| | | | | You are not authorized to post a reply. |
| | Author | Messages | |
Zaukrie
Underboss
2007 Posts
    
 | | 06/06/2005 2:41 PM |
| Shadow, you were clearly not cheating. I hope I made that clear on Saturday. I'd like to see you at more tourneys, it will make everyone a better player.
I think your post earlier in this thread is one of the best you've posted. I tried to explain to several players after you took the draw that if you lost in the next round, you were probably out completely, and you were taking a big chance, a chance on your skill. While I likely would not have taken the same course, that does not make what you did wrong. | |
Fastest dropping DCI ranking on record!
Champion of Juiblex | |
|
Pauper
Sergeant
508 Posts
| | 06/06/2005 3:13 PM |
| quote:
Originally posted by Kiddoc
I know that in MAGIC (no known ruling for DDM as far as I know) it is legal for the two finalists (only), once the final round pairing as been announced, to agree to draw and split the prize. Again this is only in the final (championship) round, between the top 2 players. Since it's a draw, I don't think anyone actually gets 2nd place?
The rule you're looking for is in the DCI Universal Floor rules, and it requires one player to concede so that the other is the unambiguous tournament winner. The players, however, are allowed to split the prize in whatever way they see fit, as a specific exception to the rule you noted.
I remember playing in a prerelease at Con of the North (I think it was the Weatherlight release, but not sure), where over 400 people showed up, and the rounds went so slowly that the Swiss portion of the tournament wasn't over until almost midnight. After a short discussion, all the single-elim players pretty much agreed to split the prize and go to bed, and the judges agreed and allowed it. Granted, this is a pre-release, not a qualifier, but I feel the rules should retain a certain flexibility for players to come to reasonable accomodations.
--
Pauper | |
Champion of the War Wizard of Cormyr | |
|
Jarvissteven
Warrior
209 Posts
| | 06/06/2005 5:41 PM |
| My favorite draw story comes from MTG. This was in Denver and during a very slow environment where natural draws occurred in droves. I had already hit 4-0-2, as had 5 other players, three matches were on going for top eight. Then two friends not wanting to knock each other out of top 8 ID-ed. The other matches had a winner marking the first time I had ever witnessed someone at 4-1-1 not getting into the top eight by intentionally drawing.
| |
| |
| Thoth, Gatherer of Knowledge
MerricB
Underboss
2353 Posts
Australia
| | 06/06/2005 7:41 PM |
| I would just like to point out that Mike Donais said nothing in this post about draws.
http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=6192481&postcount=8
He talks about ties.
There is a big difference. A tie is when two people finish the game on exactly the same score. A draw is when the game has no result.
A tie is normally also considered a draw, but there is a difference.
Cheers! | |
Merric Blackman
| |
|
Balduran I
Sergeant
404 Posts
| | 06/06/2005 7:44 PM |
| I implied earlier that taking an ID is wrong because of collusion or otherwise manipulating a tourney to the participant’s advantage. Inherent in that is the idea that such manipulation is actually ALWAYS in the manipulators ABSOLUTE best interest. I was wrong. While it IS manipulating the environment, taking an ID is NOT a sure thing. It especially does not automatically screw other players in the tourney.
As such, I owe an apology to the people I implied that about. I still think drawing a match has no place in DDM – it’s a wargame, I come to play, and so should you! [:)]Failing that as persuasion, being able to manipulate the environment just doesn’t feel right, so I’m against it. But that said, I unreservedly apologize for any imputation of sinister motives to you all in doing it.
Assumptions:
There are 5 rounds of Swiss, with 32 participants. Entering the fourth round, two players (‘A’ and ‘B’ from now on), are 3-0 and matched to play. There have been no byes, draws or drops, and won’t be in the 4th or 5th round either. As well, no one else will take an intentional draw in the 4th or 5th round, and there will be a top 4 (not top 6 or 8) playoff or other ‘prize’ after the Swiss. Win = 3 points, a Draw = 1 point, and a Loss = 0 points.
Questions:
1) Is taking an intentional draw (ID) “team” collusion: if A and B want to maximize the chances that ONE of them is ensured a place in the top four after round 5, should they play, or should they take an ID?
2) Does taking an ID guarantee both of them a better chance to make the top 4?
2) Does taking an ID change other player’s chances of making the top 4?
Conclusions:
1) Taking the ID is NOT “team” collusion. If A and B want to maximize the chances that ONE of them is ensured a place in the top four they should NOT take the ID. Instead, one should concede to the other.
2) No, only one of them. Taking the ID ensures that if either LOSES the 5th round, they will NOT be in the top 4. Again, a win in round 4 would be better for that player, though worse for the loser, in this regard.
3) Marginally, but it does NOT always change it for the worse. It simply swaps one circumstance for another.
- If either player taking the ID loses round 5, then it actually makes it MORE likely, indeed it ensures, that someone else will make the top 4.
- If the player that would have WON round 4, but instead took the ID, wins round 5, it makes no difference. They would have made it anyway.
- If the player that would have LOST round 4, but instead took the ID, wins round 5, then it DOES ensure him a slot in the top 4.
- Therefore, if BOTH players that took the ID win round 5, then it does indeed put one other player out of CHECKING the tie breaks (but NOT automatically making the top 4).
- HOWEVER, if BOTH players LOSE round 5, then one MORE person than would have been in (had they played out round 4), will be in the tie break situation.
Caveat:
This does not take into account how tie breaking within the DCI program works. It assumes that anyone with a tie in points can possibly, but is not ensured to, get a spot in the top 4.
