would guess that if you were discreet about it CZE would do nothing. Personally, I wouldn't take the risk, since if you're not careful in your wording your opponent could justifiably accuse you of bribery. I've seen that happen in another online TCG, with a DQ as the result.

Selanius
05-04-2015, 11:03 PM
Magic has explicit rules about collusion. I see no reason why HEX would have a mirror policy that is unannounced. If they think it is a big enough issue to comment on it then I'm sure they will. I highly doubt they will devote programming resources to adding a feature that is so unimportant though. I wouldn't if I was them. I suspect there will be a clarification of this policy before the $100,000 tournament and the qualifier points are implemented as the desire to "buy" concessions will increase and they will want to preserve the integrity of their process.

RanaDunes
05-05-2015, 12:14 AM
I guess I am one of the few who actually plays drafts because they're fun?

strylght
05-05-2015, 02:27 AM
I guess I am one of the few who actually plays drafts because they're fun?

Who'da thunk it, huh?



I highly doubt they will devote programming resources to adding a feature that is so unimportant though. I wouldn't if I was them.
Right, this. If it's allowed, confirm that and let people do it. Don't waste time programming and testing and supporting a feature which only makes it easier.



You want to split with more security so you want man-hours diverted from other features and you want development and support plans that are already in place and have been for a long time to be disrupted because you feel you deserve a quality-of-life feature immediately?
Like I said in my previous post, let them work on the damn game. Let them finish the features they feel are vital to the game before stamping your feet and demanding your particular flavour of quality-of-life.

Sparrow
05-05-2015, 03:59 AM
Like I said in my previous post, let them work on the damn game. Let them finish the features they feel are vital to the game before stamping your feet and demanding your particular flavour of quality-of-life.
Maybe I missed something, but I don't see anyone demanding anything. Too often the response to a niche feature is something along the lines of, "there are more important things the game needs, so no, you can't have it". Really, it's okay to discuss these things because eventually we'll get to the point where what seems like a very minor enhancement now, will be a big advance in the evolution of the game.

Malicus
05-05-2015, 04:05 AM
I guess I am one of the few who actually plays drafts because they're fun?

Yeah but the most fun part of drafting is you know the draft part. By the finals I am just as happy to move to the next draft as play out my deck (which I might not even like).

Discussing desired features will hopefully get them thought about by Hex, it may be that next time they revamp how prizes are awarded they think hey we could implement this QoL improvement pretty easily rather than building it from scratch but they need to know the kinds of things people like. Noone is demanding it or saying it should be a top priority,

strylght
05-05-2015, 09:27 AM
Maybe I missed something, but I don't see anyone demanding anything. Too often the response to a niche feature is something along the lines of, "there are more important things the game needs, so no, you can't have it". Really, it's okay to discuss these things because eventually we'll get to the point where what seems like a very minor enhancement now, will be a big advance in the evolution of the game.

I was referring to the practice of cherry-picking a single counter-argument to refute and dismissing all the others as "reasons".
What is dismissing arguments without consideration if not demanding one's opinion be adopted by others without refute?
It's certainly no way to carry out proper discussion, which I by no means oppose.

I'm not claiming everyone advocating this feature is guilty of this.




Yeah but the most fun part of drafting is you know the draft part.

Surely Malicus, you can accept that this is nothing more than personal opinion? I don't mean to belittle your opinion. It is valid but nonetheless opinion.




If CZE decide this is something they want to implement and that it will not be detrimental to their progress on other features (such as those promised to KS backers) then I'm sure they will implement it. I do, however, think they will first seriously consider possible cons such as those raised by people in this thread instead of dismissing, to take one example, people's trepidation as them having "a problem they need to deal with".

RanaDunes
05-05-2015, 09:44 AM
Yeah but the most fun part of drafting is you know the draft part. By the finals I am just as happy to move to the next draft as play out my deck (which I might not even like).

Discussing desired features will hopefully get them thought about by Hex, it may be that next time they revamp how prizes are awarded they think hey we could implement this QoL improvement pretty easily rather than building it from scratch but they need to know the kinds of things people like. Noone is demanding it or saying it should be a top priority,

Actually the most fun part for me is to see the deck I've created in play. Sometimes I feel 3 games is too little to see all the potential of the deck. Worst part though is not the game itself but the waiting time in between games that's horrible.

RanaDunes
05-05-2015, 10:06 AM
Yeah but the most fun part of drafting is you know the draft part. By the finals I am just as happy to move to the next draft as play out my deck (which I might not even like).

Discussing desired features will hopefully get them thought about by Hex, it may be that next time they revamp how prizes are awarded they think hey we could implement this QoL improvement pretty easily rather than building it from scratch but they need to know the kinds of things people like. Noone is demanding it or saying it should be a top priority,

Actually the most fun part for me is to see the deck I've created in play. Sometimes I feel 3 games is too little to see all the potential of the deck. Worst part though is not the game itself but the waiting time in between games that's horrible.

stiii
05-05-2015, 10:20 AM
I was referring to the practice of cherry-picking a single counter-argument to refute and dismissing all the others as "reasons".
What is dismissing arguments without consideration if not demanding one's opinion be adopted by others without refute?
It's certainly no way to carry out proper discussion, which I by no means oppose.

I'm not claiming everyone advocating this feature is guilty of this.


Who here exactly is guilty of this? You are the one accusing people of "stamping their feet"



And rather off topic cherry picking the argument to refute is perfectly fine. Everything you say should be able to stand up Throwing a bunch of weak reasons why not is not persuading anyone.

strylght
05-05-2015, 10:48 AM
Who here exactly is guilty of this? You are the one accusing people of "stamping their feet"



And rather off topic cherry picking the argument to refute is perfectly fine. Everything you say should be able to stand up Throwing a bunch of weak reasons why not is not persuading anyone.


Simply and repeatedly claiming that those reasons are weak is not proper refutation or, indeed, healthy discussion. This is exactly the kind of argument strategy I described figuratively as foot-stampy.
Why do you think you should be taken seriously if you cherry-pick one argument out of a number to refute and dismiss the others as "weak" without arguing against them?
I hope someone would feel free to correct me if I'm wrong but I don't presume you're doing a great job at persuading anyone either. If you are then it is not due to your rhetoric.
EDIT: "you" does not specifically refer to you, stiii. Nor does it refer to everyone presenting pro arguments. It refers to generally to any use of the above outlined rhetoric. ;)

stiii
05-05-2015, 11:27 AM
I notice you ignored the bit where I directly asked you who was doing this.

Then complained about cherry picking.

plaguedealer
05-05-2015, 11:57 AM
I will give my two cents. Splitting in finals is not collusion. However, you have to be wary if you get tricked. Having a option to split embedded in the game really should take a back seat to the many other things that need to be developed.

Turtlewing
05-05-2015, 12:42 PM
Im not sure I entirely agree with you here Gwaer, in regards to your first point, that is even more of a reason for a split option to be in game. Then there will be no worries about getting your prize for splitting since the game will automatically do it.

And your second statement about the default state of game being to play the game. To an extent I agree, but if you are in the finals of the tournament (And I am talking more along the lines of bigger tournaments when they get implemented) sometimes you just want to take your prizes and save time, you shouldnt have to play it out just because

In what sense are they "your prizes" if you haven't won the round that grants them yet?

I don't think anyone would say that you shouldn't be allowed to concede in the final round and take second place. But a lot of people (myself included) would argue that conceding in the final round and sharing 1st place is a different concept and smacks of entitlement (you make it to the final you didn't win the final why should you be treated differently from if you'd lost in the final round if you pick up your stuff and go at that point?)

strylght
05-05-2015, 01:06 PM
I notice you ignored the bit where I directly asked you who was doing this.

Then complained about cherry picking.

Firstly, why is it surprising that I complained about cherry-picking? You defended it in the post I was responding to, so I responded to that defence.

I didn't intend to ignore anything. I further clarified what I meant by what I said, to allow you to come to your own conclusions about which lines of argument fit the bill.
What's more I gave you a specific example of a post containing the type of argument I find unhelpful.
I really don't see how me naming names or quoting a bunch of posts for you is conductive to the discussion of the merits of this suggestion. Go back and read for yourself. If you don't see it, you don't see it and you and anyone else are welcome to carry on as you were.
The point of my post was to encourage people to put a little more thought into their arguments and be less dismissive, if you don't think this is necessary then, like I said, carry on.

poizonous
05-05-2015, 01:23 PM
In what sense are they "your prizes" if you haven't won the round that grants them yet?

I don't think anyone would say that you shouldn't be allowed to concede in the final round and take second place. But a lot of people (myself included) would argue that conceding in the final round and sharing 1st place is a different concept and smacks of entitlement (you make it to the final you didn't win the final why should you be treated differently from if you'd lost in the final round if you pick up your stuff and go at that point?)

Okay Hypothetical situation... 2 players are the final 2 remaining undefeated's in a tournament. 1st and 2nd place prizes are "Their's" regardless of the outcome of their game, they are just choosing to receive the same prize instead of playing it out for a difference of say 4 packs. As I Stated, Splitting in BIG tournaments, when prizes are not just generic 4-0 3-1 2-2 1-3 and actually have tiebreakers separating the group, that is when splitting a round comes into play much more viably

Edit: I understand how my argument can be taken as confusing to casual players. I have been in competitive TCG's forever and am more accustomed to tiebreakers and non generic payouts.

Bloodslave
05-05-2015, 01:52 PM
In what sense are they "your prizes" if you haven't won the round that grants them yet?

I don't think anyone would say that you shouldn't be allowed to concede in the final round and take second place. But a lot of people (myself included) would argue that conceding in the final round and sharing 1st place is a different concept and smacks of entitlement (you make it to the final you didn't win the final why should you be treated differently from if you'd lost in the final round if you pick up your stuff and go at that point?)

It would be an agreement between both players and therefore the player who concedes IS entitled to their share of the 1st place payout. They have a right to those packs per the agreement. The concession is a necessity in order to complete the split b/c of how the infrastructure is set up. It's not that by conceding the first round the conceding player is inherently deserving of 1st place packs, it's entirely contingent on the agreement between two players.

