Gencon Melee Tourney

By ktom, in 1. AGoT General Discussion

Posted at

@Shenanigans: I definitely understand why this might "leave a bad taste" in your (and others') mouth. It doesn't for me, but if I were Greg or John, I'd probably feel the same. The big question though is how do you avoid that taste? I certainly don't think Corey and Erick were at fault. These are two good players who used the rules to their advantage...in my mind, at the very worst it's tantamount to playing with overly powerful cards that should be restricted but aren't (for example, when Venomous Blade and Burning were both in the same Martell deck). I actually feel even that's too much...Erick and Corey tried to introduce an element of control and certainty amid an otherwise chaotic system.

By the way, I had some similar experiences as you in the preliminary rounds. Just because a participant "should" try to win or place as high as possible in a game apparently doesn't mean they will (as I soon discovered). In 2 of the 3 games I participated in had an opponent like that, and both significantly affected the outcome of the game. I personally don't have a lot of competitive melee experience, but if this year was any indication, then a significant number of games are decided by players who, when forced to choose, would rather king-make and take 3rd/4th than take 2nd place.

@Sluggonics: I'm fairly sure Erick and Corey had not played any games together until the final round. I think they may have had a game or two with friends/metamates in the prelims/top-16, but nobody actually went to the lengths to give them the game in the same way Erick did for Corey in the finals.

@Fatmouse: Agree 100%...the "bad taste" that some in this community have with the outcome has to do with expectations about what competitive melee is supposed to look like rather than actual wrongdoing. I mean, isn't it pretty common in some competitive sports to have one teammate help them at the expense of the other? It seems like I read somewhere in competitive long-distance races (forgot whether it was biking, running, or race-car driving though) that teammates are expected to help each other win in the same way.

Posted at

Twn2dn said:

@Sluggonics: I'm fairly sure Erick and Corey had not played any games together until the final round. I think they may have had a game or two with friends/metamates in the prelims/top-16, but nobody actually went to the lengths to give them the game in the same way Erick did for Corey in the finals.

@Fatmouse: Agree 100%...the "bad taste" that some in this community have with the outcome has to do with expectations about what competitive melee is supposed to look like rather than actual wrongdoing. I mean, isn't it pretty common in some competitive sports to have one teammate help them at the expense of the other? It seems like I read somewhere in competitive long-distance races (forgot whether it was biking, running, or race-car driving though) that teammates are expected to help each other win in the same way.

I am fairly sure that Corey never played with anyone from our group. I played with Erick and he also played with another guy from Wisconsin. Knowing that someone was not going to direct all their hate at you changes the game completely. We may not have done anything completely explicit to help each other out, but knowing that our collective interests lied in getting first and second (it was the first game) meant that we acted in a certain way.

Posted at

ktom said:

FATMOUSE said:

king-making, having friends, etc. (in addition to being skilled, having a good deck, etc.) IS what the game in a tournament setting is about, whether people want to admit/realize it or not (and I think many, I'd even wager most, dont despite ktom suggesting otherwise).

I'm not sure what I am supposed to have suggested here....

My original comment was simply that "competition" comes in many different flavors, and that Melee and Joust are not the same flavor. No matter how good the vanilla is, it's pretty bad if you are expecting chocolate. I wasn't trying to suggest anything about the predominant expectations in the community one way or another, just that a Melee tournament should be judged for what it is rather than for what you might want a Joust tournament to be like.

I should have made a better choice of words. You highlighted that king-making is a known (presumably legitimate, but I could be wrong to assume you presume this lengua.gif ) tactic, whereas I was trying to say i think many people are unaware of it/don't see it as being legitimate.

While I agree that people should realize melee is "vanilla" and joust is "chocolate" and that the two should be recognized and judged as such, I still think its more than fine to say "Vanilla will never be a great ice cream because its flawed; it's not as rich, dark, etc. as chocolate, which is the better, more preferred ice cream."

@Twn2dn

Yeah, my understanding is that many sports where air resistance is a major factor you have one teammate ride, run, etc. in front of the "king" so he or she has less air to resist and therefore needs to use less energy, which can be saved for a later leg of the race. ~It's why I have zero respect for Lance Armstrong. ~That and one-less ******** gave him a completely unfair advantage in all those tours.

Posted at

ktom said:

FATMOUSE said:

king-making, having friends, etc. (in addition to being skilled, having a good deck, etc.) IS what the game in a tournament setting is about, whether people want to admit/realize it or not (and I think many, I'd even wager most, dont despite ktom suggesting otherwise).

I'm not sure what I am supposed to have suggested here....