The Numbers:
(Only the top of the standings are tracked in the later sections, as they are all that is relevant.)
Going into the 4th round the standings are (all 32 players):
4 x 9 points (3-0, both A and B are in this group, and have been paired to play)
12 x 6 points (2-1)
12 x 3 points (1-2)
4 x 0 points (0-3)
At the end of the 4th round there are two possible standing outcomes (those with 9 or more points, ie, those still with a chance of going 4-1 overall):
Taking the ID
1 x 12 points (4-0)
2 x 10 points (4-0-1, A and B are in this group)
7 x 9 points (3-1)
Playing it out.
2 x 12 points (4-0, A is in this group)
8 x 9 points (3-1, B is in this group)
Possible outcomes in the 5th | |
| |
|
Tried
Sergeant
501 Posts
| | 06/06/2005 10:35 PM |
|
I think a big problem has been that DCI thinks it can make "encompassing" rules that generally govern all types of tourneys.
EACH individual event clearly requires its own rules. How hard is it, in this digital age, to cut, copy and edit? DDM is not MTG is not Risk. So, different rules, yes?
I never played MTG - in fact - I have always been under the impression that there were no ties in DDM - and that if somehow one happened, a die roll was to resolve the issue. Thus, an intentional draw is a foreign concept. I disagree with Merric's point above (ties vs draws) The term draw is used significantly more rarely in american english than tie, and is generally considered a synonym.
I know Mike did not want there to be draws, but after all, its probably up to Ian, as head of OP.
There are 9 mentions of ties that I find in the DDM rulebook, and all call for resolution - reroll, tie-breakers, etc. Some of these are pragmatic, to allow game play. But they clearly don't want games to end in ties, or - I believe- they would not have established the tiebreaker criteria that they have.
With respect to cheating or collusion - heh, well, there will always be mudslinging. There is no way to avoid collusion if someone is willing to concede for his team-mate. Certainly, he is taking a big hit to do it. Taking a draw would seem to be less likely, since on the one hand it is more of a risk to both, yet could work if you know the relative records of other bands and the likely matchups in the next round.
Clearly,ending draws will not end collusion by any stretch of the imagination. And is it collusion? I mean, if you earn the right to be there, you earn the right to concede to whoever you wish, right?
I am uncertain whether i support ID or not. But I'd like a ruling to allow proper governance. Certainly, if you are not from a MTG backgroung it is counter-intuitive, based on the rules mentioned above.
With respect to shadowfoxes statements above - I thought they were elegant and, while not necessary, showed class.
| |
Let it be. | |
|
Gaddszooks
Underboss
1064 Posts
| | 06/06/2005 11:21 PM |
| I'd like to make a very small but important comment here also.
As the Judge for this MN Qualifier that is getting so much attention I'd like to ask this.
When do volunteers running events for DDM's start getting official rules and rule changes mailed to them so they can continue to govern all of these situations?
I made the call, I allowed the Draw because I could not find anything against it,and still dont after reading these boards.
Put the flak and criticizm where it belongs, on me. Shadow and Bone need none of it, they played by the rules and that's all any of us can do.
| |
Completed Trades (172)
Where did that thread go? I need to sew my shield strap back on. | |
|
Tried
Sergeant
501 Posts
| | 06/06/2005 11:30 PM |
| My point is this - Why should you shoulder the blame?
Qualifiers should be mailed out with rules. Rules should be specific to DCI events, not general or requiring interpretation.
The blame comes in the dissemination of knowledge, or lack thereof.
This has been a good thing, if one considers that it will resolve a potentially hot issue prior to gencon, no?
so credit, blame, or whatever - you can have it all! But the outburst should get wizards moving with a response, which is all anyone wants anyway, right?
| |
Let it be. | |
|
Gaddszooks
Underboss
1064 Posts
| | 06/07/2005 12:12 AM |
| Bingo
I dont necessarily agree with the blame not being on me though. I allowed it and therefore shoulder some, if not all of it.
Who knows, maybe wizards will invite me to Gencon just to reprimand me for allowing the ID. Or maybe I can judge at the Gencon event..that'd be fair IMO.
[:D]
| |
Completed Trades (172)
Where did that thread go? I need to sew my shield strap back on. | |
|
Pauper
Sergeant
508 Posts
| | 06/07/2005 12:39 AM |
| Great work with the numbers, Balduran, and nice to see the folks on these boards aren't afraid of a little math here and there. :)
The numbers do support the assertions of the team members in question that they took the ID to ensure a 'win and you're in' scenario rather than leaving one of them to depend on tiebreakers. There's certainly nothing in the numbers to suggest that the two players were trying to screw anybody else out of a slot - one could argue that the two players indirectly helped everyone who played against them by taking a one-point draw rather than a zero-point loss.
--
Pauper | |
Champion of the War Wizard of Cormyr | |
|
Pauper
Sergeant
508 Posts
| | 06/07/2005 12:49 AM |
| quote:
Originally posted by Tried
Qualifiers should be mailed out with rules. Rules should be specific to DCI events, not general or requiring interpretation.
Actually, where the rules govern operation of the swiss system, which is pretty much the same for each DCI game, there's no reason to have a different set of swiss rules for each game - one set of 'swiss system' rules is enough.
As for saying that the universal rules talk about decks and such, well, most DCI games are card games - Magic, Pokemon, Duel Masters, etc. Again, there's no need to re-invent the wheel. And if a 'universal' rule obviously doesn't apply to a game you're playing, it's easy enough to ignore it.
