Author Topic: Open Discussion for Spectating (Read 7473 times)

SEB · « **on:** June 25, 2018, 12:41:05 PM »

During the OH state my cousin and I discovered what we felt to be an odd tournament procedure: players cannot observe other games or discuss other's decks.

So, first, where is this specifically dealt with? I dont see it in the tournament documents on the Cactus Web Site.

Secondly, I feel this is procedure is overall more damaging to the community that it is helpful. Ill explain:
I realize that a player may want to keep his "Secret deck-tech" hidden, but once a tournament has begun, players cannot modified registered decks.

It is extremely difficult to enforce this policy fairly, and it's frustrating because you can be "cheating" unintentionally with this policy by overhearing someone else talk about their own deck or about a deck they were playing, or glancing at a table beside you.

Because Redemption is a game that encourages fellowship and community, I would think we want to cultivate our players by investing in their experience. I want new players to observe the best players playing the best decks in a competitive atmosphere. Appropriately, observing a game lets people support friends and siblings in Christ, education of newer/less experience players learn the correct rules, improvement to new players, people learn tournament policy.

It would be like if the NBA would not allow spectators in the arena during a game because an opposing team could see what another team's offensive strategy would be. Fans would have to read a report of all of the seasons games after the championship game.

There is very little players can do after decks are registered to stop what another player has in their deck. The only thing you can do is make a choice, but this is so minor. Other tournaments from all kinds of games (card games, board games, sporting events, the list goes on and on) allow for spectators (players and fans) to enjoy watching games. It is expected and healthy for communities.

I hope this doesnt get taken the wrong way, but Redemption tournaments are purposely not designed to be a $100,000 prize structure like other games, but those games allow for spectators, specifically because they want to encourage "mentorship and community."

In short, I believe that this rule harms our community more than it gives.

The Guardian · « **Reply #1 on:** June 25, 2018, 01:02:03 PM »

Quote

So, first, where is this specifically dealt with? I dont see it in the tournament documents on the Cactus Web Site.

It's in the Tournament Guide under Section II, subsection C-1. (second to last line of that list)

Quote

- Following their game, players are to remove themselves from the gaming area until the next round. No person may distract
players who are still playing

In my experience, this rule is place due to the distraction factor. Often times tournament rooms are already fairly small (and thus noisy) so to have that on top of people hovering over one's shoulder can really detract from a player's focus.

As far as "deck scouting" there are certainly advantages to knowing what an opponent is playing going in to the game. Back in 2013 Nationals in T2 2P, I knew a certain player was using a combo deck that relied heavily on Choose the blocker abilities. When I suspected I might be playing him in the third round (we had similar results from our first two rounds), I switched to a second deck I had checked in that had more counters to that strategy. Sure enough, I ended up playing him and pretty much stifled his combo.

This past weekend at Iowa state we had 3 T2 players so it was round robin with one player sitting out each round. I had the first bye and intentionally stayed away from the game between the other two players so as not to have the advantage of knowing what I would be going up against. As it turned out, both players had very "technical" decks and I can absolutely say that I would have had a major advantage had I known what they were using prior to me playing against them.

In general, I don't mind people watching my games as long as they are quiet and not playing in the same category as I am. When it's a situation where players can see what someone else is using because their current games are next to each other, then it's not really an advantage because both players have the same opportunity to see what each other are using.

I really like that we've been able to do some "live feed" games in recent years (though even that has some drawbacks) and hopefully that can be expanded even further.

SEB · « **Reply #2 on:** June 25, 2018, 01:24:50 PM »

Thanks Justin.

Spoiler (hover to show)

I saw that section, but I did not realize it meant "no spectating." Other tournaments have similar verbiage but removing yourself from the play area did not exclude people from spectating.

I would rather include a policy for spectating. That would ensure that they are just that and not a coach or distraction.

Quote

This past weekend at Iowa state we had 3 T2 players so it was round robin with one player sitting out each round. I had the first bye and intentionally stayed away from the game between the other two players so as not to have the advantage of knowing what I would be going up against. As it turned out, both players had very "technical" decks and I can absolutely say that I would have had a major advantage had I known what they were using prior to me playing against them.

