MarthWMaster said:

MarthWMaster said:

hehe i figured it had already been hijacked so i might as well stir the drink

There is no way to rule on collusion - it is all in the eye of the beholder and impossible to rule consistently. Same with - in Joust - tanking games between friends so one will make the cut. There is a reason it is legal in all competative games - I don't like MTG but they have a ton of experience in competative gaming so have a pretty good set of rules for it (they also don't have competative multi-player for that same reason!).

If you don't like something, you don't have to play competative multi-player, as I have chosen to do. Yes, that puts you 'out of' the running for the overall title - something that I think shouldn't be available regardless - but it doesn't hurt me any. Trust me, players know what other players they respect, and it isn't the Melee or to a lesser extent the Overall champ *shrug* But, the more player-designed cards the better IMHO (to an extent of course).

rings said:

Fixed that for you.

JackT said:

LOL. You don't know anything about me. Don't go making assumptions. There are all kinds of people in this world and some of them are exactly what they say are. Others enjoy taking a piss now and again mate, but are still far more complex with much more storied pasts than you are likely to imagine.

Teasing me in no way refutes anything I've said. The fact is you are posting out of utter ignorance and look as foolish as you assume me to be.

Cheers.

And slow pay is impossible to judge the same way all the time, so is deck randomization and any number of things the tournament rules covers. Yet there are rules covering them none the less.

If you must cheat to win then bully for you. Some people don't mind being douches. That is certainly their choice. I believe they should be publicly ostracized and treated with scorn at every opportunity. Being blacklisted for a year is a lenient punishment in my book.

The rules state what is legal in tournament play as well as in the game. You show me one rule where it allows or directs you to collude. There is no rule against your opponents tossing your deck out a window midgame either. You want to try and argue that because it is in the books and no rule against it that it is supported or encouraged by tournament play?

This is a game. It is supposed to be about fun. This is supposed to be one of the best group of players in the genre. Nothing about colluding follows the letter or spirit of good sportsmanship.

Remember that one time someone won an argument on the internet? Ya me neither.

dcdennis said:

I've still yet to see this so called "epenis ruler" that everyone tries to measure with either.

Penfold said:

I believe there are actual laws against that. Damaging people's property and such.

Penfold said:

Regarding melee collusion, I would ask the question: "What would Cersei Lannister do?" The answer is to do what it takes to win.

FFG's only real failure is not limiting collusion but not presenting a mechanism that would encourage people to collude with a stranger. For example, split all players into their own "Houses". Each House would be of limited size. If in a game you're with a player of the same House, you would get a small point or power bonus if your House wins the table thus encouraging you to support them even if the person is a complete stranger.

AGoT DC Meta said:

playgroundpsychotic said:

I'm starting to think that my posts are invisible… This isn't the first time someone has said what I said within a few posts.

Hello???Can anyone hear me?

isnt that standard internet procedure?

1. Read OP

2. Skip to end.

3. Assume no one else has thought of what you are about to post as reply.

4. Post Reply.

5. Next Thread.

Since no one has said this yet:

Isnt that standard internet procedure?

1. Read OP

2. Skip to end.

3. Assume no one else has thought of what you are about to post as reply.

4. Post Reply.

5. Next Thread.

"Great minds think alike." Great minds, playground. The way to implement this without making many players angry is to reward so-called "proper" collusion. Although it's still hard to say what is "cheating" if it isn't prohibited in the rules.

~I think everyone just skips to the end of the post, or something…

That's the key, just always be the last person to post.

playgroundpsychotic said:

playgroundpsychotic said:

You are honestly putting this forward as your refutation? So because the rules do not outlaw me from picking up your cards and shuffling what is on the table into your deck it is legal? What about a card effect that says any player? Can I go to the person with the highest SoS and resolve that effect on a card in play in his game?

It is obvious there is is an entire meta plus some who think being a ****** is okay as long as it wins you the game, even if the game does not have rules that allow for it, specifically because it doesn't have rules that forbid it.