There's no way to have a rules system that's comprehensive enough to govern every play situation. Referees will always be asked to make judgment calls based on situations that don't quite neatly fit into the established rules. The best we can hope for is to have judges who are knowledgable, fair, and impartial, and who are willing to make a ruling and take the consequences, and we clearly had that at our qualifier.
Based on the judge's actions in the tournament and on these boards, and the fact that he was wearing an 'Outpost 2000' ball cap, I can say with some confidence where I'll likely end up playing my next tournament. :)
--
Pauper | |
Champion of the War Wizard of Cormyr | |
|
Shivan Darkeyes
Warrior
266 Posts
| | 06/07/2005 3:56 AM |
| Intentional Draws Pros:
1. Allows undefeated players to draw their final round without effecting their DCI ratings.
2. Keeps Wizard's policy consistant between games they sell so people that play Magic that decide to play DDM more easily transition. It also allows players of other games that use swiss systems to feel more comfortable with consistant rules (think Chess).
3. Allows players who would rather draw due to friendships retain that option.
4. Allows players which desire to have a break a chance to rest.
5. Allows players the options to skip unimportant matches.
Cons:
1. Allows collusion more easily.
2. Gives players that take draws the advantages above.
3. Discourages "open competition"
4. It increases the amount of luck in a smaller tournament pool.
5. It is a turnoff to casual players.
To decide if intentional draws should be kept we should weigh the pros vs the cons. I went over every post looking for reasons to support intentional draws and reasons to prohibit them. Lets go over the cons first since some of them are poor assumptions.
1. Allows collusion more easily.
While I suspected this was not the case due to my experience with Magic and the ability of players to simply conceed I have to give Balduran I credit for this one. His post proves very clearly that Intentional Draws and Collusion don't go together. His post does a much better job than I explaining why this is a non-issue in regards to collusion.
2. Gives players that take draws advantages over those that don't.
This is only a problem if there is ambiguity in a player's options under the rules or if intentional draws are bad for some reason. Wizards needs a clear policy, but this is irrelevant to intentional draws or is an arguement in their favor because it is more consistant with other wizard's products. Intentional draws being bad begs the question thus reason #2 isn't a reason to disallow intentional draws.
3. Discourages "open competition"
This has more merit than the above reasons, but I would suggest that rather than discouraging "open competition" it discourages irrelevant competition. Sports teams are disallowed from intentional draws because sports are spectator friendly games and while games like DDM and Magic are fun for ME to watch I highly doubt coverage will make it to prime time on ESPN (ya ya I know Magic is covered but only hardcore magic players watch it and it certainly isn't prime time).
People don't draw out the game if the game matters for them to clear, thus the problem is that the system forces some games that are irrelevant to the standings. If players don't want to play an irrelevant game they should have the OPTION of drawing the game out. Some players may play the game anyway for the practice or the thrill of competition, but it should not be an OBLIGATION forced down those players throats with the only alternative being one player's concession. What is "sportsman-like" is subjective and open to interpretation. I would argue that taking a draw to get food for people or to rest up for the "big game" in finals is hardly unsportsperson-like conduct.
4. It increases the amount of luck in smaller tournament pools.
I thought the opposite of this was the case, but I didn't crunch the numbers and it is late so I'll have to look at this later. If this is actually the case it could make for a compelling arguement against the ID.
5. It is a turnoff to casual players.
Problematic if true... I don't know why this is nessicarily the case. The boards seem to show that this is true, but I can see pro #2 mitigating or even surpassing this con.
The pros, in my opinion, outweigh these cons.
1. Allows undefeated players to draw their final round without effecting their DCI ratings.
If players don't want to play an irrelevant match they should have the option of drawing the game and not effecting their DCI ratings. This can reward players which go undefeated a break and can give them options. If the match is irrelevant anyway it seems silly to force the issue.
5. Allows players the options to skip unimportant matches.
This also has the benefit of quickening the tournament which is good for everyone. | |
13th Place at the 2005 DDM Championship in GenCon | |
| 
Avatar of the Tank
Newtoncain
Commander
2985 Posts
Land of 10,000 taxes
| | 06/07/2005 7:28 AM |
| quote:
Originally posted by Gaddszooks
Who knows, maybe wizards will invite me to Gencon just to reprimand me for allowing the ID. Or maybe I can judge at the Gencon event..that'd be fair IMO.
[:D]
That would be sweet, IMHO. | |
They just don't know what's good in life...Conan, tell them what is good in life.
To rip the boosters. To count the minis spilled out before you, and to hear the indifference of the women... | |
| 
Wrackspawn
ChristopherGroves
Warlord
6093 Posts
| | 06/07/2005 8:41 AM |
| quote:
Originally posted by Gaddszooks
I dont necessarily agree with the blame not being on me though. I allowed it and therefore shoulder some, if not all of it.
I don't think any of you should shoulder the blame or that there should be any blame, period. I'm more on the Tried side of things - the issue is clear understanding of the rules and there are things that the WotC folks can (and should) do to assist with that.
What is clear though is that our buddies on the DDM organized play side of things don't necessarily have a clear communication path with those who do produce and release organized play materials (Assembly 5 anyone? No? How about the Sandstorm tiles?)
I'm not sure if DDM needs a completely separate rule set, but if the intention is to use DCI for all sorts of games let's get all of the magic references out of the DCI universal rules and into their own floor rules. Reduce the Universal set down to those of minimal commonality and then push all changes or additions into each game's floor rules. | |
Triangle DDM Skirmish Group | My Email | 45-ish trades and counting | Stuff for Trade
* * * Show your brother some love and click here * * * | |
|
Wrackspawn
ChristopherGroves
Warlord
6093 Posts
| | 06/07/2005 8:44 AM |
| One more thing ... I've said this on a half a dozen threads already and I may as well say it here ...