What major advantage did you have that you wouldnt have had as soon as they placed a significant card that tells you their strategy? As I mentioned before, other competitions that offer significant prizes (thousands of dollars) feel spectating is not a problem, and they actually encourage it by making special areas that allow for bigger audience to watch the games live.

As I mentioned before, I think there is far more positive than negative for allowing spectators (if done properly)

TheHobbit13 · « **Reply #3 on:** June 25, 2018, 01:28:15 PM »

"hovering" is definitely distracting and that's the main reason why it's a no go. The smaller the tournament (local, district, etc) the more lenient people are on enforcing this rule but generally it's frowned upon. As for talking about people's decks I don't have a problem with people talking about mine, as usually there's not going to be much of an advantage to knowing what I am running but some people might. I don't see anything ethical wrong with doing it either, though I don't do it outside of explaining my game if people ask. Honestly this seems like an unwritten gentlemen's rule idk, like you're not going to get in trouble but people might not like you doing it, whereas the no hovering policy is enforced regularly.

The Guardian · « **Reply #4 on:** June 25, 2018, 01:29:02 PM »

Quote

What major advantage did you have that you wouldnt have had as soon as they placed a significant card that tells you their strategy? As I mentioned before, other competitions that offer significant prizes (thousands of dollars) feel spectating is not a problem, and they actually encourage it by making special areas that allow for bigger audience to watch the games live.

That's what I meant by "technical" decks. The cards they were using weren't all that out of the ordinary, but the combinations in which they were using them were a bit unexpected and definitely had me scrambling a bit at certain times of the game.

Do other games allow spectating for players who are playing the same event?

Master Q · « **Reply #5 on:** June 25, 2018, 01:30:30 PM »

From what I've seen and heard "deck-teching" is really only a problem amongst the super-competitive players, as most people playing are only checking in one deck. That being said, having foreknowledge of certain strats and cards your next opponent is playing can swing the outcome if you know what to play and when to play it. ie- save DoN for CwD, save SoG for the liner... oh, wait

The biggest reason, as Justin and Nathan said, is the potential distraction and the fact that some people are better at being invisible than others. While I personally don't really mind when people want to watch my games, I do understand not everyone is this way. I can say it's a different mindset at Nats than it is even at something like States.

Also, I find myself wanting to comment more than I should on games I happen to stumble upon, so I try to distance myself from those scenarios as often as possible. Being the filthy, hovering casual I am, this does not always happen.

Watchman · « **Reply #6 on:** June 25, 2018, 01:42:06 PM »

Why are players allowed to switch different decks between games?

Josh · « **Reply #7 on:** June 25, 2018, 01:54:01 PM »

I think the thing to note here is that Redemption, the game that prides itself on "fun and fellowship" and literally has rules that cannot be objectively enforced (you can't throw games or intentionally concede) because it is trying to elevate something to a higher importance than the competition of the games itself, is the game that has a rule that ultimately restricts newer players from watching experienced players play their games in order to become a better player.

I'm not saying I have a solution off the top of my head, but if we're already ok with enacting subjective rules, seems to me there should be another one we can come up with for this situation

I would hate for newer players to be turned off from the game we love because of something like this.

SEB · « **Reply #8 on:** June 25, 2018, 02:05:55 PM »

Quote from: The Guardian on June 25, 2018, 01:29:02 PM

Quote
What major advantage did you have that you wouldnt have had as soon as they placed a significant card that tells you their strategy? As I mentioned before, other competitions that offer significant prizes (thousands of dollars) feel spectating is not a problem, and they actually encourage it by making special areas that allow for bigger audience to watch the games live.

That's what I meant by "technical" decks. The cards they were using weren't all that out of the ordinary, but the combinations in which they were using them were a bit unexpected and definitely had me scrambling a bit at certain times of the game.

Do other games allow spectating for players who are playing the same event?

yes, spectating by players and fans are allowed in other tournaments I have been in.
This is done so newer players learn the rules and procedures better and to make "information sharing" considered equal (basically, if you "hide" all deck information you would have a very complicated mess because there would be so many situations).

