Zalcon 3 - Alliance questions

Posted: Sun Dec 11, 2005 5:26 pm

Quote:

And before it seems like I'm attacking you, I can gather from the rest of your posts that you agree. You seem like an honorable fellow. But I think that this quote from you could be used to justify just about anything.

No you're right I don't necessarily disagree. To me, this contest does as good as a job as any as trying to equalize as many factors as possible. When one thing is equalized, people are going to do whatever it takes to give themselves an advantage. I do think that in DM there are managers who suck at strategy but have found success in this game because of either social skills or monetary value. I fully expect this contest to mirror that. (Well the monetary part was totally taken away)

You're an awesome MTG player right? When you were 5-0-1 after 6 rounds, did you ever take an intentional draw in Round 7 in the Swiss Portion Tournament to guarantee yourself in a spot in the the Top 8 or 16? Those players who did that used to bug the crap out of me, but ultimately I looked at it as my own fault for being 5-1-0 in the first place. That's basically how I look at fight throwing. I do think that in a smaller community like DM, everyone eventually knows how other people play. Reputations are earned over time and we all look down upon people who play with different ethics than we do.

Quote:

I believe you are doing this issue a disservice by comparing downchallenging to throwing fights. One is clearly ethical, albeit distasteful to some. The other is clearly unethical.

See, that's the thing. They absolutely are no different ethically to me. In fact, I'm positive that I've thrown more fights in my career than I have downchallenged people. There are people (like the Consortium) who probably have done neither and would never think of doing it.

Quote:

Because there are so many different categories of prizes. A player can fail to win a top team award and still be considered by some to have "won" the contest. If a player captures one Stylemaster award, he may consider it a successful contest. And the more warriors he runs, the greater the chances of capturing a Stylemaster (as well as Ultimate Stylemaster), as you can't win it if you aren't in it.

Just keep in mind that a warrior who isn't going to win fights, isn't going to win Stylemaster or Ultimate Stylemaster. Mathematically speaking, I don't think that an off-style has enough match-ups to win ultimate stylemaster. (without collusion) It's fine to have a different goal than winning top team, but to me, someone who isn't trying their best to accomplish whatever goal they have is guilty of the same thing as the person who is throwing a fight--that is not playing to win. (As a bit of Zalcon trivia, I believe that the top warrior award of each contest has also come from the winning team) As the contest continues, you'll undoubtedly have more people drop out and stop paying attention/making challenges, etc. Those people are by far more damaging to the contest than a fight thrower.

Quote:

I think what makes this contest so fun is the plethora of prizes up for grabs. It will keep people competing to the best of their abilities until the very end, even if they find they are no longer in competition for a few of the prizes, they can still strive for certain other prizes.

Unfortunately, it's also the same thing that leads to a lot more deal-making in this contest than in others. I'm not aware of any major fight throwing that went on in the last contest. (Me always being paranoidly suspicious and checking everyones' challenge, there are always "red flags" that go up, but nothing I'm going to publically accuse anyone of) But I know that there were several deals being offered at the end of the contest. You take the good with the bad.

ArchMaster Poster Joined: Apr 15, 2004 Posts: 2961

Quote:

You're an awesome MTG player right?

I was a good Magic player. I was only an awesome Magic player for about three days of my 8 years of pro Magic.

Let me put the intentional draw rule into some context. Early in the days of pro Magic, it was not legal to intentionally draw. However, there were many situations in high level tournaments where drawing was advantageous. If both players only needed a draw to reach the second day of a tournament, for instance, or more importantly, to reach the single elimination top 8 of the tournament. Without intentional draws being legal, only the cheaters had the advantage of drawing. I watched some notable matches, one between two big name players in one of the earlier PT-New Yorks in Rye Brook, where both players played excessively slowly and in some instances, failed to win the critical game, even though they had the kill in their hand.

Since it is very difficult to prove collusion in such a case, the Wizards of the Coast tournament organizers decided to make intentional drawing legal. That way, the playing field was leveled. Not only could cheaters make use of the draw, but ethical players could do it as well. Once drawing was made legal, I believe there was nothing unethical about it. Everyone had legal access to the same tools and it would be a mistake to not take full advantage of those tools in order to do your best in the tournament.

That being said, there were plenty of players who felt the same as you did. And it was each player's right to not draw if he or she wished. One such case involved my buddy Chris Pikula who was matched up against some frenchman whose name I've forgotten in the last match of an important tournament. It was advantageous for both players to draw. However, when Chris offered the draw, the frenchman declined and replied "I came to play" in his french accent. The frenchman won and we got a kick out of the story for years to come.

There is a difference between this and intentionally losing. In the intentional draw scenario, both players gain an advantage from it. In the throwing fights scenario, the only way the losing player can gain an advantage out of it is if he is paid off by the winner or if he expects to receive some quid pro quo in the future (also an all too common occurence that I despised).

