hklown said:

Well... not really, the entire article puts forward a line of reasoning that he uses to prove his point of view which then he dismisses himself in order to hold on to another point of view. If the person putting forward the line of reasoning has to discard it part way through his article then it can't be a valid line of reasoning to support his over all position.

As to Erick, again I disagree, if he was really trying to win he should have stabbed Corey in the back and taken the win for himself, or arranged to not support him in some fashion so another opponent would have kept Corey down or stolen enough power to put Erick in the lead and put Corey in a position that he had to hold up his end of the deal. When you play a Game of thrones you win or you die. IOW, if you are not willing to stab your ally in the back in order to get the win yourself you are not playing to win, you are playing to ensure someone else wins.

widowmaker93 said:

i think well be alright, plus its not my fault you guys have become the chargers, apparently the loss the the giants has damaged your pyche as a team. amazing in the regular season. . . .playoffs not so much

sWhiteboy said:

sWhiteboy said:

But it doesn't go against his base logic, which as I pointed out is so flawed he abandons it himself.

If you are playing to win, then every win counts and no win is any better than any other as long as you win. There is no rule against only playing noobs and ganking them so every player that is playing the rules should be doing just that. Sure you can practice against other players of your level or better to improve your game, but when it comes down to competition time you should be doing every single thing possible to win, which includes beating as many noobs as you can to pad your score.

In a TCG that means doing everything possible to scout decks, to ignore passives and constants that your opponent does not enforce unless they benefit you, and even collaborating with other players to attempt to fix the results outside of the game.

Some of you are okay with this (and I'm not trying to say either Erick or Corey are), some aren't. I happen to believe the tournament structure is intended for each player to play the game to the best of their ability to put themselves in the highest ranking possible using the rules of the game. The moment you start doing things outside of the game to affect those results I call foul when it comes to sportsmanship.

That whole Akuma thing mentioned is silly. The community decided to abandon it, but the character was obviously part of the game, everyone should be using Akuma, and the first person to hit with it wins. How is this not following the logic that he puts forward? IT isn't breaking the rules? The y banned it because it wasn't fair. The character gamed the system breaking the rules that all other aspects of the game, the spirit of competition, and unless eveyrone else was using Akuma they couldn't win.

How is that not a perfect parallel for what happened in melee. Unless other came in with a large meta and all agreed to work the tournament system to manipulate it so they would put forward a winner, how can they compete with an entire meta playing the same deck and with an agreement to not play the game against each other?

In the end it doesn't really matter. The genie is out of the bottle. Everyone now is going to have play Akuma, those who don't are willfully hampering themselves over some concept of fair play and spirit of the rules.

The whole point of this thread from *my* perspective is that yes, melee is incredibly fun and the rules aren't necessarily unfair/unethical/broken, but for FFG to use the title of melee champion to create some sort of artificial "overall" champion is a tad silly, and is arguably unethical. It seems most people have missed this, and I wanted to just summarize it again, so that people maybe see it this time.

Penfold said:

QFT

Penfold said:

Actually, when I read his book (never read the article), I got the distinct impression that what he advocates is precisely winning in any context possible within the rules of a given game .

Stating something like this is very different than trying to win at any costs by only defeating scrubs, as you seem to imply (mind you, I may be misreading you words). That isn't possible with any organized tournament structure that I can fathom, and so, the ultimate corolary of this reasoning is that one gets better when one defeats better players - be it by winning a tournament and so getting the respect (and sometimes fear) of your opponents, be it because your skills improve only when you have to best yourself: because you fight yourself as much as you fight your opponent - I believe those are his main points.

It's also very different than scouting decks, pre-fixing results, illegal team-ups, marking your card sleeves, and so on and so on. Those are not within the scope of a game. You see, the main difference between our PoVs (hehe), is that I believe Sirlin plays to win a tournament by playing to win each game for itself . So, a series of games played to win have the probable result of winning the tournament (if you win, the games, that is) - your ultimate goal, whose building blocks were those matches.

To summ up: within the scope of a given match, yes, you should play to win inside the rules - as soon as the ball starts rolling (i.e. the match starts) you're free to work the system - that is what everyone does. Outside of it? Well... this thread wouldn't have 10+ pages if it was 100% acceptable what happened in the melee championship. Playing to win or not. *shrug*

Tovra, that is really my own personal opinion. That you play the game, each game, by its rules. You don't start the game until the TO says begin, that includes call forms of deal making and collusion scouting etc. When the game begins you do everything within the rules to win. Once that game ends so does the playing of it.

