If you don't like what happened make sure it doesn't happen again. Next Melee at Gen Con keep beating on everyone from their metas. Oh this just adds another layer to the meta game.

Or you could just sneak into their metas and at the final table backstab them. There are so many possibilities of how this melee final can extend the Game of Thrones beyond the tables at Gen Con.

If their move annoys you find a counter for it. Don't just sit there and cry for banning.

sWhiteboy said:

There was a much better article written in the early 1990s by Richard Bartle about different types of players who play MUD (which were early forms of MMO for anyone that doesnt know): www.mud.co.uk/richard/hcds.htm

"So, labelling the four player types abstracted, we get: achievers, explorers, socialisers and killers. An easy way to remember these is to consider suits in a conventional pack of cards: achievers are Diamonds (they're always seeking treasure); explorers are Spades (they dig around for information); socialisers are Hearts (they empathise with other players); killers are Clubs (they hit people with them)."

These 4 basic types (some have expanded on them for newer game formats) can be applied to CCG as well with some tweaking since obviously CCG have no PVE-world aspect. The problem with the overly simplistic "play to win" philosophy is that it can manifest in different ways. One player type I and some old online gaming friends noticed was the "Noobkiller". The Noobkiller always plays to win and would relate to everything that sirloin dude says. However the Noobkiller has some other traits. He likes to kill and beat easy targets. He doesn't necessarily want to play the best and beat the best, he just wants to win. In MMO this can manifest as someone who corpse camps lower levels instead of seeking evenly matched PvP. In FPS this can be someone who chooses weaker matches and goes after new players to pad his stats. And in collectible games this can manifest as an older dude playing top competitive meta builds against 10 yr olds at casual gaming nights. The Noobkiller justifies all his actions as simply "playing to win". Since the Noobkiller always plays to win, and playing to win is always justified then there is nothing ever wrong with the Noobkiller's actions. In one sense he is right. But another sense the Noobkiller is a noob himself who is missing part of the point of competition and competitive events.

JackT said:

You do realize we're talking about a game, right? It's not like multi-million-dollar sponsorships are awaiting the winners of GenCon. In my very humble opinion, I think people need to get a bit of perspective. Was everything optimal at GenCon? Obviously not. But people should also appreciate that they get to play a game they love in a cozy community that from my understanding has been generally very friendly and welcoming.

Guh.

You guy's don't seem to get it.

The point is that the flaw doesn't lie with the players who didn't actually break any of the rules in doing what they did, it lies with the format that allows people to do these things. If the format is supposed to be a test of individual skill, it shouldn't have such a giant, gaping loophole in it that allows people to win based on how they meta other players outside of the tournament.

Instead, everyone is just like BEEP BOOP BEEP WHY DIDN'T ERICK AND COREY FOLLOW MY IMAGINARY RULES

You guys should be angry at the format and trying to get FFG to fix it; just whining about how "dishonorable" the players are doesn't actually do anything to fix the problem. Unless you just want to enforce your faux-rules by ostracizing players who break them, which isn't really cool.

EDIT: Also, LT, try reading the next article in the series before you go spouting "because his only example is Street Fighter, the article is obviously inapplicable to anything else"

hklown said:

If you read Bartle's article and Hesse's book and try to understand my point, Ill read the next article you link.

I will read the article, but I'd rather not continue discussing it here. The important issue, and the one that merits discussion is the one I described in my previous post above the EDIT.

It seems to me that there really is only one option to "fix" the melee format, and that is to change it's execution. You can't make rules against collusion and king-making, because I think it's a little beyond the scope of the game rules to punish out-of-game thoughtcrime.

How could FFG refactor melee to avoid these issues? One option that I think doesn't stuck would be encouraging collaboration between meta-mates. Since the meta seems to be the cutoff point for this kind of collaboration, why not make melee some kind of team event? Magic has the 2v2 format, which I think could be really fun as it encourages a totally different kind of deckbuilding and synergy.

