."

!

At that point, it would become an 8-0 concession. And then the next would-be matchup you have would get an 8-2 bye. Because you've been removed from the lineup.

But as multiple others have pointed out, short of the description you just gave (starting off with all ships pointed off map), game throwing is pretty hard to catch. And disqualifying a player from a casual and maybe even a competitive store tournament could have disasterly 2nd and 3rd order effects for the store. I.e., no one wants to play there anymore because they're too serious and they start to lose business because they weren't "casual enough." It would be better just to pull the player aside and say "hey, please don't do that again. You're here to have fun, we want you to have fun, and doing that ruins it for others."

Orrrr... the other players could see that and say "hey, this place is legit. I wanna compete here more often because they'll keep it honest." Which is in line AWSB's point. And this isn't a case of rules lawyering. It's a case of keeping integrity in the competitive scene. At a Worlds championship. The highest level of competitive play Armada has.

And once again, I'll just reinforce the fact that I don't think Sky was guilty of this. He just phrased it in a way that made it seem like he was guilty of trying to throw the game.

Stepping into this thread, I see:

A valid concern

Stated aggressively and with personal attack

A snarky response

Based in previous interaction and personal interest

So...we not gonna discuss the issue here?

It seems that AWSB is pointing out behavior that is against the idea of fair play. It might be against the collusion rule, but might not be enforceable. Lets discuss that. If you think that his post was aggressive, then report it. Just remember that Gink is being just as aggressive, so you should report that as well.

If you are saying AWSB was rude, then so was Gink. Two wrongs and all that.

My 2 cents.

Hope everyone has a good day and we get back to the awesomeness that is this forum.

I wont deny it

Ya know Gink, you talk WAY too much. You need to learn to keep your posts short and to the point.

**** game takes too long to lose when you're tired of it.

Though I don't condone this at all either. I can understand why it happens.

I'd fight for every point.

The fix is easy, play more games:

Combine everyone, play 2 days of 4 games a day for 8 games. Then cut to the top 8 for three more games on day 3.

The problem is, no one seems to want this.

Seriously, though, it's only collusion if the two players agree to it. If one of them decides to play high-risk high-reward of his own accord, then that's his decision. Throwing around hyberbole isn't really helping.

I have never seen this happen, or even heard of this happening. Maybe it's just because I play in the UK - we Brits are big on fair play and a sporting attitude. Clearly it has happened (or there wouldn't be any reason to post), and I imagine that, in the heat of the moment, it would be frustrating. But I don't feel that the entire Armada community should be tarnished. This sounds very much like an exception rather than the rule.

Plus, in this particular instance, what the quoted post suggests is that Skycake was giving his opponent a boost in round three of four. That's a world away from what AWSB is suggesting - that games are deliberately thrown in the final round to catapult a player to the top. It would have to have been a staggeringly close day of games for the final result of four to make the difference between bottom half of the table and top two. And, if it's round three, then it's likely that the boosted player would lose to a far superior player. Like I say, I'm not suggesting that it can't happen - what I'm saying is that I don't think it can be considered a major flaw in the game.

Is it what I'd do? No. I would personally feel like I was doing my opponent a disservice by giving them an easy win - that would be no fun for them either. But I don't think it warrants quite such an offended response, or accusations that we as a community are apathetic or condoning said behaviour. At the end of the day, it's a game, and like any other game it's imperfect. But it's **** well good enough for me.

I think the best course of action here is player/community education. Help people understand why not playing their best is a detriment to the overall tournament and leave it at that-trust in the maturity and sportsmanship that they are obeying the spirit of that. Unless you see something gross, or a full on confession that "I COLLUDED FOR KINGMAKER REASONS!", then just leave it alone. Proving someone threw a game because of collusion is next to impossible without launching a full inquisition that will hurt more than it helps.

Like others have said, I don't think it's reasonable to even suspect someone of collusion who is throwing a hail mary in round 3 when they are down x# of tournie points hoping for a big 10-1 victory. It might look that way to you, but proving that intent is going to be a very destructive, Pyrrhic endeavor.

Worlds finals was collusion, that's my hot take. I mean, look at the way he just threw in gallant haven.

Worlds finals was collusion, that's my hot take. I mean, look at the way he just threw in gallant haven.

Thank you!

