Author Topic: SquareEnix's Tournament Rules Are Stupid  (Read 393 times)

Offline Queensryche

  • TCO Donor
  • ****
  • Posts: 138
  • +8/-2
    • View Profile
SquareEnix's Tournament Rules Are Stupid
« on: May 28, 2018, 08:34:12 AM »
I'll acknowledge that this rant is kinda dumb, but after some information I found out last night, I need to just say how dumb SquareEnix is in regards to their major tournaments.

SquareEnix is intent on having Swiss rounds go as quickly as possible with their tournaments for the Final Fantasy TCG and is willing to disregard any other concerns there might be. It's an admirable goal, but the rules and regulations in place are instead screwing over other players.

First is the fact that in Swiss, if a match goes to time, there aren't any tiebreakers and the match isn't a draw. If a match goes to time, the players have five turns to determine a winner. If there is no winner, it's a double loss. Just for emphasis, I'm going to repeat that and put it in bold and all caps: IF THERE IS NO WINNER AFTER TIME AND TURNS, BOTH PLAYERS LOSE.

This is already a horrendous rule, because instead of giving an incentive to win, it instead gives an incentive for a player who isn't going to win to screw over his opponent. Mike H, one of the local players here got screwed out of making the Day 2 cut at the FFTCG North American Nationals last year because he would've made it with a win in the last round of Swiss, as well as his opponent. The match goes to time, and his opponent is behind and has no chance, while Mike has a chance to win and make the cut. His opponent decides that he's going to take Mike down with him, and stalls out enough to force the double loss and eliminate them both. This has occurred in other SquareEnix FFTCG tournaments, and it's screwing players more than helping them. Even worse is that there's an easy tiebreaker: whoever has taken less damage wins. Baring that, whoever has more cards in their deck wins. Baring THAT, then either do sudden death (next damage wins) or, if you really want to move things on, flip a coin.

I had decided that I wasn't going to be like that. My plan for the Crystal Cups at GenCon was that if I was in a situation where a match went to time and turns, if my opponent was ahead, I'd concede to give my opponent the win and give them the credit for a good game. I am not one to screw an opponent over, and if I'd been in such a situation, I'd rather someone come out ahead, even if it's at my expense.

Well, I told Mike H my plan and he quickly told me not to do it. I asked why, and he then stated that according to the official tournament rules, conceding a match is considered cheating, and is grounds for an automatic tournament disqualification AND a competitive ban for a length of time at SquareEnix's discretion. Yes, that's right (again, emphasis): I COULD GET BANNED FOR CONCEDING A MATCH, NO MATTER WHAT THE CIRCUMSTANCES OR SITUATION. Conceding a match is considered collusion by SquareEnix, and they do not want collusion of any kind. I also could be in trouble if I was in an unwinnable situation and played through to let my opponent win. That also would be considered collusion and would get me and the other player disqualified.

Not being able to concede a match is some of the biggest bulls**t I have ever heard. Their assumption that conceding is an act of collusion is very flawed and leads to uncomfortable situations. I didn't want to screw an opponent over. Now I find out the rules give me no choice and I HAVE to screw someone over if it comes down to this.

I, along with other players, have voiced my concerns about these rules, feeling them to be counterproductive and a tool for tournament griefers to screw over people determined to compete and win. I don't know if SquareEnix will listen, considering the fact that other suggestions by players have been ignored. But either way, these rules are really, really dumb, and inevitably, players have been and will continue to be screwed.
Ceterum censeo Chelsea delendam esse.

Don't let this signature distract you from the fact that Dele Alli has 29 more PL goals than Jack Wilshere.

"Tottenham are laughing at us!" - Dom, West Ham United fan, after Astra Giurgiu eliminated West Ham United from Europa (Entirely accurate statement).

Offline BigPimpin

  • Posts: 5639
  • +276/-147
  • Straight Gangsta, Foo'!
    • View Profile
Re: SquareEnix's Tournament Rules Are Stupid
« Reply #1 on: May 28, 2018, 08:44:10 AM »
Well, the first rule is also a Raw Deal rule, so I find myself less phased by the double-loss rule.  It sucks, but I feel like it's necessary for a tie (in Raw Deal in particular) to be a penalty for both parties and not a non-loss, because in Raw Deal it's entirely possible for someone to take a 0-0-5 record into the end of Swiss for basically doing nothing but going to time.