Judges are underappreciated and undersupported. SEND them email updates when the floor rules, etc. change and use them as a vehicle to educate new players. Most of them are doing as much of this as they can anyway, but they lack the resources. However, join this effort with a compensation program similar to DM rewards. Ship them some product or special promos for their time and effort. You don't have to pay them cash but you can compensate them. | |
Triangle DDM Skirmish Group | My Email | 45-ish trades and counting | Stuff for Trade
* * * Show your brother some love and click here * * * | |
| 2004 D&D Miniatures Champion
Kiddoc
Underboss
1797 Posts
| | 06/07/2005 9:02 AM |
| quote:
Originally posted by ChristopherGroves
One more thing ... I've said this on a half a dozen threads already and I may as well say it here ...
Judges are underappreciated and undersupported. SEND them email updates when the floor rules, etc. change and use them as a vehicle to educate new players. Most of them are doing as much of this as they can anyway, but they lack the resources. However, join this effort with a compensation program similar to DM rewards. Ship them some product or special promos for their time and effort. You don't have to pay them cash but you can compensate them.
Agree. 'Zooks, you hold no real responsibility for this, but your willingness to step up and take it shows what kind of guy (and what kind of judge) you are.
They do a poor job of distributing the appropriate rules for this game. Anyone else remember the botch that happened with the tournaments back during Archfiends that were supposed to be 200 points (announced as such), but the sheets they sent to the judges/TO's said 100. How about the way they horked the Angelfire prerelease announcement? Heh.
You can be sure that some people "in the know" will hear more about this situation. It's a shortcoming of the hobby so far, and one that's very correctible, hopefully we can address it before it becomes a significant problem. | |
POST DISCLAIMER: Above post may contain humor. Now with micro scrubbing bubbles. Do not operate heavy machinery. Take with food. Use only as directed. Contents may settle during shipping. No user-servicable parts inside. Void where prohibited. Beware of dog. This side up. Do not fold, spindle, or mutilate. No salt, MSG, or artificial coloring or flavoring added. Actual cash value of this post is 1/100th of a cent. Avoid contact with skin... | |
|
Zaukrie
Underboss
2007 Posts
| | 06/07/2005 9:29 AM |
| Gadzooks bears no blame. I know him well, and am not surprised he is trying to take some of the heat; he's a great guy. Indeed, I don't think anyone but WotC bears any blame here. Clear rules, clear event management, appreciation and help to judges - that's what we need here.
Gadzooks has done as much as anyone in MN to grow this hobby. Without him, I'd not even be playing, and I'm sure there are others who can say the same thing. I'll keep saying that Shadow and Bonepin can't be blamed either. What they did was within the rules. | |
Fastest dropping DCI ranking on record!
Champion of Juiblex | |
|
YRM_DM
Sergeant
905 Posts
| | 06/07/2005 11:27 AM |
| Pros & Cons of allowing for Draws.
Probably the biggest "con", even if the game is supposedly meaningless, is that people have to drive 3-4 hours to qualifiers at times.
Imagine how much money people spend to go to the finals.
People take precious vacation days off of work.
The games should be played out.
A bunch of my friends and I considered driving 3 hours to Columbus, but, a few of them bailed out so I doubt I can go. If we did, there's no way I'd ask a friend who was out of qualifying to lose to me intentionally, and there's no way I'd drop a game so that a friend could get 4th place instead of someone else. Same with allowing intentional draws.
No matter what the rules allow, people shouldn't do this, even before it's fixed.
Imagine you drove 3 hours to a qualifier and you're going to get 4th place as long as Kiddoc beats one of his friends (sorry Kiddoc, just an example). He decides that he's already advanced, so he conceeds the game to let his friend qualify instead of you.
This guy could qualify with the same record as you, and you don't, because he beat better players, yet, one of those wins was a gift that he could not have earned.
Play to win. Don't quit. Try to be sporting about it if you lose... even to multiple critical failure rolls. | |
Completed good trades with Demagogue, PigSnot, DoB, and Alepulp.
I know you can hear MY thoughts... Meow, Meow, Meow, Meow, Meow, Meow, Meow, Meow... | |
|
Avatar of the Tank
Newtoncain
Commander
2985 Posts
Land of 10,000 taxes
| | 06/07/2005 11:35 AM |
| quote:
Originally posted by Zaukrie
Gadzooks bears no blame. I know him well, and am not surprised he is trying to take some of the heat; he's a great guy. Indeed, I don't think anyone but WotC bears any blame here. Clear rules, clear event management, appreciation and help to judges - that's what we need here.
Gadzooks has done as much as anyone in MN to grow this hobby. Without him, I'd not even be playing, and I'm sure there are others who can say the same thing. I'll keep saying that Shadow and Bonepin can't be blamed either. What they did was within the rules.
2nd this comment.
Gaddszooks rules, and is a good player to boot.
He's in the same boat (I judge so I don't get to play much) that I'm in. Or in realality , I just joined him in the boat he was already in. | |
They just don't know what's good in life...Conan, tell them what is good in life.
To rip the boosters. To count the minis spilled out before you, and to hear the indifference of the women... | |
| 2004 D&D Miniatures Champion
Kiddoc
Underboss
1797 Posts
| | 06/07/2005 12:02 PM |
| quote:
Originally posted by YRM_DM
Imagine you drove 3 hours to a qualifier and you're going to get 4th place as long as Kiddoc beats one of his friends (sorry Kiddoc, just an example). He decides that he's already advanced, so he conceeds the game to let his friend qualify instead of you.
