Page 6 of 32 FirstFirst ... 4567816 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 319

Thread: HEX Invitational Qualifier Top 8 footage

  1. #51
    Neo, I don't think anyone is faulting you for what you said. I think it's just people having strong opinions on the matter. The bottom line is what you said in your last sentence. It is controversial, always will be, and it isn't against the rules nor should it be. It has been happening in TCGs for decades with no backlash.

    Cirouss didn't even ask for the concession. Letham just scooped it up because he felt like it. And that's straight from the horses mouth.

  2. #52
    Quote Originally Posted by jtatta View Post
    It has been happening in TCGs for decades with no backlash.
    That's not really a good reason for it to continue if it's not ideal. And there has been backlash.

    I don't think there will ever be a black/white answer to this issue.

    Quote Originally Posted by Chark View Post
    Anyone on a team, or popular is going to always have an edge in tournaments.
    I don't think just being popular should provide any advantage in tournaments. There's no way to prevent that though, people are fickle and emotional. Just like how celebrities get preferential treatments, I expect this will always be the case, unfortunately.

    Teams make sense because it's group of people working together to a goal. Thing is, if it's not a team tournament, does that count as collusion?

    Edit 2: For example, a team consisting of skilled members who have earned enough QP continue to participate in future tournaments to assist team members who have not by defeating other players so that in the top portion of the tournament, it is team heavy. Thus, they improve their team members chances of earning QP by conceding to members who need points if paired up (either by intentionally playing poorly or otherwise - loophole!).

    ---

    As for the issue that triggered this discussion in this thread, I have no opinion.

    Edit: Almost forgot the other point of this post: Thanks for the videos!

  3. #53
    My question would be regarding the pairing system in place.

    Is the system still pairing people based on Standings? If so, this should be fixed in my opinion. It creates artificial match-ups which benefit high tie-breakers. This was something that was discussed earlier (a long time ago) in association with Drafts and byes, but now that there are cuts to the Top 8, it is relevant again. Letham was in a position that he could scoop his opponent in no matter what.

    I skimmed the last round of the invitational. Obviously this is a small sample size. I would guess that Neo played DarkShadow and Unity earlier in the Swiss (but maybe not).

    Round 8 Pairing.jpg

  4. #54
    Quote Originally Posted by rwn View Post
    I see this cannot be enforced efficiently argument again.
    It isn't a case of 'can it be enforced', its a case of 'should it be enforced' and figuring out what does and doesn't qualify. Do you punish someone for leaving early? Do you punish someone who has a family emergency? Do you punish someone who had their internet cut off? The list of what if circumstances is absolutely huge - a blanket ban on certain actions would punish innocent players, so thats out of the question, and a circumstantial ban is just going to invite abuse, so it is simpler to just not ban the action in the first place.

    There are many legitimate reasons to give up a win. We shouldn't start punishing anyone unless there is clear bribery or collusion.

    It's basically the same as the timer argument - you can do what you want with your time, so you should be able to drop out or concede at any time.
    Xenavire, proud guild leader for The Lions Share.
    http://i307.photobucket.com/albums/n...erlinsmall.png

  5. #55
    Yes that's so true the Standings and ranking were so wrong , I don't know if also the pairings were wrong, but my shown final standing was way higher then my payout afterwards, and also people with less wins or dropped people were ranked before me. I don't know if it's only a visual bug but it was so not okay for a professional tournament and it did really irk me a lot.

  6. #56
    Hex Collusion policy:

    Collusion

    Collusion includes, but is not limited to at Hex Entertainments sole discretion any action that goes against the rules of, or the spirit of fair tournament participation among a group of players. This includes but not limited to communication between players during a draft in an attempt to gain advantage; win boosting strategies; or tournament blocking strategies among teammates.

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    Basically if the two talked it over and decided to secure Cirouss a top 8 spot this would be collusion as it is people collaborating to block someone else out of a spot, but that is not the case.