My original comment was simply that "competition" comes in many different flavors, and that Melee and Joust are not the same flavor. No matter how good the vanilla is, it's pretty bad if you are expecting chocolate. I wasn't trying to suggest anything about the predominant expectations in the community one way or another, just that a Melee tournament should be judged for what it is rather than for what you might want a Joust tournament to be like.

ktom said:

FATMOUSE said:

king-making, having friends, etc. (in addition to being skilled, having a good deck, etc.) IS what the game in a tournament setting is about, whether people want to admit/realize it or not (and I think many, I'd even wager most, dont despite ktom suggesting otherwise).

I'm not sure what I am supposed to have suggested here....

My original comment was simply that "competition" comes in many different flavors, and that Melee and Joust are not the same flavor. No matter how good the vanilla is, it's pretty bad if you are expecting chocolate. I wasn't trying to suggest anything about the predominant expectations in the community one way or another, just that a Melee tournament should be judged for what it is rather than for what you might want a Joust tournament to be like.

ktom said:

My original comment was simply that "competition" comes in many different flavors, and that Melee and Joust are not the same flavor. No matter how good the vanilla is, it's pretty bad if you are expecting chocolate. I wasn't trying to suggest anything about the predominant expectations in the community one way or another, just that a Melee tournament should be judged for what it is rather than for what you might want a Joust tournament to be like.

I get your point ktom (and FATMOUSE), and it's a good one. I can't go to a football game and expect to see the same kind of action as a basketball game.

I like your analogy, so much that I'm going to hijack it. ;) Vanilla and chocolate are different flavors to be sure, and not everybody likes both, which is fine, but no matter which flavor of ice cream I'm having, I still expect it to be sweet.

Twn2dn, you're right; I don't blame Corey or Erick for this. Like you said previously, they worked the system in a perfectly legal fashion. Maybe it's my education talking, but just because something is legal doesn't make it fair. Kingmaking/collusion doesn't violate the letter of the law, but it doesn't seem in line with the spirit of competition.

You're also right about the competitive cycling analogy. I don't like it there either. :)

How do we "fix it?" I don't have a good answer for that. I don't think it'll be easy to answer, if possible at all.

Please don't take my comments personally anyone; that's really not how they're meant.

Posted at

Shenanigans said:

How do we "fix it?" I don't have a good answer for that. I don't think it'll be easy to answer, if possible at all.

Math to the rescue. Simply play a melee match with every possible foursome from the top 16, averaging the results for each player. 1,820 games later you have a clear-cut winner.

Posted at

I think this long discussion and all the people who feel like Erick's king-making of Corey is unfair only goes to prove the point Erick was making. Congrats to Erick and Corey for a great tournament.

I'm a fairly new player and wasn't at Gen Con, but I can see that king-making is a regular part of melee. Any alliance is in some degree king-making. e.g. "If you let me do x to win, you can still take 2nd." The only difference here, is it was done admittedly and in an explicit manner to demonstrate that what happens in every melee tournament game (king-making) disrupts what people expect from competitive play (every man for himself). That's why so many competitive players prefer joust.

If the only skills you care about are deckbuilding and execution (which most people seem to prefer), then joust is the way to go. If you want to add personal skills and ability to make alliances/friends with opportune backstabs to the skillset required, play melee. If you enjoy both recognizing the differences of each, then play both.

Posted at

HoyaLawya said:

I think this long discussion and all the people who feel like Erick's king-making of Corey is unfair only goes to prove the point Erick was making. Congrats to Erick and Corey for a great tournament.

I'm a fairly new player and wasn't at Gen Con, but I can see that king-making is a regular part of melee. Any alliance is in some degree king-making. e.g. "If you let me do x to win, you can still take 2nd." The only difference here, is it was done admittedly and in an explicit manner to demonstrate that what happens in every melee tournament game (king-making) disrupts what people expect from competitive play (every man for himself). That's why so many competitive players prefer joust.

If the only skills you care about are deckbuilding and execution (which most people seem to prefer), then joust is the way to go. If you want to add personal skills and ability to make alliances/friends with opportune backstabs to the skillset required, play melee. If you enjoy both recognizing the differences of each, then play both.

This kind of misses the meta-point: It's not whether or not what Erick and Corey did was fair, but rather whether or not allowing such a thing to be legal for something that decides the overall world champion seems shady, at best. I think very few people would actually criticize Erick and Corey for taking advantage of the system. It is wiser instead to show that that makes the system corrupt. This was the whole point I was trying to make earlier, that most people seem to have missed. :)

Posted at

WolfgangSenff said:

HoyaLawya said:

I think this long discussion and all the people who feel like Erick's king-making of Corey is unfair only goes to prove the point Erick was making. Congrats to Erick and Corey for a great tournament.