However, the second one - I get WHY they want it done (Magic has had problems as long as I can think of with people at the top conceding at 1-0 or 1-1 to screw certain guys out of the top cut), but there has to be another way to resolve collusion issues regarding concedes.  It's such a normal thing for either the angry-concede or the "I'm drawing dead" concede that the casual tournament player is going to get screwed and banned if the judge feels like judging it as collusion even if it's not. 

Not happy with that second rule at all.
Discord: MightyBP
Time Zone: EST
Available Lackey Hours: late nights (8-9 PM starts), some weekend evenings or morning.

100% reason to remember the name.

I'm the reason the hood need a dental plan.

Offline Queensryche

  • TCO Donor
  • ****
  • Posts: 138
  • +8/-2
    • View Profile
Re: SquareEnix's Tournament Rules Are Stupid
« Reply #2 on: May 28, 2018, 09:13:42 AM »
Well, the first rule is also a Raw Deal rule, so I find myself less phased by the double-loss rule.  It sucks, but I feel like it's necessary for a tie (in Raw Deal in particular) to be a penalty for both parties and not a non-loss, because in Raw Deal it's entirely possible for someone to take a 0-0-5 record into the end of Swiss for basically doing nothing but going to time.

However, the second one - I get WHY they want it done (Magic has had problems as long as I can think of with people at the top conceding at 1-0 or 1-1 to screw certain guys out of the top cut), but there has to be another way to resolve collusion issues regarding concedes.  It's such a normal thing for either the angry-concede or the "I'm drawing dead" concede that the casual tournament player is going to get screwed and banned if the judge feels like judging it as collusion even if it's not. 

Not happy with that second rule at all.

Really, I'm unhappy with the double-loss rule because with the way FFTCG plays, a tiebreaker can easily be found if they want to have definitive results for each match. If a match goes to time, I've got two damage but my opponent has five, I'm clearly ahead and in an advantageous position. Similarly, I think having damage and/or cards left as a tiebreaker would make for more exciting play when a match goes to turns: whoever's behind will go all-out to try and force damage through to win. I can understand a double-loss if it's an absolute deadlock, but if the game state can demonstrate one player is clearly closer to winning than the opponent, then I think it's better to use that as a tiebreaker.

The "No Conceding" rule however ticks me off the most, especially since I wanted to try and minimize it as much as I possibly could by being sportsmanlike and not screwing over an opponent. Yes, there's issues with collusion in Magic, but eventually they figured it out, with the rule now basically being "As long as there's no material gain besides prizes split, agreeing to a draw or a concession is completely fine". SquareEnix doesn't want prize splits, and they're overly paranoid about collusion, hence why they don't allow conceding a match. Collusion's going to happen, and SquareEnix is determined to stamp it out by any means, regardless of the harm their rules could cause.
Ceterum censeo Chelsea delendam esse.

Don't let this signature distract you from the fact that Dele Alli has 29 more PL goals than Jack Wilshere.

"Tottenham are laughing at us!" - Dom, West Ham United fan, after Astra Giurgiu eliminated West Ham United from Europa (Entirely accurate statement).

Offline necrobaron75

  • Posts: 564
  • +28/-31
  • YEP
    • View Profile
Re: SquareEnix's Tournament Rules Are Stupid
« Reply #3 on: May 28, 2018, 10:09:27 AM »
In the above story,dude should have been DQ'd for stalling
"I'll fade away and classify myself as OBSOLETE."

Offline BigPimpin

  • Posts: 5639
  • +276/-147
  • Straight Gangsta, Foo'!
    • View Profile
Re: SquareEnix's Tournament Rules Are Stupid
« Reply #4 on: May 28, 2018, 01:06:16 PM »
Well, the first rule is also a Raw Deal rule, so I find myself less phased by the double-loss rule.  It sucks, but I feel like it's necessary for a tie (in Raw Deal in particular) to be a penalty for both parties and not a non-loss, because in Raw Deal it's entirely possible for someone to take a 0-0-5 record into the end of Swiss for basically doing nothing but going to time.

