Weekly Tournament - August 25th - The Community Choice- Unupgraded

[kaempfer13]

kaempfer13: 2
pliterallyh:  1

ggs

[Vindilos]

Vindilos: 2
Kaempfer13: 1

Bad luck on Kaempfers side.

Spoiler for Hidden:

Some of my used decks, not all:

Rainbow

Hover over cards for details, click for permalink

Deck import code : [Select]

4sa 4sa 4sa 4sa 4sa 4sa 4sa 4sa 4sa 4sa 4sa 4sa 4vh 4vh 4vh 52t 58s 58v 58v 596 596 596 596 5c1 5c1 5c1 5fb 5lf 5lf 5on 8pm

It’s a trap

Hover over cards for details, click for permalink

Deck import code : [Select]

4sa 4sa 4sa 4sa 4sa 4sa 4sa 4sa 4sa 4sa 4sa 4sa 52t 55t 55t 55t 55t 595 595 595 595 595 595 5c1 5c1 5lh 5on 5v0 5v0 5v0 5v0 8pm

[Wyand]

Worst tournament ever. And it is not about having bad luck, that alone wouldn't win the title for
this one (ofc had bad rng on some of the games, but that isn't enough to make me SO bitter.)
For me this tourney was about questionable TO decisions, ethics and also DCs.

1st match against kaempfer13 was easy, 2-0.

1-0

Spoiler for Hidden:

He played a pulvy deck, draw pulvy too late, while my phoenixes shone.

Hover over cards for details, click for permalink

Deck import code : [Select]

5f0 5f0 5f0 5f0 5f0 5f0 5f0 5f0 5f0 5f0 5f0 5f0 5f0 5f0 5f5 5f5 5f7 5f7 5fb 5fb 5fb 5fb 5fb 5fb 5fc 5fc 5fc 5fc 5fc 5fc 8po

2-0

Spoiler for Hidden:

He played the rustler + emerald dragon combo, but bbs stopped the dragons, while my pulvy was slowly chipping his life
(and pends) away. Had to wait for my 20th card to get the 2nd armagio, so an armagio duo catapulting quickly closed this match.

Hover over cards for details, click for permalink

Deck import code : [Select]

55k 55k 55k 55k 55k 55k 55k 55k 55m 55m 55m 55m 55m 55m 561 561 561 576 576 576 576 576 58v 58v 58v 595 595 595 595 595 8pm

In the match against pliterallyh we had again dcs - if my memory serves I played with him on an earlier tourney, with less dcs,
but we still had dcs then.

0-1

Spoiler for Hidden:

The cata deck - added dragon for extra flavour - didn't work since he played an early dune scorpion with momentum... I was doomed. Had 2 pillars in
12 cards... (finished against ai because of dc, but this one was a clear win for pliterallyh.)

Hover over cards for details, click for permalink

Deck import code : [Select]

55k 55k 55k 55k 55k 55k 55k 55k 55m 55m 55m 55m 55m 55o 561 561 561 576 576 576 576 576 58v 58v 58v 595 595 595 595 595 8pm

1-1

Spoiler for Hidden:

Played phoenixes again, while he played some strange variant of ffq hope, since he played an amethyst pillar in late game.

1-2 Catastrophic, catastrophic, catastrophic. I played a variant of It's a trap.

Spoiler for Hidden:

Hover over cards for details, click for permalink

Deck import code : [Select]

4sa 4sa 4sa 4sa 4sa 4sa 4sa 4sa 4sa 4sa 55t 55t 55t 55t 561 595 595 595 595 595 5c1 5c1 5fb 5i7 5lc 5lc 5v0 5v0 5v0 5v0 8pl

Had a very good start on pillars (5). I played a doll+gp+bb after he played several creatures. Then we dc-ed. Both of us beat the AI. I had to bb a doll and
cata it in a close ending, because I didn't get more gps. You can see on the screenshot that I didn't rely on the Forest Spirits for the final touch, I could
just have my doll frozen (thus dealing 40 dmg).