The idea is that both players have made it to the final and instead of playing they both agree to pick up their stuff and go their merry ways. There is nothing about the agreement itself that requires one player to be awarded a victory over the other, that's why the original question was whether there were plans to make it an option to split 1st and 2nd 50-50.

It should be noted that a split would only apply to a case where prizes can be divided symmetrically. Like a normal 8-man tournament.

tbh I'm mystified that this is such a contentious issue.

I really don't get the objection. Is a split somehow harmful?

nicosharp
05-05-2015, 01:59 PM
I honestly don't think anyone has an issue with splitting as a player that agrees to it.

It's obviously a joint decision by both players, and the payout remains the same.

However, what if there are outside circumstances like....
-A player mistakenly accepts a in-game option to split initiated by his opponent.
-The prize pool for the final game is not even after splitting (This is more of an issue outside of Competitive Draft) - What if the option was offered in Swiss/Sealed/Constructed/VIP/ETC. - Would the payouts in the final always be even?
-Does not promote actually playing the game and having fun, it promotes capitalizing on investment over time.

I just don't see the added incentive to offering this as a "feature" in the game, and should be a non-supported, do at your own risk option.

Sparrow
05-05-2015, 02:01 PM
I really don't get the objection. Is a split somehow harmful?
Only in theoretical, unprovable ways.

strylght
05-05-2015, 02:15 PM
Only in theoretical, unprovable ways.

Maybe I'm missing something but I don't see anyone at this point in the discussion even theorising that splitting is necessarily harmful.
As nico said just above*, the issue isn't with people choosing to split, it is with the development and implementation a feature to facilitate it beyond the ones we already have.


*fairly simultaneously to your post so I understand you probably didn't see it.

funktion
05-05-2015, 02:31 PM
I find it weird people would not want the option to split.


"I don't think they should support it simply because I don't think people should feel pressured to split."

How is this any different from when someone messages them and ask if they would like to split?

"I definitely don't want the option built into the client, because not only would it encourage the behavior and make people feel pressured like Gwaer was talking about, but it would also mean more work for support - if you allow a function in client, then people will contact support to deal with issues around it: I meant to split but it didn't work, I hit split by accident, give me my packs and that primal my opponent got, I only meant to split the packs give me back the AAs, etc."

Terrible example. It would obviously be well laid out. How many people contact support because they meant to draw but hit play? Same with muligan.

"..but how do you split in a tournament when the first place person gets something unique? "

Again it would be well laid out, not like it would just be a surprise. I would assume in the something unique case, splitting would not be an option.

Posting from phone sry ahead of time:
I can definitely think of situations where the something unique case could potentially apply to every single tournament in the future. This is why I point it out.

Banquetto
05-05-2015, 02:35 PM
tbh I'm mystified that this is such a contentious issue.

I really don't get the objection. Is a split somehow harmful?

What if a tournament was being streamed to a large, excited audience? Wouldn't they be kinda pissed that the tournament didn't actually have a final because the two top players decided to share the loot and run?

Could be harmful to a game's perception as an e-sport.

Miwa
05-05-2015, 02:38 PM
Big tournaments are exactly the place that splitting (and especially draws) shouldn't be allowed at all. Everything should be decided on the field of play, and there should be an actual single winner. At a minimum, that's needed for anyone besides the winners to care about the outcome. I'd argue that the 100k tournament, the organizers should care a lot about the people watching, or it's crappy marketing.

*edit* doh, beaten to the punch by the previous post. :)

funktion
05-05-2015, 02:42 PM
This is the process.

1. Agree to split.
2. One player concedes OR
3. The match is played out.

That's exactly how legal splitting works. There's no discussion about who concedes. My advice is if you care about more than just winning boosters then either don't split or agree to split, but don't concede.

Whether CZE would DQ a player for offering a quid pro quo for a concession is unanswered, as far as I know. I would guess that if you were discreet about it CZE would do nothing. Personally, I wouldn't take the risk, since if you're not careful in your wording your opponent could justifiably accuse you of bribery. I've seen that happen in another online TCG, with a DQ as the result.

Which is exactly why it doesn't really make much sense to me to implement a feature within the client. Eventually the boosters will not be the primary prize for many tournaments. I can definitely see there to be potential in the future where most of not all tournaments offer something beyond just boosters especially to those that perform well.

Once you start factoring this in, it only becomes more and more cumbersome for both the users and the developers. Additionally, for some users you are going to start facing major clarity issues with splitting, one person understands that they still have to play out and the winner of that gets a super duper alternate are meanwhile maybe the newer player doesn't.

At this very moment it might make sense (for some folks) to offer some split option within the game. I expect this to become dramatically more complicated though in the future.

Turtlewing
05-05-2015, 03:15 PM
Okay Hypothetical situation... 2 players are the final 2 remaining undefeated's in a tournament. 1st and 2nd place prizes are "Their's" regardless of the outcome of their game, they are just choosing to receive the same prize instead of playing it out for a difference of say 4 packs. As I Stated, Splitting in BIG tournaments, when prizes are not just generic 4-0 3-1 2-2 1-3 and actually have tiebreakers separating the group, that is when splitting a round comes into play much more viably

Edit: I understand how my argument can be taken as confusing to casual players. I have been in competitive TCG's forever and am more accustomed to tiebreakers and non generic payouts.

It's not confusing, It's juts based on a premis I don't think should be encouraged (that the prize is the goal of the tournament, not creating the tournament the purpose of the prize).

The difference between conceding in the final round, and agreeing to split the prize and not playing the final round, is the distribution of the prize.

I argue that if you want more than the 2nd place prize you should play the round and win it. if you don't want to play the round to get teh first place prize you don't deserve more than the 2nd place prize (that's as far as you actually earned). This comes from my expectation that playing the rounds is the end goal and the prize bait to get enough people to make it happen.


It would be an agreement between both players and therefore the player who concedes IS entitled to their share of the 1st place payout. They have a right to those packs per the agreement. The concession is a necessity in order to complete the split b/c of how the infrastructure is set up. It's not that by conceding the first round the conceding player is inherently deserving of 1st place packs, it's entirely contingent on the agreement between two players.

The idea is that both players have made it to the final and instead of playing they both agree to pick up their stuff and go their merry ways. There is nothing about the agreement itself that requires one player to be awarded a victory over the other, that's why the original question was whether there were plans to make it an option to split 1st and 2nd 50-50.

It should be noted that a split would only apply to a case where prizes can be divided symmetrically. Like a normal 8-man tournament.

tbh I'm mystified that this is such a contentious issue.

I really don't get the objection. Is a split somehow harmful?

Well if one player concedes it's bad for spectators, and it undermines what I consider to be the whole point of tournaments (motivate people to play the game to the best of their ability).

Miwa
05-05-2015, 03:34 PM
Well if one player concedes it's bad for spectators, and it undermines what I consider to be the whole point of tournaments (motivate people to play the game to the best of their ability).
And if it's a big tournament, the organizers can just ban a bad actor from further participation, like they would for any other bad sportsmanship. Or even dock from winnings. There's plenty that can be done to remind players that big prizes require more than just being the best player. Sponsors want something for their cash.

stiii
05-05-2015, 08:17 PM
Firstly, why is it surprising that I complained about cherry-picking? You defended it in the post I was responding to, so I responded to that defence.

I didn't intend to ignore anything. I further clarified what I meant by what I said, to allow you to come to your own conclusions about which lines of argument fit the bill.
What's more I gave you a specific example of a post containing the type of argument I find unhelpful.
I really don't see how me naming names or quoting a bunch of posts for you is conductive to the discussion of the merits of this suggestion. Go back and read for yourself. If you don't see it, you don't see it and you and anyone else are welcome to carry on as you were.
The point of my post was to encourage people to put a little more thought into their arguments and be less dismissive, if you don't think this is necessary then, like I said, carry on.

Apparently this needs explaining in more detail. You complained about cherry picking. Therefore you must think it is bad. Therefore when you only reply to one of the two things I said I wonder how you can complain about cherry picking while doing it yourself. The thing you are doing.

If the thing you are complaining about isn't conductive to the discussion why did you bring it up in the first place? When you refuse to name name it just seems like the thing you are claiming never happened. It is so simple to quote from a thread anyone not doing so seems like they are evading because they can't answer. You say you want people to put more thought into their arguments, well then I would suggest you do the same.

Gwaer
05-05-2015, 09:47 PM
@Stii, or you could take him at face value, and he doesn't want to point fingers. If you don't think you're doing what he is talking about just ignore that point, he's probably not talking about you.


Im not sure I entirely agree with you here Gwaer, in regards to your first point, that is even more of a reason for a split option to be in game. Then there will be no worries about getting your prize for splitting since the game will automatically do it.

And your second statement about the default state of game being to play the game. To an extent I agree, but if you are in the finals of the tournament (And I am talking more along the lines of bigger tournaments when they get implemented) sometimes you just want to take your prizes and save time, you shouldnt have to play it out just because

If splitting is going to be in client, it has to have a downside. There has to be some reason not to split, in normal casual tournaments the stakes are just too low to make either option have weight, so most value wins. instantly getting more prizes than a loss rather than playing is the optimal choice, so to promote gameplay it can't be the easiest choice. In major tournaments splitting can be overseen by the people running it, they can choose to allow or disallow splits. There was splitting in finals of the hextcg pro cup, and it was handled by the tournament organizer asking the person providing prize support if it was okay to do it. Large tournaments will have oversight that makes it alright, in small tournaments the game would be seriously detrimented (in my opinion) by any subset of people wanting to split all the time rather than play it out. Splitting needs risk, it needs the negotiating time, it needs to be kind of a pain so that it balances out with just playing out the match or some other set of downsides to make it non-optimal.

Also, it doesn't need people pushing it all the time because the client supports it. We're a very value minded community, card values push you towards things like splitting and getting the most out of your time and money, In my opinion this is pushing us too close to a coin flip to determine winner, rather than encouraging playing out the game.

