In Robb's excellent Tournament Report thread, he included this link http://magic.tcgplayer.com/db/print.asp?ID=2828 . Not sure how many of you bothered to read it, but he gave an interesting and feasible solution for minimizing collusion or inaccurate game reporting.

Rather than cutting to the top 4, 8, 16, etc for Single Elimination Round, just play Swiss Rounds all the way through and award prizes based on top record at the end of Swiss. He mentions that the cut was originally introduced for television coverage, a problem most AGOT tournaments need not concern themselves with.

What say you the community about switching the format to all Swiss?

Dear Moderator,

Please eliminate one of these threads.

Thanks

I prefer this format for tournaments personally, it keeps everyone playing and having fun the whole time. However I don't know that it would make collusion any less desirable/possible, although I don't think it is a problem in general.

Very interesting...

~Wait, top 8 isn't going to be televised this year???

I have a special place in my heart for single elimination cuts though. I see both sides, but there is something about cutting to top XX and then playing a single elim tourney...it has a feeling of stress and excitement that a couple of additional rounds of swiss doesn't have IMHO.

My favorite aGoT Worlds ever was when they cut to Top 16 and then played the next day. I didn't do that well, but made it a big deal which it should be IMHO. That is also what most other games do (Legend of the 5 Rings, LoTR, Vs. etc.). Obviously they have more participants, and are not trying to tie in multi-player, so maybe an apples vs. oranges situation.

Oh, and the main issue with that article (although facinating) is that there is $$ involved. $$ changes everything (just ask any pimp).

As someone who has been a TO for a number of different games I can tell you that after collusion, as it seems to worry you, happens all the time.

Before I get into the bulk of this post I am assuming that the biggest issue is when friends, "teammates", etc in mid to late rounds start deciding to lose or draw with their opponent to facilitate them moving on to a top X bracket in championship rounds.

This type of collusion happens even on small levels in all events. Every Friday night at our store, we see Magic players decide to "draw in" to make top 8. Most of the time its so they don't have to play the last round and can goof off before finals. At slightly bigger events people start looking at points and standings very closely to determine if they can get in with a win, loss, or draw. If the 2 players can guarantee they will both make it by drawing...they will.

Now a long time ago this bothered me, because...Hey! They aren't really playing...but as time went on, I've mellowed to it. Most people that play in a lot of events also have as well. Its just the nature of tournaments.

As far as wanting to "cut to standings" for tourney results...I think its OK for Magic, a game that where best 2 of 3 games determines a match. But for Thrones, where you play one game matches, having a top X finals (or championship rounds as they are called in the Tourney Rules) I believe is essential. All tourney, no matter the type, want the best players in finals. Championship rounds help this by eliminating some of the weird things that can happen in the preliminary rounds like bad draws. It might give someone a chance to redeem ones self if they only lost one game because a Swiss tourney that custs to standings is essentially a glorified single elimination tourney (if your are trying to win it all).

I've always preferred this method of scoring. I've run tournaments for 9 years, 6 of them as the highest level of TO for magic. However, there are fair arguements on the Pros and Cons list:

Pros
Every game matters, the only excuse if you lose is "Play better" (more to be said about this later),
Better chance for a less experienced player to win (if a newer player outplays someone, odds are they will remember how that happened)
Less collusion (can still happen but will happen less)

Cons
Bad matchups (if you run into a deck you can't beat you don't have a chance to be in the championships)
Less games played
Less fun to play when you lose the first round but then win the next four (not even a shot at playing for 1st place)

More times then not the same tournament run the two different ways will still see the same handful of people near the top. They are a combination of being good players, read the meta correctly, and have play tested their deck to near exhaustion (otherwise known as experience). After you get to a tournament the only thing you have going for you is luck of match ups.

Yeah, I don't think this would be an effective solution for collusion, actually. I think it just shifts where collusion happens - from happening during the final preliminary round to happening a little more (but less intensively) throughout the whole tournament. It also empowers metas who bring more people to collude, since they have more opportunities to play each other..."hey buddy, it looks like you're going to lose but we might go to time. I'm likely to make top 4 whether we tie or I win, but if you 'let' me win, I could make first. You'd rather have a friend take first, right?"

My main problem with no elimination rounds though is that the format rewards a certain deck type. Combo decks and "creative" builds with bad match ups are frequently going to lose a round or two, *especially* against a deck that plays a lot of outlier cards. For example, a deck that runs Reinforcements + Men With No King isn't likely to do well overall, but may win against an innovative player who runs various out-of-house cards (for example, a deck that runs the neutral house card) or a combo that relies on a particular out of house character. As currently practiced, the innovative deck will make it to the elimination rounds if it's all-around pretty solid, whereas no elimination rounds would be such a deck with more "weaknesses" than the standard Lanni/Martell tricks would be even further disadvantaged.

In fact, the only *true* advantages I see to removing elimination rounds are that (1) everyone would continue to play throughout the tournament...there wouldn't be all this second-half waiting around by the majority of the players; and (2) replaying the same person would be much less common. As it stands, it's pretty common that the top 4 players play each other multiple times in the same tournament - once during prelim rounds and once during elimination rounds. This can spoil some of the surprises.

At the end of the day, I know "collusion" is pretty frustrating for some and not a problem for others. Honestly though, I don't think it happens a ton in our communities, and when it happens, I think the impact is generally pretty small (that is, it rarely would shift the results dramatically one way or the other). That's not an excuse to accept or tacitly endorse collusion, but we have to be mindful of how significant the impact is before we offer "corrections" that could have even worse unintended consequences.

I just think people need to know what to expect.