His argument falls apart with Akuma because selecting your character is obviously part of the game for Streetfighter, and entering in a code to unlock a character that was included in the game by its manufacturers is perfectly within those bounds. He wants to have it both ways, implying that anyone who doesn't do everything they can is a scrub, but using this one character somehow magically falls outside of that.

I use a more measured line of reasoning, that people play to win but not use unfair advantages to do so, not game the system, be good sports, and everyone always play each game in fashion that will get them the highest possible ranking within that game so as to accumulate the highest possible ranking through the entire tournament.

That would mean no Akuma, because the rules of the game that apply to other characters do not apply to that character. It means no collusion because, the rules of the game do not account for it.

Is it necessary to have FFG create a rule that says no collusion, and define it as any out of game attempts to fix placement? It would be unenforceable in general but then players would have a very clear line about what is and is not considered acceptable play.

The people who keep trying to suggest melee is about meta vs meta play are just wrong. Period. No where in the rules of the game or the rules of the tournament is that stated. Every rule that exists is about the individual player and their performance in that individual game and how that will affect their personal overall standing.

If you want a meta vs meta game, tell FFG I'm sure they'd put something together for a side event. They already have a 2v2 format they use sometime, so it is obvious that it isn't about that either. Melee is designed to be 1 vs many.

The way I view this whole issue is to just compare it to M:TG....

M:TG - "I have more money so that means I can afford playsets of every $70 rare out there. I guess I win."

AGoT - "I have more friends than you and we have a bigger meta. That means the more people I bring to melee the better chance I have to be at a table with one that will collude with me and you're not allowed to say it's wrong because the "rules" allow it."

They both make you feel pretty sh*tty when you are sitting on the other side of the table, knowing the whole time that you have little to no chance of winning.

Penfold said:

Oh, great then! We share the same perspective about playing to win, I just didn't realize by your earlier post (sorry, maybe it's because I'm not an english native speaker, I guess I should have added this disclaimer earlier ). Although, reading it again, maybe I could have inferred it. It'll be better to start paying more attention.

Penfold said:

I'm really not sure other's opinions about this. I always considered any attempts to win outside the game also outside the rules, and so, simply put, would not be legal. I understand this is, however, a gray area, as many others don't consider as such. The bottom line is that this is a matter of interpretation of the rules. Those lines on the FAQ (or the rulebook, not sure where they are written) that plotting with other players is not only acceptable but nedly also probably left room for that gray area.

That is the problem with (and I'm hoping not to start a flame-war here... really hoping, as it is NOT my intent) poorly defined rules. Maybe the writers/ designers felt there was no need to designate at which point could the players start to collude with one another to win the game, but as it is clearly shown by this thread, that clarification should be written - wether the whole sanctioned tournament is considered a game by itself with smaller parcels, named rounds, where the standings are decided, or players start to play each game by itself, and colluding outside that game/round is prohibited, and sanctions can be applied to players that do so.

But as you say, enforcing this would be a hard thing to do. At least, though, it would be written, and even if a player decided to go against those rules and get away with it, at least maybe he would not feel so good about it. I know I wouldn't, even if I somehow found the stomach to bend those rules.

Penfold said:

Humm... I would't put it so vehemently, but I also feel that the spirit of the rules (even if it's text doesn't clearly state it) is player vs. player. But then again, in Portugal there's only one meta: mine. So, when the guys and gals play it's always friendly, good-spirited, and almost everybody tries to place first (we have a saying that goes something along the lines of: "Second place is the first of the last spots." ). I guess that's a negative aspect of having a large tournament, as opposed to having a small, almost familiar one.

But I digress. My point is that the rules, IMO, are written in a way that not everyone may agree with you, when you say that the scope of the rules leave out anything else that goes beyond individual performance. You have the previous example I've given: by the rulebook, colluding it's not only acceptable and accepted, it's also encouraged, and if colluding and compromising is in the picture, the individual game ceases to be - as you take into account what your for-now partner will do to help you and sinchronize your plays with his, and what he may do in the future to harm you. I think that to improve the rules (and the game) something along the lines of defining exactly when you can start playing not just with the cards, but also your opponents wishes.