Before anyone says that it wouldn't be that popular, it's already fairly common and is a pain, so what are the pressures pushing to split that are already stronger than the fact that it's a non trivial issue to do it in the first place.

Also, others have made excellent points about support tickets, mistaken splits, various corner cases that will need to be taken into account, and the fact that there is a huge backlog of development that needs done.

poizonous
05-05-2015, 10:29 PM
I agree with you, there are valid counter arguments. I disagree with a few of them but they are valid arguments, mostly disagree with "Mistaken splits" as that just sounds like people trying to make a free ticket for nothing, I cant honestly see how someone will achieve this authentically and even if you mistakenly do it, you are still receiving a decent prize and there is 0 guarantee you would have earned more have you played the match.

I am not saying this needs immediate implementation but in the future i feel this is a definite feature that should be added. Drafting for fun is fine but after a while drafting becomes strictly for value to some players, no one is required to say yes to a split but most people will want it. If I offer a split and someone says no, I dont mind, I simply play the match out.

Gwaer
05-05-2015, 11:17 PM
Most people eventually wanting to split because it's the most value driven answer is exactly why I think they should never add the option in client. They should always treat the game like people are playing for fun while in a match. Keep the value add stuff in the AH and out of tournaments save prizes. But that's just my opinion. I won't freak out either way. They can always remove the option if it proved to be a mistake. I think most of us can agree that it should be a ways down the list no matter what.

TheHoarder
05-06-2015, 03:26 AM
I think adding this feature would cause focus more on profit than fun. I don't want it even though I split a lot when time is the issue!

strylght
05-06-2015, 03:51 AM
Apparently this needs explaining in more detail. You complained about cherry picking. Therefore you must think it is bad. Therefore when you only reply to one of the two things I said I wonder how you can complain about cherry picking while doing it yourself. The thing you are doing.

Right, but I explained in the post that you just quoted that I intended to respond to every part of your post, you just decided that what I intended as a response wasn't good enough. Opposing this cherry-picking we're talking about doesn't mean you get to call people out for not responding in the way you want, just for not responding to a particular point at all.



If the thing you are complaining about isn't conductive to the discussion why did you bring it up in the first place?

I thought bringing up my opinion on some of the argument strategies used would be conductive to the discussion as people would think about adjusting them. What I do not think is conductive is pointing fingers at specific people. As I've said, as long as those people read my post and think about its content, the post has a chance to be conductive. Naming names adds nothing.



When you refuse to name name it just seems like the thing you are claiming never happened.

Well, this is a fairly dangerous fallacy. When the police or courts refuse to release the names of accused or victims to the press, does that indicate that the crime never happened?



It is so simple to quote from a thread anyone not doing so seems like they are evading because they can't answer. You say you want people to put more thought into their arguments, well then I would suggest you do the same.

You may think I'm evading because I can't answer, I have tried to explain to you why this is not the case.

Ultimately, I think that what I see as dismissive and baseless arguments are dishonourable and you think the way I called them out was dishonourable. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree and stop wasting the time of people who are trying to have an actual discussion in this thread.

strylght
05-06-2015, 04:09 AM
Most people eventually wanting to split because it's the most value driven answer is exactly why I think they should never add the option in client. They should always treat the game like people are playing for fun while in a match. Keep the value add stuff in the AH and out of tournaments save prizes. But that's just my opinion. I won't freak out either way. They can always remove the option if it proved to be a mistake. I think most of us can agree that it should be a ways down the list no matter what.

This is almost exactly my opinion. A splitting facility may be introduced as a convenient time saving feature but it will quickly become a way for a subset of people to easily increase their EV over time and may well create a culture of "Why won't you split? It makes sense for both of us, playing the final is just silly." I really don't see it as unlikely that these people won't become irate when they feel like not only is their time being wasted by their opponent, but also the efficiency of their grind decreased.
Ultimately, yeah, maybe give such a feature a try down the line. But I hope CZE would be able to keep a keen eye on any adjustment to the attitudes of players it fosters.

EDIT: Sorry for posting consecutively.

BKCshah
05-06-2015, 04:50 AM
Let's consider main motivations to split. Fun in drafting comes from different areas for different folks though. Playing, drafting, deck-building, winning packs, etc. can all be fun factors for different people.

Time. Playing a draft can take potentially over 3.5 hours. Typically it doesn't, but I'd estimate draft and first two rounds are at least 2.25 hours with all 8 players involved. Saving that extra of 20-60 minutes after being involved in a draft is nice. Also, emergencies happen. For me, this is the common reason. If I scrub out R1, I may jump in a second one, but I'm Hex'ed out if I reach the finals.

Value 1 (my deck sucks). A lot of players will only offer the split if they don't feel the deck is likely to win R3. I dislike this reason, but it is common.

Value 2 (Time EV for grinding). I'm too lazy to do the math on the time EV value of splitting vs playing R3. R3 is a two pack round for the winner. You are already there. You have to wait for a draft to fire which can be non-trivial. I've heard people say that drafts firing quicker is good thing for everyone. So what is such a bad thing about them being able to easily do it?

I've never experienced the pressure split tactic. I'm not sure I recall being asked about one in Hex. When I offer, it's just two messages. Wanna Split? Coin Flip winner gets the 5 packs and ships to the other. Maybe people really try to pressure others.

It feels similar to running it two or three times in poker. Online poker didn't offer it for awhile. Now, most sites have an option which you just select in your preferences. There's no discussion. It's just software based. This would be one basic method that could be implemented. Program does a check if you have this option selected and proceeds accordingly. This would eliminate the 'my deck sucks' split, but would also hurt the Time player who has an emergency or has time for R3.

poizonous
05-06-2015, 08:21 AM
This whole "Feeling pressured" issue is still a mystery to me. I have never heard of a person being asked for a split that actually felt inclined to do it due to fear of being flamed if he said no. Nor have I heard of people actually flaming someone for saying no. The round begins, the question is asked, a simple yes or no decides the outcome. No one I have ever seen has gotten salty or even hateful towards their opponent who has said no. Do they exist? Sure there are probably a hand full of jerks who will do that, but a simple add to blacklist cures that.

There are features in the game that currently allow you to avoid trolls and rudeness, so if this is our biggest reason for not wanting a split option then I think I have just given a valid argument against this reason.

There are 2 types of drafters - Fun and Value... After a month or 2 the amount of each type shifts to mostly Value and very few for fun. Simply put, some formats lose their fun factor due to the drafting step becoming repetitive and more like a blueprint setting, where every deck goes after specific cards and suddenly there is no more excitement in the draft phase. Why should we deny an in client option for something that will continue to happen even if the option doesn't exist?

Pros -
Much safer splits (IMO the biggest concern about current splitting)
Time saving (Now 1 person doesn't have to actually mail anything to said opponent)

Cons -
Pressure (Still a mystery to me and I really believe it to be a stretch with no actual evidence)
Accidental splits ( Still believe this to be 95% of the time a chance to scam for a free ticket)

stiii
05-06-2015, 09:58 AM
Right, but I explained in the post that you just quoted that I intended to respond to every part of your post, you just decided that what I intended as a response wasn't good enough. Opposing this cherry-picking we're talking about doesn't mean you get to call people out for not responding in the way you want, just for not responding to a particular point at all.

You intended? What am I a mind reader? You didn't respond at all to my first point in your post. The fact you did later after I complained about cherry picking isn't a point in your favour.





I thought bringing up my opinion on some of the argument strategies used would be conductive to the discussion as people would think about adjusting them. What I do not think is conductive is pointing fingers at specific people. As I've said, as long as those people read my post and think about its content, the post has a chance to be conductive. Naming names adds nothing. .

Well then I'm giving you exactly what you want then. I'm criticizing your argument.



Well, this is a fairly dangerous fallacy. When the police or courts refuse to release the names of accused or victims to the press, does that indicate that the crime never happened?

This is a terrible analogy. Why are we the press here rather than the judge/jury/anyone else. All of which do get to see the names to determine if a crime was committed.





You may think I'm evading because I can't answer, I have tried to explain to you why this is not the case.

Ultimately, I think that what I see as dismissive and baseless arguments are dishonourable and you think the way I called them out was dishonourable. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree and stop wasting the time of people who are trying to have an actual discussion in this thread.

Why is it suddenly that you can't answer? You said before you didn't want to answer because it wasn't relevant, which is very different to can't.

Why do you suddenly care about posting off topic stuff about arguments in this thread? You were fine with it when you were doing it but when I do it to you then you want it to end. You also could have ended it very easily by just not posting this reply in the first place as well.

Gwaer
05-06-2015, 10:01 AM
Just read the thread and you can see multiple examples of what he's talking about. If you don't want to read the thread that's your business but stop picking on the guy cause he doesn't want to name names.

stiii
05-06-2015, 11:17 AM
Just read the thread and you can see multiple examples of what he's talking about. If you don't want to read the thread that's your business but stop picking on the guy cause he doesn't want to name names.

Strangely enough saying that he/you are so obviously right that you can't even be bothered to provide evidence isn't going to persuade me.

All I see in this thread is people politely asking for a feature (or at least as politely as the people opposing it on the other side) But because you disagree with them it is perfectly fine to act like they are the unreasonable ones and that they are "stamping their feet"

Picking on this guy is again an attempt to paint your side as being the reasonable ones without providing any evidence that you are in the right. Any reply is apparently picking on him so I guess I should just let it all go uncontested so you can declare victory?

strylght
05-06-2015, 11:34 AM
This whole "Feeling pressured" issue is still a mystery to me. I have never heard of a person being asked for a split that actually felt inclined to do it due to fear of being flamed if he said no. Nor have I heard of people actually flaming someone for saying no. The round begins, the question is asked, a simple yes or no decides the outcome. No one I have ever seen has gotten salty or even hateful towards their opponent who has said no. Do they exist? Sure there are probably a hand full of jerks who will do that, but a simple add to blacklist cures that.

