FFG made it clear by way of their actions that bringing the same deck as people you know, and playing that deck, is not collusion.
If FFG thought it was collusion, they would have disqualified certain participants in the melee after round 1.
What is collusion?
HoyaLawya said:
papalorax said:
Shikaku said:
There is no one best deck. They could have come up with other competitive decks that could have won on their own
Let's see - this deck got three people to the final table of the world championships in melee. I will use that as my reasoning to refute your point…
What is your statement based on?
papalorax said:
Shikaku said:
There is no one best deck. They could have come up with other competitive decks that could have won on their own
Let's see - this deck got three people to the final table of the world championships in melee. I will use that as my reasoning to refute your point…
What is your statement based on?
Not only that, this deck won a first round table on turn two against two brothers who openly said they were working together.
A good comparison for this deck is to an arsenal of nuclear weapons. As Dennis mentioned in his report, during testing there were many decks with locations that kneel during challenges and could combo off the engineer and scourge. What happens when one country has a stockpile of nukes? They control international relations, just like this deck controls the flow of a game, stripping icons, discarding cards with house dayne skirmisher, removing characters from challenges, canceling responses, and trading titles with myrcella.
Once one has a stockpile, everyone else wants it too. That's why the whole DC meta wanted to play this deck. It was a clear winner. To extend the nuclear weapon analogy, when two of these decks are at a table it's a cold war of mutually assured destruction. The card interactions force the best interest to be to strip the other two for uo power, then wait until you can afford to try to backstab the other person and take the win. You have to do it at the last minute and without your scourge, or you lose all your icons too.
Someone asked why some players didn't go with a different deck and add tech against this one. The best defense against a stockpile of nukes is to have your own. As far as I can tell, Star Wars cards aren't legal in a thrones tournament, even if FFG blew us away with possibly their best tournament support ever by giving free copies to pre-registrants.
Dobbler said:
I am not opposed to doing away with the anti-collusion rules in melee.
But if they decide to keep anti-collusion rules in place, we need a stronger definition of what that means.
Where do you think they'll land on this, Greg? Backtracking on collusion rules would be admitting that the 2012 worlds ruling was excessive, in a way. I think it more likely they'll add something.
So what would a stipulation such as "abuse of combos in mirrored decks is prohibited," for example, add? The worst possible outcome is if FFG does no clarifying, and everyone is walking on eggshells.
papalorax said:
Dobbler said:
If you bring any deck that intentionally get exponentially better when a metamate uses the exact same deck, intentionally work together with metamates, get warned and then continue to work exclusively to lock out other players in games, then yeah, I'm guessing there is a chance you get DQed.
Why? The rules state you cannot make deals before games - they certainly do not say you can't play the same deck. You are assuming that they had made a deal. The deck clearly stood on its own without friends help…so perhaps they all agreed it was the best option.
Of the three in the final - who should have broken out to work with the other guy?
dcdennis said:
Dobbler said:
Dobbler said:
It's not the plots making it impossible for Mathieu to attack that evidence collusion and unsportsmanlike conduct; it was the fact that they effectively ignored him, playing the game as a 3-player Melee.
this is completely false. Matheiu made it very clear in swiss (i played at his table round 2) and early on in the final table that he was not open to ANY deals. he was offered them repeatedly for plot swapping and the standard 'i wont attack you etc..' type deals, and he refused to make any deals. He wanted to play it completely solo. I would appreciate people not perpetuating this rumor because it is just not true. We 'ignored him' because he wasn't interested in negotiating.
AGoT DC Meta said:
Dobbler said:
I am not opposed to doing away with the anti-collusion rules in melee.
But if they decide to keep anti-collusion rules in place, we need a stronger definition of what that means.
Where do you think they'll land on this, Greg? Backtracking on collusion rules would be admitting that the 2012 worlds ruling was excessive, in a way. I think it more likely they'll add something.
So what would a stipulation such as "abuse of combos in mirrored decks is prohibited," for example, add? The worst possible outcome is if FFG does no clarifying, and everyone is walking on eggshells.
i was thinking more along the lines of maybe they could start designing cards that cant be abused. but thats just me
AGoT DC Meta said:
Dobbler said:
I am not opposed to doing away with the anti-collusion rules in melee.