However, the second one - I get WHY they want it done (Magic has had problems as long as I can think of with people at the top conceding at 1-0 or 1-1 to screw certain guys out of the top cut), but there has to be another way to resolve collusion issues regarding concedes.  It's such a normal thing for either the angry-concede or the "I'm drawing dead" concede that the casual tournament player is going to get screwed and banned if the judge feels like judging it as collusion even if it's not. 

Not happy with that second rule at all.

Really, I'm unhappy with the double-loss rule because with the way FFTCG plays, a tiebreaker can easily be found if they want to have definitive results for each match. If a match goes to time, I've got two damage but my opponent has five, I'm clearly ahead and in an advantageous position. Similarly, I think having damage and/or cards left as a tiebreaker would make for more exciting play when a match goes to turns: whoever's behind will go all-out to try and force damage through to win. I can understand a double-loss if it's an absolute deadlock, but if the game state can demonstrate one player is clearly closer to winning than the opponent, then I think it's better to use that as a tiebreaker.

The "No Conceding" rule however ticks me off the most, especially since I wanted to try and minimize it as much as I possibly could by being sportsmanlike and not screwing over an opponent. Yes, there's issues with collusion in Magic, but eventually they figured it out, with the rule now basically being "As long as there's no material gain besides prizes split, agreeing to a draw or a concession is completely fine". SquareEnix doesn't want prize splits, and they're overly paranoid about collusion, hence why they don't allow conceding a match. Collusion's going to happen, and SquareEnix is determined to stamp it out by any means, regardless of the harm their rules could cause.

I'll counter the "most damage" timeout condition by saying that you know there's decks that play from behind on purpose, and that's a BIG blow to them, especially if the opponent stalls on purpose to delay the comeback.  I don't feel like that's a fair solution either. 
Discord: MightyBP
Time Zone: EST
Available Lackey Hours: late nights (8-9 PM starts), some weekend evenings or morning.

100% reason to remember the name.

I'm the reason the hood need a dental plan.

Offline dilbert505

  • Posts: 2320
  • +48/-42
  • The Prince of Insufficient Light
    • View Profile
Re: SquareEnix's Tournament Rules Are Stupid
« Reply #5 on: May 28, 2018, 01:36:17 PM »
Quote from: BigPimpin
I'll counter the "most damage" timeout condition by saying that you know there's decks that play from behind on purpose, and that's a BIG blow to them, especially if the opponent stalls on purpose to delay the comeback.  I don't feel like that's a fair solution either.

Is it so much worse for those decks than a double loss? They lose either way. There is no solution that benefits everyone. Either you give an advantage to aggro decks by making most damage the first tiebreaker, you give an advantage to slow decks by making most cards left the first tiebreaker, or you give an advantage to anyone not in the matchup that goes to time by enforcing the double loss.
Universally Recognized as a Mature and Responsible Adult.

Playing on Lackey? I'm on US Eastern Time; you can check what time it is for me here.

Offline Queensryche

  • TCO Donor
  • ****
  • Posts: 138
  • +8/-2
    • View Profile
Re: SquareEnix's Tournament Rules Are Stupid
« Reply #6 on: May 28, 2018, 07:07:19 PM »
Well, the first rule is also a Raw Deal rule, so I find myself less phased by the double-loss rule.  It sucks, but I feel like it's necessary for a tie (in Raw Deal in particular) to be a penalty for both parties and not a non-loss, because in Raw Deal it's entirely possible for someone to take a 0-0-5 record into the end of Swiss for basically doing nothing but going to time.

However, the second one - I get WHY they want it done (Magic has had problems as long as I can think of with people at the top conceding at 1-0 or 1-1 to screw certain guys out of the top cut), but there has to be another way to resolve collusion issues regarding concedes.  It's such a normal thing for either the angry-concede or the "I'm drawing dead" concede that the casual tournament player is going to get screwed and banned if the judge feels like judging it as collusion even if it's not. 

Not happy with that second rule at all.

Really, I'm unhappy with the double-loss rule because with the way FFTCG plays, a tiebreaker can easily be found if they want to have definitive results for each match. If a match goes to time, I've got two damage but my opponent has five, I'm clearly ahead and in an advantageous position. Similarly, I think having damage and/or cards left as a tiebreaker would make for more exciting play when a match goes to turns: whoever's behind will go all-out to try and force damage through to win. I can understand a double-loss if it's an absolute deadlock, but if the game state can demonstrate one player is clearly closer to winning than the opponent, then I think it's better to use that as a tiebreaker.

