Yeah, a “draw” in Netrunner is a split.
What you really want is to give a bonus point (or points) for sweeping your opponent - so a sweep is 5-0, while a split is 2-2. Then you need to decide how games going to time fits into this.
One rather nice bonus of playing two games per match is that it gives you stuff like extra time on the second game if the first one is quick. With single game rounds you’ll get stuff like the runner flatlining on his first turn (Snare!) and then you sit around for half an hour. With the current system you at least get to play another game straight away (or you just played one).
1 Like
While this line of thought might be interesting from a game theory perspective, I’m not sure whether accepting cheating as something that is going to happen anyway (almost viewing cheating as a kind of meta-gaming of sorts) is helpful in encouraging an honest atmosphere and community. The scorekeeper should absolutely be differentiating between deliberate manipulation of results and honest game results and, more importantly, everyone playing should be very aware that the scorekeeper will be doing this.
I’m not sure how much I like a sweep being worth more points than 2 splits. It probably amounts to using weak side wins as a tiebreaker, which never felt right either.
1 Like
I do sometimes wonder whether it would be preferable to have time limits for single games rather than rounds. So if a round is an hour, all of the first games have to end (with whatever time conditions are used) at the half an hour mark. I’m not sure there’s anything worse than starting a game that you know can only last five minutes.
‘Manipulation of results’ means changing the agreed-upon outcome of a match between two players. We should not be concerned with players deciding on a match result, because enforcing that is impossible, unless you have a judge for every four players. For tournament rules, we’re only concerned with Bribery and actual Cheating. Drawing a match, being possible under the rules (Split) means that we CANNOT prevent intentional draws, without policing every match.
Also I have a problem with you believing that a Split isn’t an honest game result. Or a Draw. Since they look the same to the scorekeeper: ‘1-1’ with two signatures on it. WHY isn’t it an honest game result? Did both players agree that this was the result of the game? Did either player receive a benefit from outside the tournament structure to report this result? (Bribery) Then why is this not an honest result?
Despite the flaws in Netrunner’s tournament structure, I don’t know that the solution to those flaws is “let’s figure out a way to introduce and protect intentional draws in the tournament structure.”
7 Likes
Player agreement is not the standard used for assessing the validity of the result, hence the rules against collusion.
1 Like
Then why do you sign the match result slip, if not to verify player agreement?
How do you assess the validity of a result that says ‘1-1’?
That is why players sign the match result slip. I was saying player agreement isn’t the standard for evaluating the legitimacy of a match result. Even if it’s a necessary condition, it’s not sufficient.
For example, if both players agree the result of the game was 8 prestige points each, that wouldn’t make it valid (or, in your words, honest).
2 Likes
I ran a tournament like that once about 2 years ago. Without software it was a nightmare to run. It also lead to really weird pairings where one person would get paired way down or up to not replay a match they had already played.
You prioritized playing different sides over playing similar record?
Also yeah, I’m saying do this with software, because I don’t see any good/easy way to do it otherwise. 
Keep in mind this was over two years ago so the memory is fuzzy… I might be able to dig up what i wrote about it then… but so far no luck.
There are set rules for how to determine the winner of a Netrunner game. Not following those rules and deciding that you have a better way of determining the outcome (e.g. by flipping a coin, or playing chess, or agreeing “We’ll both pretend we won one game each, yeah?”) is cheating.
The practical fact that if people really want to be underhand and secretly cheat, it would be hard to effectively police all of the time is more reason to establish that such behaviour is unwelcome, not less.
6 Likes
If two players want to intentionally split a round, what practical difference does it make to anyone else? How will anyone even know unless they go around telling people? I can totally see a situation where I’d agree to an intentional split to get a decent smoke break during a longer tournament. I’ve also done a few coin flips that never hurt anything.
Coming at this as I do from the wonderful world of rpgs and board games, all this high-level competitive Magic talk sounds like the adults in Charlie Brown.
Whatever happened to TO fiat? This ain’t exactly a Grand Prix event with thousands on the line. We’re just playing for fun and maybe a playmat or two.
3 Likes
Allowing intentional draws gives established players with more friends and connections an advantage. It’s bad for growing the community.
9 Likes
I thought an intentional split was where both players are guaranteed to make the cut with a split but would be out if they got swept? I mean, I can see how it would look if someone just threw a round to get a friend to make the cut, but isn’t intentional splitting usually more a matter of math than of networking?
3 Likes
In a word, Yes.
That’s true, but picking sides is only for the first round. So, FFG has a bit more to room to make being a higher seed more desirable if they allow picking sides to the higher seed if there is an equal number of the same sides played for both players in later rounds.
1 Like
I don’t think it’s that insurmountable to nearly eliminate intentional draws. You incentive higher seeds and have the community come together and not tolerate breaking any rule just be cause it’s more difficult to enforce it. We all play this game because we love the game and those of us that are more competitive want to win and demonstrate that we are great players. Both of those are achieved by actually playing the games in a tournament. I don’t want to brag that I made the cut by intentionally drawing.
It seems that most of the community is fine with the ID rule (there was a slight show of favor for the rule in Dan’s poll at the SSCI of the participants and I think the causal players would be more in favor than that competitive group of responders). TO’s can help this out by saying before each tournament the Floor Rules will be followed including ID, collusion, bribery, along with treating everyone with respect and helping to keep the competitive environment positive for all players. As a TO, this is what I’ll be doing.
3 Likes