But if they decide to keep anti-collusion rules in place, we need a stronger definition of what that means.
Where do you think they'll land on this, Greg? Backtracking on collusion rules would be admitting that the 2012 worlds ruling was excessive, in a way. I think it more likely they'll add something.
So what would a stipulation such as "abuse of combos in mirrored decks is prohibited," for example, add? The worst possible outcome is if FFG does no clarifying, and everyone is walking on eggshells.
I believe there is a 0% chance they remove the collusion rules.
Based on my conversations with Steve Horvath at Worlds, the current wording on collusion and sportsmanship in the tourney document was a starting place, but he also didn't indicate to me that they had intentions of trying to draw stricter lines of definition. So they might have plans of adding more definition to the sportsmanship section in the tourney document, but they also may not.
I would imagine that after this past weekend that FFG will have plenty of discussions on how they want to proceed forward.
Also, keep in mind that Nate was the one who made the DQ ruling in the final Melee game at worlds. Nate works for FFG and is a direct representative of the company. Ktom, on the otherhand, is more of a middle man. Would the community have acted or felt differently if Ktom had made the DQ call? And remember, FFG does not rule over every regional or large scale event. Often there will be a TO (like Ktom) who will have to make a judgement call at an event not hosted or run by FFG. Directing ire at an employee paid to be at an event is one thing, directing ire at someone volunteering their time is another.
dcdennis said:
AGoT DC Meta said:
Dobbler said:
I am not opposed to doing away with the anti-collusion rules in melee.
But if they decide to keep anti-collusion rules in place, we need a stronger definition of what that means.
Where do you think they'll land on this, Greg? Backtracking on collusion rules would be admitting that the 2012 worlds ruling was excessive, in a way. I think it more likely they'll add something.
So what would a stipulation such as "abuse of combos in mirrored decks is prohibited," for example, add? The worst possible outcome is if FFG does no clarifying, and everyone is walking on eggshells.
i was thinking more along the lines of maybe they could start designing cards that cant be abused. but thats just me
Both in Joust and in Melee, cards slip through the playtest process as broken. It happens and is unfortunate. After playing this game for 9 years, I've seen cards abused in both scenarios.
what about adding a clock system like poker has? if anyone at the table thinks any one decision is taking excessively long, they can call a clock, at which point the decider has a preset amount of time, usually 1 or 2 mins, to make the call, or pass his action.
KhalBrogo said:
That's not all the rules say can get you DQ'd sure that's collusion but there's other stuff listed as well. Further, what you're essentially saying is that the above facts should be completely ignored when evaluating whether someone is actually colluding or not and to do so would be just ridiculous.
No - what I am stating is the collusion rules were put in place to prevent people from deciding ahead of time how they would fix a game they are in together (which is the charge against Corey and Erick -- although both would be smart enough to have done the same thing without discussing it)….in fact, Corey and Erick played identical decks which would have made it an easy inclusion into the rules if they wanted. They also could have taken action before round 1 and said DC meta is DQ'd for acts against the integrity of the game (which would have been ridiculous as well).
The only logical conclusion is something was done during the last part of the final game which made the judges believe collusion occurred. It seems like it would be very easy to point this out…although from what I have read no one can point to a single thing that would indicate collusion.
Rick was DQ'd and it sounds like he was barely involved in the end game discussions.
The 4th player made it clear from the start he was in for making deals - which means any claims of not working with him crazy.
What happened was FFG decided to take action against players that they don't particularily like because the heat of day built to a point they didn't like. It was a cowards decision. It was the terrible culmination of a stupid rule put in place to stop behavior that is impossible to stop….in a format created to exemplify the behavior they wanted to stop. Insanity.
papalorax said:
KhalBrogo said:
That's not all the rules say can get you DQ'd sure that's collusion but there's other stuff listed as well. Further, what you're essentially saying is that the above facts should be completely ignored when evaluating whether someone is actually colluding or not and to do so would be just ridiculous.
No - what I am stating is the collusion rules were put in place to prevent people from deciding ahead of time how they would fix a game they are in together (which is the charge against Corey and Erick -- although both would be smart enough to have done the same thing without discussing it)….in fact, Corey and Erick played identical decks which would have made it an easy inclusion into the rules if they wanted. They also could have taken action before round 1 and said DC meta is DQ'd for acts against the integrity of the game (which would have been ridiculous as well).
