The Shaft in Michigan
- Thread starter JediDrew
- Start date
Cyrus
Iron Chef - Master Emeritus
Ice'Cold said:
I don't know why you're relating or implying cutthroat-ishness to Drew, since I mean, he did concede his last match and all. =/
A (former) ID'er isn't cutthroat because he/she uses perfectly legal means to make a cut. A legal staller wouldn't even count as cutthroat because those are still perfectly legal means to win. I don't remember where I heard the analogy, but it's similar to dribbling the ball around so your opponent can't make the pivotal 2 points to win/tie the game.
IMO, the things that DO count as cutthroat are any topics that are just clear black-and-white. A player I actually know complains and eggs on the opponent just to shake them up enough so he can win (although it usually doesn't work). Someone like him is automatic cutthroat. I certainly know what a real cutthroat is when it comes to games. There is a VERY CLEAR difference between players just serious about winning, like Drew Holton ('though that can be debated, since cc's don't matter), and the several no-names that actually try to make this game less fun for everyone around them.
Jim Ferrell
Member
I totally agree with Patriarch.
Basic bottom line is, since IDing is no longer an option as it causes "conspiracy" and takes away from the "Spirit of the Game," Drew gave the game to his opponent on an attempt (as a friendly gesture as I know both parties in question here) to let the opponent go farther.
The next problem is going to be "What is a resignation?" Are we gonna go so far to have the judges watch games to determine that there isn't some "conspiracy win" thing going on? Giving up is part of the game. If you feel that you cannot win, you should have the option to call it quits. And it can be a very strategic move in Best of Three games which are being used in some T8s so that you don't continue wasting time in a game you'll lose anyways.
A decision was made by Drew, it cost him a shot at winning the CC. The facts and everything have been discussed and discussed again. Drew's topic "The Shaft in Michigan" is a little bold. As the decision, after you take everything else away, was his own.
I respect Drew as a player a lot, but this probably taught him a lesson.
So, lemme summarize my points, as I am kinda going all over the place.
1. Drop the hate, first and foremost.
2. Resignation in the game should stay as an option to players.
3. Drew, ya lost, just let it go. Whip butt at the next one.
4. The system still has flaws and kinks in it, obviously.
~Jim
Basic bottom line is, since IDing is no longer an option as it causes "conspiracy" and takes away from the "Spirit of the Game," Drew gave the game to his opponent on an attempt (as a friendly gesture as I know both parties in question here) to let the opponent go farther.
The next problem is going to be "What is a resignation?" Are we gonna go so far to have the judges watch games to determine that there isn't some "conspiracy win" thing going on? Giving up is part of the game. If you feel that you cannot win, you should have the option to call it quits. And it can be a very strategic move in Best of Three games which are being used in some T8s so that you don't continue wasting time in a game you'll lose anyways.
A decision was made by Drew, it cost him a shot at winning the CC. The facts and everything have been discussed and discussed again. Drew's topic "The Shaft in Michigan" is a little bold. As the decision, after you take everything else away, was his own.
I respect Drew as a player a lot, but this probably taught him a lesson.
So, lemme summarize my points, as I am kinda going all over the place.
1. Drop the hate, first and foremost.
2. Resignation in the game should stay as an option to players.
3. Drew, ya lost, just let it go. Whip butt at the next one.
4. The system still has flaws and kinks in it, obviously.
~Jim
Last edited:
Venusaur said:
1. Complaining and explaining what happened are two completely different things. Drew was explaining.
2. What does that have to do with the rest of the people from NEO??
3. Probably because nobody wants to read a report where they lost. A report where a person went 1-4 isn't a very good read.
SuperWooper
New Member
This thread is slowly sinking into the quaqmire that me and Pablo were pulled into (or I pulled us into) a few months back.
Jermy, shut it. I mean that in the nicest possible way, really, I do, but I made the same mistake you're making now and it's not going to do anything but make you feel better for like, half of a second, and then you're just going to look back at it and wonder why you wasted all your time ragging on Drew.
SteveP, I think you might only be worsening the condition of this thread by giving the argument between Jermy and Drew a huge piece of meat to drool over. The stuff you're saying is helpful in one respect, but in another, it's really not. What you're saying makes sense, but I think we should kinda let it go.
Yeah, I hate the new system too, and I could say some stuff about it that might not get through the censor thingy on this subject, but you know what? I won't. Some people are really acting like their moms named them Mordacai and they're taking it out on the rest of the world through a Pokemon message board.
Drew has already said he's over it, so could we let this die? Follow Jim's suggestions a few posts above, 'cuz I'm not in a moral-teaching mode right now. Just a shut-up-and-stop-acting-like-a-Mordacai mode.
Eh, that was lame. =P
Jermy, shut it. I mean that in the nicest possible way, really, I do, but I made the same mistake you're making now and it's not going to do anything but make you feel better for like, half of a second, and then you're just going to look back at it and wonder why you wasted all your time ragging on Drew.