The fact that it doesn't happen now is not a contention. It is being suggested that making the proposed change may make it much more likely to happen in the future. If the majority is drafting for value and there is a feature which makes splitting convenient then splitting is likely to become "the norm" and when things are "the norm" people often feel entitled to it. This, as you say, isn't provable but it is a full blown theory as there is plenty of precedent for irate entitlement on the internet and particularly in video games.


There are features in the game that currently allow you to avoid trolls and rudeness,

And there are features in the game which allow you to split tournament prizes.


There are 2 types of drafters - Fun and Value... After a month or 2 the amount of each type shifts to mostly Value and very few for fun. Simply put, some formats lose their fun factor due to the drafting step becoming repetitive and more like a blueprint setting, where every deck goes after specific cards and suddenly there is no more excitement in the draft phase.

Again, I do think this is opinion portrayed as fact but I'd be interested to see if you do know of statistics showing that most people stop drafting for fun. Even if this is true then we end up with the majority drafting for value and the situation I outlined above seems likely. People drafting for value will feel entitled to a split because it is "the norm" and so, people who are drafting for fun and not value may come to feel somewhat of a marginalised minority.


Why should we deny an in client option for something that will continue to happen even if the option doesn't exist?

This argument has been posited but again: Why should CZE spend valuable resources on a client option for something that will continue to happen even if the option doesn't exist? Obviously if the resources can be spared further down the road then we may have an opportunity to test the above outlined theory. :)



Pros -
Much safer splits (IMO the biggest concern about current splitting)
Time saving (Now 1 person doesn't have to actually mail anything to said opponent)

Cons -
Pressure (Still a mystery to me and I really believe it to be a stretch with no actual evidence)
Accidental splits ( Still believe this to be 95% of the time a chance to scam for a free ticket)

You're pros are obviously true and I'd even add the possibility of drafts firing more often due to them ending quicker. All the same, I think your cons list omits some of those posited in this thread and, really, "pressure" isn't an accurate representation of that particular argument. It's about the possibility of creating a culture of entitlement to splitting. And, unfortunately, theories about how the proposed feature will affect the game will always lack actual evidence because, well, the feature isn't in the game. Doesn't mean they are not sensible and reasonable theories based on precedent.




--

You intended? What am I a mind reader? You didn't respond at all to my first point in your post. The fact you did later after I complained about cherry picking isn't a point in your favour.

As I explained, I did respond to it, you just mistook that response for a lack of one, presumably because it wasn't the response you were hoping for.



Well then I'm giving you exactly what you want then. I'm criticizing your argument.

Unfortunately you are not at all giving me what I want.



Why is it suddenly that you can't answer? You said before you didn't want to answer because it wasn't relevant, which is very different to can't.
...

You may think I'm evading because I can't answer, I have tried to explain to you why this is not the case.

I'm not expecting you to be a mind reader but I am expecting you to at least be a reader.

Sparrow
05-06-2015, 11:43 AM
Most people eventually wanting to split because it's the most value driven answer is exactly why I think they should never add the option in client. They should always treat the game like people are playing for fun while in a match.
For me this argument has the most weight for not having an automated split option. The other reasons given against could be argued either way.

stiii
05-06-2015, 12:56 PM
As I explained, I did respond to it, you just mistook that response for a lack of one, presumably because it wasn't the response you were hoping for.


Quote your reply to my point then. Should be pretty simple to do.

magic_gazz
05-06-2015, 01:55 PM
This thread has lead me to believe I should start pressuring people to split with me in the finals.

Apparently there are a group of people who make the finals of draft and will cave under the massive pressure of being asked to split.

Who knew?

Funny thing is in the hundreds of drafts I have done (made quite a number of finals) I have been asked to split once.

nicosharp
05-06-2015, 02:15 PM
Funny thing is in the hundreds of drafts I have done (made quite a number of finals) I have been asked to split once.
And yet another reason why the development time to offer this is better off used to give them longer lunch breaks.

stiii
05-06-2015, 02:24 PM
And yet another reason why the development time to offer this is better off used to give them longer lunch breaks.

I like how people (probably not exactly the same people) are using things both ways to argue against it.

People both don't want to split and would use it too much. And this is why things get dismissed as "reasons" when every possible reason that could affect anyone is used.

nicosharp
05-06-2015, 02:30 PM
I like how people (probably not exactly the same people) are using things both ways to argue against it.

People both don't want to split and would use it too much. And this is why things get dismissed as "reasons" when every possible reason that could affect anyone is used.
It was a joke Stew. I think people would definitely take advantage of a split option if they offered one.

The only reason not having a split offered in-game merits any thought is one mentioned in this thread a few times, in different ways:

"Why would HEX ENT. want to promote anything in their competitive tournament play that incentivizes not playing through a match?"

Shivdaddy
05-06-2015, 02:36 PM
Lets get one thing straight so people stop bringing it up.

No one is asking for this to be a high priority, lets stop bringing up they have more important things to get done first. We all agree.

strylght
05-06-2015, 02:38 PM
Quote your reply to my point then. Should be pretty simple to do.

Ugh, if you insist.

You asked...

Who here exactly is guilty of this?

My response to this question was the part where I...

further clarified what I meant by what I said, to allow you to come to your own conclusions about which lines of argument fit the bill.
What's more I gave you a specific example of a post containing the type of argument I find unhelpful.

Which can be found in the post responding to your question directly...

Simply and repeatedly claiming that those reasons are weak is not proper refutation or, indeed, healthy discussion. This is exactly the kind of argument strategy I described figuratively as foot-stampy.

I responded with this clarification and reference to a specific example instead of the list of names you asked for because I...

really don't see how me naming names or quoting a bunch of posts for you is conductive to the discussion of the merits of this suggestion.

As I've said, that was my response. You can be unhappy with it because it wasn't what you were hoping for but it was a response to your question nonetheless.

Now, back (somewhat) to the topic at hand...

This thread has lead me to believe I should start pressuring people to split with me in the finals.

Apparently there are a group of people who make the finals of draft and will cave under the massive pressure of being asked to split.

Who knew?


The fact that [people feeling pressured to split] doesn't happen now is not a contention. It is being suggested that making the proposed change may make it much more likely to happen in the future.

(Contents of square brackets added to help with the context.)

Sparrow
05-06-2015, 03:29 PM
Lowing the bar so Hex caters to the least emotionally equipped people to deal with being asked to split isn't persuasive at all to me and actually makes me gag a little. Stick with the point that Hex wants to promote play, not prizes. There's really nothing anyone can say to that, because that's a core philosophy that isn't changing.

magic_gazz
05-06-2015, 03:40 PM
Lowing the bar so Hex caters to the least emotionally equipped people to deal with being asked to split isn't persuasive at all to me and actually makes me gag a little. Stick with the point that Hex wants to promote play, not prizes. There's really nothing anyone can say to that, because that's a core philosophy that isn't changing.

When did they say this was a core philosophy?

Sparrow
05-06-2015, 03:53 PM
When did they say this was a core philosophy?
They have not that I know of, but if you asked Cory I'd wager my collection he'd say so. They should say it then there will be nothing to argue about.

magic_gazz
05-06-2015, 04:25 PM
They have not that I know of, but if you asked Cory I'd wager my collection he'd say so. They should say it then there will be nothing to argue about.

If the core philosophy is to play for the sake of playing, then why bother with prizes at all.

Whats the point in the $100k tournament? If its just about being the best then why put money on the line.

strylght
05-06-2015, 04:43 PM
If the core philosophy is to play for the sake of playing, then why bother with prizes at all.

Whats the point in the $100k tournament? If its just about being the best then why put money on the line.

Really? You can't think of a single other possible reason for offering a hundred thousand dollars in prize money?

Gwaer
05-06-2015, 04:47 PM
Because, clearly we can't have a little bit of both? It has to be all or nothing? We can't have the best wins more with prize incentive, and the game is fun and people should play it out as much as possible.

You can focus on people feeling pressured all you like, but you only have to look at this thread to see what jackasses people can be when they feel other people aren't agreeing with them for their perfectly reasoned approach. I'm not going to quote directly, because it's not worth my time, but any of magic_gazz's recent posts in this thread, or stiii's posts, ever, pretty much validate that argument. It's pretty easy to miss the problem, when you are the problem.

Fact is, at that point someone is getting in the way of your time/prize ratio, so why not make them pay by walking away from the PC, they're wasting your time you might as well waste theirs, this is already not unheard of. Though you continually focus on others being pressured, my point was more giving people license to be dicks because the game allows it, at the people who just want to play the game, which will almost universally be what any new player will be wanting to do.

strylght
05-06-2015, 04:50 PM
Lowing the bar so Hex caters to the least emotionally equipped people to deal with being asked to split isn't persuasive at all to me and actually makes me gag a little.

I don't really know why this kind of rhetoric is necessary.
I could say of implementing this feature that I don't want to see the bar lowered so that Hex caters to the least patient and the greedy, but I don't because its hyperbolic and unnecessary.
Besides, I really think the crux of that argument isn't about protecting so called emotionally ill-equipped people, its about being careful about fostering a culture in Hex where splitting is endemic. I've tried hard to push this as the true crux of the "pressure" argument but no one seems to be bothered to respond to that as, I suppose, its easier to say "what pressure?" and brush it all off.

stiii
05-06-2015, 04:58 PM
It was a joke Stew. I think people would definitely take advantage of a split option if they offered one.

The only reason not having a split offered in-game merits any thought is one mentioned in this thread a few times, in different ways:

"Why would HEX ENT. want to promote anything in their competitive tournament play that incentivizes not playing through a match?"

Would would they want to make it harder to do something they already want to do. See I can reword things to make it seem absurd to argue against them.

Sparrow
05-06-2015, 05:09 PM
I don't really know why this kind of rhetoric is necessary.
I could say of implementing this feature that I don't want to see the bar lowered so that Hex caters to the least patient and the greedy, but I don't because its hyperbolic and unnecessary.
Besides, I really think the crux of that argument isn't about protecting so called emotionally ill-equipped people, its about being careful about fostering a culture in Hex where splitting is endemic. I've tried hard to push this as the true crux of the "pressure" argument but no one seems to be bothered to respond to that as, I suppose, its easier to say "what pressure?" and brush it all off.
Oh it's as necessary as your foot-stamping comment, I suppose. Maybe marginally more necessary, at best.

