I meant to post my thoughts on Melee much earlier this week, but I’m glad that I waited since I’ve had more time to reflect on how I really feel about Melee at Gencon.

First, I want to clarify how I really feel about Melee. I enjoy a good game of Melee. I have a blast playing a four-person game, using the titles where everyone makes deals, back-stabs and tries to win. I love the table-talk, the opportunity to make deals and trying convince people what they should do. This feels like the books. This is fun.

However, here’s what I don’t enjoy, TOURNAMENT (COMPETITIVE) MELEE.

First off, I get bored playing a second or third melee game in a row. At Gencon, I saw John Kraus (deathjester26) play THREE rounds of Swiss Melee, with each game lasting at least an hour. Then, in the cut to 16, he played a TWO HOUR Melee game! Right after that gae, with a 5-10 minute break, he had to play the Melee Championship. I don’t have the patience or attention span to last through all of those games!

Now, for the “competitive” part….

In 2007, FFG crowned THREE champions. There was a Classic Highlander Champ, a Melee Champ and a Joust Champ. However, the only one who was able to design a card, and also declared World Champion, was the Joust winner. 2008 was the first year that FFG went to Melee Champ, Joust Champ and a combined Champ. I really felt everyone played every game, melee or joust, to win. However, in 2009, and even more so in 2010, the desire to “design a card” and become a champion, caused people to play differently in Melee. There were now “posses”, “hit squads” and in general, large meta groups. At this year’s Gencon, all of this was in evidence, to an even greater extent.

I built a deck for the Melee that was all about king-making. I did not plan on winning or even try. I built a Targ burn deck that was just going to mess with people and help the player at my table that was my meta-mate, my friend or just who I wanted to see win. There was another player whose deck was even more king-making than mine. Just with the two of us, there is a flaw in the system.

At my first Melee table, there were two players from the same meta. The fourth player at the table played for himself to try to win. What an original concept! LOL I was alone and screwed and had ZERO chance. It sucks sitting down at a table knowing that you have no chance of winning the game. You can try to talk the fourth person into working with you, but if they don’t see it or don’t want to help, you’re alone. Here’s an example of “no chance”. Player A had 5-6 characters on the table and 10 power. Player B has 1 character and ZERO power. Player C has 5-6 characters and 10 power. Player D has 2 characters and 1 power. Player A reveals Summoning Season. If he wants to win, he should select Player B to join him in the search since Player B has nothing. Instead, Player A selected Player C. Player C could win this turn. Why select Player C? Because, Player C is his friend and meta-mate! They talked the entire time about who would be first and who would be second. What’s wrong with this? Nothing, but it sucks knowing there is a championship on the line and I have no chance for it.

In the second game that I played, I was at a table with a friend. I told him before the game that I’d help him win. Let’s call him Player D. To my left was Player B who was from another meta that has a reputation for teaming up and assisting its top players. Every turn, I attacked Player B. I burned Player B’s characters. On one turned, I killed three of his players when he was close to winning. Player B became very frustrated with me and call me an “A$$HOLE”! Me? Can you believe that? Player D, who I told that I would help win, did win and I took second. Player B walked away disgusted and would not shake Player D’s hand. Isn’t this how melee is played?

In two other games that I heard of, there was a four-player game where a player was so frustrated that he quit in the middle of the game, making it a three-player game. In another game, a player was so pissed that he slammed his cards down on the table, then gathered his stuff and walked away mid game!

See…melee is fun! LOL

At the final table, after the first turn, it was evident that Erick and Corey were working together. Corey’s board position was much better than Erick’s so Erick helped Corey win. He let Corey attack him unopposed. He and Corey openly discussed even what Plots to play. Greg was never in it while John Kraus did his best. Greg’s slow start meant that Greg, and John, never had a chance. When the game was over, NO ONE clapped. Everyone who was there felt dirty and cheap. The victory felt that way to me, but you know what, Greg really can’t complain. His meta played that way all day (as did Erick’s). Corey won based on the rules that FFG has established. Is it stupid? YES. Was it really a hard-earned victory? NO. I don’t want to take anything away from any of the final four players. They are all excellent players individually. In fact, in my opinion, the deck that Erick, Corey (and a few other meta-mates played) was the best Martell Maester build that I have seen yet. It really could win Joust in 2-3 turns. But, when you add the competitive element to melee and make it a piece of determining the overall World Champion, this is what you get - shenanigans, collaborating, hurt feelings and, in my opinion, a de-valued World Champion.