SEB · « **Reply #9 on:** June 25, 2018, 02:08:14 PM »

Quote from: Master Q on June 25, 2018, 01:30:30 PM

From what I've seen and heard "deck-teching" is really only a problem amongst the super-competitive players, as most people playing are only checking in one deck. That being said, having foreknowledge of certain strats and cards your next opponent is playing can swing the outcome if you know what to play and when to play it. ie- save DoN for CwD, save SoG for the liner... oh, wait

The biggest reason, as Justin and Nathan said, is the potential distraction and the fact that some people are better at being invisible than others. While I personally don't really mind when people want to watch my games, I do understand not everyone is this way. I can say it's a different mindset at Nats than it is even at something like States.

Also, I find myself wanting to comment more than I should on games I happen to stumble upon, so I try to distance myself from those scenarios as often as possible. Being the filthy, hovering casual I am, this does not always happen.

two things: if all players are allowed to observer, it is fair game to talk about the deck-tech. No one can get in "trouble" by mistake
spectators are to NEVER engage with the players or distract in any way. If there is a tournament infraction, they must get a judge and have them step into the game.

Watchman · « **Reply #10 on:** June 25, 2018, 02:14:22 PM »

I feel that the spectating issue can be easily rectified by the judge giving the actual players the option to allow their game to be spectated or not. If the players are fine with it, a standard rule of no talking, signaling, or any other form of communication by the spectators or players should be allowed, and to also give the players enough space so as not to feel crowded.

SEB · « **Reply #11 on:** June 25, 2018, 02:23:34 PM »

Quote from: Watchman492 on June 25, 2018, 02:14:22 PM

I feel that the spectating issue can be easily rectified by the judge giving the actual players the option to allow their game to be spectated or not. If the players are fine with it, a standard rule of no talking, signaling, or any other form of communication by the spectators or players should be allowed, and to also give the players enough space so as not to feel crowded.

a pushback to this is that it should be the same for everyone. What if player A wants a spectator and player B doesn’t. It should be one policy that’s is clear and consistent for everyone. I would rather no spectators than it being random. That only makes it confusing.

Kevinthedude · « **Reply #12 on:** June 25, 2018, 02:25:38 PM »

Quote from: Watchman492 on June 25, 2018, 02:14:22 PM

I feel that the spectating issue can be easily rectified by the judge giving the actual players the option to allow their game to be spectated or not. If the players are fine with it, a standard rule of no talking, signaling, or any other form of communication by the spectators or players should be allowed, and to also give the players enough space so as not to feel crowded.

One issue with giving the choice up to the players is that, especially for some people, they would feel rude or awkward telling the spectators to go away. It also forces them to take time away from thinking about the game to first decide if they want the spectators gone and then to confront them.

SEB · « **Reply #13 on:** June 25, 2018, 02:28:17 PM »

Quote from: Master Q on June 25, 2018, 01:30:30 PM

From what I've seen and heard "deck-teching" is really only a problem amongst the super-competitive players, as most people playing are only checking in one deck. That being said, having foreknowledge of certain strats and cards your next opponent is playing can swing the outcome if you know what to play and when to play it. ie- save DoN for CwD, save SoG for the liner... oh, wait

The biggest reason, as Justin and Nathan said, is the potential distraction and the fact that some people are better at being invisible than others. While I personally don't really mind when people want to watch my games, I do understand not everyone is this way. I can say it's a different mindset at Nats than it is even at something like States.

Also, I find myself wanting to comment more than I should on games I happen to stumble upon, so I try to distance myself from those scenarios as often as possible. Being the filthy, hovering casual I am, this does not always happen.

Definitely am agaist distraction. But i have seen 30 people Hovering around a table watching matches before, and not one person made a sound. It’s positive to the tournament environment.

Watchman · « **Reply #14 on:** June 25, 2018, 02:46:35 PM »

Quote from: Kevinthedude on June 25, 2018, 02:25:38 PM

Quote from: Watchman492 on June 25, 2018, 02:14:22 PM
I feel that the spectating issue can be easily rectified by the judge giving the actual players the option to allow their game to be spectated or not. If the players are fine with it, a standard rule of no talking, signaling, or any other form of communication by the spectators or players should be allowed, and to also give the players enough space so as not to feel crowded.