We're on the same side. I don't think automated splitting is necessary. We just disagree about why that should be. You're more than welcome to pursue a losing argument.

magic_gazz
05-06-2015, 05:15 PM
Really? You can't think of a single other possible reason for offering a hundred thousand dollars in prize money?

I can think of reasons, but none of them are "the love of the game".

As soon as you put money on the line people will look at things differently and want to get the best outcome.


Because, clearly we can't have a little bit of both? It has to be all or nothing? We can't have the best wins more with prize incentive, and the game is fun and people should play it out as much as possible.

You can focus on people feeling pressured all you like, but you only have to look at this thread to see what jackasses people can be when they feel other people aren't agreeing with them for their perfectly reasoned approach. I'm not going to quote directly, because it's not worth my time, but any of magic_gazz's recent posts in this thread, or stiii's posts, ever, pretty much validate that argument. It's pretty easy to miss the problem, when you are the problem.

Fact is, at that point someone is getting in the way of your time/prize ratio, so why not make them pay by walking away from the PC, they're wasting your time you might as well waste theirs, this is already not unheard of. Though you continually focus on others being pressured, my point was more giving people license to be dicks because the game allows it, at the people who just want to play the game, which will almost universally be what any new player will be wanting to do.

Adding a feature does not give people licence to be dicks and that is the point a lot of you seem to be missing.

Did you know that right now I can offer a split and then be rude to my opponent and slow play them if I was so inclined. Features don't make people dicks, the internet and being a dick makes them dicks.

Anyone who cares about their time/prize EV or whatever you call it is not the sort of person to walk away and waste their opponents time as they are wasting their own too and that would be -EV.

Not sure why you mention new players. In my experience new players are not often making the finals.

This is the reason I have a problem with this thread. Its a bunch of arguments that are not even valid/people missing the point and people projecting.

magic_gazz
05-06-2015, 05:16 PM
I don't really know why this kind of rhetoric is necessary.
I could say of implementing this feature that I don't want to see the bar lowered so that Hex caters to the least patient and the greedy, but I don't because its hyperbolic and unnecessary.
Besides, I really think the crux of that argument isn't about protecting so called emotionally ill-equipped people, its about being careful about fostering a culture in Hex where splitting is endemic. I've tried hard to push this as the true crux of the "pressure" argument but no one seems to be bothered to respond to that as, I suppose, its easier to say "what pressure?" and brush it all off.

I don't think a single person has said splitting should be the norm.

It should be a viable option though for a number of reasons.

Jonesy
05-06-2015, 05:27 PM
Everybody's getting really excited over 2 packs, I don't know why people bother splitting such meager prizes. It's not like the winner's geting 40k compared to 24k or whatever a pro tour is these days. The finals of a draft is my favorite match because its stress free, you already won back your packs, now you're just playing with house money.

stiii
05-06-2015, 05:28 PM
Because, clearly we can't have a little bit of both? It has to be all or nothing? We can't have the best wins more with prize incentive, and the game is fun and people should play it out as much as possible.

You can focus on people feeling pressured all you like, but you only have to look at this thread to see what jackasses people can be when they feel other people aren't agreeing with them for their perfectly reasoned approach. I'm not going to quote directly, because it's not worth my time, but any of magic_gazz's recent posts in this thread, or stiii's posts, ever, pretty much validate that argument. It's pretty easy to miss the problem, when you are the problem.

Fact is, at that point someone is getting in the way of your time/prize ratio, so why not make them pay by walking away from the PC, they're wasting your time you might as well waste theirs, this is already not unheard of. Though you continually focus on others being pressured, my point was more giving people license to be dicks because the game allows it, at the people who just want to play the game, which will almost universally be what any new player will be wanting to do.

Maybe you should add yourself to that list. Plenty of people would say YOU are the problem

poizonous
05-06-2015, 05:30 PM
Well this thread has certainly reached his end. In before thread closed, its too bad because take away all the arguing I think it was a relatively constructive thread that got derailed

Gwaer
05-06-2015, 05:30 PM
Maybe you should add yourself to that list. Plenty of people would say YOU are the problem

plenty of people are wrong often enough for me to ignore them. I'm wrong little enough to take the risk. =)

strylght
05-06-2015, 05:31 PM
Oh it's as necessary as your foot-stamping comment, I suppose. Maybe marginally more necessary, at best.

My comment was an honest attempt to shift people away from beating at the same old dead horses and have a better discussion, your comment was beating at a dead horse.


We're on the same side. I don't think automated splitting is necessary. We just disagree about why that should be.

I don't disagree with your reasons for not wanting it.


You're more than welcome to pursue a losing argument.

Given that that particular argument has been consistently sidestepped, the only losers here are the straw man and the poor, dead horse. ;)

--

I don't think a single person has said splitting should be the norm.

Right, it definitely shouldn't and this particular argument includes the theory that it WILL become the norm if the feature is implemented. You are welcome to go back and read the posts in which that was outlined.

stiii
05-06-2015, 05:50 PM
plenty of people are wrong often enough for me to ignore them. I'm wrong little enough to take the risk. =)

I didn't know that =) mean massive arrogance. Learn something new every day.

stiii
05-06-2015, 05:51 PM
My comment was an honest attempt to shift people away from beating at the same old dead horses and have a better discussion, your comment was beating at a dead horse.



An honest attempt to demonise the other side you mean.

Zophie
05-06-2015, 07:25 PM
I didn't know that =) means well-earned and justifiably massive arrogance. Learn something new every day.

^ Fixed that for you.

Also I agree with Gwaer that we don't need the option in client. I think splitting is acceptable as a practice, but it should be between players to handle 100% on their own privately (at their own risk), and there is no need for it to become the norm through direct client support.

stiii
05-06-2015, 07:33 PM
^ Fixed that for you.

I'm Gwaer's barn hi guys

Quote hacking sure is popular today.

Zophie
05-06-2015, 07:44 PM
Quote hacking sure is popular today.

For the record, if you see a futurist looking car with gull-wing doors in the barn it's just a weather experiment, nothing to see here.

magic_gazz
05-06-2015, 08:29 PM
^ Fixed that for you.

Also I agree with Gwaer that we don't need the option in client. I think splitting is acceptable as a practice, but it should be between players to handle 100% on their own privately (at their own risk), and there is no need for it to become the norm through direct client support.

Still waiting for a good reason as to why there is no need for this feature.

If people are going to do it, why not make it easier for them?

Zophie
05-06-2015, 08:54 PM
Still waiting for a good reason as to why there is no need for this feature.

If people are going to do it, why not make it easier for them?

First things that come to mind have already been said multiple times in this thread: Development time, inconsistency with different payouts in certain events, and creating an atmosphere where this type of activity is the norm that people will start to expect in the majority of these situations, potentially leading to negative experiences for those who don't follow the norm and opt out of the practice. You may or may not agree that any of these things could be problems, but I haven't heard any good reasons why this needs to be built into the client either.

Miwa
05-06-2015, 09:03 PM
Still waiting for a good reason as to why there is no need for this feature.
Because the game lists exactly the prizes you get for the number of wins you get before you enter. Any other prize distribution is informal and doesn't require anything in game. If you don't like the prize distribution, then go elsewhere.

Players are free to do whatever they want though. Maybe in 3 years after they get a few things done and maybe have shipped everything promised you can bring the topic back up again.

poizonous
05-06-2015, 09:06 PM
Development Time - No one has asked for it to be an immediate inclusion

Inconsistency with different payouts - This is simply handled once there is a more elaborate payout system instead of generic 4-0 3-1 2-2 1-3 payouts. Once tiebreakers are implemented then this is a non issue

Splitting being the Norm - Splitting will be the norm whether this feature is included or not, and the feature being in game does not exactly "Pressure" people into wanting to split, saying no will be just as easy with this feature as it would without it.

Why it needs to be in the system

Safer Splitting for people who want to split, but are afraid of being scammed - Speaks for itself and possibly the biggest deciding factor in this argument

Time saver - Both in the fact that people can queue up for another tournament, nor does someone have to tediously mail someone else rewards

Bloodslave
05-06-2015, 09:10 PM
First things that come to mind have already been said multiple times in this thread: Development time, inconsistency with different payouts in certain events, and creating an atmosphere where this type of activity is the norm that people will start to expect in the majority of these situations, potentially leading to negative experiences for those who don't follow the norm and opt out of the practice. You may or may not agree that any of these things could be problems, but I haven't heard any good reasons why this needs to be built into the client either.

The only one of those things that is actually a reason is the potential for an atmosphere where it becomes the norm and creates a negative experience for those who don't participate. If everyone always believes they have a 50% chance or worse to win the finals, then the EV of splitting is greater than playing, and splitting is always the correct strategy. Individually, If I believe I have > 50% chance to win the finals then the right strategy to maximize pack EV is to decline the split and to play it out. It's difficult to predict human behavior though, so unless we did the experiment we wouldn't know for sure what the rate of splitting would be.

Development time is a non-issue since the original question was just whether there was a plan or not and no one has suggested it be prioritized.

Inconsistency is also a non-issue since splitting would only be doable in cases where the prizes would be symmetric.

for those who don't want to read all the pages the TL; DR is:
No official answer to the original question, so assume that the answer is no. If you want to split with your opponent you will have to handle it yourself through chat. If you get ripped it's unclear what will be done if you report it.

magic_gazz
05-06-2015, 09:27 PM
Both posts on this page follow how I see things.

Sparrow
05-06-2015, 10:53 PM
Personally I don't like the idea of pushing a button and having a msg pop up requesting a split. I think it's a positive that if you want to split, it requires a discussion with your opponent even if it's just "Wanna split?"

Further, and this is a guess, but I think there will be a lot more people taking advantage of splitting if that is how it works, given the number of people that just want to play their cards and not chat. I think now a lot of people can't be bothered to chat up their opponent and ask for a split.