LaughingTree said:

That actually goes against Siriln's ideas. Sirlin, like any other fighting game player, will tell you that playing people who are better than you is the best way to get better. The issue fighting games have (and what spawned these articles) is people who complain about something rather than trying to beat it. In this case, it's the "scrubs" that want to play people worse than them, and not the other way around.

Which is why following that logic, I suggest a change to the melee format.

1. People see out of game king making is effective.
2. People either complain, OR next time, every meta (that isn't stuck in a rut of whinyness) agrees to king-make their own if possible, because it is an effective strategy.
3. Melee is now at a "meta v. meta" level (which there's nothing wrong with)

All I'm suggesting is that we try and cut out the middle step here, and have a quicker transition to the meta v. meta level.

Saturnine said:

1) Games are the only things that have championships.

Saturnine said:

2) I think my perspective is fine, as I am not bitching about anyone or anything.

Saturnine said:

3) The way to get what you want is not to have championship tournaments. That really is the bottom line. Either that or give everyone a trophy like in my son's soccer league. (He is six.)

Not to put too fine a point on it, but going to a Tournament and then complaining about the competitiveness is like going to Church and then complaining about all the Jesus talk.

___

JackT said:

I would argue that there's different approaches to Jesus talk. How about this analogy: It's like going to a restaurant and then complaining about food because it didn't taste good, or that other patrons kept blowing cigarette smoke in your face. Apparently completely unreasonable. But to get back to Game of Thrones: As far as I understand, in your mind, there is only one sort of competitiveness, and I would argue there's different ways to go about it. Nobody is playing this game for a living. Everyone's taking time and investing money to make a trip to an event like GenCon. The fact that you are indeed able to share this love for the game with 70 other players is already amazing, when so many people can't even play the game because there's no other players in their area. Blaming everything on the format seems insufficient to me; I think every player has a personal responsibility towards the other players to not make them have a bad time. I do understand your point (I think), I just respectfully disagree.

I will post once, and that is it.

They played well within the rules. He deserved to win (the Melee, not the overall which was silly and I would have said that no matter who won). However, it was neither sporting or fun for anyone...which I think includes the meta-mates (total speculation based on reactions and small-talk afterwards.

Here are the end-game facts if we are playing for fun (a big assumption I know, ~there was a wooden box and a big sword at stake):

1. Melee ends. No one says a thing (or claps). Everyone disperses...including the winner who I couldn't find to congradulate 5 minutes afterwards.

2. Joust ends. Huge cheers. Actually there were two rounds since he throught he won twice. Everyone hangs around, even though we all want to start drunk draft ASAP and it is getting very late. Lots of hand-shakes, lots of congrats.

For the record, I would have cheered and been VERY happy if Erick or Corey had won Joust (they are amazing players and deserve everyone to consider them 'real' champions, which just won't happen until they win a Joust).

*shrug*

Saturnine said:

It's more like you go to a restaurant that you know to occasionally serve bad food, then you happen to get bad food and you complain about it. Is the complaining justified? Not really, as you knew the risk. Can the complaining change things. Possibly, it depends on if the people in charge consider your complaints.

ah nvm

How about this: Robert Baratheon never would have taken the Iron Throne without the help of Eddard Stark.

/Thread

Mathias Fricot said:

Wow - I knew some people were upset but I didn't think it would come to the point where we're actively promoting beheading Erick and having Corey gored to death by a wild boar. We might need to borrow Zeiler's Ice replica.

skeletonator said:

How in any way was my pointing out that getting help is sometimes a necessary step towards victory? Nice extrapolation... Based on your reasoning potential I guess I should assume based on your avatar (of what I assume to be a zombie) that you are a practicing necrophilliac. Don't embarrass yourself.

pointing out more than that*

I think he was joking.

Mathias Fricot said:

Since his comment mentions two cases of murder based on the events of a fictional book, I'm pretty sure it's safe to say that he was making a joke, Mathias.

That or he (/she) hates melee and there have been 10 pages of a polarized argument. I have no idea though, since I've never met him (/her).

But for the record, I highly doubt skeletonator is a necrophiliac. Just so we have that in writing

I think we owe it to each other to create a beheading-free environment.

JackT said:

Second

You either win or die the argument of thrones.