You know, it's funny... I actually have had the opportunity to do such a thing before. I know that there are a lot of fancy mathematical formulas for figuring out the pros and cons of ID's, but I have to go with my gut feeling here that they are just somehow "not right" for the game. I know it's strange, but in some ways I want DDM to be different than other games, to feel more uh... pure? I dunno.
Anyhow, tiebreakers, and matchups do matter. And I make it a point to know who I'm playing each round. Really, I want to know about them. And when people show up at my FLGS, I want to know where they're from as part of that. We have a couple of regular players that come from 90+ minutes away, and they come almost every week. And you know what, I want them to get their time, money, and effort's worth. So when we have an odd number of players, I sit out for the night, just so they don't have a chance of picking up a bye. Nobody wants to drive 90 minutes to play 2 or 3 rounds when they could be playing 4 or 5.
And could you imagine how things might have changed for poor Jesse Dean, who suddenly became my biggest fan at Gencon after I beat him (he needed me to do well so his tie-breakers would be good enough to get him in [)]), if I had decided, aw man, I'm sick and tired of playing, I've been here for 14 hours, and I have food poisoning, screw this. And just asked Mike Dougan if he wanted a draw (which he might have taken, since he was automatically in, and starving) instead of playing my final round of swiss? Or what if I'd met Jesse in a different round, the outcome had been the same, but I ended up 4-1 going in, and he abosolutely needed that tiebreak to get into the top 8, do I take the draw in the last round there, knowing that it knocks him out of the finals for sure? Ouch, not the type of decision I'd want to make. | |
POST DISCLAIMER: Above post may contain humor. Now with micro scrubbing bubbles. Do not operate heavy machinery. Take with food. Use only as directed. Contents may settle during shipping. No user-servicable parts inside. Void where prohibited. Beware of dog. This side up. Do not fold, spindle, or mutilate. No salt, MSG, or artificial coloring or flavoring added. Actual cash value of this post is 1/100th of a cent. Avoid contact with skin... | |
|
Balduran I
Sergeant
404 Posts
| | 06/07/2005 12:21 PM |
| One of the reasons it feels wrong in DDM is the greater time/energy commitment per game, compared to a card game.
Card games are like poker... duh... what I mean is that any given game makes less difference, takes less time and energy, than a game of DDM. It's the cumulative goal that one is going for. In poker it's cleaning the other guys out; in Magic it's accumulating more points. Neither is about winning every game!
In a wargame like DDM the idea of a "loser" winning goes against the grain because there is no "margin for error" in individual games. In Magic one can win a tournament and literally lose 1/3 of the games they play. (Winning all matches with 2-1 results.) That doesn't translate at all in DDM, or indeed in any wargame. There's too much time and energy devoted per game of the later, whereas the former is again more like poker. Screwed up that hand/game? Don't worry, you'll catch up.
In DDM it's important that the winner be just that, a winner. With the round robin format and IDs there is the opportunity to reward strategic manipulation instead of outright winning. While I've come to the conslusion that there's nothing inherently wrong with this (the numbers show it), it just feels wrong in a boardgame environment. | |
| |
|
Pauper
Sergeant
508 Posts
| | 06/07/2005 1:18 PM |
| quote:
Originally posted by Balduran I
In DDM it's important that the winner be just that, a winner. With the round robin format and IDs there is the opportunity to reward strategic manipulation instead of outright winning. While I've come to the conslusion that there's nothing inherently wrong with this (the numbers show it), it just feels wrong in a boardgame environment.
If the outcome of a DDM game always turned on skill, I'd be willing to agree with you. But just as poker players have bad-beat stories and Magic players have mana-screw stories, DDM players have bad-roll (and good-roll) stories; Particularly in a game where two players' skills and warbands are very evenly matched, the possibility of the game turning on a die roll is just as great as the possibility of the game turning on a bad decision, perhaps more so, as more talented players are almost certainly less likely to make an error, but the chance of a bad roll is the same regardless of your skill.
Granted, it's part of the ethic of DDM that you don't complain about bad rolls - it's part of the game and that's fine. But if the goal is to win a tournament, and the rules give you the option to cut luck out of the equation, I think it's not just defensible but smart to use that option.
--
Pauper | |
Champion of the War Wizard of Cormyr | |
|
Shivan Darkeyes
Warrior
266 Posts
| | 06/07/2005 1:30 PM |
| I understand that many people's thoughts on why intentional draws "feel" wrong, however the discussion isn't if YOU would take one, rather if we should allow others to take draws or if we should make a rules that forces players to play it out. I don't think it is fair to force players to play a game instead of giving them the option to take the draw for no reason other than our personal preferences towards playing over drawing.
If the DDM community as a whole feels this way they can always deny their opponent's draws and force them to play or conceed in an individual match rather than pushing for the banning of draws as a whole.
Again, the tiebreaks that you accumulate for other players through your wins and losses are not owed to them, if you feel that you want to help your opponents because you like them and want to see them do well, this seems to be a reason to play out your game rather than accepting the OPTION of a draw. Since the draw is an option it can always be declined.
The right to choose shouldn't be a right that we deny players because of our own personal preferences, unless we can come up with reasons that draws HURT the environment more than they help it we should allow individuals to choose. | |
13th Place at the 2005 DDM Championship in GenCon | |
|
Zaukrie
Underboss
2007 Posts
| | 06/07/2005 2:13 PM |
| | It hurts the environment if 2 players take a draw, don't play, and someone who does play does not advance. That's just an opinion though. In most sports leagues, two teams that intentionally drew would be heavily penalized. In chess and other games, it is acceptable. There is no purely right and wrong answer here. It is a matter of ethics, not morality. I personally believe that each person should do her best to win, whenever she plays and that draws should not be allowed. | |
Fastest dropping DCI ranking on record!