Congrats, you convinced me that melee can never be a competitive game with people like that playing, and you are causing me to reevaluate whether I want to continue playing AGoT competitively at all. Anyone who has no problem with colluding in melee obviously is not going to have issues with doing the same sorts of things in joust. God willing Netrunner will have a friendly and considerate competitive community.

Bomb said:

this made me laugh very hard irl.

JackT said:

JackT said:

while i generally agree with snark as a means of dealing with internet aggresion, i tend to understand penfolds misplaced rage at the thought of someone buying a ticket playing a deck well enough to get to the final table and having to watch as one of the players at the table decides to play not to win, but to get his friend/metamate the win. any way you cut that, its still incredibly disheartening for fans of melee

dcdennis said:

+1

AGoT DC Meta said:

~You win Internet arguments when the other guy finally gives up and stops posting. Everyone knows that.

AGoT DC Meta said:

~I think everyone just skips to the end of the post, or something…

That's the key, just always be the last person to post.

I read the entire thread.

Then I forgot half of everything.

My brain is made out of cheese.

Penfold said:

Let's step back a minute here. First, the light-hearted banter became a little too serious a little while ago. Despite making a joke about collusion (The "so say we all" comment), I happen to agree that people should try to play to win on their own merit. That's how I play. And while my forum name may be misleading (I wish I could remove it, but repeated appeals to FFG has gone unanswered), I don't represent the entire DC meta. For all I know every member of our meta plays according to your value system. I don't really play melee that much with them. You're the one who has been throwing accusations and judgment around about who is a ****** based on your own assumptions that everyone here adheres to your definition of "collusion" and "cheating" and "fair-play". I think there is a difference between someone plotting in advance to get their meta-mates to roll over for them, and someone doing it of their own free-will in a game because they won't make the cut. You perhaps think it's the same thing. I won't do the former, but I won't complain if someone does the latter for me. It's not like I'm going around brow-beating my meta mates to throw the game. I don't think anyone in my meta would do that, and I certainly would feel as angry as you do if someone pulled that on me.

That is besides the point that I have been trying to make, which is that in ANY game that is multiplayer and has a level of interaction, there are things that you just can't prohibit. Does it suck that this can happen in a competitive tournament setting? Sure, a little. Someone from the Missouri meta might Flame-kissed all my guys even though it's not the optimal play for him just because I used my Flame-Pitch Tower on him last year at Gencon to knock him to 4th place at the table. I don't cry foul. Just so, I expect that friends are going to help each other out. In my mind there is little difference between appealing to someone's relational connection to gain an advantage and dicking someone over for some perceived slight in the past. And just because I happen to be in the same meta as someone doesn't mean that I'm helping him because he's in my meta. In my experience, the best players still get to the final table, and if they do, they can play the game however they want.

But as I said, I accept it as a part of the melee format, and acknowledge it as a flaw in competitive play.

fwiw i was told that erick king made corey last year at the melee finals.

dcdennis said:

True. They both had the mindset I think that if one had the shot to win the other would help the other, instead of letting someone else win. This was debated a while on the forums last year after Gencon. Again, they both made it to final table, and all their plays were within the rules, so I think it's legit. Some people think that it's not. Regardless, they both were good enough to make it to the final table, so if that happens, they can play it how they want. And this further backs up the sentiment that melee is a flawed format competitively.

So did you experience at TN change your mind about the state of the meta?

AGoT DC Meta said:

i hate to say it after this OP, but it kinda did. that 10 hours of play with 6 solidly competitive matches out of 7 really revitalized my enthusiasm for the game. in fact, i got hit with the very combo i was complaining about in my top8 match (tls, tfte, val) and still came back to win.

and on top of it all, now that regionals season is over and competition for me is done til next year, i had more fun playing a game last night with a shagga norvos stark/martell treaty deck (http://www.agotcards.org/deck/v/12599) than i have had in any game played in the past 4 months (since it was purely for fun and not in prep for anything).

really gotta give a ton of props to ffg for the concept and execution of those locations. i thought they were ridiculous at first but after actually playing with one i think it opens the door for some super creative and wholly unexpected decks.