I'm a fairly new player and wasn't at Gen Con, but I can see that king-making is a regular part of melee. Any alliance is in some degree king-making. e.g. "If you let me do x to win, you can still take 2nd." The only difference here, is it was done admittedly and in an explicit manner to demonstrate that what happens in every melee tournament game (king-making) disrupts what people expect from competitive play (every man for himself). That's why so many competitive players prefer joust.

If the only skills you care about are deckbuilding and execution (which most people seem to prefer), then joust is the way to go. If you want to add personal skills and ability to make alliances/friends with opportune backstabs to the skillset required, play melee. If you enjoy both recognizing the differences of each, then play both.

This kind of misses the meta-point: It's not whether or not what Erick and Corey did was fair, but rather whether or not allowing such a thing to be legal for something that decides the overall world champion seems shady, at best. I think very few people would actually criticize Erick and Corey for taking advantage of the system. It is wiser instead to show that that makes the system corrupt. This was the whole point I was trying to make earlier, that most people seem to have missed. :)

I'm saying your point was Erick's point. Melee isn't as good a format for competitive play because joust is kept to deckbuilding and in game execution of your strategy.

Posted at

Lets all crawl out of each others asses and just take some pleasure in the fact that everyone, overall, had a good time.

Posted at

HoyaLawya said:

WolfgangSenff said:

HoyaLawya said:

I think this long discussion and all the people who feel like Erick's king-making of Corey is unfair only goes to prove the point Erick was making. Congrats to Erick and Corey for a great tournament.

I'm a fairly new player and wasn't at Gen Con, but I can see that king-making is a regular part of melee. Any alliance is in some degree king-making. e.g. "If you let me do x to win, you can still take 2nd." The only difference here, is it was done admittedly and in an explicit manner to demonstrate that what happens in every melee tournament game (king-making) disrupts what people expect from competitive play (every man for himself). That's why so many competitive players prefer joust.

If the only skills you care about are deckbuilding and execution (which most people seem to prefer), then joust is the way to go. If you want to add personal skills and ability to make alliances/friends with opportune backstabs to the skillset required, play melee. If you enjoy both recognizing the differences of each, then play both.

This kind of misses the meta-point: It's not whether or not what Erick and Corey did was fair, but rather whether or not allowing such a thing to be legal for something that decides the overall world champion seems shady, at best. I think very few people would actually criticize Erick and Corey for taking advantage of the system. It is wiser instead to show that that makes the system corrupt. This was the whole point I was trying to make earlier, that most people seem to have missed. :)

I'm saying your point was Erick's point. Melee isn't as good a format for competitive play because joust is kept to deckbuilding and in game execution of your strategy.

Ahh, I see. I wanted to correct something real quick. I talked to Erick, and his point was not to mock the melee format, but instead that that's just how it ended up happening. I was confused by the update he'd sent and assumed he meant the former, but it is not the case. (Erick still loves you, FFG.)

Posted at

this is what this thread has become:

Posted at

some mentioned that the removal of the Overall Title would reduce the number of the Melee field.

i daresay, it would also reduce the number of players, that don tlike Melee, but need to play this tourney in order to have a chance to win the most important title. one may argue, that such a player should be content with the win of the joust title, being his personal most important title. however, nobody can deny that "Overall Champion" sounds way better then "just" melee or joust champion.

also: each of them, melee and joust, should be able to stand on its own feet. no need to drag in players from each other, just to increase the field of participants.

if you want to have variety for the overall champ, why not add the Drunk Draft? you have to prove a lot of skill in that one, i am sure ...

Posted at

thorondor said:

some mentioned that the removal of the Overall Title would reduce the number of the Melee field.

i daresay, it would also reduce the number of players, that don tlike Melee, but need to play this tourney in order to have a chance to win the most important title. one may argue, that such a player should be content with the win of the joust title, being his personal most important title. however, nobody can deny that "Overall Champion" sounds way better then "just" melee or joust champion.

also: each of them, melee and joust, should be able to stand on its own feet. no need to drag in players from each other, just to increase the field of participants.

if you want to have variety for the overall champ, why not add the Drunk Draft? you have to prove a lot of skill in that one, i am sure ...