Champion of Juiblex | |
|
YRM_DM
Sergeant
905 Posts
| | 06/07/2005 2:24 PM |
| quote:
Originally posted by Shivan Darkeyes
I understand that many people's thoughts on why intentional draws "feel" wrong, however the discussion isn't if YOU would take one, rather if we should allow others to take draws or if we should make a rules that forces players to play it out. I don't think it is fair to force players to play a game instead of giving them the option to take the draw for no reason other than our personal preferences towards playing over drawing.
If the DDM community as a whole feels this way they can always deny their opponent's draws and force them to play or conceed in an individual match rather than pushing for the banning of draws as a whole.
Again, the tiebreaks that you accumulate for other players through your wins and losses are not owed to them, if you feel that you want to help your opponents because you like them and want to see them do well, this seems to be a reason to play out your game rather than accepting the OPTION of a draw. Since the draw is an option it can always be declined.
The right to choose shouldn't be a right that we deny players because of our own personal preferences, unless we can come up with reasons that draws HURT the environment more than they help it we should allow individuals to choose.
If I drive 3 hours to a tournament, and some group of kids who lives 5 minutes away all work together to create the most favorable chances of as many of them advancing as possible, how is that "right" or "respectful" of my time, money and effort?
I also thought I was very clear that people should CHOOSE not to conceed or offer draws even if the rules weren't changed.
We know that offering draws have an affect on DCI rankings, and we know that DCI rankings have an affect on who's invited to the finals.
We know that people go far out of their way to make it to qualifiers.
I've run games at conventions where I have lost my voice, had back pain, and been exhausted after 12 hours of being a Judge/DM. People spend money, time and effort to come.
Just because something is within the rules doesn't make it "right".
If you do a tackle a certain way in a soccer game, you can make it look like you were going for the ball, yet take the other guy's knee out. (no, I never did this, but a teammate once did)
Without getting a penalty or violating a rule, you can cripple another person. While that's an extreme example, I could sit here and say, "How do you know he intentionally hurt the guy? It's a fast, contact sport. When you play, you are aware that you can get hurt. If the victim had jumped over the injury attempt, they wouldn't have been injured. In my universe, where nobody else exists and the world revolves around only my concerns, right and wrong have no meaning, and whatever people feel like doing is right, as long as they can get away with it."
Instead, I'm suggesting that people respect other gamers and always play and always put forth an effort. The world doesn't just revolve around personal definitions of morality, other people exist, and if you're going to offend them by even making an appearance of collusion, why do it?
Didn't you go to the tournament to play? | |
Completed good trades with Demagogue, PigSnot, DoB, and Alepulp.
I know you can hear MY thoughts... Meow, Meow, Meow, Meow, Meow, Meow, Meow, Meow... | |
|
Ironballz
Sneak
68 Posts
| | 06/07/2005 2:47 PM |
| First off, I agree with everyone, as is right now, the ID is a legitimate move/decision/strategy. No one can be blamed for using it.
I think it would be better for the game if it didn't exist though. My thought on it, is that it feels like the people who take an ID, are being judged over their performance over 1 fewer game than players who don't take an ID.
I also see a major difference between ID and conceding and think conceding should not be taken out of the game. If you're able to decimate your opponent in the first 30 minutes of a match, or your opponent knows for sure that he's not going to beat you and doesn't want to play it out, you've earned the break. As someone said, it's not a spectator game right now and speeding play up shouldn't be avoided.
Also, I see the ID as a direct way for a player to put tie-breakers in their favor (potentially). Other than winning a match, there is no other method for people to control their tournament standing. In the swiss-matching system that we use, this can be huge, and other players have no counter or recourse, other than to try and win more often, but they were already doing that, so I don't really see that as an option.
Meh, just my opinion I guess. | |
Champion of the Minotaur Knight
Herald of the Epic Snig | |
|
IanB
Commander
3112 Posts
| | 06/07/2005 2:59 PM |
| quote:
Didn't you go to the tournament to play?
Exactly.
DDM is not a team sport and I pray it never becomes one, because scenarios like this suck the fun out of things. Even though the intentional draw is legal, I really think it is weak sauce. If I am playing in a competitive environment, I want to be allowed to compete. The ID reduces competition and lets factors outside what happens on the game board to influence tournament results. That's my real issue with it.
The outcome of a DDM tournament should be determined by the outcome of DDM games. | |
Anson on WotC boards | |
|
Tried
Sergeant
501 Posts
| | 06/07/2005 4:21 PM |
| In the Tiny AZ qualifier, had Sven and I taken an ID in the last round, we would have screwed one of the locals out of the top 4.
Not "likely." Absolutely would have. We could have manipulated things and justified it with a "rest" in the last round. Indeed, while the game was irrelevent to him, it was quite relevent to me.
I likely would not have done it, even if I felt it was legal, but that's a personal thing.
Again - I am not in the apparent majority, insofar as I never thought it was an option - although I now completely understand the logic behind those that do.
But if it really was something everyone did, well, then ID could catch on and maybe those folks would not have felt as "scriewed over."
They would accept it as part of competitive tournament life.
Hey- either way I can live with the ruling - I just want to know for certain what it is.
For the record, I still stand behind my statement that DCI needs its own tourney rules.
And if other card games use the same rules set, then its pretty simple to simply copy them and change the title (or include the games it applies to in the title)! But please, edit the DDM rules, pull out the irrelevent crap and address the DDM-specific issues.