Spoiler for Before cata:

Spoiler for After cata:

I must tell I don't like the "if AI is stupid then you won instead of rematch"-rule. But I guess you can understand why I opted for it. The AI is totally dumb
to play It's a trap properly. Pliterallyh already knew my deck, it just lost it surprise factor, he can easily outplay it in a rematch. To make things worse
he played a SoSe deck, and you can never tell what will SoSe bring. And I had a good draw. Kaempfer pondered a while, but his decision was clear.
He even stated that 'I had less chance to win, since pliterally won in less turn than myself'. Really? The AI couldn't play out my deck properly (I've been told it
bb'd one of the opponent's 7 creatures, what a mastermind!), of course he was able to win earlier! I know, it was a tough decision, because he played SoSe
and drew entirely different cards on his game like the AI in mine, but really.... Can you imagine any other deck which turns so crappy in the hands of the AI than Trap?
I think I was righteously infuriated by the decision, but had to play again with the same decks.

(Looking at pliterally's sshot I don't even understand what the heck did the AI to leave him at 78 hps! My BB'd doll alone did 36 dmg before dc!
The shot also shows that it was really a total AI failure since it put the gp on the MD and not on the doll. And strangely didn't even bother to catapult,
when in other cases it just throws everything available to it in your face. 2 very lucky mutations at his side.)

Spoiler for Hidden:

And the same happened. Had an acceptable hand (3 pillars), but only 1 gp again. And we dc-ed again. Both of us beat the AI again. We sent the screenshots
to each other, and replayed. Again.

Of course I had to have a crappy hand sooner or later. It had to be now. 1 pillar start. I had only 1 bb and without bbs hard to make this deck survive.
Had to rely on gps, but that's not enough. DC again. Loss. 1-2.

After this I had to play with kaempfer. And this raises a question. Do a TO really have to compete in a tourney where he is the only TO around?
Can someone be a referee and a player at the same time? This is called "conflict of interest". Kaempfer absolutely knew that I have Trap
in my backpack so he had his expectations. He also knew that pliterally plays SoSe (and played with him in the next round). I think things like this shouldn't
happen in any competition which takes itself at least a bit seriously. Kaempfer argued that "the replay is the default solution, i wouldnt have needed
to see anything if you went with that" and "well i didnt really use direct counters to it or the deck itself". I couldn't believe my eyes. An experienced
player, a TO wants to tell me that 1) I shouldn't ask for the help of the TO 2) knowing one deck of your opponent (while he knows that you know this)
doesn't matter in this psychological rock-paper-scissors meta. C'mon, kaempfer, you know it, too!

So, it was really fun to sleep only 3,5 hours just to get trolled by rng, server, ai and a to.

Spoiler for Hidden:

Against kaempfer, 2nd game (losers bracket).

0-1 1 pillar start with a Pharaoh deck against a lycan deck. You can imagine it.

Spoiler for deck:

Hover over cards for details, click for permalink

Deck import code : [Select]

55q 55q 55q 5rg 5rg 5rg 5rg 5rg 5rg 5rg 5rg 5rg 5rj 5rq 5rq 5rq 5rq 5rq 5rq 5rs 5rs 5rs 5rs 5rt 5rt 5rt 5t2 5t2 5t2 5t2 8pl

0-2 Plays a total water rush, has 5 pillars in hand, draws 3 fishes in 4 turns, and another 4 creatures in a few turns. My pulvy, 1 dragon
and a few bbs clearly wasn't enough.

Spoiler for deck:

Hover over cards for details, click for permalink

Deck import code : [Select]

55t 55t 58o 58o 58o 58o 58o 58o 58o 58o 58o 58r 58r 58r 58r 58r 58v 58v 58v 595 595 595 595 595 595 5aa 5aa 5aa 5aa 5aa 8pl

[rob77dp]

Wyand 0-0 rob77dp

seems rob forgot about double elim... nowhere to be found, moving on

I stuck around a while but definitely not over two hours for a losers bracket match. Thanks for hosting kaempfer!