Another positive story... in Flight 1B, Team Canada (Greater Toronto Area)... Norm, Kristjian, Victor and Carlo. They were at Tables 3 and 4 in the Final Round. I don't think they just let a teammate move on by losing big. And it must've sucked that they were fighting hard and may have eliminated each other... but, that's being true champions!

(Note: JJ has the hardware but I'm certain he would never play soft.)

Again, we know that the scoring is not perfect. No one can fault you on why you do what you do. I don't think anyone is giving points away.

Personally, that's why I build fast fleets and play aggressively. I plan on catching anyone that just runs. However, if I played someone who has never won before and getting 5 points will likely get them some swag... who am I to judge if that's their number one goal and running is their best option?

I think AWSB would have a letigimate point, based on what Skycake wrote, because taken out of context it does seem iffy. But context matters here. I will reinforce the impression that others who were there have already said - there was no collusion going on at worlds.

As Skycake was my roommate at Worlds, we kept tabs on each other each round, and what this discussion is missing is the fatigue factor. I know how he feels, because I won my first game and then lost three in a row...the last one to Skycake. . And when you're 8.5 hours into a 12 hour tourney day, and you're demoralized by your performance so far, and your mind is mush and you can't focus worth anything (compared to the start of the day)......sometimes the best you can do is to throw your ships at the enemy because it's the easiest thing to do. And because trying to disengage and maybe avoid point losses is tiring, and draws out the game, and seems unnecessarily gamey.

When we chatted after game three, I know we both had zombie like stares...it's exhausting!

I think Sky was acknowledging the effect of what he did more than saying that's the only reason why he did it (even though that's what he wrote). Certainly our last game where we played each other we each gave it our best shot, and certainly didn't throw the game one way or another to give points. But since we were dog tired our game certainly wasn't as "tight" as as my first two games of the day. We both were forgiving with range and movement measurements, laughed off each other's mistakes, and in general had a fun game.

Could I have insisted on measuring and playing to my game one standards? Sure. Could I have denied Skycake a few points if I'd tried harder or have been less willing to let things slide? Maybe. Did I have any interest in doing that?

Absolutely not. By that point, I was flying casual.

Does that make me a bad tournament player? (Aside from winding up at the bottom quarter of the list)...I'd like to think there's some leeway there.

well said Maturin

I think AWSB would have a letigimate point, based on what Skycake wrote, because taken out of context it does seem iffy. But context matters here. I will reinforce the impression that others who were there have already said - there was no collusion going on at worlds.

As Skycake was my roommate at Worlds, we kept tabs on each other each round, and what this discussion is missing is the fatigue factor. I know how he feels, because I won my first game and then lost three in a row...the last one to Skycake. . And when you're 8.5 hours into a 12 hour tourney day, and you're demoralized by your performance so far, and your mind is mush and you can't focus worth anything (compared to the start of the day)......sometimes the best you can do is to throw your ships at the enemy because it's the easiest thing to do. And because trying to disengage and maybe avoid point losses is tiring, and draws out the game, and seems unnecessarily gamey.

When we chatted after game three, I know we both had zombie like stares...it's exhausting!

I think Sky was acknowledging the effect of what he did more than saying that's the only reason why he did it (even though that's what he wrote). Certainly our last game where we played each other we each gave it our best shot, and certainly didn't throw the game one way or another to give points. But since we were dog tired our game certainly wasn't as "tight" as as my first two games of the day. We both were forgiving with range and movement measurements, laughed off each other's mistakes, and in general had a fun game.

Could I have insisted on measuring and playing to my game one standards? Sure. Could I have denied Skycake a few points if I'd tried harder or have been less willing to let things slide? Maybe. Did I have any interest in doing that?

Absolutely not. By that point, I was flying casual.

Does that make me a bad tournament player? (Aside from winding up at the bottom quarter of the list)...I'd like to think there's some leeway there.

I can corroborate this. The only time I've played 4 games in a single day was the Massing of Sullust event. I can promise you that if you're actually...you know...thinking....while you play the first 2-3 games, your mind is absolute mush. You're tired, cranky (gaming tables rarely have lazyboys to recline in), and if you're anything like me, you probably have a massive duchy that needs to get pinched off.