The "No Conceding" rule however ticks me off the most, especially since I wanted to try and minimize it as much as I possibly could by being sportsmanlike and not screwing over an opponent. Yes, there's issues with collusion in Magic, but eventually they figured it out, with the rule now basically being "As long as there's no material gain besides prizes split, agreeing to a draw or a concession is completely fine". SquareEnix doesn't want prize splits, and they're overly paranoid about collusion, hence why they don't allow conceding a match. Collusion's going to happen, and SquareEnix is determined to stamp it out by any means, regardless of the harm their rules could cause.

I'll counter the "most damage" timeout condition by saying that you know there's decks that play from behind on purpose, and that's a BIG blow to them, especially if the opponent stalls on purpose to delay the comeback.  I don't feel like that's a fair solution either.

I'll concede that it could be disadvantageous to comeback decks like that. It may not be the absolute fairest method, but damage to the opponent in my opinion is the clearest way of determining progress in the gamestate.

I know what you mean by intentionally playing from behind. I have a couple of decks that do so. But in most cases, if I'm still behind after several turns, even if I haven't lost, I haven't made clear progress towards winning the game. Such a situation happened last night: I was behind the entire game, and my opponent and I came to a stalemate. I eventually ran out of cards and lost. I was able to force a stalemate but simply couldn't punch through, while my opponent managed to hold off my attempts and even deal another point of damage. To me, he was in an advantageous position and would likely win.
Ceterum censeo Chelsea delendam esse.

Don't let this signature distract you from the fact that Dele Alli has 29 more PL goals than Jack Wilshere.

"Tottenham are laughing at us!" - Dom, West Ham United fan, after Astra Giurgiu eliminated West Ham United from Europa (Entirely accurate statement).

Online Scotty

  • Posts: 2835
  • +50/-44
  • Backlash Podcast Co-host
    • View Profile
Re: SquareEnix's Tournament Rules Are Stupid
« Reply #7 on: May 29, 2018, 08:53:38 AM »
One of the reasons I quit Pokémon was when they introduced the "intentional draw". It's almost the exact opposite of the "No Conceding" rule.

I felt the intentional draw gave players who won their early games an edge vs those who lost round one or two and wanted to claw back in. Maybe I'm crazy, but I don't like either rule the intentional draw or the no conceding, and unfortunately (and probably like SquareEnix) I don't have the solution...

Offline riothebeast

  • Posts: 242
  • +3/-9
    • View Profile
Re: SquareEnix's Tournament Rules Are Stupid
« Reply #8 on: May 29, 2018, 10:02:14 AM »
Yeah i highly doubt you would like intentional draws. Thats how i always got my nationals invite for yugioh. I had an app that took how many people were at the event then it told me how many rounds i had to win and how many i could draw to top. So i just got my wins then proceeded to stall the rest into time.

Offline Queensryche

  • TCO Donor
  • ****
  • Posts: 138
  • +8/-2
    • View Profile
Re: SquareEnix's Tournament Rules Are Stupid
« Reply #9 on: May 29, 2018, 04:07:03 PM »
And I find out from my judge friend Gabe that there IS actually a damage tiebreaker, which was just recently added to the tournament rules.

After each match in Swiss, not only is who won recorded, but the damage dealt by each player is also recorded. At the end of Swiss, ties in the cut to Top 16 are broken by the total damage dealt by a player. Just as an example, let's say a player is 6-2. By virtue of winning 6 games, he would've dealt 42 damage, since you win by dealing the opponent 7 damage. And lets say in the two losses, he dealt four damage in each loss. That's 50 total damage. If there was another player who also went 6-2 but dealt only 48 damage, the player who did 50 would win the tiebreaker and move on.

This helps alleviate things greatly in my opinion, because then even in losing efforts, what you can do against the opponent matters. Still some potential for abuse, like in the final round if it's a "win and in" situation like I described in my initial post, but there isn't going to be a perfect solution.
Ceterum censeo Chelsea delendam esse.

Don't let this signature distract you from the fact that Dele Alli has 29 more PL goals than Jack Wilshere.

"Tottenham are laughing at us!" - Dom, West Ham United fan, after Astra Giurgiu eliminated West Ham United from Europa (Entirely accurate statement).