    Since Letham conceded without a discussion with Cirouss it can not be considered collusion.

    Summary: Collusion is something that takes place between two or more people. Letham's concession was not as a group.

  7. #57
    Gigantisaur
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Athens Georgia
    Posts
    1,238
    Quote Originally Posted by Kami View Post
    That's not really a good reason for it to continue if it's not ideal. And there has been backlash.

    I don't think there will ever be a black/white answer to this issue.



    I don't think just being popular should provide any advantage in tournaments. There's no way to prevent that though, people are fickle and emotional. Just like how celebrities get preferential treatments, I expect this will always be the case, unfortunately.

    Teams make sense because it's group of people working together to a goal. Thing is, if it's not a team tournament, does that count as collusion?

    Edit 2: For example, a team consisting of skilled members who have earned enough QP continue to participate in future tournaments to assist team members who have not by defeating other players so that in the top portion of the tournament, it is team heavy. Thus, they improve their team members chances of earning QP by conceding to members who need points if paired up (either by intentionally playing poorly or otherwise - loophole!).

    ---

    As for the issue that triggered this discussion in this thread, I have no opinion.

    Edit: Almost forgot the other point of this post: Thanks for the videos!
    Think more outside the box. This falls under the disadvantage of digital verse physical.

    Most players play this game by themselves. I would bet money that not all players do. Say I had friends who played magic for years, and knew this game pretty well. They all come to my house for one of these tournaments. We would essentially make a day of it where we would get pizza and watch college football in between Hex games. However, when the Hex games started, everybody would come together to discuss strategy and play during the games. Now this is collusion, but how would you prove it? Getting into the top 12 is money, regardless if you lose when you get there. The game has enough luck based chance that even a 5/10 skilled player can beat a 10/10 skilled player based around chance when they reach the top 12.

    In short, there will be disadvantages that nobody can do anything about. A player then has a right to choose whether or not they accept that.
    The art work for opening the chest is very nice.

  8. #58
    Quote Originally Posted by Nero_Jinous View Post
    Hex Collusion policy:

    Collusion

    Collusion includes, but is not limited to at Hex Entertainments sole discretion any action that goes against the rules of, or the spirit of fair tournament participation among a group of players. This includes but not limited to communication between players during a draft in an attempt to gain advantage; win boosting strategies; or tournament blocking strategies among teammates.

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    Basically if the two talked it over and decided to secure Cirouss a top 8 spot this would be collusion as it is people collaborating to block someone else out of a spot, but that is not the case.

    Since Letham conceded without a discussion with Cirouss it can not be considered collusion.

    Summary: Collusion is something that takes place between two or more people. Letham's concession was not as a group.
    How can you say there was no discussion when they even went so far as to communicate with a Noble about it?

  9. #59
    HEX Employee Chark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Lake Forest, CA
    Posts
    1,436
    Quote Originally Posted by Ditsch View Post
    Yes that's so true the Standings and ranking were so wrong , I don't know if also the pairings were wrong, but my shown final standing was way higher then my payout afterwards, and also people with less wins or dropped people were ranked before me. I don't know if it's only a visual bug but it was so not okay for a professional tournament and it did really irk me a lot.
    That's not the case. Standings get updated at the end of the round. What you likely observed were provisional standings after you finished your match in round 8 (but not all matches concluded).

  10. #60
    I do not see how this could be anything but collusion, it seems very cut and dry. Two people colluded to help one of them out. Just because no bribe was made shouldn't mater, you are helping some one because they are your friend, in some ways the act of being a friend can be considered the payment for this (If the person would not do the same thing for a non-friend, you have to see the reasoning here.)

    But I also want to say, I do not say any of this against cirous, I think he's a great guy, I do not think he has broken any rule or done anything wrong. But I think the rules need to be changed so that this kind of thing is at least illegal in the future.

Posting Permissions

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