For this reason, I have less of a problem with targeting a leader in one Stylemaster competition with a good matchup for the challenger. While it may help someone else win the Stylemaster competition because the recipient of the challenge is not fighting someone of his own style, there is a definite advantage being gained by the challenger: a win. It is hard to blame a player who wants his warrior to win a fight. It is easy to blame a player who wants his warrior to lose a fight.

Quote:

See, that's the thing. They absolutely are no different ethically to me.

We will have to agree to disagree on this one.

As for the different strategies being employed by the contest participants, besides different goals, people may have different standards for rollups. People may not realize what it takes to win a Stylemaster or an Ultimate Stylemaster award. Having never played in this contest before, I certainly don't. All I can do is come up with a game plan, modify it if I have to, and do my best. And I am sure that this is precisely what the other players are doing in this contest.

The fact that they may be worse or better strategists than you or I is not up to us and I don't think we have any cause to complain about it.

Quote:

As the contest continues, you'll undoubtedly have more people drop out and stop paying attention/making challenges, etc. Those people are by far more damaging to the contest than a fight thrower.

I think intentions play more of a role in the integrity of a contest than the actual results. If people fail to get a turn in on time or utilize a substandard strategy, we cannot fault their intentions. If someone throws a fight, that player's intentions are clear and are dishonorable.

Posted: Sun Dec 11, 2005 9:07 pm

Quote:

As for the different strategies being employed by the contest participants, besides different goals, people may have different standards for rollups. People may not realize what it takes to win a Stylemaster or an Ultimate Stylemaster award. Having never played in this contest before, I certainly don't. All I can do is come up with a game plan, modify it if I have to, and do my best. And I am sure that this is precisely what the other players are doing in this contest.

The fact that they may be worse or better strategists than you or I is not up to us and I don't think we have any cause to complain about it.

Well normally, I wouldn't say anything, but I don't think that anyone has any cause to complain about fight throwing or downchallenging, or anything of that sort either. It is legal within the rules, it often does benefit both players (usually as a result of a deal) and it's up to us as players to either live with it, or do something about it. (And to be fair, starting this thread to put things we don't like in the public eye can definitely help) I hope that by just pointing that out, that perhaps that might change someone's strategy if they didn't realize it before.

Quote:

I think intentions play more of a role in the integrity of a contest than the actual results. If people fail to get a turn in on time or utilize a substandard strategy, we cannot fault their intentions. If someone throws a fight, that player's intentions are clear and are dishonorable.

I'm not talking about someone who accidently misses an occassional turn or someone who is trying to win to the best of their abilities and losing. I'm talking about someone who just going to sit on maintenance for the duration of the contest and not do anything. For example, Azrael, in the Battle Royale tries his heart out every single turn. He's been out of it for so long, yet is doing his best to claw back into the competition. Compare with Armalias, who is not paying attention at all. He's just there to collect his Endurance Prize paycheck. To me, there's a definite difference between trying to win and not succeeding than not trying at all.

I think we basically agree, we just have a different set of ethical lines. If you want to start a thread to excommunicate anyone from the DM world who is caught throwing a fight in the Zalcon 3 Contest, I'll be onboard to sign it with you.

ArchMaster Poster Joined: Jul 17, 2002 Posts: 1054

I think before people start working themselves into a frenzy on this subject that people take a deep breath and play the Z3 competition to the best of their ability. There has not been a mass history of fight throwing in the Zalcon competitions. There probably has been a fight or two thrown at some point, but it has not been endemic.

Also, do people think there is a difference between intentionally losing a fight and intentionally arranging a fight where while both warriors are fighting on optimal strategies, one warrior is so clearly more experienced (or has a style advantage) that the outcome isn't really in question? Do you consider them the same? Ie, the whole boxing thing of taking a dive compared to the champ just fighting some unranked milk can?

Posted: Mon Dec 12, 2005 1:20 pm

[quote="Managerr"]

Quote:

The best way to ensure the integrity of future contests is to have no prizes, period. Prizes in any contest bring out the shady ethics in people. The problem is that too many contests care about participation rather than the integrity of the contest. That's why I choose not to advertise prizes for contests when I run them. Because the idea behind the contest is more important than my getting any participation for them. This is why TOGS is probably going to have no prizes in the next incarnation as well.

We certainly have to agree with this. We thrive on the "intent" of a contest, and best enjoy those that the rules and controls match the intent of the event in such a way as to enhance the situation. TOGS is a great example. We find it difficult to "get excitement" out of any event where "throwing fights for the good of someone else" occurs. That is why we said "we should have paid more attention to the past events and the potential "intent" loopholes and how managers have played the game in the past" Does that mean Zal Con is "bad"? Of course not! It is what it is. It merely means it was not the event we "thought" it was, and it is not as important to our enjoyment of the game as we thought at first. Our bad.