SteveP, I think you might only be worsening the condition of this thread by giving the argument between Jermy and Drew a huge piece of meat to drool over. The stuff you're saying is helpful in one respect, but in another, it's really not. What you're saying makes sense, but I think we should kinda let it go.
Yeah, I hate the new system too, and I could say some stuff about it that might not get through the censor thingy on this subject, but you know what? I won't. Some people are really acting like their moms named them Mordacai and they're taking it out on the rest of the world through a Pokemon message board.
Drew has already said he's over it, so could we let this die? Follow Jim's suggestions a few posts above, 'cuz I'm not in a moral-teaching mode right now. Just a shut-up-and-stop-acting-like-a-Mordacai mode.
Eh, that was lame. =P
GrandmaJoner
Active Member
Word.
First if all, not making the top 4 is entirely Drew's fault. He chose to concede the match, knowing that there was a chance that he wouldn't make it.
BUT.
What if he had actually played the match out, lost, and got cut from the top 4? How would he feel then? I would feel so screwed and angry that it would be unbelievable. They take away IDs to people who go 4-0 after 4 rounds don't make it. As far as I know, resistance is not affected by conceding. I don't believe if you concede it goes down as a "concede" on the computer. I think it is just a regular loss. That would then not affect your resistance at all.
All in all, taking away IDs, in my opinion, will harm this game, and let players rise to the top who might be less deserving.
First if all, not making the top 4 is entirely Drew's fault. He chose to concede the match, knowing that there was a chance that he wouldn't make it.
BUT.
What if he had actually played the match out, lost, and got cut from the top 4? How would he feel then? I would feel so screwed and angry that it would be unbelievable. They take away IDs to people who go 4-0 after 4 rounds don't make it. As far as I know, resistance is not affected by conceding. I don't believe if you concede it goes down as a "concede" on the computer. I think it is just a regular loss. That would then not affect your resistance at all.
All in all, taking away IDs, in my opinion, will harm this game, and let players rise to the top who might be less deserving.
So, if you get paired with a weaker opponent in the first round and win, (as Drew did here), then lose in the fifth round, you are more desrving than someone who loses to a tougher opponent in the first round then wins the next four?
The game has been fixed so that you have to fight your way to the top if you want to make the cut, not back in on IDs.
The game has been fixed so that you have to fight your way to the top if you want to make the cut, not back in on IDs.
Last edited:
SomethingElse
Active Member
Drew may have gotten paired with a weak opponent, but one of them in T4 got a bye, i'd say that's a little of a weaker opponent....Adv1sor said:
Getting a bye in the first round is a random event, just like it is to get paired against a weak player. Because byes aren't calculated in the tiebreaker, it neither helps nor hurts you. But, playing a weak player CAN hurt you. But then again, if you beat a top player in the first round and that player drops before winning more later-round games, that can hurt too. There's lots of ways that your tiebreaker can be affected. That's why it's nice that the only way to garrantee anything is to win.
So, byes neither help nor hurt your tiebreaker. You can't have it both ways. If you get a bye, you certainly wouldn't want it to hurt your tiebreaker. But then again, if you don't get a bye, why should you have precedence over someone who does get a bye? Can you see the contradiction in that kind of thinking here? Byes do not affect the tiebreaker, one way OR the other, as it SHOULD be.
So, byes neither help nor hurt your tiebreaker. You can't have it both ways. If you get a bye, you certainly wouldn't want it to hurt your tiebreaker. But then again, if you don't get a bye, why should you have precedence over someone who does get a bye? Can you see the contradiction in that kind of thinking here? Byes do not affect the tiebreaker, one way OR the other, as it SHOULD be.
Last edited:
To anyone that is complaining that taking away the IDs hurt Drew, look at the whole scenario. Tom was 3-1 before 4th rd (w/ a bye, I believe in there). Drew was 4-0, with (at least) 5 other 3-1's (probably more). Anyway, Tom shouldn't have agreed to an ID anyway, bc at 3-1-1, he would not be guaranteed a spot in a T4 elimination. Remember, you should only ID (in the old system) when it is MUTUALLY beneficial. Tom would have to insist on playing (and winning) to HOPE to still be in T4. Drew took a chance w/ the concession. Nice gesture, but the wrong one for him to make. Look at all the ramifications of this "concession": Drew tried to INFLUENCE the system to HELP his FRIEND. Tom may be a GREAT player and friend, but Drew was obviously positive that his FRIEND Tom NEEDED a WIN to HOPE to move on to T4. He was HOPING to SCREW someone who ACTUALLY WON their last round by CONCEDING a WON game to Tom. (See Drew multi posts, he was ahead 3-1 on prizes when time was called ergo a winning game.) Drew certainly gave the SHAFT to someone all right, HIMSELF!! How would you feel if you, your friend or your sibling or child would have been that 4th place qualifier that got bumped out bc of a very late concession or the old ID system. You wouldnt like it. This is why I argued ags't IDs in the 1st place. Better players were getting left out bc no one in the top few tables would play the last round!! Real tough to back door your way in. I'm sure Tom felt so bad about the situation, that he withdrew and let the 5th place player play in T4 (Drew would be that person). OH, hmmmm.....HE DIDNT WITHDRAW.....some friend.....OK now we ALL see the problem. So, all you "l337" players out there flame away, but this result destroys all your "arguments" that the "best" players "always" win and the undefeated player "had" to play tougher oppo's and "earned" that previous right to ID. Sometimes the undefeated player did get the "lucky" draw and played lesser oppo's all the way thru, while good players fight there way back from a bad match-up 1st rd. I'm certainly not trying to offend the players at this tourney, bc I know there were several excellant players there. (Any tourny that draws Fulop will have a good group) Bottom line is this....the game was meant to be played and a winner declared everytime. The rules were set up for sudden death already (even if there are flaws in that system) No system is 100 % perfect. I just believe POP is getting closer to the right path. Just my 2 cents worth.