(ID may or may not be DDM specific, dependeing on the ruling).
BTW - it would take practically nothing to change the existing DCI software to be sport-specific.
As it was, I was glad to lose and let one of them in. Ironically, Sven and my boy made it to the finals, and agreed to prize split, whatever the outcome. Sven won, they divied the | |
Let it be. | |
|
Shivan Darkeyes
Warrior
266 Posts
| | 06/07/2005 4:31 PM |
| "In chess and other games, it is acceptable. There is no purely right and wrong answer here. It is a matter of ethics, not morality. I personally believe that each person should do her best to win, whenever she plays and that draws should not be allowed."
I agree with the majority of this. I believe that this is a matter of ethics, not morality and as such each individual player should make up his or her own mind on the issue and we should not have our ethics mandated by the rules. If a person believes drawing is unethical they can choose not to do it- if it is a matter of "personal ethics" why should there be a universal standard for it?
In response to Tried's post I guess I agree with the majority of it... coming from a background in Chess and MTG Intentional Draws are a part of the game and I never even considered that others might have a problem with them. I ultimately think it is a non-issue as long as each player has the same options afforded to them. While I have a slight preference to see Intentional Draws in the rules still I think either way would be fine so long as all the players know the rules.
I also find it hard to believe that so many players look down on their fellow players for taking draws... it seems to be such a minor issue and to paint it as this ethical lapse of judgement seems silly to me.
| |
13th Place at the 2005 DDM Championship in GenCon | |
|
Nalak Bolgimzak
Sneak
68 Posts
| | 06/07/2005 6:13 PM |
| I can't state this with absolute certainty, but I seem to recall Doug and Jason drawing at an earlier event that I actually managed to attend, and there was no stink raised. It seems a bit suspect to me that now that it's at a qualifier, people care. It doesn't seem to really be a "moral" or "ethical" concern, so much as an "I didn't qualify[:(]" concern.
I'm glad that public sentiment here (where it actually matters) has shifted behind Doug and Jason being in the right, and am glad to see that the issue is being addressed more in the abstract now.
For what it's worth, I would like to see the ID removed too--it's always rubbed my sportsmanship wrong--but here's the thing: While it's here, the field is just as level (now that everybody knows about it) as it would be without it. Abolishing it would only do one thing--make it easier for those with bad tournament starts (or middles) to come back and make the finals. It's worth noting that if you just win all your matches, everybody else in the tournament can try to draw in and it doesn't affect you in the least. It can only affect you if you have bad tiebreakers and lose or tie one or two matches and one of the people drawing has worse tiebreakers than you. That's not frequent enough to warrant eliminating the rule, I wouldn't think. | |
Nalak Bolgimzak: Honorable Axe of Team Malice ("The innocent shall suffer--big time!")
"You prefer me docile/like a narcoleptic sloth" -- Five Iron Frenzy, "Wizard Needs Food, Badly", The End Is Near | |
|
IanB
Commander
3112 Posts
| | 06/07/2005 6:29 PM |
| quote:
but here's the thing: While it's here, the field is just as level (now that everybody knows about it) as it would be without it.
Not true. If you're not part of a "team" you miss out on the advantage. It would require convincing someone you maybe don't know as well or who isn't interested in using the rules that way to draw with you, which could come at a potential cost to one of HIS friends or "teammates." | |
Anson on WotC boards | |
|
Nalak Bolgimzak
Sneak
68 Posts
| | 06/07/2005 6:50 PM |
| quote:
Originally posted by IanB
quote:
but here's the thing: While it's here, the field is just as level (now that everybody knows about it) as it would be without it.
Not true. If you're not part of a "team" you miss out on the advantage. It would require convincing someone you maybe don't know as well or who isn't interested in using the rules that way to draw with you, which could come at a potential cost to one of HIS friends or "teammates."
Actually, if you look at established games which use the draw, it isn't as hard as you might think to convince a total stranger to take the draw when it is in your mutual interest. As long as people use the ID, it's not unfair. The only unfairness is introduced by people who refuse the draw in situations where it is mutually beneficial. If it's not mutually beneficial, it's stupid to take it, which is why the draw requires agreement between both parties. But as long as in mutually beneficial situations, both parties agree, there is NO unfairness in the Intentional Draw system. Anyone who perceives themselves being hurt by the ID is actually hurt by their own losses & matchups (or stupidity if they ID themselves out of the finals). Any opposition to the ID (like my own) is based on gut feeling alone and not on superior fairness in the game. | |
Nalak Bolgimzak: Honorable Axe of Team Malice ("The innocent shall suffer--big time!")
"You prefer me docile/like a narcoleptic sloth" -- Five Iron Frenzy, "Wizard Needs Food, Badly", The End Is Near | |
|
IanB
Commander
3112 Posts
| | 06/07/2005 9:03 PM |
| So, blame the victim for only going 4-1?
Sorry, don't buy that logic. What it boils down to is two guys sitting down and potentially taking something away from someone in a DDM tournament without actually playing a game of DDM. | |
Anson on WotC boards | |
| The Defenestrator
AesophDarkfable
Warlord
5628 Posts
| | 06/07/2005 9:10 PM |
| quote:
Originally posted by Nalak Bolgimzak
quote:
Originally posted by IanB
quote:
but here's the thing: While it's here, the field is just as level (now that everybody knows about it) as it would be without it.
Not true. If you're not part of a "team" you miss out on the advantage. It would require convincing someone you maybe don't know as well or who isn't interested in using the rules that way to draw with you, which could come at a potential cost to one of HIS friends or "teammates."
