Oh come on now, if we didn't hijack Mathlete's thread, he'd think we didn't love him anymore.
First Joust in 2 1/2 years - some thoughts...
Kennon loves nobody.
Husemann said:
Kennon loves nobody.
I love Kennon! btw, Will and the rest of the Missouri meta, EXCELLENT JOB on the Podcasts! I've listened to a couple and they've helped me get reacquainted with the game again!
I have to agree the Missouri Meta is my favorite next to my own. Not to put down anybody's meta but these guys are great. Very friendly, very tough to play against and at the end of the day you could have a couple of beers with them and then the next day start trying to destroy each other over a game of thrones, again. They also have some very funny banter and crack jokes on each other during Melee games that is really hilarious.
Ah thank you so much for the kind props to the Missouri meta. We try to be the most welcoming and competitive group that we can be.
Also, Mathlete, it's good to know that our podcast is paying off! Anything else we can do help you get back in?
Kennon said:
Also, Mathlete, it's good to know that our podcast is paying off! Anything else we can do help you get back in?
Convince him to move to Kansas City. ;D
Until scoring is changed in Melee (unfortunately I don't have any constructive advice here) all the bad parts will exist. As well as the good. FFG can't police alliances or friendships. I've only competed in one Melee tournament and it left an ugly impression. At the last table one of the players just gave up and refused to defend themself. The winner ended up being a friend of theirs and the other two people at the table were furious. And I don't blame them, put the work into a deck, spend 6 hours getting to the final table and then what? NPE. From what I've seen, most of the melee tournies end this way or are at least tainted along the way.
That does give me an idea. Someone should form a melee group called the Kingslayers. Just attack the person who is the highest ranking at their table. Only jerk things like this can exist in melee.
Now if we could only resurrect Mainn.
clu said:
Until scoring is changed in Melee (unfortunately I don't have any constructive advice here) all the bad parts will exist. As well as the good. FFG can't police alliances or friendships. I've only competed in one Melee tournament and it left an ugly impression. At the last table one of the players just gave up and refused to defend themself. The winner ended up being a friend of theirs and the other two people at the table were furious. And I don't blame them, put the work into a deck, spend 6 hours getting to the final table and then what? NPE. From what I've seen, most of the melee tournies end this way or are at least tainted along the way.
That does give me an idea. Someone should form a melee group called the Kingslayers. Just attack the person who is the highest ranking at their table. Only jerk things like this can exist in melee.
important
To be fair, there are some card effects that affect the calculation - for example, Red Vengeance is very interesting in multiplayer. The problem is that these cards tend to be (a) too few, (b) isolated to certain houses, and © played in control-oriented decks...ie the often don't do a lot to help their owner *win*, and are thus not as commonly played in melee (outside of perhaps melee).
So in-game "fixes" are definitely theoretically possible, but we just haven't seen that design space explored to its fullest extent.
*Shrug* Joust tournaments can run into similar problems. I know people that drop out frequently (Husemann hasn't finished a tournament in his life) and I've even dropped before. What if I ask a friend to drop out 3rd round to kill someone's SoS?
Twn2dn said:
clu said:
Until scoring is changed in Melee (unfortunately I don't have any constructive advice here) all the bad parts will exist. As well as the good. FFG can't police alliances or friendships. I've only competed in one Melee tournament and it left an ugly impression. At the last table one of the players just gave up and refused to defend themself. The winner ended up being a friend of theirs and the other two people at the table were furious. And I don't blame them, put the work into a deck, spend 6 hours getting to the final table and then what? NPE. From what I've seen, most of the melee tournies end this way or are at least tainted along the way.
That does give me an idea. Someone should form a melee group called the Kingslayers. Just attack the person who is the highest ranking at their table. Only jerk things like this can exist in melee.
I sympathize with the sentiment, but disagree completely with the conclusion
I think a BIG problem is the lack of melee-oriented cards...in other words, in-game effects that affect the calculation. In an environment where the pros/cons of attacking someone are generally about the same (+/- a power for opposing, etc.), it would add a big element to the game if there were more cards that affected the claim results of attacking particular opponents, etc. If there were more cards like that, even if friends wanted to help each other, the other players would have some ability to affect that outcome...either they might have an easier time jumping in to help defend against UO (
important
- and be rewarded for it) or they might have some way of punishing/deterring both alliances like that (so when one person attacks the same person repeatedly for UO, maybe both players suffer?).