The only logical conclusion is something was done during the last part of the final game which made the judges believe collusion occurred. It seems like it would be very easy to point this out…although from what I have read no one can point to a single thing that would indicate collusion.
Rick was DQ'd and it sounds like he was barely involved in the end game discussions.
The 4th player made it clear from the start he was in for making deals - which means any claims of not working with him crazy.
What happened was FFG decided to take action against players that they don't particularily like because the heat of day built to a point they didn't like. It was a cowards decision. It was the terrible culmination of a stupid rule put in place to stop behavior that is impossible to stop….in a format created to exemplify the behavior they wanted to stop. Insanity.
I would say the opposite. It was very brave of them to do what what they did.
Moreover, don't think the rule is stupid, rather it's necessary for what they want the melee to be.
Further, actually it is not impossible to stop that behavior because it was stopped in finals.
The problem is that the rules are subjective and many things can count as evidence of collusion. You are trying to say that there must be one single thing that sufficiently illustrates collusion. That's never how this is going to work. Things of this nature usually require a totality of circumstances evaluation and in that regard I think they were justified.
Wow, I would have thought of going up to the World Championship to meet some of these people that I read about and listen to, but had a wedding to attend. This is surely a pretty astounding amount of information to process since I came back.
So if I understand things right, the multiplayer format is played as a 1 versus many format, like Halo Deathmatches, instead of something like CT/Terrorist games in Counterstrike?
Also, the tournament rules seem to state that some level of "sportsmanship" is expected out of all participants, but is a bit vague on that meaning, which leaves it up to the TOs and potentially public perception at large.
It seems then, that we have an issue of what is legal vs. what is ethical. From what I can gather after poring through all this stuff, it seems like there've been problems a couple times with the same people who want to keep pushing the boundaries of the established rules. What does that say about someone's character that they keep doing that? In different workplaces all over, there are quite a few actions that would be strictly legal, but not ethical, so people don't do them (we won't get into Wall Street style actions right now, as that's a whole different argument).
Wait, you mean Eric was colluding because they gimped the weakest player and shut him out of the game?
Hate to break it to ya, but if you are actually playing to win a melee, the best path is to utterly gimp a player and use him to farm unopposed power. Its why I hate the format.
I wonder which is the better option:
1. Adding stricter collusion rules/better definitions, or;
2. Adding changes to the format that work to discourage collusion. For example, something that only rewards 1st place, or something similar.
I don't know if #2 is possible - I don't play enough melee to know how to work out different options and how they would work. I'm just thinking of some way that people would not want to collude - that encourages every person to play to win and not play to set up the order of finish. Or making it a team competition (2v2), etc.. Or perhaps deckbuilding rules. I don't know.
MeatLoafX said:
1. Adding stricter collusion rules/better definitions, or;
They could say - you are not allowed to make deals in melee at any time. I find the negotiating and coaching simply awful, but I know lots of people really like that aspect of melee. But to try and say in game is o.k., but if we perceive something out of game is not o.k….its will just lead to mud. Honestly that is the only thing you could do…pick one extreme or the other, not the soft middle.
Dobbler said:
I believe there is a 0% chance they remove the collusion rules.
Based on my conversations with Steve Horvath at Worlds, the current wording on collusion and sportsmanship in the tourney document was a starting place, but he also didn't indicate to me that they had intentions of trying to draw stricter lines of definition. So they might have plans of adding more definition to the sportsmanship section in the tourney document, but they also may not.
I would imagine that after this past weekend that FFG will have plenty of discussions on how they want to proceed forward.
Also, keep in mind that Nate was the one who made the DQ ruling in the final Melee game at worlds. Nate works for FFG and is a direct representative of the company. Ktom, on the otherhand, is more of a middle man. Would the community have acted or felt differently if Ktom had made the DQ call? And remember, FFG does not rule over every regional or large scale event. Often there will be a TO (like Ktom) who will have to make a judgement call at an event not hosted or run by FFG. Directing ire at an employee paid to be at an event is one thing, directing ire at someone volunteering their time is another.