+1

Posted at

thorondor said:

some mentioned that the removal of the Overall Title would reduce the number of the Melee field.

i daresay, it would also reduce the number of players, that don tlike Melee, but need to play this tourney in order to have a chance to win the most important title. one may argue, that such a player should be content with the win of the joust title, being his personal most important title. however, nobody can deny that "Overall Champion" sounds way better then "just" melee or joust champion.

also: each of them, melee and joust, should be able to stand on its own feet. no need to drag in players from each other, just to increase the field of participants.

if you want to have variety for the overall champ, why not add the Drunk Draft? you have to prove a lot of skill in that one, i am sure ...

I +1 this too. I would actually really enjoy melee if they removed the overall title - treating it as its own entity then makes it much easier to play with the rules and to not care about "fairness", because it doesn't go into the counting for something that is arguably more important ("overall" champion). I think if they removed the overall, you might get *more* people in melee, and I don't mean just me. :)

I suppose I could get a little bit more "meta" in my questions about this: Does it even make sense to have an "overall" champion in the world of Song of Ice and Fire? It basically doesn't, to me; to me, it makes way more sense that there aren't even any champions at all, but just people who die cleanly and quickly, and those who die slow, horrible deaths.

Dangit - where are my leeches!? I clearly need a blood-letting.

Posted at

WolfgangSenff said:

I +1 this too. I would actually really enjoy melee if they removed the overall title - treating it as its own entity then makes it much easier to play with the rules and to not care about "fairness", because it doesn't go into the counting for something that is arguably more important ("overall" champion). I think if they removed the overall, you might get *more* people in melee, and I don't mean just me. :)

Except you are ignoring the fact that nothing that happened at the final table was done because of the overall title.

Posted at

No I'm not. :) Just because it's irrelevant *now* doesn't mean it will always be irrelevant.

Posted at

WolfgangSenff said:

I suppose I could get a little bit more "meta" in my questions about this: Does it even make sense to have an "overall" champion in the world of Song of Ice and Fire?

well, there are several tourneys in the book, including both: melee and joust (and as a third archery) - obviously FFG borrowed the title for AGOT tourneys from there. and afaik there is never anything like a combined champion.

Posted at

thorondor said:

WolfgangSenff said:

I suppose I could get a little bit more "meta" in my questions about this: Does it even make sense to have an "overall" champion in the world of Song of Ice and Fire?

well, there are several tourneys in the book, including both: melee and joust (and as a third archery) - obviously FFG borrowed the title for AGOT tourneys from there. and afaik there is never anything like a combined champion.

Exactly. :) I am not sure, but I would guess that anyone that can win the joust is incredibly unlikely to also win the melee, and vice versa. That's just a guess though, and obviously not based on any objective facts...given that it's a book of fiction in the first place.

Posted at

derailing the derailed thread ...

think of the drunkard robert (who was known for a decent melee fighter) riding a joust.

and i am sure nobody wants to meet The Mountain in a good friendly violant fun melee.

Posted at

thorondor said:

think of the drunkard robert (who was known for a decent melee fighter) riding a joust.

and i am sure nobody wants to meet The Mountain in a good friendly violant fun melee.

I am not sure which is more terrifying.

Posted at

WolfgangSenff said:

No I'm not. :) Just because it's irrelevant *now* doesn't mean it will always be irrelevant.

They could just run the melee on Saturday. That way it would be more clear. Or to remove even more shenanigans run the melee on Saturday and only have the preliminary rounds of the melee count to the overall.

Either way nothing would be different. People will still have a reason to act together and will do so. That is what the format is all about.

When Erick recruited the three of us from Wisconsin this year. It was always strong in his mind that having more friendly people would be helpful. However, the result of him getting us into the game was developing a Wisconsin scene, people buying collections, more people playing at events. Those are things that help the game grow....and if the only reason to do that was friends in the melee, FFG should encourage more people to do that.

Posted at

thorondor said:

however, nobody can deny that "Overall Champion" sounds way better then "just" melee or joust champion.

Kind of like how "Worlds" sounds better than just "Nationals" ?

;)

Anyway , besides stirring the pot, congrats to all the winners and all the Top 16 participants!

Posted at

LaughingTree said:

Kind of like how "Worlds" sounds better than just "Nationals" ?

I was wondering when somebody would bring that up ;)

Posted at

papalorax said:

Or to remove even more shenanigans...

What the heck did I do? ;)

Posted at

LaughingTree said:

thorondor said:

however, nobody can deny that "Overall Champion" sounds way better then "just" melee or joust champion.

Kind of like how "Worlds" sounds better than just "Nationals" ?

;)

Anyway , besides stirring the pot, congrats to all the winners and all the Top 16 participants!

Doesn't the national tournment in China get more players then GenCon?

Also, I find it hilarious that this thread is on its seventh page of debate about the Overall Champion title, and no one has suggested making the Hand of the King tourny part it.