Actually, if you look at established games which use the draw, it isn't as hard as you might think to convince a total stranger to take the draw when it is in your mutual interest. As long as people use the ID, it's not unfair. The only unfairness is introduced by people who refuse the draw in situations where it is mutually beneficial. If it's not mutually beneficial, it's stupid to take it, which is why the draw requires agreement between both parties. But as long as in mutually beneficial situations, both parties agree, there is NO unfairness in the Intentional Draw system. Anyone who perceives themselves being hurt by the ID is actually hurt by their own losses & matchups (or stupidity if they ID themselves out of the finals). Any opposition to the ID (like my own) is based on gut feeling alone and not on superior fairness in the game.
But if a player doesn't understand everything about it, there is valuable time spent discussing it and trying to convince the other player it is a mutual benifit. A well spoken, convicing player might be able to take advantage of charisma and strong arm the other player into thinking its all for the best.
| |
Im out- find me on Hordelings if you want to chat. | |
|
Zaukrie
Underboss
2007 Posts
| | 06/07/2005 9:18 PM |
| Actually, the personal ethics thing applies to all the rules of the game. It is not immoral to cheat at minis, it is unethical. So, stating that ethics has nothing to do with it is inccorect. The ethical thing to do is to follow the rules. It was certainly not unethical to take the draw, however, I believe that games should be played out as a rule. That's just how I feel. If the Packers and Vikings play to an intentional draw so that Dallas doesn't make the playoffs, no one would say that was right. Why is minis different?
This is my last post until Mike or Shoe or someone from DCI asks what the community thinks. I think most of us have made our positions clear now. | |
Fastest dropping DCI ranking on record!
Champion of Juiblex | |
|
YRM_DM
Sergeant
905 Posts
| | 06/08/2005 7:51 AM |
| I've played a lot of chess and, when I was younger, played in some tournaments. There were some "drawn" games in chess, usually when two players decide that neither has an advantage or can easily gain an advantage. Some chess games boil down to a draw as a legitimate competitive result. A king and a knight can't checkmate another king by themselves. DDM would give the victory to the King and Knight though, for having lost fewer points of minis.
I'm about a 1,400-1,500 player on Yahoo, but, I think I'm actually more like 1,300-1,400 IRL, so, I'm not good enough to play in serious tournaments.
The great thing about Chess is that you can win or lose purely on your own brain power vs another person's. There is no chance of losing a game for rolling three 1s in a row at a critical time (especially against a player who is a bad winner).
The crappy thing about Chess is that you'll eventually run up against players that you can never beat, no matter how much you study and play, unless you become a top 10 player.
With DDM, if you're a good strategist, build a good warband, learn tile placement, and practice, a decent player can go into a tournament and beat a champ.
Heck, a CE no-tech, quad-hitter band isn't rocket science to play, and some of them have won qualifiers.
Starcraft from Blizzard used to be, and still is, played competitively. Games like that, your mouse speed, unit control, macro/production + micromanagement are such factors that very few players can compete with the best South Korean players in the world.
DDM though, just about anyone can have a chance for an upset... that, coupled with the inconvenience of driving 3 hours to a convenient qualifier, should make the games worth playing out in nearly any conceivable situation. | |
Completed good trades with Demagogue, PigSnot, DoB, and Alepulp.
I know you can hear MY thoughts... Meow, Meow, Meow, Meow, Meow, Meow, Meow, Meow... | |
|
Ironballz
Sneak
68 Posts
| | 06/08/2005 9:22 AM |
| quote:
Originally posted by Nalak Bolgimzak
Anyone who perceives themselves being hurt by the ID is actually hurt by their own losses & matchups (or stupidity if they ID themselves out of the finals).
You're right, that's exactly what it is. The question is, should players who are undefeated or have superior match-ups, be allowed to have greater control over the standings than players struggling to come back from a loss or poor match-ups?
To me, the standings should be a reflection of what has happened on the game board. The ID is something that happens off the gameboard and as such isn't a representation of a players skill. I think it'd be interesting if people could gain more control of their standings, or rather have more options that "just win".
According to the "pro's" listed earlier, the ID is for the most part an advantage to those taking it... you suffer a little in points, but you gain in having a break, time to rest your mind, study opponents, consider tactics, eat, etc. The only time a person would take an ID is if they are at or near the top of the standings. The ID would therefore seem to be an advantage that is only given to those who are at an advantage, thereby increasing their chances of winning. | |
Champion of the Minotaur Knight
Herald of the Epic Snig | |
|
Kypdurron
Underboss
1206 Posts
Broken Hill
| | 06/08/2005 10:00 AM |
| | Anything that causes animosity and distrust in this game should be gotten rid of IMHO. While it is still a legal option you can't really hassle someone for out thinking/loophole exploiting yourself, just do what i do bitch about them to anyone who will listen *lol* | |
my trade data
email
Completed trades:Nixlord,Lexander , DarkFather x2 ,minotoman38 x2, Mojoical, Smilin Irish, Smithmeg, Bugsy, Doone, gmd316,Bossman.Dargoth
Bad Trades:Chaotic Good ,
,Champion Of Plush Wrackspawn | |
|
rilos
Skirmisher
34 Posts
| | 06/08/2005 12:57 PM |
| quote:
Originally posted by YRM_DM
Just because something is within the rules doesn't make it "right".
If you do a tackle a certain way in a soccer game, you can make it look like you were going for the ball, yet take the other guy's knee out. (no, I never did this, but a teammate once did)
IMO yo |
|
|
|
|
|