Well, all I can say is it will be interesting to see what happens to the tourney rules, and how they think they can fix this. "Starting place" to me would indicate additions. When I was a Resident Hall Director and I'd sit over sanctioning college students for breaking rules, the focus was on the impact of one's behavior on one's self and others, including the frequency and severity, not the rule itself. I could see there being a list of behaviors that in and of themselves aren't collusion, but should be paid attention to, both for the TO and for the players. Some examples of such things may be:
- Frequency and severity of your deal-making with meta-mates to the detriment of others at the table
- Frequency and severity of pwning one specific player, especially if he/she is not a meta-mate
- Discussion of table placement as leverage for deal-making
I don't know how helpful it would be for the people who are "rule-centric" in the sense that if it's not a rule it can't be broken, but it can at least provide a firmer ground for TOs to back up their decisions, and for players to have some basis for making decisions in deckbuilding and during gameplay.
That being said, I don't think these would work as actual rules since they are so ephemeral, and I agree that there shouldn't be collusion rules at all.
TL;DR - a bunch of touch-feely crap I got from working in student affairs for too long, suggesting that FFG not create "rules" per se, but rather guidelines for melee behavior.
AGoT DC Meta said:
Well, all I can say is it will be interesting to see what happens to the tourney rules, and how they think they can fix this. "Starting place" to me would indicate additions. When I was a Resident Hall Director and I'd sit over sanctioning college students for breaking rules, the focus was on the impact of one's behavior on one's self and others, including the frequency and severity, not the rule itself. I could see there being a list of behaviors that in and of themselves aren't collusion, but should be paid attention to, both for the TO and for the players. Some examples of such things may be:
- Frequency and severity of your deal-making with meta-mates to the detriment of others at the table
- Frequency and severity of pwning one specific player, especially if he/she is not a meta-mate
- Discussion of table placement as leverage for deal-making
I actually like these suggestions and think something like them could be implemented with a modicum of refinement. They're in concert with the rules on "unsportsmanlike conduct"---personally, I think the excruciating time spent on dealmaking, discussion, gaming out scenarios that made it such a crushing NPE was a factor. Not only were the decks an interlocking juggernaut, they were also so evenly matched that outcomes were determined on the slimmest of margins, almost requiring a degree of consent that needed a spreadsheet of outcomes to accept or decline. Maybe we need a stalemate rule?
But particularly the third bullet point above could be implemented. Don't try to coerce or cajole your opponents with metagaming about overall tournament standings. Obviously there'll be awareness and cunning players will try to navigate those waters, but leave it out of the table talk. Focus on the game, and if you need somebody's help to win, then just say "are you ok with coming in second?" and leave them to work out the implications for themselves.
Without reading too much - and whipping myself for even talking about competative melee - it is like pornography. I know it when I see it ~and it turns me on.
Anytime 14 people bring a deck that is almost the same, it is hard to say that people did not collude ahead of time. However, personally I would just warn them and then check out results and watch games. If a higher than normal % of said 14 decks get 1st and 2nd, using each other's cards to get there…well it is pretty cut and dry.
The funny thing is, no one really has much respect for the two titles that are not the Joust title. No offense to the French winner in that I heard was REALLy good - and heck I didn't even know who won overall (let's just say it wasn't mentioned once in 4 hours of bar-agot-talking time). Who are considered the best players? All people who consistently play well in Joust. Funny that FFG still ties 66% of the prizes to melee *shrug*
I won the overall title Rings. My game with you not withstanding I had a great run in both tournaments. Finished 6th(3rd after DQ's) in melee, and 5th in joust, you were my only loss in Swiss and Bruno is the one that knocked me out in the top 8 round.
Dobbler said:
HoyaLawya said:
Dobbler said:
It was the "in practice" use that created the collusion problem. Specifically, when two metamates are at a table and ALWAYS take away all of the other 2 players' icons, but RARELY take away each other's icons, there is something else going on. That was why they were warned after Round 1 (based on how they played the deck) rather than before Round 1 (based on the decklist). No matter what the other players at the table had or how deals with them might have been more beneficial to an individual player, those factors were never explored or even considered. In most cases, they stuck to the pre-arranged strategy to effectively turn the 4-player Melee into a 2-player Melee.