One issue with giving the choice up to the players is that, especially for some people, they would feel rude or awkward telling the spectators to go away. It also forces them to take time away from thinking about the game to first decide if they want the spectators gone and then to confront them.

The players can make this choice at the beginning of the tourney and/or just prior to the game beginning. And if one player doesn’t want spectators and the other does then no spectating should be permitted. Again, I feel it’s up to the actual players as they are ultimately the ones affected by it.

SEB · « **Reply #15 on:** June 25, 2018, 02:59:03 PM »

Let me add a personal experience from Another game.
I had been playing awhile, and went to my first major tournament. I had meet
A player who was very experienced. We hit it off and became friends. He decided to follow me around and be a spectator as often as he could for my games. In between rounds he would break down every play and taught me how to be better. How to not only play the game better but how to play in tournaments better. He is the reason I invested so much time and money in that game. I then returned that with new players. It’s actually a very Biblical model of discipleship. Other games do it, from sports to ccgs. It’s fine to know what your opponents are doing, because what really matters is how well you play.

Red · « **Reply #16 on:** June 25, 2018, 03:35:12 PM »

Quote from: SEB on June 25, 2018, 02:59:03 PM

Let me add a personal experience from Another game.
I had been playing awhile, and went to my first major tournament. I had meet
A player who was very experienced. We hit it off and became friends. He decided to follow me around and be a spectator as often as he could for my games. In between rounds he would break down every play and taught me how to be better. How to not only play the game better but how to play in tournaments better. He is the reason I invested so much time and money in that game. I then returned that with new players. It’s actually a very Biblical model of discipleship. Other games do it, from sports to ccgs. It’s fine to know what your opponents are doing, because what really matters is how well you play.

I support this for a similar reason.

Isildur · « **Reply #17 on:** June 25, 2018, 04:45:16 PM »

Spectating is not a big deal for smaller locals and districts and should be left up to the digression of the host.

State and higher there really shouldn't be spectating. For people trying to get RNRS points it really does make a difference knowing what is in your opponents deck and seeing how they pilot their deck.

The Guardian · « **Reply #18 on:** June 25, 2018, 05:13:17 PM »

Quote from: Watchman492 on June 25, 2018, 01:42:06 PM

Why are players allowed to switch different decks between games?

I often check 2 decks at major tournaments for a couple of reasons.

First, the main deck might be an experimental deck that I haven't been able to test much, and if it utterly flops in the first game or two, I'd rather switch to a different deck for the last few rounds than have to keep using it. This was the case for me at 2005 Nationals. I had a T2 combo deck that pretty much locked the opponent out if I got the combo off. Unfortunately my first round opponent recognized what was coming (he had seen a similar deck at a Regional tournament) and he had the right dominant to disrupt my combo. In the second round, I actually go the combo going, but again my opponent had a dominant that prevented me from continuing the combo. So after starting 0-2, I decided to switch to my back-up deck--I proceeded to win 4 straight games and nearly snuck into the top 3 (the top 3 all finished 5-1 and I had the highest differential of the 4-2 players). Gabe did something similar in T1 2P at 2007 Nationals (started 0-2, switched to a different deck that was higher risk/higher reward, and ended up winning).

Most times I'm not really sure what the meta is going to be (and who is going to be playing T2 for that matter...except Ron Sias and Tyler Stevens

). Consequently I like to have a back-up deck in case my main deck is just a terrible choice for what everyone else is using.

If one of my decks is a Brown defense with Haman's Plot, then I usually have a second deck in case too many Plots get ripped.
One year at Nationals, I had 2 decks each with 5 Haman's Plots and I literally switched back and forth every round based on how many Plots were left in each deck. (I'm pretty sure all 10 got ripped)

Lastly, there might be times when I'm out of the running for placing, and I want to switch to a deck that is a "fun" deck--one that doesn't care so much about winning as it does about pulling off some ridiculous combo or scenario.

In any case, I for one would be very disappointed to see a rule change that only allowed for one deck to be used the entire time.