[Submachine]

I was there to witness the chaos unfold and two thougths formulated in me.

• When both players win against the AI after a disconnect, should they replay with the same decks if one deck relies heavily on surprise?
• When both players have screenshots of winning against the AI, should the TOs determine a winner when the win was not 100% obvious?

1.) The current rules ignore this factor, plus we could argue that deck choice only can be a big surprise. Because of the former, the current answer was clearly yes. But admittedly, it's a bummer if our opponents know that we are going to use Voodoo Trap because of a replay. Is it a big enough bummer to include an exception in the rules?

2.) There are times when the winner is undoubtedly obvious, even if the AI messed it up and caused a loss somehow (not activating Nymph Queens). However, should we rule a victory to someone who had ~90% chance to win? However low the odds are, if there is a chance, the unlikely can happen. And what if it would have happened now? I don't think the current dispute was close to 90% and there were unknown factors too. Would it have been fair to make a victory rule?

[Vindilos]

I was there to witness the chaos unfold and two thougths formulated in me.

• When both players win against the AI after a disconnect, should they replay with the same decks if one deck relies heavily on surprise?
• When both players have screenshots of winning against the AI, should the TOs determine a winner when the win was not 100% obvious?

1.) The current rules ignore this factor, plus we could argue that deck choice only can be a big surprise. Because of the former, the current answer was clearly yes. But admittedly, it's a bummer if our opponents know that we are going to use Voodoo Trap because of a replay. Is it a big enough bummer to include an exception in the rules?

2.) There are times when the winner is undoubtedly obvious, even if the AI messed it up and caused a loss somehow (not activating Nymph Queens). However, should we rule a victory to someone who had ~90% chance to win? However low the odds are, if there is a chance, the unlikely can happen. And what if it would have happened now? I don't think the current dispute was close to 90% and there were unknown factors too. Would it have been fair to make a victory rule?

Point 1.
Everybody could claim their deck has a surprise card in it or is somehow surprising. How do you measure the surprise effect? Its more practical to always replay with the same decks.
Another point is that the TOs often would like to join tournaments, but making rulings (on how surprising the deck is) forces people to show the TO their decks. The prefered solution is to just replay without needing the TO.

Point 2.
It is always better for the tournament to not use TO rulings. When the TO has to make a ruling on AI misplay it almost always makes somebody angry. The default option is to just replay.
A 90% chance is not enough. You have to prove with several screenshots of multiple turns, from the moment of the disconnect until the end, that there is nothing your opponent could have done to prevent the win.
If 90% would be enough everybody would be asking for rulings, thus:
-TOs would be forced to dissapoint somebody a lot of the time
-tournament would be delayed
-a TO playing in the tournament would get an advantage as he can see the decks

Wyands game involved multiple disconnects and other people waiting. A different rule applied:

3.7 - 40 minute time limit
Rounds last a maximum of 40 minutes. Tournament Organizers can give 20 minutes extra time depending on the situation, if for example players are just about to finish the last duel. If players are unable to finish all duels during this time limit and scoring is still tied, Tournament Organizer will announce the winner according to who seems to be winning (for example health left, cards left in the deck, etc.) when there is overwhelming evidence pointing towards one side winning, otherwise coin toss.

[Wyand]

You have to prove with several screenshots of multiple turns, from the moment of the disconnect until the end, that there is nothing your opponent could have done to prevent the win.
If 90% would be enough everybody would be asking for rulings, thus:
-TOs would be forced to dissapoint somebody a lot of the time
-tournament would be delayed

And how do you plan to prove anything against a SoSe deck? One of the main issues was here that the AI on my side drew entirely different cards
than pliterallyh on his side from his deck. My AI had 0% chance to win against a SoSe deck because it doesn't know how to use its deck (It's a Trap). Stupidly
using bb, gp, not using catapult (so don't dream about using freeze on the catapult target).