To be fair, there are some card effects that affect the calculation - for example, Red Vengeance is very interesting in multiplayer. The problem is that these cards tend to be (a) too few, (b) isolated to certain houses, and © played in control-oriented decks...ie the often don't do a lot to help their owner *win*, and are thus not as commonly played in melee (outside of perhaps melee).
So in-game "fixes" are definitely theoretically possible, but we just haven't seen that design space explored to its fullest extent.
QFT
I was just saying the other night - I love melee, but I am not impressed with it competitively to date. A BIG problem is that its just treated like a larger form of Joust.
Dan has the right of it - more multiplayer cards please - and I'd take it a step farther: there should be a separate ban list for melee. There are cards which are vital in joust that really act as just stall or else empower broken effects in Melee. Some of bara's rush tech should probably be reined in to start with.
Kennon said:
*Shrug* Joust tournaments can run into similar problems. I know people that drop out frequently (Husemann hasn't finished a tournament in his life) and I've even dropped before. What if I ask a friend to drop out 3rd round to kill someone's SoS?
Sure, I've seen people drop or scoop during joust. I would also say for the majority of the decision making process it only effects the two people involved at that match during that round. I know there are larger ramifications. However, they don't effect a whole table of players. If a player doesn't want to put himself on the bubble of making top 8 then win more games against a SINGLE opponent. You can control your fate more readily in joust than in melee.
A seperate restricted list for melee would benefit the format greatly. To distinguish it as a stand alone format it should have it's own list. I wouldn't be surprised to see a mini-expansion for melee cards. I also wouldn't be surprised if they tweak the rules some more.
FATMOUSE said:
think a change in the structure of Melee tournaments could go a long way in achieving that. For example, only rewarding points to the player that won the game (you win or you die), would create a much more "final table" atmosphere in the preliminary rounds. The first four players in the tournament to get X wins, makes the final table. You'd have to work out a few kinks in terms of how to pair players after the first round (winners with winners? losers with losers?) and probably make some use of strength of schedule if more than four people reach X wins in the same number of rounds, but I believe it can be done.
Agree 100% - I believe that when they decided to score 2nd, etc based on power, they made a HUGE mistake. You win, or you die. Strength of schedule should suffice for advancing, else random pair up/pair down. I might put a point system in for each player you defeat (so if you win a 4 player melee, you get 3 points, vs 2 for a 3 player melee) - that'll mix up the SOS a bit too for odd player tournies.
blackbart said:
I have to agree the Missouri Meta is my favorite next to my own. Not to put down anybody's meta but these guys are great. Very friendly, very tough to play against and at the end of the day you could have a couple of beers with them and then the next day start trying to destroy each other over a game of thrones, again. They also have some very funny banter and crack jokes on each other during Melee games that is really hilarious.
I just recently began playing with this group, and they are awesome. One of the best metas for any game I've ever played a game with.
LordofBrewtown said:
Agree 100% - I believe that when they decided to score 2nd, etc based on power, they made a HUGE mistake. You win, or you die. Strength of schedule should suffice for advancing, else random pair up/pair down. I might put a point system in for each player you defeat (so if you win a 4 player melee, you get 3 points, vs 2 for a 3 player melee) - that'll mix up the SOS a bit too for odd player tournies.
But what about the ties that develop between all the other players at the table as the tournament goes on and the guy that finishes second at the first two tables has 0 points because he didn't win? You'll wind up with the majority of the field having no points and little to go on for pairings and the like. I sure wouldn't want to be the one figuring strength of schedule for that. Nor would I want to essentially be eliminated from the tournament for not winning the first game and having no points at all. There's a reason I don't play elimination tournaments.
I think an overhaul of the Titles and the Oppose/Support mechanics would go a long way towards changing melee, in every melee game i play its gold and draw, than crown regent, then hand of the king if someones playing martell or Targaryen and master of whispers is left out in the cold. i think the melee game could be changed significantly with a new set of titles and a new way of dealing with the titles interplaying with each other (support/oppose)
Also some melee orientated cards would be amazing