Keith
Keith
Our whole tournament system has some major problems. The fact that this game itself has certain possibilities of getting dealt a majorly bad hand (well any card game has that) where you only have maybe one basic and lose because of something like that, theoretically and player of any skill level could beat another player of even a much greater skill level. That isnt so much a problem as the fact that with time constraints, and only being allowed to run so many rounds sometimes we don't have as clear of a winner as we'd all like to have. In this case for the players who had good records it really depended on who you player first round, which is what I hate about resistance. Two people can each win their match, but in the end the match "doesn't count" as much as the other. For right now though I havent heard of a better alternative, so I guess we will have to live with it. I do agree with lawman that POP is on the right path. Right now they are in an experimental stage, and I hope we can all keep the complaints to a minimum, though we will never have a system that makes everyone happy. Not everyone can be a winner.
Okay, so would it be better to use POP ratings to pair players in the first round, thus negating the whole "having to play a weaker player in the first round" argument? Sounds like a decent idea at first. However, I believe WOTC experimented with that idea a few years ago and dropped it in lieu of random first-round pairings.
Nevertheless, I think we can take a lesson from Chess. I've heard they use ratings to pair the first round. However, they pair top players against weak players. So, if Pokemon used that method of first round pairings, wouldn't it be worse that random pairings (as far as it's negative effect on strength-of-schedule goes)?
Nevertheless, I think we can take a lesson from Chess. I've heard they use ratings to pair the first round. However, they pair top players against weak players. So, if Pokemon used that method of first round pairings, wouldn't it be worse that random pairings (as far as it's negative effect on strength-of-schedule goes)?
Last edited:
DaytonGymLeader
New Member
Keith, once the Top Cut is set, it can't be changed unless there are problems with results entry/points. If Tom were to drop, then his opponent (Chris) would have moved into the final unopposed. Drew would not have moved in to play Chris.Lawman said:
DGL: I guess the point there was that Drew conceded to assist Tom into possibly making T4, along with himself. When the results were posted w/ the T4, you are saying that Tom couldn't have dropped and let Drew go to T4. If that is the case, I am fine with that. Tom should play it out and go as far as he could. I just know that in SOME GCs, if a player who already had a trip & invite to Worlds made top X, they dropped to let the next available player into the top X and play the 2 of 3 then. That spread the trips out more (plus showed great Spirit of the Game IMHO) and allowed the player to still compete for deck testing, rankings, etc (just not the top prize) Likewise, at the SCs, the invites (and trips) trickled down thru the T8.
Keith
Keith
Lawman, trickling down the trip is different than dropping a player from the tournament.
But, you've got a valid point about posting the final standings before cutting to the playoffs. There should be an appropriate amount of time allowed after posting the final standings before cutting to the playoffs. I'm sure DGL would agree with that.
I know under DCI rules, if players drop after the playoffs are announced, the open slots are NOT filled (as stated by DGL). Is that also in the POP Rules?
But, you've got a valid point about posting the final standings before cutting to the playoffs. There should be an appropriate amount of time allowed after posting the final standings before cutting to the playoffs. I'm sure DGL would agree with that.
I know under DCI rules, if players drop after the playoffs are announced, the open slots are NOT filled (as stated by DGL). Is that also in the POP Rules?
Last edited:
DaytonGymLeader
New Member
There was more than sufficient time prior to the Top Cut rounds to ensure that points and results were correct.
I've poured over all of the documentation I can get my hands on and I'm not seeing anything that states that the slots should trickle down if a player can't complete the rounds or start the rounds. However, I would stand by that the only way the elimination bracket be changed is if there is an error with results entry/points.
I've poured over all of the documentation I can get my hands on and I'm not seeing anything that states that the slots should trickle down if a player can't complete the rounds or start the rounds. However, I would stand by that the only way the elimination bracket be changed is if there is an error with results entry/points.
DaytonGymLeader
New Member
If the Top 4 pairings are already set, yes.