-a TO playing in the tournament would get an advantage as he can see the decks

That's why a TO shouldn't compete in a tourney if there isn't another there to host. I value TOs work,
I think it is really great what they do. At the same time it isn't right that they might know about the
decks (another example when a player asks for a deck check). Plus probably they know a lot about
the meta, since they've planned it. (Yes, this was a different tourney, meta decided by players.)

Wyands game involved multiple disconnects and other people waiting. A different rule applied:

3.7 - 40 minute time limit
Rounds last a maximum of 40 minutes. Tournament Organizers can give 20 minutes extra time depending on the situation, if for example players are just about to finish the last duel. If players are unable to finish all duels during this time limit and scoring is still tied, Tournament Organizer will announce the winner according to who seems to be winning (for example health left, cards left in the deck, etc.) when there is overwhelming evidence pointing towards one side winning, otherwise coin toss.

This rule wasn't applied. Maybe we would had to resort to this rule if the 3rd game also results in a draw.

[kaempfer13]

I apologize that this is such an awkward situation and always will be if the only host is still participating in his/her own tournament.

A TO is unfortunately required to view decks when a deck check has been requested or someone claims to have been guaranteed to win in case of a desync. Rereading the rules I noticed that that rule doesnt actually apply to disconnects, in which case you are always supposed to replay, so long as both/neither players have a winscreen (I didn't remember that sorry - the fact sose had completely different results could kinda count as desync, but that doesnt really match the definition as it happened after the disconnect).

There are two reasons why TOs are allowed to play in their own tournaments:

• Player numbers are often low. It makes a huge difference whether 5 or 6 players participate and unfortunately that was the case again.
• Usually the best suited players for the job want to still be able to participate at least some of the time. Usually, experience and passion help a great deal with the job and those usually come with the desire to play in most of them. Otherwise you'd have 0 rather than 1 TO now (soon to be alleviated, but its been the situation for a while now).

I know its far from ideal, but I think some value would be lost if we dont allow TOs to participate (exception being if theyhad been thoroughly informed about the tourneys meta before it even started, then they shouldnt even attempt to and I stuck to that rule)

About your request to grant you the win for AI-incompetence, I could have never given you that win. pli had a screenshot that showed him having enviable fallen elf rng, which allowed him to win 2 turns earlier than you managed on your side (where he got nothing but tiny weenies). I'd argue it would have been impossible for you to win that game had pli played you with his rng (and you barely scrapped by in yours).

[Wyand]

I know its far from ideal, but I think some value would be lost if we dont allow TOs to participate (exception being if theyhad been thoroughly informed about the tourneys meta before it even started, then they shouldnt even attempt to and I stuck to that rule)

I hope the problem will be solved, having at least 2 TOs present is much more preferred: one of them can play, the other is exclusively
operates as a TO. I understand that the community is very little nowadays, and I hope there will be a solution equally good for everyone.

About your request to grant you the win for AI-incompetence, I could have never given you that win. pli had a screenshot that showed him having enviable fallen elf rng, which allowed him to win 2 turns earlier than you managed on your side (where he got nothing but tiny weenies). I'd argue it would have been impossible for you to win that game had pli played you with his rng (and you barely scrapped by in yours).

Of course his RNG would have been different if we don't disconnect. Different from what I experienced different on my side,
different from what he experienced on his side. SoSe drew and mutation is determined at that very moment when it happens.


- I think he drew that elf via SoSe (1st luck). That's why there are no mutated creatures/elf on my screenshot.
(2 extra mutants: 2nd & 3rd luck.)

- He has 78 hps, but should have around 64, since I had a bb'd doll earlier in the game. Let's say
he used some healing, that's luck nr. 4 (2nd different lucky card via SoSe.)

- He managed to win 2 turns earlier because the AI was stupid and put the gp on the MD.
5th "luck", AI stupidity. That's a 16 hp difference, instead of having 78 vs. 2 hp it would
be 62 vs. 18.