If "results tampering" is to be allowed by the TO, that's fine, but all in attendance need to know that it is accepted going into an event.

If the TO is going to take a hard stance against "results tampering", then that also needs to be made very clear, and matches in the later rounds will need to be policed heavily.

I think at the end of the day, having it out in the open, and allowing it, is the easiest thing to do. At least that way people know what to expect, and nobody has to worry about people being completely devious about it in a tournament where it is not allowed.

Now, as far as adjusting the tournament to minimze it by getting rid of the finals...

I think I like the "loser goes home" mentality of the finals too much to want to get rid of them for such an issue.

~How about we just mock people for riding hollow victories into the finals the same way we mock melee champs ?

Darksbane said:

Actually it doesn't keep people playing. Basically if you lose the you are done and cannot win. Top eight gives a chance to get back in after a loss or two depending on tournament size. I personally have lost out to top 8 due to collusion and I have no issue with it. I should have played better in the game I lost. In other games I have been conceded games for numerous reasons and others have too. This is the only game where this seems to come up as a problem amongst the community.

Venryk said:

Perhaps I'm confused then, I thought it was talking about just going with whoever had the best record after X number of games, not single elimination. I mean it would likely get to a point where you know you won't take top spot but at least you could still play even if you know 1st isn't going to you.

Clutch said:

You have to be careful of opponents wanting to draw-in. Our local magic meta for the longest time was filled with douches. (Still Is). I'd never Draw In. And those who asked me to, would have the most brutal game against whatever crazy, non net-decked deck I was running, I could muster. I'd take my wins and go to top 4. Just to say, "ya know what. I drop now. I just didn't want this douches to get into top cuts without actually PLAYING THE GAME. Ruins the fun of it."

Needless to say I don't play sanctioned Magic any more.

Fotonurth said:

I respect this opinion on "drawing in," but I don't agree...at least not in AGOT, where the "drawing in" person recives 1 point out of a possible 5.

But even under the old system (3 points for win, 1 point for tie), I still think it's morally ambiguous. To be clear, these types of decisions are a strategy. So to somehow "ban" these, we have to tell people: "You can bring the best deck possible, which may include cards that *should* be banned but aren't. In fact, you can even play them all together and call it 'Martell.' In melee, you can use 'diplomacy' with your meta-mates to help you win. But by the way, when it comes to deciding whether you should play out your round or take a break to eat that meal you've been waiting five hours for, there's no choice."

Now, I'm not saying players can justify anything by claiming it's a "strategy." For example, there are rules to using card sleeves to prevent unintentional advantages, just as there are rules against slow playing. But unlike those two types of rules, the "draw in" is mutually decided upon by both players who agree.

I'm not saying people who "draw in" are great individuals...in fact, I don't really see this as a moral issue at all. I'm guessing I'm in the minority though....

I guess my problem with the whole thing is that I see the point of the tournament to see who is best at playing AGoT LCG that day. If you aren't playing the actual game I have a problem with that somehow determining the end result.

Just because a thing is hard to police at all times does not make it morally justifiable or even a rmeotely logical reason not to make a rule against. To exxagerate it to the point of absurdity, murder and **** go unpunished a large amount of the time. I doubt any sane individual here would dream of removing laws against these crimes from the books because they are hard to prove or so many go unsolved.

And no, I am not in ANY way equating this with that, just pointing out that the logic is flawed. If you don't have a problem with collusion you don't. This is about subjective opinions about an ethical issue where two reasonable people can disagree on, for no other reason than "just cuz."

Another argument I find has no traction is that the person pushed out because of collusion should have played better. As should both people who colluded. If one could play better there would be no need for them to collude in the first place.

In joust I play because it is me and my deck against the field, and I expect, rightly or wrongly that everyone's standing is going to be determined by playing out each game to the best of their ability. Throwing a game is in direct opposition to this idea. Letting someone take a full win rather than a modified win is a somewhat more gray area for me. If I feel I have been playing slowly, not on purpose, but because I'm being extremely pressured by my opponents deck an dI'm trying every last trick and triple checking every play in an attempt to break his lock, I may give him the full win, in the same way when I face a deck I know I don't have the cards to beat once their lock is in place I will concede unless I think a play error on their part will put me back in the game.

In the end, I find it poor sportsmanship to do anything but play each and every game to the best of your ability and place or fail to place based purely on your own merit.

If I want table talk, intimidation and my ability to sweet talk someone to determine my eventual placement, I'll play melee where we are ALL trying to do the same thing, in the game itself. I dislike collusion out of the game because it smacks of fixing results. You do that in sports, shaving points or losing on purpose and you face serious consequences. I certainly hope that TO's would at least discourage this kind of behavior, even if they cannot police it.

Darksbane said:

At these types of tournament people will drop. In swiss you play to 1 undefeated (normally). So if you crown the winner after swiss as the winner of the tournament you are basically playing single elimination. A bad round draw wise could end your tourney real quick. At conventions like Gencon it will be single elim then because there is so much else to do. In your case you are changing large tournaments from competitive to casual. You would most likely get a lot less attendance and travel to play in the tournament.

Perhaps the way to best avoid results tampering for joust is to only allow one result: a winner and a loser. Get rid of draws and modified wins. You'd need a satisfactory tiebreaker hierarchy and it would inevitably have to end with an unsatisfactory "coin flip". That won't fix someone "throwing" a match to another (not sure that can be prevented), but I suspect more tampering/collusion would arise when a tie would advance both players (or is it the case that it occurs more when a modified win looms and the would-be loser is indifferent about the winner being handed a full win? if it is, problem solved as my suggestion gets rid of the modified win result.)