ArchMaster Poster Joined: Apr 15, 2004 Posts: 2961

Quote:

I think before people start working themselves into a frenzy on this subject that people take a deep breath and play the Z3 competition to the best of their ability. There has not been a mass history of fight throwing in the Zalcon competitions. There probably has been a fight or two thrown at some point, but it has not been endemic.

Also, do people think there is a difference between intentionally losing a fight and intentionally arranging a fight where while both warriors are fighting on optimal strategies, one warrior is so clearly more experienced (or has a style advantage) that the outcome isn't really in question? Do you consider them the same? Ie, the whole boxing thing of taking a dive compared to the champ just fighting some unranked milk can?

No frenzy here. I asked a question and was having a discussion about the ethics that one can expect from this contest.

I'm enjoying the contest immensely and will continue to do so.

And yes, I think there is a clear difference. In one situation, the recipient of the challenge did not intend to lose, he was simply on the receiving end of a beatdown. In the other situation, a warrior is purposely losing to give someone else an advantage. While the outcome may be the same as every other fight, one warrior winning and one warrior losing, the intentions of the competitors are completely different.

Posted: Mon Dec 12, 2005 1:22 pm

One Armed Bandit wrote:

Quote:

Depends on how you find "best". I consider diplomacy as part of the social interaction necessary for a game.

This smells like justification to me. Certainly information is very valuable in the game. Even though my alliance mates aren't in the contest, I usually email them asking for feedback about my potential designs and asking for advice on the style vs. style matchups. However, in an individual contest such as this, there is no gray area when it comes to throwing fights. It is clearly unethical, in my book.

And before it seems like I'm attacking you, I can gather from the rest of your posts that you agree. You seem like an honorable fellow. But I think that this quote from you could be used to justify just about anything.

Quote:

Do I respect downchallengers less than people who don't? Absolutely. Will I respect a fight thrower less than someone who doesn't? Absolutely.

I believe you are doing this issue a disservice by comparing downchallenging to throwing fights. One is clearly ethical, albeit distasteful to some. The other is clearly unethical.

That is the last I will say about that, for fear of turning this thread into yet another downchallenging thread.

As for prizes being the source of corruption, certainly. But the fact of the matter is that prizes add validity to a contest. You cannot have a contest to see who is the best without a considerable award. While that may be the case in an ideal world, we live in the real one in which people need incentives to get off their hump and give their best.

Quote:

If you feel that the point of this contest is to see who can manage the best "from scratch" and not for the prizes--why are you running all 5 of your warriors?

Because there are so many different categories of prizes. A player can fail to win a top team award and still be considered by some to have "won" the contest. If a player captures one Stylemaster award, he may consider it a successful contest. And the more warriors he runs, the greater the chances of capturing a Stylemaster (as well as Ultimate Stylemaster), as you can't win it if you aren't in it.

I, on the other hand, am ruining my overall record by my continued use of the DA. I encountered a problem in other contests in which people were penalized for the DA. My 21 WT ST on my initial rollup would inevitably die and when I reached the end, I would discover that I had not a single warrior worth putting a +1 bonus on or learning their favorites. Not this time! I'm going to make sure I find warriors worth running and hopefully over the course of such a lengthy contest, the quality of my warriors will salvage my record. If not, I hope to have a decent shot at a few of the Stylemasters. And barring that, I will end the tournament with 5 tournament quality warriors, primed for Champs or Challengers or ADM bustouts.

The simple answer is that people have different ideas of what constitutes success. To some is simply to make a good showing. To others it is for the fun that they get from the competition. To others it is that top prize. To others it may be the lesser prizes. This same thing can be said of tournaments. Whereas I am satisfied if I get a few TVs and a winning percentage, others are only satisfied if they capture a TC.

I think what makes this contest so fun is the plethora of prizes up for grabs. It will keep people competing to the best of their abilities until the very end, even if they find they are no longer in competition for a few of the prizes, they can still strive for certain other prizes.

Very, very well stated, sir.

ArchMaster Poster Joined: Jul 17, 2002 Posts: 1054

One Armed Bandit wrote:

And yes, I think there is a clear difference. In one situation, the recipient of the challenge did not intend to lose, he was simply on the receiving end of a beatdown. In the other situation, a warrior is purposely losing to give someone else an advantage. While the outcome may be the same as every other fight, one warrior winning and one warrior losing, the intentions of the competitors are completely different.

I meant more where the warrior issuing the challenge has almost no chance of winning, such as a TP or WS challenging an AB. Or say a Duelmaster avoiding the some challengers and instead challening & not avoiding an ally who he suspects is a better warrior and likely to beat him? Now the DM is not mucking with his strategy to insure the opponent wins, but instead arranging an unfavorable match up for himself which will benefit his ally?

I think this is a good example of how different people can have different ethical opinions on things. Personally I do not have problems with downchallenging or with allies arranging fights where the outcome is largely predetermined. But I do think it is wrong to hose over a warrior's strategy to intentionally lose a fight (except of course if you are intentionally trying to lose in the DA).