I can't see any reason why CZE would want more splitting, especially if it becomes this cold, sterile process. Do you think it will create a significant increase in revenue? I don't.

poizonous
05-06-2015, 10:57 PM
I just dont see the big deal with splitting being popular.. "Oh no, a player who has played thousands of rounds is choosing to end his tournament 1 round quicker" Who really cares? CZE is still making money for running the tournament and getting players in it, who is getting hurt by the final round not being played?

Edit: I am sorry if I am starting to sound rude but I can only shoot down the same argument so many times before I lose my patience, no one has given me a good reason as to why a Round HAS to be played if both players are satisfied with splitting the prizes. No one gets hurt, nor does the game

Sparrow
05-06-2015, 11:11 PM
I agree no one is getting hurt by it. What I don't like about automated splitting is purely personal and is not in and of itself a valid argument against it.

What I'm asking now is, What's in it for CZE? If they don't end up with a significant amount of increased revenue, then why do it? Does CZE want a gaming environment where splits happen more frequently? If so, why would they want that?

Edit: You're not being rude. It struck me earlier what the automated process would actually be like to use and it just reinforced my opposition to it. That was really the point of my post. That and what's in it for CZE.

poizonous
05-06-2015, 11:16 PM
Whats in it for CZE? More Customer safety by having 0% chance of "Fake Split" scams...

And Personally I dont think CZE really cares if splits happen more often because as previously stated, the game does not get hurt by it and the end result is still the same amount of prizes handed out so they are not losing anything.

Edit: Not putting in an automatic split button and CZE publically saying "Split at your own risk" is basically opening up the door to scammers

magic_gazz
05-06-2015, 11:34 PM
Whats in it for Hex?

The quicker people are done in an event, the quicker they can enter the next one.

So whats in it for them? Money

strylght
05-07-2015, 05:17 AM
no one has given me a good reason as to why a Round HAS to be played if both players are satisfied with splitting the prizes.

No one has given you a reason for this because no one has proposed forcing people to play all their rounds. I honestly don't mean to sound rude either but you're still "shooting down" an argument that no one has made.
People have said why they feel that splitting becoming culturally endemic in Hex is a big deal to them and if you don't share that concern, fine.
It seems unhelpful, however, to express disagreement with the idea that there is a problem with two people willingly splitting because no one is suggesting that splitting should be banned.

poizonous
05-07-2015, 09:13 AM
Sorry Stry but you are wrong, people have been saying that, Gwaer in particular.

The main point of this thread was to get an option in game for something that will exist nevertheless even if the option doesnt exist, so if something is going to continue to happen, then CZE might want to put this feature in the game for safety purposes. All the arguments against this feature are "Personal reasons" which have no legitimate argument besides theoretical nonsense that might never even happen. 2 people claiming that this button might cause people to feel pressured into splitting has no leg to stand on when you are the only 2 preaching this.

TL DR: The reasons for this to be implemented far outweigh the personal beliefs and theories of it to be left out of the game

nicosharp
05-07-2015, 09:36 AM
TL DR: The reasons for this to be implemented far outweigh the personal beliefs and theories of it to be left out of the game
From a competitive esports perspective, you choose to ignore the one point that has mattered in this thread for several and several pages. So unfortunately, your statement above couldn't be more wrong.

poizonous
05-07-2015, 09:37 AM
Care to enlighten me on what I missed? I am pretty sure I responded to every post in this thread so far in 1 of my posts

Sparrow
05-07-2015, 09:50 AM
While I have a problem with slippery slope style arguments like many of the arguments against automation, I don't have a problem, in general, with someone expressing their personal beliefs. If I say I don't like automation because of X (where X is a personal preference), that's just as valid as someone liking automation because of Y (where Y is a personal preference).

In this case the personal preference for automation is fear of scammers and, perhaps, finding a way to minimize social interaction further. The personal preference against automation is one of not liking the emphasis on prizes over play (among others, I'm not responsible for the arguments against automation I don't find persuasive :))

nicosharp
05-07-2015, 09:56 AM
Care to enlighten me on what I missed? I am pretty sure I responded to every post in this thread so far in 1 of my posts



"Why would HEX ENT. want to promote anything in their competitive tournament play that incentivizes not playing through a match?"

This has nothing to do with "automation", or "ease of use". This has to do with offering and supporting an option internally that rewards not playing a competitive match.

poizonous
05-07-2015, 10:01 AM
This has nothing to do with "automation", or "ease of use". This has to do with offering and supporting an option internally that rewards not playing a competitive match.

I have responded to this at least 3 times... There is no reason they should have to offer incentive to play a match, the prizes already belong to the 2 players in the game, if they dont want to play, they dont have to and nor should they have to. CZE does not have to have people play a finals match just because its the game. People play tournaments for different reasons, getting the most EV out of a match is more important to some people and especially in the competitive scene I would assume EV is more important to an additionally higher percentage of players.

No one has yet given me a reason as to why they should have to play the game instead of splitting

BKCshah
05-07-2015, 10:04 AM
What happens if splitting becomes popular?

--- Two people that agree to split are happy and go on to do what they want more quickly (RL stuff, more Hex, whatever) - seems fine.
--- Two people don't agree to split. Maybe one person is pissed because they feel entitled to a split. However, that is on that individual. Sure, putting it in makes it more obviously an option.
--- People who want to protect the 'fun' aspect of drafts by playing every round are allowed to do that if they choose.

Does this impact HEX business?
--- More drafts will fire due to shorter play time for high volume players. Seems good.
--- Support tickets may be increased? No. Just state that no tickets will be accepted in for Splits unless the system mishandled prize payout - which shouldn't be an issue if coded correctly. If you split unintentionally, you received a reasonable payout. If you meant to split but failed, sorry we cannot prove your intent at the time.
--- Development time? Yes, there is some. Not a main priority, but it should be on the list. If 8-4 queues become a thing as planned, then it would be more important imo simply due to the Primals spawn. I had a player tell me he would ship me half the primal value if it spawned. Really kind, but unneeded since he's only rolling one of 'my' packs.

I believe that tournament pairings have been revamped despite them being low priority at one point. Maybe I'm wrong.

Regarding E-Sports
--- If there are major e-sport events (IE the 100K), there is nothing wrong with splitting them. However, these are a bit different than your typical 8-man. Just add in the tournament rules that all matches must be played. Intentional Draws are one of the worst parts of MTG imo. Ties don't exist in HEX, and I don't feel they should in tournament play. Splits are permitted but a certain minimum value must remain for the match winner. Major tournament top prizes can just be handled after the fact. I hope that the 100k doesn't just credit someone's account with plat :P

nicosharp
05-07-2015, 10:04 AM
There is no reason they should have to offer incentive to play a match, the prizes already belong to the 2 players in the game, if they dont want to play, they dont have to and nor should they have to. CZE does not have to have people play a finals match just because its the game.
This reason is more based on personal beliefs than any other reason defending why they shouldn't.

poizonous
05-07-2015, 10:07 AM
Nico you still havent given me a single reason why they should be forced to play the match.... Oh wait thats right because that is your personal belief. This whole thread has only had 1 FACT. Adding this option will make the game more secure for people who want to split. EVERYTHING else in this thread is entirely personal opinion/belief

nicosharp
05-07-2015, 10:10 AM
Nico you still havent given me a single reason why they should be forced to play the match.... Oh wait thats right because that is your personal belief. This whole thread has only had 1 FACT. Adding this option will make the game more secure for people who want to split. EVERYTHING else in this thread is entirely personal opinion/belief
I don't want to argue for arguments sake. I honestly have no problem with people not playing and splitting. I just see a negative linkage to a company condoning it. Afterall, Esports is a big deal now. Providing an in-game option, just personifies the behavior, regardless of it being perfectly okay. I'm not against this idea, just to be perfectly transparent. I do see both sides of the fence, and see why, as a company, they may want to avoid offering this feature.

strylght
05-07-2015, 10:12 AM
No one has yet given me a reason as to why they should have to play the game instead of splitting

Jeez...
You don't have to play the game.
As far as we know splitting IS allowed and it certainly IS possible.
The lack of the feature suggested DOES NOT mean you cannot or are not allowed to split.
What makes you think that NOT DOING ANYTHING would cause the rules on splitting to be changed?

Caps for emphasis, not tone.

poizonous
05-07-2015, 10:14 AM
Stry you obviously missed my point of saying that. People are arguing that splitting shouldnt be allowed due to it giving a way of rewarding not playing. I am simply asking why they should have to play it? being as how people against it seem to use this argument the most

nicosharp
05-07-2015, 10:20 AM
again. I think I explained the side of the argument against the in-game support for the feature. Not the argument against the act. The act is fine. The in-game support may not be. For specific reasons I mentioned.

strylght
05-07-2015, 10:26 AM
Stry you obviously missed my point of saying that. People are arguing that splitting shouldn't be allowed due to it giving a way of rewarding not playing. I am simply asking why they should have to play it? being as how people against it seem to use this argument the most

Obviously I can't speak for those people but I think you may be misunderstanding them.

EDIT: Well, beaten by nico speaking for himself. :)

Zophie
05-07-2015, 11:09 AM
People are arguing that splitting shouldnt be allowed due to it giving a way of rewarding not playing.

No one is arguing that. As far as I can tell most of us are in agreement that splitting is fine. The argument is around whether or not there should be an in-game mechanic to facilitate the process, or whether it should just be handled privately between players as it is right now.

zadies
05-07-2015, 11:37 AM
I have responded to this at least 3 times... There is no reason they should have to offer incentive to play a match, the prizes already belong to the 2 players in the game, if they dont want to play, they dont have to and nor should they have to. CZE does not have to have people play a finals match just because its the game. People play tournaments for different reasons, getting the most EV out of a match is more important to some people and especially in the competitive scene I would assume EV is more important to an additionally higher percentage of players.

No one has yet given me a reason as to why they should have to play the game instead of splitting

It goes against the idea of competitive play... how would you feel if this happened in football and the teams agreed to split the prizes and qualifying points for the college bowls.