If stripping a mirrored deck's icons results in all your icons being stripped for no challenges, no renown, no uo power (mutually assured destruction) and stripping opponents' icons protects you from challenge claim and guarantees uo power (uo plus active red viper is minimum of 6 power per turn) what reason does someone have to play the deck any other way regardless of whether the person sitting across the table is from their meta or not? It's not pre round determination that decides the result, it's playing the cards on the table to your own interest making the best deal for you in round.
But Brian, herein is where that argument falls short. Since you guys all brought that same deck, there was predetermination. So you are right, if you sat at a table with a random opponent using the hellholt/Scourge tactics, and then proceeded to say "I won't remove your icons if you don't remove mine", there was no pregame intent. But because that entire metagroup made the conscious choice to bring it AND use it together, you have both premeditated intent and collusion.
In 2011 I would have applauded this move as the smartest move in the history of Game of Thrones Melee at a world championship event. But that was BEFORE we had collusion rules. When FFG decided to institute collusion rules, things changed.
I will agree with papalorax and anyone else who states that the collusion rules are too loose and open for interpretation. That was basically my point of creating this thread.
If what the DC group did isn't collusion, then what is?
If I get this correctly, you're saying that because the whole DC meta brought the same deck it is collusion, but if a couple people had the exact same decks from different metas it's not collusion when the games play out exactly the same? The reason the whole DC meta brought and played this deck is because it was the best deck. I don't think anyone playing this deck had a 4th place finish (except when 4 were at the same top 16 table and the DQ). For the swiss that's 10 players in 3 games for a total of 30 times the deck was played. Outside the one table with 3 of the decks in the 3rd round, I think the deck took 3rd in only one other swiss game. That's a 93% rate for 1st or 2nd assuming memory serves me correctly.
If before going into a game we pre-determined everyone's placing then there would be collusion. We didn't do that. We went into every game to win. When in games where they were paired infinite strip became possible at some tables. At other tables it never happened. When it did, both players tried to be the one to finish first by either specifically targeting military challenges to keep the other DC metamate's Viper from not kneeling, removing opponent's characters with watchful servant or secret alliance, and canceling make an example. All control decks are stronger when paired with other control. When two great control decks sit down together it's not collusion for them to make an in game deal to control the other two players to reduce the variables and each try to get ahead in that push for 1st place. In fact, to do otherwise would be outside the player's best interest and could cause suspicion of collusion with the rush player being protected against self interest. Just because those two control decks are played by members of the same meta or are identical doesn't make it collusion. I think this is especially true for a meta with a history of having multiple players take the same deck to a tournament.
Brian, intent has everything to do with it. If players intend to make their own deck better by encouraging someone else to use the same deck, you have colluded. Its really that simple. You are welcome to keep arguing that collusion wasn't involved, however, I've had conversation with at least half of the people using this deck from that metagroup and its clear the intent was there.
Now, Worlds is over, the DQ ruling won't change, hellholt engineer will soon be errata'd and hopefully FFG will modify the sportsmanship language to offer some more definition and parameters on what collusion looks like. I think its time to stop arguing on what exactly the DC meta did, and start moving forward to fix a problem that was distasteful to so many players. I had 2+ players from my own meta mention that they may not ever want to play competitive melee again because of Worlds.
We can agree that what was done is done and hope that FFG provides some clarity to the melee rules.
HoyaLawya said:
We can agree that what was done is done.
That's a semantically null sentence.
dcdennis said:
HoyaLawya said:
We can agree that what was done is done.
That's a semantically null sentence.
We can disagree that what was not done was not done?
Dobbler said:
I had 2+ players from my own meta mention that they may not ever want to play competitive melee again because of Worlds.
I may never want to play competitive melee again because of Worlds, but I think you and I disagree on the collusion here (given I don't assume intent to collude…at least, I don't feel there's adequate proof revealed that all 10 players were intending to collude, and definitely not Rick).
Honestly, I'm not sure there's anything FFG can do that will convince me to take competitive melee seriously, short of (a) apologizing that they got it wrong, or (b) scrapping collusion rules altogether (which would be sort of an admission of guilt without actually admitting they got it wrong).
Edit: If the three players DQ'd all "admitted" that they were colluding, I would be convinced, though the timing still irks me. And for that matter, if all 10 were colluding, why weren't all 10 DQ'd and their points taken away? The inconsistency just kills me.