The rules that address it refer to it under the heading of table talk... a term generally understood by gamers to mean discussions with players during a game session.

I'd also like to address this line of reasoning pointed out by Widowmaker, AGoT - "I have more friends than you and we have a bigger meta. That means the more people I bring to melee the better chance I have to be at a table with one that will collude with me and you're not allowed to say it's wrong because the "rules" allow it."

I would say the rules do not expressly forbid it, but in my mind there is a distinct difference between something the rules say you are allowed to do and something they do not expressly forbid. Nowhere in the rules does it say I can't do any number of things, the rules do not forbid me from using physical intimidation or bribery to get the results I want. I think most of us understand these should both be covered under the rule of sportsmanship, but it is not said specifically.

Now we can talk about threats of in game violence or offers to benefit someone through the game effects (if you don't attack him I will kill your Robert, if you don't attack me I will choose you next turn for my Summoning Season). These are encouraged through the very same "Table talk" rule. Colluding outside of the game versus creating an alliance inside the game is the same to me when it comes to being not expressly forbidden versus being allowed.

At this point I think I've said all I need to say on the subject of what happened at this years GenCon and how I view melee and really tournament play in general.

The fact is that if Corey wasn't part of a specific meta, and one that happened to be a very good player, many people don't think he would have won. (which isn't 100% fair, but close)

So...if he was from 'Small-town USA away from a major meta' he wouldn't have won either Melee or the Overall (2 card designs, if you are counting).

Makes people who belong to a small/no meta or a meta without as much other talent feel pretty good I am sure. Luckily, since I belong to that scenario I have written off Melee, and feel fairly vindicated after hearing 20+ people plus feel dirty by it.

rings said:

It's a fact that many people don't think he would have won? How do you define many?

1 is 1

2 is a couple

3-5 is a few

6 is half a dozen

7or more is many.

Penfold said:

I'm calling it now. Next year, $15 to each person who lets me win. That's $1 per power! I need this, folks! I NEED IT!!!!

(Also, a Lannister pays his debts. Remember this, folks.)

@Rings (since the quote functionality is terrible. You know Valar Midwestous would have adopted you for the Melee!

I mean, let's be honest, most of us like you better than our real meta-mates anyway!

I felt bad, on behalf of Ontario I adopted Greg while Darknoj was still in the top 16 (?) for Joust. I assume I will get shlapped around a melee game when I meet him in person for it.

@Rings - I hear War of Honor is really cool for L5R. It seems like they have a good system for playing multiplayer. Have you tried this or has AGoT Melee soured you from even trying it?

Kennon said:

yeah, but that's just for the sexual benefits

LordofBrewtown said:

Well, I assumed that was the only kind of benefit he offered!

widowmaker93 said:

I have heard good things as well (and even got the promo Ronin tiles), but have yet to try it. aGoT MP wouldn't sour me on it - I actually like casual agoT MP - but the old L5R multiplayer (which was total trash) did a little...I am trying hard to stop remembering L5R MP circa 1998

And by the low-brow responses above, you can see why I for-sure can't play MP in the future, everyone will assume I am giving out 'favors' if they do something nice for me.

Everyone knows I only give out drinks. At the bar (like the time I bought 40 vodka and tonics and then tried to push in on my old bank's expense report)...during the Joust Championship...playing casual at 2.00am when the security guy with a tube in his neck takes all my booze...the list doesn't end.

rings said:

Bwahahahaha, that, ser, is one of my all time favorite GenCon memories. Well, that and the fact that they left us with our booze, maybe what.... 3 feet away from you?

rings said:

War of Honor is a hideous game. There's no real technical checks to keep things balanced since the format has a heavy incentivized skew towards the military win condition and collusion or kingmaking are just as prominent as in any multiplayer game if not worse since the opportunities to gang up on a player and profit is too juicy. There's also a weak board position component that is sloppy and doesn't really allow any real strategy. Overall it's a pretty shallow attempt... but a lot of players like it, so that's just my opinion but honestly, it's not much different from agot if you want to compare issues with competitive multiplay. It really becomes a social game over technical which is frustrating when you want to play a game with hard and linear rules and card interactions only to find those rules won't save you when you're getting teamed up on by the table.