Turtlewing
05-07-2015, 11:48 AM
Stry you obviously missed my point of saying that. People are arguing that splitting shouldnt be allowed due to it giving a way of rewarding not playing. I am simply asking why they should have to play it? being as how people against it seem to use this argument the most

They should have to play because encouraging them to play is why the tournament and the prize exists. If it isn't encouraging them to play it isn't doing it's job, and by extension mechanics that encourage not playing or lessen the cost/risk of not playing the final round work against the goal of tournaments.

Also, I challenge your assertion that the 1st and second place prizes belong to the players in the final round before they've resolved the round.

Until the round is resolved and the tournament completed you don't own the prizes you've earned, and until a first place and second place have been determined you haven't sorted out who has earned what.

Bloodslave
05-07-2015, 11:53 AM
You guys are getting into some metaphysical ish now... like... what IS a tournament?

poizonous
05-07-2015, 11:58 AM
This is my last post on this thread because I swear I feel like im banging my head into a brick wall...

@TurtleWing - The 2 players playing in the finals OWN 1st and 2nd place prizes, regardless of who finishes 1st and who finishes 2nd. The total amount of prizes is up to those 2 players to decide how they want to work out who gets what. They made it to the finals, they EARNED their prizes regardless of the outcome of that match. I dont know how else I can explain this.

@Zadies - You are comparing Apples and Oranges and at most it is a huge stretch. Even in the most competitive setting ( Non related to Major League Sports) splits occur constantly. People agree to splitting the prizes and play for the trophy all the time, I have full knowledge of this from 2 years on the Pro Tour for MtG so nothing I am stating here is opinion.

Gwaer
05-07-2015, 12:46 PM
@TurtleWing - The 2 players playing in the finals OWN 1st and 2nd place prizes, regardless of who finishes 1st and who finishes 2nd. The total amount of prizes is up to those 2 players to decide how they want to work out who gets what. They made it to the finals, they EARNED their prizes regardless of the outcome of that match. I dont know how else I can explain this.


Then if a tournament fails in the last round, why aren't first and place prizes awarded to the people that made it that far? Just to be clear, they aren't. If you contact support in that exact situation all you get back is your entry fee, not these prizes you've supposedly already earned. Clearly it is not as cut and dry as you have led yourself to believe.

magic_gazz
05-07-2015, 12:52 PM
People are really stretching here to justify their beliefs as facts.

If YOU don't believe/agree with splitting then don't.

If someone offers you one, don't be offended, just say no.

If that person gets offended, don't worry about it, its their problem not yours.

Saying others cant have something because you don't want it is the height of selfish. It affects you in no way if everyone splits so get over it.

stiii
05-07-2015, 12:55 PM
No one is arguing that. As far as I can tell most of us are in agreement that splitting is fine. The argument is around whether or not there should be an in-game mechanic to facilitate the process, or whether it should just be handled privately between players as it is right now.

People really need to stop saying everyone when they mean I. Nico said exactly that so saying no one is arguing it is just not true.

Gwaer
05-07-2015, 12:56 PM
Yes, you are really stretching to justify, you're right. No one is telling you not to split. Still.


We're explaining why we don't think it would be good to have a split option in game. If you don't like that opinion, that's fine. No need to get defensive about it, or be offended. People disagree with other people all the time. Feel free to continue to split amongst yourselves until/unless the devs come out and say they don't approve of splitting, and people will be banned for it. I highly doubt that will ever happen, just as I highly doubt we'll ever get an in game option to split.


People really need to stop saying everyone when they mean I. Nico said exactly that so saying no one is arguing it is just not true.

Errr... What? No he didn't.

nicosharp
05-07-2015, 01:07 PM
Errr... What? No he didn't.
Too much effort to go back and read, when I actually have work to do. But Stii is right. I did say that. You are rewarding players if you provide an in-game functionality to split. You reward them time, and reward equally for those not playing or "earning" the full prize pool. The prize pool stays the same.
Regardless of what I said, or what is being "argued". I think some clear points have been made on both sides of the fence regarding the need or lack-of-need for this feature.

zadies
05-07-2015, 01:09 PM
@Zadies - You are comparing Apples and Oranges and at most it is a huge stretch. Even in the most competitive setting ( Non related to Major League Sports) splits occur constantly. People agree to splitting the prizes and play for the trophy all the time, I have full knowledge of this from 2 years on the Pro Tour for MtG so nothing I am stating here is opinion.


Poizonous question when you were on the MTG pro tour, were your games streamed as they currently are? Did you even make it that far? It doesn't make for a good viewing experience to know that the top 8 just happen to be there because they paid someone off instead of earning their spot which is basically what splitting is.

People are throwing a fit about manny not admitting he was hurt in boxing, and you want to incentivize pushing people into the top tier of competitive play through negotiation. Once the qualifying points start being given out for every tournament this isn't the little leagues any more and you should try to wrap your brain around what the goal of the company is and it isn't to let you finish your games as quickly as possible.

Allowing something to happen is not the same as encouraging something to be done... just like the stance CZE is taking on 3rd party sales.. they are not against the TOS but they are not supported.

Zophie
05-07-2015, 01:13 PM
People really need to stop saying everyone when they mean I. Nico said exactly that so saying no one is arguing it is just not true.


again. I think I explained the side of the argument against the in-game support for the feature. Not the argument against the act. The act is fine. The in-game support may not be. For specific reasons I mentioned.

It seems to me that most of us agree that the act of splitting is fine. The main argument most people are making is whether or not it should be supported in-client. Some people are confusing the arguments against in-client split support to also mean they don't think the act of splitting should be allowed privately, which is not correct. Several people have already said they don't mind splitting but just don't think it needs to be put into the client. Others strongly believe it should be supported in-client. Both sides have been clear on their reasons and opinions for and against this. My only intention in my previous post (and this one) is to simply clear up where the argument is so we can be more constructive with our discussion.

I don't speak for everyone, just making an observation of the discussion at hand and the responses thus far.

Gwaer
05-07-2015, 01:15 PM
Too much effort to go back and read, when I actually have work to do. But Stii is right. I did say that. You are rewarding players if you provide an in-game functionality to split. You reward them time, and reward equally for those not playing or "earning" the full prize pool. The prize pool stays the same.
Regardless of what I said, or what is being "argued". I think some clear points have been made on both sides of the fence regarding the need or lack-of-need for this feature.

If you're arguing that splitting should be disallowed entirely then I need to go back and re-read what you were saying. I don't mind that some people want to go through the trouble of splitting occasionally. But I don't think it should be endorsed or supported, or the frequency of split should be increased. As I said early on in this thread I have split many times. I've even offered a split a few times. It should always be the exception to the rule of finishing a tournament. If people are running short on time, or one person cares about a specific portion of the prize enough to give away the pieces that he doesn't care about. But it shouldn't be disallowed, for one it's entirely unenforceable to stop people from sending prizes to one another after a tournament.

What I understood stiii to be saying that you said, is that splitting should be disallowed entirely. That's a stance I disagree with.

But I do agree that it shouldn't be facilitated in client, for many and various reasons.

nicosharp
05-07-2015, 01:23 PM
I had to go back and read what he meant with his quote. Which I think was in regards to what I said about it being a reward, but you and I agree about the points you made above.

poizonous
05-07-2015, 01:24 PM
Zadies, I had 4 Top 8 Finishes in the Pro Tour and no the Pro Tour was not being streamed back in 2002. and you misunderstood what I said about the splitting. The splitting that occurs is within the top 4 or top 2. Regardless of the split, they play it out for the trophy, no one bribes their way in to the top 8. And stop trying to bring up Sports incidents to argue against this... they are completely non related

BKCshah
05-07-2015, 01:37 PM
People definitely intentional draw their way into the Top 8. I would assume that people have even scooped to give a friend a better shot at Top 8 when they couldn't make it. These are much worse imo for the integrity of the tournament than agreements to split prizes between players in a knockout scenario. Other players are directly impacted by those actions where splitting isn't hurting anyone else. I assume that ID will never be a thing in HEX supported tournaments.

Also, depending on how qualifier points (or whatever they get called) work, they may lose value to certain players. This makes them just another commodity in a split. IE if I need the QP for a monthly tournament, I might be willing to give up the 2 packs for the QP if I can gain entry into a monthly tournament since I don't play much.

The most obvious reason to client support splitting is just to avoid the primal situation. Without the primal BS, splitting is a simple activity to do privately. However, because of this one feature it makes sense that it should be added to the client imo. The other way would be just to have them spawn when packs are actually used, which I wouldn't hate either.

stiii
05-07-2015, 01:43 PM
If you're arguing that splitting should be disallowed entirely then I need to go back and re-read what you were saying. I don't mind that some people want to go through the trouble of splitting occasionally. But I don't think it should be endorsed or supported, or the frequency of split should be increased. As I said early on in this thread I have split many times. I've even offered a split a few times. It should always be the exception to the rule of finishing a tournament. If people are running short on time, or one person cares about a specific portion of the prize enough to give away the pieces that he doesn't care about. But it shouldn't be disallowed, for one it's entirely unenforceable to stop people from sending prizes to one another after a tournament.

What I understood stiii to be saying that you said, is that splitting should be disallowed entirely. That's a stance I disagree with.

But I do agree that it shouldn't be facilitated in client, for many and various reasons.

I guess this is how you claim to be always right. Because even when you are clearly wrong you try and redefine what someone else said so you are still right.

Maybe you wouldn't disagree with me so much if you replied to things I said rather than just making things up.

Gwaer
05-07-2015, 01:44 PM
I dunno, I see primals as one more negative pressure to keep splitting in check. Removing that pressure would increase the rate of splits, adding client support would increase the rate of splits. It's largely going to come down to how much splitting the devs want to be happening. There are a ton of things they can do to push it in either direction.

stiii
05-07-2015, 01:46 PM
Yes, you are really stretching to justify, you're right. No one is telling you not to split. Still.