SEB · « **Reply #19 on:** June 25, 2018, 05:27:04 PM »

Quote from: Isildur on June 25, 2018, 04:45:16 PM

Spectating is not a big deal for smaller locals and districts and should be left up to the digression of the host.

State and higher there really shouldn't be spectating. For people trying to get RNRS points it really does make a difference knowing what is in your opponents deck and seeing how they pilot their deck.

I am just really struggling to understand this mindset (not trying to be negative).

In almost all competitive activities, scouting is perfectly acceptable. I remember going to watch opponent's play in college and in high school sports, or watching their televised games over and over to learn their strengths and weakness. Watching a game at a Redemption tournament is the same thing - practice (deck building and registration) is a closed activity, but once the game begins, all activities should be considered public information. There is so little you can do after you turn your deck in, any information you gain is such a nominal advantage, making the event hostile to spectating looses more for us than it gains.

I guess I struggle too because Redemption is supposed to a be a tool to bring community together but you want to enforce the most stringent rule of spectating a match, I have heard, any game to have every impose - I have never heard of a game forbidding the watching of a match. Practice, meetings, pre-game discussion, playbooks - yes. The actual game - no. How can a myriad of other games with large piles of money on the line handle spectating, but we cant? Do you see why I am struggling with this policy?

The Guardian · « **Reply #20 on:** June 25, 2018, 05:35:31 PM »

Honestly I probably wouldn't have much problem with people watching my games if they were quiet and weren't playing in the same category as I was. However, I do not see it as fair that someone could "scout" my deck and potentially I would not have the same opportunity (maybe I'm using a slower deck that tends to use most of the time each round or I'm playing slower opponents who take longer).

As I mentioned earlier in the example from Iowa state, if I had watched the first game (when I had the bye), I would have had an enormous advantage in knowing what the other guys were trying to pull off, and they would have had no idea what I was trying to do (especially the first guy, I suppose the second guy would have been able to observe the second match).

Gabe · « **Reply #21 on:** June 25, 2018, 05:42:06 PM »

I don't think the problem is spectating itself, but the lack of good judgment and self control from spectators. Lets start by admitting that spectating happens all the time in Redemption. Very often I see spectators invade personal space, rest on the playing surface, talk to other spectators and even interact with the players. All of those things are disruptive and distracting at best. I believe that has led to the idea that we don't want spectators in Redemption tournaments.

Could we make more rules to deal with all the different ways a spectator can distract or disrupt a game? Sure. But that's one more thing that hosts and judges have to deal with. It also doesn't keep the disruptions or distractions from having an impact. It's far easier to simply disallow spectators.

I don't really buy into the idea that spectating is a good way for new players to learn the game. There are better forums for that to take place where they will be able to talk and ask questions without disturbing an active game. Also, comparing spectating in Redemption to a sporting event isn't even remotely the same thing.

The Guardian · « **Reply #22 on:** June 25, 2018, 06:17:25 PM »

Quote from: Gabe on June 25, 2018, 05:42:06 PM

I don't think the problem is spectating itself, but the lack of good judgment and self control from spectators. Lets start by admitting that spectating happens all the time in Redemption. Very often I see spectators invade personal space, rest on the playing surface, talk to other spectators and even interact with the players. All of those things are disruptive and distracting at best. I believe that has led to the idea that we don't want spectators in Redemption tournaments.

Along with that, and I know this is not true in all playgroups, but I'm guessing many Redemption playgroups have a much lower average age than other major card game tournaments.

For example, it sounds like the Ohio state tournament had mainly older players (20s and 30s). I would guess the Iowa state tournament was about half comprised of players 14 and under, which obviously plays a part in Gabe's point about judgment and self-control.

SEB · « **Reply #23 on:** June 25, 2018, 09:40:20 PM »

Thanks for the great discussion guys. Let me continue the discussion by pushing back on these points.

Quote from: Gabe on June 25, 2018, 05:42:06 PM

I don't think the problem is spectating itself, but the lack of good judgment and self control from spectators. Lets start by admitting that spectating happens all the time in Redemption. Very often I see spectators invade personal space, rest on the playing surface, talk to other spectators and even interact with the players. All of those things are disruptive and distracting at best. I believe that has led to the idea that we don't want spectators in Redemption tournaments.