- I had a Holy Light in hand, so I'm already at 28 hp. (You could argue that it was a
newly given card later, but no, it was in my hand for turns, just like Freeze.)

- These things already giving me one extra turn. Thus probably giving me the next BB.
Without BB I can damage him for 21 dmg, with BB it is 34 dmg. He is left at 41 or 28 dmg.
Probably still a loss, but if the previous gp'd doll lives I can BB him as well. I don't know.
I cannot make screenshots at his side, what have or haven't the AI done there.

- And where are my Forest Spirits? SoSe gave him 2 extra CC card (because I haven't
witnessed any CC in my game!)? Luck nr. 6. and 7. (3rd and 4th lucky differences in SoSe draw).

I just wanted to point out that it was a clean win there DUE TO AI stupidity, plus he was
indeed VERY LUCKY to win like this.

But nothing can change the results now. I just wanted to make these things clear.

Plus it would be really good to change the rules. If one of the players have mutation/SoSe
there is no way to determine winners, because the 2 games will be 2 different universes...
Another thing that if you play a surprise deck, like Trap, you will be totally handicapped
in the replay. Your opponent will just play a weapon, and sit back laughing at your dolls.
I think we should allow players to agree if a replay is needed they are allowed to change their decks.

[kaempfer13]

Replay always happens when its not completely clear who the winner is (which is most of the time). This is even more likely with SoSe involved, as you pointed out. I was just baffled you asked to be given the win (which is the unusual ruling) when there is just as many things pointing towards your opponent deserving the win (it took a while to get plis screenshot too, so for most of our chat I was trying to figure out whether there was nothing your opponent could have done with what you/he drew on your side). If that replay is with different decks (not really a replay then, a voided game it would be), then its exactly the player suffering from ai stupidity that gets punished more if they brought a softcounter, which is why the rule to replay with same decks exists. I guess in this special case where your deck relies on the opponent playing certain things in order for you to win at all (which it doesnt, you still have catapult), the surprise element is important, I'm not sure it outweighs your deck having a 90% chance to win (just not the 100% necessary to prove it was aistupidity which lost you the game on your opponents side) and then being able to prove this in the replay.

I'll discuss with my new colleagues whether the rule of TOs joining should be changed (totally not biased lol; we might make it a public poll to be a little fairer), and them existing now also makes it more likely for a host that doesnt want to play to be present.

[Wyand]

I was just baffled you asked to be given the win (which is the unusual ruling) when there is just as many things pointing towards your opponent deserving the win

I didn't know about his monumental luck spree, all I knew that the AI is totally incapable of playing my deck and that I'll lose the surprise factor for the replay.
I'm also baffled why do you think he was more deserving to have the win. My deck had the sadist surprise factor (plus backed up by catapult), his deck
had a luck factor (SoSe). Let's say it's fifty-fifty chance, but still: he need very lucky SoSe draws to win, while my deck could only be ruined by a bad rng
(which happened in replay nr. 2. against the ai). Since all of our tries (3!!!!) was ended in disconnect it wasn't really a question that sooner or later
I'll have a bad rng thus I'll lose against the ai. In the hands of the AI the Trap deck will do only superficial damage. This caused my sudden
outburst, I knew it is a lost case, and that's why I think there should be some solution, because it is really stupid and unfair to lose in a tourney this way.
I admit it is rare that a Trap deck gets a disconnect, and it is even rarer that this happens against a SoSe deck.

If that replay is with different decks (not really a replay then, a voided game it would be), then its exactly the player suffering from ai stupidity that gets punished
more if they brought a softcounter,

Both player would change decks if they agree upon that. Not compulsory.


Thanks for reacting to the issue, thank you for your answers.

[kaempfer13]

There is a rule for 3 repeated desyncs that the TO gets to check the connection of the players by asking for a screenshot of the connectionspage and if necessary by playing them (with placeholder decks), though with the current wording it doesn't apply to disconnnects yet.

Also you should have asked for his screenshot before coming to me, it seems you didnt see it (if he doesnt provide one its your win)