We're explaining why we don't think it would be good to have a split option in game. If you don't like that opinion, that's fine. No need to get defensive about it, or be offended. People disagree with other people all the time. Feel free to continue to split amongst yourselves until/unless the devs come out and say they don't approve of splitting, and people will be banned for it. I highly doubt that will ever happen, just as I highly doubt we'll ever get an in game option to split.



Again you are defining people who disagree with you in negative terms. People who don't agree are offended or defensive. You complain about others making these attacks then do it yourself, you really should add yourself to that list.

Gwaer
05-07-2015, 01:49 PM
People are arguing that splitting shouldnt be allowed due to it giving a way of rewarding not playing.

People are arguing splitting shouldn't be allowed. (not in client supported but at all, that's what this quote says)


No one is arguing that. As far as I can tell most of us are in agreement that splitting is fine. The argument is around whether or not there should be an in-game mechanic to facilitate the process, or whether it should just be handled privately between players as it is right now.

Zophie says, no one is saying people shouldn't be allowed to split out of client, just that there are a bunch of reasons why it shouldn't be supported in client.


People really need to stop saying everyone when they mean I. Nico said exactly that so saying no one is arguing it is just not true.

Nico, hadn't read the entire quote chain, and when I said, that nico wasn't saying it should be outlawed entirely (which he confirmed that he wasn't) we agreed.


I guess this is how you claim to be always right. Because even when you are clearly wrong you try and redefine what someone else said so you are still right.

Maybe you wouldn't disagree with me so much if you replied to things I said rather than just making things up.


I wasn't going to explicitly point it out, but the issue was your reading comprehension, yet again.


Again you are defining people who disagree with you in negative terms. People who don't agree are offended or defensive. You complain about others making these attacks then do it yourself, you really should add yourself to that list.

I was actually using his same words against him... The whole point of that post was to take what he wrote, and turn the argument around. So yea, you got me here, I was framing the people who disagreed with me negatively, that was the whole point, because it's what the other guy did. Great job calling me out on that one.

zadies
05-07-2015, 01:51 PM
Zadies, I had 4 Top 8 Finishes in the Pro Tour and no the Pro Tour was not being streamed back in 2002. and you misunderstood what I said about the splitting. The splitting that occurs is within the top 4 or top 2. Regardless of the split, they play it out for the trophy, no one bribes their way in to the top 8. And stop trying to bring up Sports incidents to argue against this... they are completely non related

CZE and Gameforge are trying to make this a major esport... so yes they are related completely.

poizonous
05-07-2015, 02:03 PM
Okay Major League Sports scenario (Apologies to people who dont understand what im about to say)

Boston Red Sox vs New York Mets.... It is late in the season the Mets are already guaranteed a playoff spot, However the Red Sox need to win to beat out the Yankees, both of these teams hate the Yankees so the Mets throw the game to let the Red Sox beat them.

Has happened in the past (Not with those exact teams) and will always continue to happen, not against the rules and yet entirely set up.

Splitting to Help someone with qualifying points is something else that will continue to happen, even if such a feature is not included in the client

Zophie
05-07-2015, 02:11 PM
Okay Major League Sports scenario (Apologies to people who dont understand what im about to say)

Boston Red Sox vs New York Mets.... It is late in the season the Mets are already guaranteed a playoff spot, However the Red Sox need to win to beat out the Yankees, both of these teams hate the Yankees so the Mets throw the game to let the Red Sox beat them.

Has happened in the past (Not with those exact teams) and will always continue to happen, not against the rules and yet entirely set up.

Splitting to Help someone with qualifying points is something else that will continue to happen, even if such a feature is not included in the client

Agreed. Also, GO BREWERS!

BKCshah
05-07-2015, 02:21 PM
Feels like an appropriate place for this story since we've gotten to sports and throwing matches. http://ftw.usatoday.com/2015/02/riverdale-smyrna-tanking-high-school

Basically, both teams wanted to lose to be on the opposite side of the Bracket from a major national powerhouse in the playoffs. Awful tactics were used. Result: Both teams were suspended from the tournament.

Zophie
05-07-2015, 02:26 PM
Feels like an appropriate place for this story since we've gotten to sports and throwing matches. http://ftw.usatoday.com/2015/02/riverdale-smyrna-tanking-high-school

Basically, both teams wanted to lose to be on the opposite side of the Bracket from a major national powerhouse in the playoffs. Awful tactics were used. Result: Both teams were suspended from the tournament.

It seems like the difference between these sports examples and our Hex question of splitting is that the sports teams played out the games and threw them on purpose within the match itself, in a deceptive manner (albeit obvious), whereas in Hex the split would be agreed upon before hand and no match would be played at all. It's not something where they're pretending to play or be deceptive about anything. I could be mistaken here but that's how I understand it.

BKCshah
05-07-2015, 02:32 PM
True - it had slowly evolved into the e-sports and throwing matches for friends to qualify for top 8 or whatever if tiebreakers meant that you were out. Or at least that's where I wanted it to go.

The 8 man splitting topic has run its course, and the arguments for/against have been made. The E-sport aspect still remains a bit light. People that feel splitting prizes has a major impact on play are dismissing the fact that most people are still competitive and want the 'resume' builder for winning even if the prizes have been split/chopped up differently before the Top 4 or whatever.

Just because prizes are split, doesn't mean the matches aren't played for E-sports to determine a winner.

magic_gazz
05-07-2015, 02:44 PM
CZE and Gameforge are trying to make this a major esport... so yes they are related completely.

Please stop with this terrible e-sport argument.

If you think the top people in any game are not splitting you are very wrong.

They will play it out for the title and for the viewers, but they are splitting that money most of the time you can be sure.

stiii
05-07-2015, 02:47 PM
People are arguing splitting shouldn't be allowed. (not in client supported but at all, that's what this quote says)



Zophie says, no one is saying people shouldn't be allowed to split out of client, just that there are a bunch of reasons why it shouldn't be supported in client.



Nico, hadn't read the entire quote chain, and when I said, that nico wasn't saying it should be outlawed entirely (which he confirmed that he wasn't) we agreed.




I wasn't going to explicitly point it out, but the issue was your reading comprehension, yet again.



I was actually using his same words against him... The whole point of that post was to take what he wrote, and turn the argument around. So yea, you got me here, I was framing the people who disagreed with me negatively, that was the whole point, because it's what the other guy did. Great job calling me out on that one.

Different rules apply for Gwaer and everything is about him. Got it.

You can agree with Nico all you like but as I was replying to someone else I'm not sure why it matters what you said/did. Yeah it is my reading that is the issue here.

Where you also turning the argument around when you refered to me and someone else negatively? That sure is a convenient way to do whatever you want.

EDIT:typo

Gwaer
05-07-2015, 02:54 PM
Different rules apply for Gwaer and everything is about him. Got it.

You can agree with Nico all you like but as I was replying to someone else I'm not sure why it matters what you said/did. Yeah it is my reading that is the issue here.

Where you also turning the argument around when you refered to me and someone else negatively? That sure is a convenient way to do whatever you want.

EDIT:typo

Do you even know what you're saying anymore.

http://i.imgur.com/CVP1rj0.png

There is you quoting Zophie, who was saying that no one is calling for splits to be disallowed entirely, by saying nico was calling for splits to be disallowed entirely, when he wasn't saying that. I generally try to follow the rules of reality, I'm not sure which ones you're following right now

Also, no I was just referring to you negatively. Sorry, I'll try to be more clear in the future.

nicosharp
05-07-2015, 02:57 PM
Stii - not everyone here is going to make perfect use of discussions here and quoting, but you are continuing a track record of very targeted posts that pick on the individual quoted. I've had a habit of doing this as well. It doesn't look good.

Hopefully we can have more discussion moving forward that focuses more on the topic, than the personal integrity or opinions of the poster. However, this topic may have ran it's course. Of course, like all things, would be interesting to hear HexEnt's stance.

strylght
05-07-2015, 03:16 PM
Stii - not everyone here is going to make perfect use of discussions here and quoting, but you are continuing a track record of very targeted posts that pick on the individual quoted.

Not to mention the bizarre, non sequitur responses, rampant straw-man arguing and near constant misreading.

I have a genuine, heartfelt piece of advice for you Stii. If you ever find a discussion one side of which you feel passionate about and want argued in a succinct, rational and persuasive manner, argue for the other side.

stiii
05-08-2015, 08:50 AM
Stii - not everyone here is going to make perfect use of discussions here and quoting, but you are continuing a track record of very targeted posts that pick on the individual quoted. I've had a habit of doing this as well. It doesn't look good.

Hopefully we can have more discussion moving forward that focuses more on the topic, than the personal integrity or opinions of the poster. However, this topic may have ran it's course. Of course, like all things, would be interesting to hear HexEnt's stance.

The issue is if you don't single out a person/post you end up arguing against a larger group all of which have slightly different ideas of what is correct. So then either you get no replies because your post is too general or you get someone saying no I didn't say that.

Debate isn't a popularity contest, everyone just declares victory at the end anyway - see their most recent posts.

Zophie
05-08-2015, 09:14 AM
The issue is if you don't single out a person/post you end up arguing against a larger group all of which have slightly different ideas of what is correct. So then either you get no replies because your post is too general or you get someone saying no I didn't say that.

Debate isn't a popularity contest, everyone just declares victory at the end anyway - see their most recent posts.

Just my two cents: Try posting about why you feel a certain way about a certain topic/issue, instead of only posting about why you feel a certain way about a certain person and their opinions. State your own opinions on the topic, make your case, and bolster your side of the argument instead of just focusing on attacking people you disagree with. Hope this helps, cheers!

stiii
05-08-2015, 09:19 AM
Just my two cents: Try posting about why you feel a certain way about a certain topic/issue, instead of only posting about why you feel a certain way about a certain person and their opinions. State your own opinions on the topic, make your case, and bolster your side of the argument instead of just focusing on attacking people you disagree with. Hope this helps, cheers!

I notice you not saying this to Gwaer despite him attacking me and some others. Any reason for this?

Kami
05-08-2015, 09:23 AM
I think this thread has about run its course considering it's no longer about the topic but about various posters.

Closing.