Fair point, but if there is a disruption it is just as easy to instruct the spectator who is being a disruption by saying, "Observers may not disrupt players." As it is, "You may not observe to protect from disruption." Spectators who dont know they are not allowed can cause more of a disruption now than by simply observing. This procedure seems overly harsh and competitive for the typical Redemption tournament.

Quote from: Gabe on June 25, 2018, 05:42:06 PM

Could we make more rules to deal with all the different ways a spectator can distract or disrupt a game? Sure. But that's one more thing that hosts and judges have to deal with. It also doesn't keep the disruptions or distractions from having an impact. It's far easier to simply disallow spectators.

They have to deal with it anyway, if people dont know that spectating is against the rules. The easy way does not constitute the best way. It would be easy if every time I drew a card I searched my deck for the specific card I want instead.

Quote from: Gabe on June 25, 2018, 05:42:06 PM

I don't really buy into the idea that spectating is a good way for new players to learn the game. There are better forums for that to take place where they will be able to talk and ask questions without disturbing an active game. Also, comparing spectating in Redemption to a sporting event isn't even remotely the same thing.

I wasnt comparing Redemption with a sporting event. I was using that as an example to make the point about observing a competitive game.

When I mean "learn" I dont mean that they should ask question during the game or that it is the time to learn what it means to play Redemption. Like my example, I had a mentor who watched my games so we could talk about all of the mistakes I didnt even realize I was making because of my inexperience. I mean to help improve a mediocre player to an advanced player.

If you are dealing with a player who needs major education, then I argue that they are not ready for a competitive atmosphere. But for players who are "Average", they may take much longer to advance because their playgroup just plays the basics. Allowing spectators, gives an opportunity for experience players to ask questions after the match. These interactions are crucial in building a thriving community of players. It also promotes new deck building ideas as people share details of the match while it's fresh in their mind.

Quote

Honestly I probably wouldn't have much problem with people watching my games if they were quiet and weren't playing in the same category as I was. However, I do not see it as fair that someone could "scout" my deck and potentially I would not have the same opportunity (maybe I'm using a slower deck that tends to use most of the time each round or I'm playing slower opponents who take longer).

As I mentioned earlier in the example from Iowa state, if I had watched the first game (when I had the bye), I would have had an enormous advantage in knowing what the other guys were trying to pull off, and they would have had no idea what I was trying to do (especially the first guy, I suppose the second guy would have been able to observe the second match).

I dont see the major advantage. Your deck was set. You couldnt add cards to change what your deck was designed to do. You cant change the order in which your cards are drawn.

Yes your games may take a long time and you don't get to scout, but once again I argue that the advantage is marginal and the primary reason isnt for scouting but to bolster community and promote education.

Red Dragon Thorn · « **Reply #24 on:** June 25, 2018, 09:46:58 PM »

Quote from: SEB on June 25, 2018, 09:40:20 PM

Quote
Honestly I probably wouldn't have much problem with people watching my games if they were quiet and weren't playing in the same category as I was. However, I do not see it as fair that someone could "scout" my deck and potentially I would not have the same opportunity (maybe I'm using a slower deck that tends to use most of the time each round or I'm playing slower opponents who take longer)

As I mentioned earlier in the example from Iowa state, if I had watched the first game (when I had the bye), I would have had an enormous advantage in knowing what the other guys were trying to pull off, and they would have had no idea what I was trying to do (especially the first guy, I suppose the second guy would have been able to observe the second match).
I dont see the major advantage. Your deck was set. You couldnt add cards to change what your deck was designed to do. You cant change the order in which your cards are drawn.

Yes your games may take a long time and you don't get to scout, but once again I argue that the advantage is marginal and the primary reason isnt for scouting but to bolster community and promote education.

Redemption is a far different game than others where knowing a decks content doesn't matter as much. If I have 4 copies of a win condition you might not be able to handle all of them even if you know it's coming. I only get 1 shot in Redemption to set an interaction, if you're able to disrupt that because you knew to save your interrupt for that point it's a significant advantage

News:

Author Topic: Open Discussion for Spectating (Read 7473 times)

TheHobbit13