I understand how the exact quote could be taken, but I think many people here have clearly clearified the intent. Throwing ships into a fight aggressively can very well be a last ditch strategy against larger odds. Deciding to play conservatively or aggressively based on your current place in the tournament very well can benefit your opponent. If you both need to win big, then most likely one player will win big. Giving that chance to your opponent is not collusion, its just what happens based on the tournament structure. I'd rather that than mid tables playing conservatively for the win and effectively denying their opponent any chance at jumping higher in the rankings. To me, one is much more in the spirit of sportsmanship than the other.

I'd also like to throw down a note to two of my players in the Swiss rounds who could have conceded after it was clear they had lost (giving me 8-0, or 9-0), but continued to play so I could continue to gain points (through kills or objective play). In these cases my opponents played to conserve what they had left though one killed two on my flotillas with aggressive flotilla ramming plays. No "free" points were given, but it couldn't have been fun for them to finish those games.

So to sum up: almost impossible to police, simply because it is so hard to determine intent. Is a player just exceptionally bad, or did they just throw ships at the opponent?

One thing that has not yet been mentioned is that the tournament structure often provides an incentive to preserve points even in the event of being knocked out of the first position. If we're awarding prizes to the top 4, top 8, top 16 and so forth, then the difference between making a particular prize bracket can be enticing enough. I might lose a game 3-8, but by preserving points instead of a 1-10, those two points might be the difference in prize territory for me. And honestly, I'm almost always playing for that benefit that comes from saying that I made a particular place, even if I lost along the way. So I think personal pride in the standings and the appeal of the loot tiers does a lot to incentive fighting for every last point.

So to sum up: almost impossible to police, simply because it is so hard to determine intent. Is a player just exceptionally bad, or did they just throw ships at the opponent?

One thing that has not yet been mentioned is that the tournament structure often provides an incentive to preserve points even in the event of being knocked out of the first position. If we're awarding prizes to the top 4, top 8, top 16 and so forth, then the difference between making a particular prize bracket can be enticing enough. I might lose a game 3-8, but by preserving points instead of a 1-10, those two points might be the difference in prize territory for me. And honestly, I'm almost always playing for that benefit that comes from saying that I made a particular place, even if I lost along the way. So I think personal pride in the standings and the appeal of the loot tiers does a lot to incentive fighting for every last point.

Dear FFG:

Here is the solution.

Provide more loot.

That is all.

So to sum up: almost impossible to police, simply because it is so hard to determine intent. Is a player just exceptionally bad, or did they just throw ships at the opponent?

Or just fatigue...

At the last tournament that I played in (and won) I was so tired from the first 2 games that I made a really dumb mistake for game 3. I could have taken 1st player (had the initiative bid), but I chose 2nd player because I wanted to win the tournament showing that 2nd player could win a tournie and all 3 games. That was a really dumb decision, and cost me the final game by a small MOV (27 pts) giving my opponent a 6-5 victory. Luckily, I won my first 2 games 9-2 and 10-1 so still had enough pts to take first place. But it was still just a dumb decision made completely out of fatigue.

One thing I like about the Armada tourney scene is the random element. I can play well and be happy to play well, but it's necessary for luck to come into play to take a first place generally.

The tourneys being much smaller than say Xwing makes the prize tiers much more attainable. The ultra-competitive gamer is not likely to like this, and will tend to not play.. Blood bowl is similar being so dicey, the folks that stress too much about winning tend to get turned off.. making it a much more friendly atmosphere.

I don't see points-feeding as a big issue. It doesn't happen often, usually it's a matter of fatigue or desperate overplay.. and it's just not worth stressing over.

Food for thought:

It's round 2 (or 3 for larger tournaments).

At the top table the two contenders for the throne square off...

...only there are several other players on tables 2-3-4 etc. that can take the win if they score high AND the top table doesn't.

If, in this example, the top table is like 6-5 or 7-4 or something, a guy from table 2 or 3 with that final 10-1 nets the trophy.

So IMO the top table has to play aggressively, or they accept the fact that neither player is likely to get the trophy.

And furthermore: the same goes for tables 2-3-4 - IF they win big, they MIGHT win overall if the top table picks the chicken approach.

So I'd expect anyone near the top to play aggressively in the final round.

Caveat: Some ppl might be happy to place 2nd. Or 3rd. Or 4th. I dunno.