Page 34 of 35 FirstFirst ... 2432333435 LastLast
Results 331 to 340 of 350

Thread: Tournament Collusion & Bribery: HXE's Official Stand

  1. #331
    Gwaer and I are on the same page here, I've been saying the whole time that players should be able to make mutually agreed upon arrangements. I don't think there should be a cap, if a player wants to offer up more and the other player is willing, that's their business. That's the part of the policy I don't agree with (and never have from that other game). It's a more open policy that also recognizes the difficulty (impossibility) of trying to enforce a harsher stance, and lets the free market have its say.

    The concept that the best player always wins is completely ludicrous. The whole point of TCG design is built so that lesser skilled players have a chance to win, even if it's just due to RNG. If the better player always won, the playerbase would be a fraction of the size, because those players who knew they weren't anywhere close to the best wouldn't even bother to play. Why do you think Magic is so much more popular than Chess?

    Once you divulge yourself of the idea that more skill = win, does it really matter all that much if a player (who still had to be good enough to get to the finals with a perfect record) offers a deal to finish the match right then? There is still every chance they could win by playing, even if they aren't actually the better player, it's just a way for those who value their time more or who put more value in any exclusives on the line than their opponent does to remove all doubt of acquiring what they desire. Again, you can't make a deal with someone who's unwilling, and either player COULD win by playing legitimately, so absolutely NOBODY is hurt by allowing arrangements. It costs nothing, recognizes the reality that it's going to happen anyway, and gives players a chance to freely come to satisfactory outcomes on their own without fear of being punished for complicated, convoluted, overly restrictive, and pathetically outdated rules.
    --ossuary

    "Love all, trust a few, do wrong to none."
    - Shakespeare, All's Well That Ends Well

  2. #332
    The arguments regarding skill factor are all interesting but not realy addressing my argument. I am well aware that luck and explosive diarrheas do exist and that this is a good thing for a tcg (well...at least the luck part^^).

    So Ossuary also has issues with the ruling (again from the opposite end). By this point I would have written far less if the ruling would have been "splits in the finals are allowed (full stop)". You also "just" argue for allowing splits in general. I admit that you can come to the conclusion that those arguments outweight the arguments from the other side (altough I would beg to differ).

    The point is though that the actual ruling is in between. I dont get that from a principle standpoint. The cap ruling seems arbitrary since rewards might also change for future event (remember the one time sleeve tourney/40 packs example).
    Last edited by Metronomy; 10-09-2015 at 05:32 AM.

  3. #333
    Quote Originally Posted by ossuary View Post
    Gwaer and I are on the same page here, I've been saying the whole time that players should be able to make mutually agreed upon arrangements. I don't think there should be a cap, if a player wants to offer up more and the other player is willing, that's their business. That's the part of the policy I don't agree with (and never have from that other game). It's a more open policy that also recognizes the difficulty (impossibility) of trying to enforce a harsher stance, and lets the free market have its say.
    Well, let me give you a scenario which this would affect.

    Let's say there are two players who know each other in real life and have the means to visit each other. Let's say that one is trying to secure their position at the top and thus goes keys their opponent's car resulting in thousands of dollars worth of damage. Now that their opponent is in financially dire straits and without realizing their 'friend' did so, they are now hoping to win a tournament for money - while not guaranteed, it's a chance.

    So now the person who caused the damage faces off against their targeted opponent and makes a deal. I'll let you have 1/2 the prize money if you agree to give me the win for the match. Well, to the opponent that doesn't seem worth it as 1/2 the prize money doesn't cover the damages whereas a shot at the full prize would. So now the person who caused the damage offers an additional amount, outside the prizes, to offer to this person.

    The person accepts. The person who might've won the full prize with their skill gave up for a guaranteed chance at money.

    While this is an unlikely scenario, it is not unheard of in gambling rings.

    Edit: To add, this is not a perfect example, it's just an idea of why such a rule should exist.

  4. #334
    Is that an argument for the cap ? This example could only apply if there was a large money amount gap between first and second place. For arguments sake lets be extreme and say first one gets 10k and the second place gets nada. Under the current rule we wont see a deal (pretty much no matter the amount of packs). On the contrast that money example is the exception where I could very well understand the desire to make a deal but would still be against any deals just out of principle.

    The scenrarios with tickets and sleeves are far more likely though.
    Last edited by Metronomy; 10-09-2015 at 05:45 AM.

  5. #335
    Quote Originally Posted by Metronomy View Post
    Is that an argument for the cap ? This example could only apply if there was a large money amount gap between first and second place. The scenrarios with tickets and sleeves are far more likely.
    Like I said, not a perfect example, but just an example of why rules like this need to be in place. It may never happen but if it does, think of how much that scenario would've compromised the integrity of that tournament.

  6. #336
    Quote Originally Posted by ossuary View Post
    In reality, since Sithos lost not only the items he made the deal for, and the items he agreed to trade away for them, in addition to this, his reputation has been tarnished by your implicit condemnation of his specific actions in particular (as opposed to the actions of any player in general). He has actually been triply punished for this event, which is not a light punishment at all.
    Let it be known that a non-Cryptozoic member of the community actually refunded him his 6x packs and 200plat entry fee to the tournament. Sithos also proc'd a primal off the packs on the win. In addition, I saw over 70x people in his stream yesterday watching him during the commotion.

    Long story short, Sithos is out nothing from pocket for that particular tournament, he proc'd a 1100p primal from the win, and his viewing for streaming is WAY up for that time of day. No one really thinks he's the bad guy here... so his name is in no way tainted. If anything, Good News / Bad News is STILL news and great marketing for him. That's the truth

  7. #337
    So what you are saying is that the ruling might be intended the way it is to catch the money deal but allow all the other deals ? I dont get why that would be desired.

    Imo a one time 50/50 split of 5k $ each (when 10k for 1st 0 for 2nd regulary) would compromise the integrity of the game far less than the countless of deals for qps we will see and possible deals for sleeves we might see in the future.

    Again I would be against deals in both cases.
    Last edited by Metronomy; 10-09-2015 at 05:50 AM.

  8. #338
    Quote Originally Posted by Metronomy View Post
    So what you are saying is that the ruling might be intended the way it is to catch the money deal but allow all the other deals ? I dont get why that would be desired.

    Imo a one time 50/50 split of 5k $ each (when 10k for 1st 0 for 2nd regulary) would compromise the integrity of the game far less than the countless of deals for qps we will see and possible deals for sleeves we might see in the future.

    Again I would be against deals in both cases.
    No. My point is that rules need to be in place to prevent scenarios that would compromise the integrity of the tournament. Whether the rules are effective is an entirely different question.

    Please note that in my original response, it was to ossuary who argued against there being any rules at all. I was only making a case as to why rules such as these should be in place at all.

  9. #339
    So you are not arguing for the specifics of the rule but you are arguing that there need to be such anti-deal rules in general.

    Ok, we both agree on that. Now...the details of the rules do matter though..

  10. #340
    Gigantisaur
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Athens Georgia
    Posts
    1,238
    So everyone is pretty much stating that skill is not a key requirement for the first tier of the tournament.

    So why not just make the tickets tradable? It seems that would solve a lot of the concerns towards this whole split thing. It would also give HXE more money from the 10% on the AH. If the first round does not show case skill, then why does it matter if the tickets to advance can be traded?
    The art work for opening the chest is very nice.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •