Everyone knows that the heart of Melee is the table ploitics, both the overt verbal and the covert unspoken. Most alliances, both temporary and long-term, are created and maintained in that particular game. So here is my question for the Community.

Should players participating in the World Championship Melee Tournament be creating their alliances now, before GenCon even starts, to ensure their victory, or is that collusion and frowned upon by the community?( I'm trying to avoid the term Unsportsmanlike )

Example 1: Me and my meta-mates all agree before hand that if we wind up at the same table in any round, we will work together against our non-meta opponents. Is that OK?

Example 2: Me and people from across metas who have become friends agree to to work together any round we wind up at the same table against people outside our group. Is that OK?

Example 3: Me and my group design decks that give one of us the win and play them in such a way to insure player X from our meta wins whenever we wind up at the same table. Is that OK?

Example 4: Me and my group design decks that synergistically work together to insure someone from our group wins, but not necessarily a particular, predetermined player. Is that OK?

I know there are other variations and scenarios, these are just the first 4 that popped in my head. What kind of pre-tournament collusion is ok with the community, and what kind is frowned upon, and what kind is taboo?

I'm not sure what the official ruling on this is (it seems like it would be a hard thing to police), but speaking as a player who doesn't really have a meta, examples #1-#3 would make me much less likely to sign up for a melee tournament. I don't want to sit down at a table, only to find I'm getting triple-teamed because I happened to be randomly placed against three people who know each other.

The principle that drives A Game of Throneseven in Meleeis pure self-interest. When I played in the Melee tournament last year, I saw some excellent examples of driven self-interest. At my first game, the Stark player saw that the Greyjoy player was about to win, so we agreed to spend some resources to set up the Stark player to stop Greyjoy. The Stark player took those resources, turned to the Greyjoy player, and said "I'm comfortable taking second place."

I was okay with this because it was pure self-interest. Stark saw that Greyjoy was going to win, and he decided he would rather be assured the points for second place by allying with Greyjoy, rather than to take a chance of getting knocked down to third or fourth trying to take down Greyjoy. And when the other two of us teamed up on Greyjoy, Stark waited until Greyjoy was weak, then broke the alliance, and took first place. I couldn't help but grin. Stark had played the table perfectly. He had used us against each other, ultimately to secure more points for himself. It felt very much like something that would happen in the books.

On the other hand, if I had been playing that same game, and at the crucial moment, Stark had attacked me instead of Greyjoy, which didn't change the rankings, and I had asked why he did that, if he had said "Oh, we're on the same team," I would have felt much differently. I would have walked away from that table sincerely frustrated.

If it's in the scope of a player's skill and ability to gain more points, then that's what that player should always do. If a player is already in the number one spot, then that player should spend all his or her resources protecting that position. If there is a table where player's A, B, and C are all trying to win for themselves, but player D is trying to help player A win, then player A has an unfair advantage. Especially in example 3, if you're all playing so that player X wins, I don't see how that's ethically much different than paying for several friends to play in the tournament with you to attack anyone challenging you, regardless of their own rankings. The effect on the game itself is precisely the same.

I'm okay with #4 because it seems like you are talking about collectively building your decks to create an environment that will help each of you pursue personal victory. If you're all running Stark and 3x WInter is Coming to boost Stark claim, then you've just created an environment that favors Stark players, and therefore, since you're all running Stark, it will favor each of you personally (as well as anyone else running Stark). I might be a little irritated by this if I wasn't running Stark, but as long as I know the Stark players are trying to beat each other as well as me, I've got no problem with it.

Ultimately, I think alliances should be restricted to the conditions within a single, particular game, and should not have effects beyond that particular game.

The silence is deafening huh?

Lets let our well known characters from the books speak:

When you play the game of thrones, you win or you die. There is no middle ground. – Cersei Lannister

When the snows fall and the white winds blow, the lone wolf dies but the pack survives . – Ned Stark

Rhaegar fought valiantly, Rhaegar fought nobly, Rhaegar fought honorably. And Rhaegar died . - Jorah Mormont

A bag of dragons buys a man's silence for a while, but a well-placed quarrel buys it forever. - Petyr Baelish

The storms come and go, the waves crash overhead, the big fish eat the little fish, and I keep on paddling . - Varys

I did warn you not to trust me . - Littlefinger

I live by a certain code when I play a Melee game. I never have backed out on a deal made during a game, and while I am not a NED during melee, there are certain things I just won't do.

However, I have come to the place of recognizing that if the Melee game is going to reflect the books, well, pretty much anything goes.

Indeed. There were certainly premade alliances going in to the War of the 5 Kings for instance. The Tullies are a great house in their own right, but was there really much chance they were going to stab the Starks in the back to take power for themselves?

Lets take one of Kpmccoy's scenario's to the extreme....

Lets say we have a player, we shall call him George for our scenario. George decides he really wants to win the melee championship. So George begins talking to different players before the tournament (lets say months in advance). George then begins offering players $100 to make sure he wins at a table if they happen to sit with him. Of course many people take him up on his offer. George's alliances lead to him winning the melee championship. Are we ok with this? Even if we aren't, could it be stopped?

I don't think any anti-alliance/bribery rules could be realistically enforced. My point is this: the way you play creates the game environment, and the game environment is what will draw and repel new tournament players.

If it's openly understood that players will be aiding their friends, even to the detriment of their own ranking, then I'm okay with that. I'm a little disappointed, because I'll be less likely to participate (as I mentioned, I don't have a meta). But at least that information is up front: the members of the biggest club are going to have an advantage over the members of smaller clubs. It's not necessarily an even playing field, but it's not being marketed as one.

But if this is an unspoken agreement, then I think it may create some negative experiences for new tournament players. I don't think sitting down at a table and getting suicidally attacker by player A so player B can win the table is going to be terribly satisfying. I'd probably walk away from that table feeling pretty burned.

Maybe it's unnecessary to say any of this. I had an excellent play experience in the Melee tournament last year. Everyone I met was polite, patient, and kind, and I walked away with a very positive impression, both of the game and of the community. I never felt as though I had been ganged up on. All the people I played with seemed to be playing for themselves, and it created some very exciting games. I hope it's the same way for new melee tournament players this year.

I find it odd that intentional draws and watching other peoples games in Joust can create a 10 page thread, but what kind of alliances are allowed in melee is ignored. Is that because melee is still the red-headed step child of LCG events or did the the other thread reveal a divide in the community that no one wants to deal with again?

What if I made alliances with the top players in the field to insure I won the World Championship Joust? Would anyone care about that? Should the tournament scene be governed by the same rules that govern Westeros?

I'm not asking Nate and FFG to govern this area. Quite frankly, FFG cannot govern this area. I'm asking what does the community deem as permissible and what does the community find intolerable? Should Melee evolve into who has the best network of friends and metas?

Sorry dude, I tried that tack. No one would agree to crown me king of Westeros.

kpmccoy21 said:

I'm new to this game, but not to competitive card gaming. From my outside perspective, I think it's just a matter of being so unenforceable to have rules restricting alliances that even if the overwhelming majority agreed that premade alliances were wrong, you couldn't stop someone else from doing it. And it seems everyone does not necessarily agree. Ideally for competitive integrity alliances should be made during the course of a game based on the situation in each game. But realistically there is not much that can be done about people who choose to do otherwise and when situations come up during a game that warrant allying, then friends are naturally more inclined to do so even if they didn't pre-plan it.

Which is probably one reason why joust might be given more emphasis competitively. In joust, even with alliances you could not guarantee yourself a championship unless EVERY opponent you faced agreed to concede. I could in theory come in as a new player and win all my games and regardless of what alliances you made with other people, it would not have an effect on my ability to advance and beat you in a head to head match. On the other hand if I met you and one or more of your buddies in Melee and you were allied as a team from start to finish then my chances would be practically zero and I would probably come out of the match feeling like I wasted my time.

I don't speak french, but reading the google translation here , it sounds like this was an issue in one of the matches in the French Melee championship. The details are not easy to completely understand, but it sounds like one of the stronger contenders was piled on from the start of the match to the exclusion of everyone including the person actually in the lead. Even when that person was in last place with no threats and no power. If that is accurate, then I can imagine that would be very frustrating for anyone, and could easily dissuade further competitive melee participation for the person who was put in that situation.

Kennon said:

But is it ok for something besides gameplay to determine the winner of GenCon? Are backroom deals and bribery acceptable means to determine the winner of GenCon? At this point in the thread the answer is: YES, ALL MEANS ARE LEGAL AND ACCEPTALBE TO DETERMINE THE WORLD CHAMPION; SO LIE, CHEAT, STEAL, CONSPIRE, AND BRIBE AS LONG AS FFG CANNOT ENFORCE HONESTY . DO WHATEVER IT TAKES TO WIN BECAUSE THAT'S HOW CHARACTERS COMPETE FOR THE THRONE OF WESTEROS.

Maybe this started long ago with Melnick, and no one wanted to admit this was where we were going.

Karazax said:

If everyone agreed that alliances were bad for the game or bad for them personally, they would not enter into alliances, thus preventing the spread of alliances. Most people who play do not cheat in general because they believei it is bad for them personally or bad for the game in general. Historically, the Thrones community has been pretty good about integrity and fairplay as defined by the community, not because of the management of the OP by FFG but because of the character of the players.

To be honest, if the top 10-12 players all agreed to conspire to determine the World Championship in Joust, they could defeat almost all of those outside the cabal and determine the winner well over 90% of the time. I'm glad they don't, but ti really isn't beyond the scope of possibility.

kpmccoy21 said:

You constantly compare joust with melee, but it's absurd. They don't conspire not becuase they are honest, but becuase it has no sense in case of joust.

kpmccoy21 said:

Sure if EVERYONE agreed, obviously it wouldn't be an issue. But it only takes one group not agreeing to throw it all off. As a new player to this game, I imagine there is very little cheating in comparison to some other competitive card games. I would guess that the stakes aren't high enough to attract an excess of the do anything to win including cheating type tournament players. But if alliances are not considered cheating by one group, and are by another, and FFG has no policy, then in the end it will be considered a legal tactic. Personally I would find the extreme alliance where 2 or more people are playing as a team from start to finish with no thought of ever attacking one another a negative play experience. But friends teaming up temporarily in the game to stop a bigger threat is natural. In between those situations is a lot of grey area with alliances, and unless you just eliminated table talk deals completely then it is a matter of personal perspective on what is an acceptable and unacceptable in game alliance situation. So I guess it just depends on how often the complete team alliance happens as to whether it would bother me enough to not play competitive melee at all.

I disagree with your joust theory though. Assuming I had the skill to win the world championship in the first place, an alliance would have no bearing on my chances or any other players who refused to participate in fixing the winner. Those fixing players would be trying to beat me regardless of any alliance anyway and they would have no way to help their would be world champion candidate if I faced off against him. So unless their would be champion got lucky enough to face his co-conspirators in every match, and I lost a game some where along the line, then he would have to face me at some point and probably win some other games on his own merits as well. That's not even going into discussing why the top 10-12 players would ever agree to such a deal in the first place.

In comparison I imagine a much less skilled player could beat a superior player in Melee if he is teamed with 1 or 2 other friends from start to finish. The incentive being that perhaps they know they would not be good enough to win without teaming up or they just want to drastically up their chances. Still even in that situation, it requires one or more of the members of the alliance to have no desire to win themselves if they are going to go to the extreme of teaming up from start to finish and never attack one another. I would guess that most alliances are probably in between, with friends allying longer than they might if they were total strangers, but still both having aspirations to win individually. I am curious to hear from experienced convention level melee players on what types of alliances and deals are common though.

Ok - I'll come out and say it.

After two years of LCG and a few big events under the format - I don't take melee as seriously as I do joust. At least not competitively.

which i never thought I'd say because I came to this game via melee and i actually find the multi player format far more fun and immersive than i do Joust. That being said: I've played in three melee events and i just can't take them seriously as competitions. A couple of Houses succeed, a couple of srategies adn cards dominate, the power redirect titel is nearly broken, and apparently people are OK with forming pre game Alliances to get their meta members through to the finals. Again - collusion. Ick.

But I'm not as excercised becuase I have decided that i play melee for fun, not titles. I have come around to the point of view that multi player just doesn't work as a competitive format - at least not the way the game is currently structured. Those folks that were agruing htis pint of view when we made the swicth tunred out to eb rigth. As such, I'm not really going to worry about teh format and I'll rpobably just play it on the side at big events - after rounds or on off days or what not. And the fact that metas are agreeing ahead of time to push team mates farther ahead just turns moe off and really makes it unlikely to play the format.

Personally I would take every table as a sepaarte game and try and get as far as I could. my goal would be to actually take my fellow New Yorkers/East Coast players out - so i could be the highest ranked player from my region and be able to talk smack about that for the next few months. Or I would try and help some dunk from a small meta who was facing two players from the same group at my tbale. But all in all, i just don't take it that seriously and i refuse to let the fun factor of multi player die for me for the sake of the tournament system.

kpmccoy21 said:

My severe apologies. I was in a hurry on my lunch break and included nothing else with my post to indicate the fact that it was a joke beyond its natural absurdity. Relax, I had no intention of being as offensive as I appear to have been.

On a more serious note, what do folks feel should be the deciding factor at a table? If I'm in second place with a friend in reach of victory am I supposed to gang up with others against him and assure the victory to the third place player when it would be practical for me to take second? I've seen examples very similar to this in previous posts here, where people say its not right to side with your friend, but others where people say that its perfectly valid to play for second place. So the question is, why should the fact that its my friend effect whether its ok or not? Or if I'm not even near the top but am in a position to kingmake, why would I not choose my friend/metamate/roommate/teammate/etc? Why choose a random player instead of supporting the one I know?

Or another way to look at it is that melee is very, very largely about personality management and interactions with others. Is it really a good idea to go out of your way to fight against the friends that you very likely took a long road trip and are staying in the same hotel room with? Why generate ill will that you don't have to? In joust, you have no option but to play the one other person you are paired up against (aside from intentional draws which I still do not support) but melee offers a built in mechanic to have other targets to direct your actions against.

To continue other sports analogies, I may not follow NASCAR or other professional racing, but it's similar enough in that many people with some on the same "team" are all working for the same goal that it is only possible for one to obtain. Should NASCAR teammates actually work against each other in a grand free for all? Even though I don't follow it closely, I'm under the impression that they work together.

kpmccoy21 said:

This is probably the most ridiculous thing I have seen in this post so far.

No, it shouldn't be okay for something other than gameplay and politics IN THE GAME to determine the winner of GenCon. Backroom deals and bribery are NOT acceptable means to determine the winner of GenCon.

Nothing is going to stop meta mates from helping each other out. Kennon's post explained this very well.

But anyone who attempts to win like that, is no longer someone people are going to want to play with (unless they are really wanting money or something). Imagine if somehow the news spread that, player 1 was giving out bribes to make it to the top. How many people are going to want to play in a tournament with that person again, knowing that the game may be rigged again?

Once you begin using means other than the game to determine the winner, you are no longer playing the game and the point is void.

I think there is already a method of social policing that takes place when people are not pleased with the method of outcomes.

In 2004, my championship victory was often looked at with a skeptical eye due to the Melnick/Casey smoke break decision. Even though I had nothing to do with that situation, the majority of the community looked at my victory with a sort of asterisk.

Same thing in 2006 when I placed second. In my final game of swiss, Sam Tham conceded to me. There were several people disturbed by Sam's decision and they expressed it vocally. I begged Sam to play the game, so it wasn't my fault, but again I got a pseudo asterisk next to my 2nd place finish.

In the same way, I believe if someone bribed or cheated their way to the top, it would make its way to public, and the social outrage would be so great that the person would probably wish they hadn't done it. Heck, there are not any huge prize payouts in this game, it is all about Gamer's Pride. And a negative social connotation to the winner of an event will definitely counter any gamer's pride.

As for lying, I hate to admit this, but it seems it happens in about every melee game. People lying about what they might have in hand, lying by making deals they have no intention of following through on, lying to get to the top! And conspiring happens any time two people work together in any fashion.

But cheating, bribing and stealing (not quite sure how to steal in this game) fall into another character which most players would find untasteful and unsportsmanlike and I believe would be policed with social estrangement.

Not going to GenCon; but if I was, I'd find it a very shoddy experience indeed if I was confronted by a whole load of pre-determined melee games in which everybody else at the table was just resolved to beat on the unfamiliar face.

Obviously, it's unenforceable and all (and all multiplayer games are inherently open to this kind of familiarity skewing), but I would personally regard myself as acting like a poor sportsman if I didn't go into a game doing anything other than playing my best against every other player. That said, as a chronic pact-breaker and renowned backstabber in every game that involves negotiations/politics, I may not be best placed to preach on this subject.

Stag Lord said:

Out of interest, which cards/strategies do you regard as dominating? I'm not challenging your assertion here, but I am keen to hear what you've experienced.

Isn't the Joust before the Melee this year?

That is my only concern. Knowing the outcome of the Joust makes kingmaking doubly a worry.

Thanks goodness I don't play multi-player

rings said:

Melee is on Thursday

Joust is on Friday

Dobbler said:

OH SNAP!

Isn't this the nature of the beast?

I love casual melee. For me it's the format that best represents the world of Westeros. But, I really don't care much for melee in competitive environments because there are too many things that are out of your control.

What I don't understand, is why such a chaotic experience carries so much more weight in deciding the over all champion. There's a big difference between the max points one can take away from the joust and the max points one can take away from the melee.

edit: Just read the new tourney rules Nevermind that whole points thing.

Deathjester26 said:

Haven't had time to digest the first part of this thread, but did FFG clarify that the new values for Joust scoring are on an absolute scale with the Melee for calculating overall champion? Assume then numbers hold at 40+ for each, and they do a 3 prelim rounds for melee, 6 swiss for joust and a top 8, you could conceivably earn 30 + 15 = 45 in Joust and 30 + 10 in Melee. I don't know where it's evolved since first used two years ago, but I think they're used to be additional points for out-rounds in Joust and bonus points for those who made final table in Melee? Is this formula posted anywhere?

Just to add another voice to the thread, I'll say that I agree with Stag Lord and deathjester. Melee is a really fun and immersive casual game play experience, but I don't take it seriously as a competitive endeavor. Almost all multiplayer games are at heart either a group game of solitaire (like Dominion or Scrabble) or a form of Diplomacy. AGoT is the latter, and it's pretty much the case that politics will trump skill if there is a strong enough consensus among some players in the game not to let another player win.

I don't know what the attendance for the Melee championships will be like, but how big a portion of the field could one pre-defined faction be? If it's less than half, then this should not be too big of a concern any way. If only two players at a table begin with a pre-established alliance, the game will just naturally develop into a 2v2 game which is not so bad. Even if there are three players allied and they shut out the fourth player, the mechanics of the melee scoring system should separate out those players in the next round. If I were the fourth player, I'd try to get the other three guys to play off of each other - only one of them can end up the winner after all. I'd also point out that I was having no fun and even contemplate conceding before the game ended if they were being complete jerks.

As for buying the championship - that doesn't seem practical. For it to work, you'd have to do something big enough for people to know about it. Would you want to buy the championship if you were going to be known as the guy who bought the championship? Also, there are probably a few players who would take offense to the whole notion and would probably take pleasure in trying to be the guy to stop you.

Maester_LUke said:

Each year that I have gone to Gencon we have had 5 rounds of swiss. So if there is a cut to top 8, that would leave both events with a total available points of 40, barring any "bonus" points.