If FFG wants a Melee Champ, they should do what they did back in 2007 – A Melee Champ, a Classic Highlander Champ and a Joust Champ, with the Joust Champion being the ONLY World Champion and card designer. At east then the victory would be earned.

Just my opinions.

Thank you mathlete for reminding me that precisely why i dislike melee games. I´m not saying you can´t have fun playing one melee game an evening but that should be enough.

I support your idea of giving the possibility of designing a card and whatever title to the joust winner. If another title is necessary i would instead of the usual melee tournament just have a team tournament where two players are asked to cooperate together openly. I think that tournamnet idea was lost for years but had once been part of the Gen Con tourney programm.

Also it would create 3 winners and 3 design chances.

The only thing that I would change is that the melee winner, I think, should be allowed to design a card still. Otherwise, this is pretty much what I've been saying all along.

Edit: Actually, thinking about it more, what if we kept the three total possible card designers and made it: Joust champ, melee champ, and one random person who played in both events? I think that could actually bring more players to GenCon, but that's just a guess.

My vote? Split the two and have a Melee Champion and a Joust Champion who each get to design a card and get to have a title and the accolades. Then in place of the overall let's have a "Queen of Love and Beauty" elected by all registered players who didn't drop.

~It sounds fun and it's probably my only chance at designing a card.

No, but seriously. It's my only hope.

Kennon said:

Unfortunately, there would again be colluding in this: For every GenCon I go to, I would be colluding with myself to win this, and, being the most attractive person in the game, would automatically win. Sorry. It needs to be random, to make it fair, you know.

WolfgangSenff said:

My vote is contract DeathJester to run the Maester Chain event at Gencon. Limit Maester chains to only in prelim rounds. Let the Maester winner design a card but it has to use the Maester keyword in some way either as character or play off keyword like a new chain link.

Why is it that we're stuck with melee as the format it is now? It's obviously a bad tournament format, so why don't we make a good multiplayer format/encourage FFG to make a good multiplayer format?

Excellent report mathlete! I wouldn't be too surprised that the melee event turned people off from playing in the Joust. Having 2 people storm off in the middle of game should not be the result of playing in a melee tournament.

Kennon said:

Not a bad idea at all

WolfgangSenff said:

I responded too quickly to Kennon's post - good counterpoint

hklown said:

And this cuts to the heart of matters.

Mathlete - I'm curious on your thoughts - would things have been different at all if the current scoring was different? I'm referring to the "You win or die" system several of us are proponents of - no points for 2nd through 4th. Still some advantage temptation team up - but I think it would be much less so, as you are now totally sacrificing yourself, can't go for the 1/2 both advance combo.

Another question/comment I have based on this - my personality is such that as soon I saw this occurring (round 1), every round thereafter I'd be asking where people were from (City/State/meta) - & if two opponents were from the same meta, I'd automatically sacrafice myself for the 4th person at the table (just how I am). Did this play out at all? What if players had to list a meta or have ID's checked when registering, and this info announced at the table? Any change at all?

I realize for tourny play melee has its problems, I'm just convinced the assanine scoring system magnifies them.

Stop, you had me at "blast" mathlete...

I was not at GenCon, but I have played in a fair number of Regional Melee final tables. I can't really say I have ever had a particularly good time at any of those tables. At the highest level of competition, melee really does break down as a fun format. Even playing four in a row at a Regional leaves me exhausted and like mathlete said, bored.

I think (as many have stated) melee needs a makeover for competetive play. What does that look like though? 2v2? That format has its own major issues. Random pairing 2v2? Is there some way to just cop to the existence of meta groups in melee working together, and somehow embrace it? Split the country into regions and have players play for their region...people that show up solo could join the Brotherhood without Banners region! I don't know, I'm just spitballing here, but something needs to change. The well is poisoned, I'm afraid. Time to dig a new one.

drop the possibility to have a card design in melee means have melee game played by nobody or better only casual. I strongly thing 99% of palyers played melee ONLY for card design/overral ranking.

Let's drop the card and we drop the players and I fear FFG doesn't want this. For all the rest I agree with Mathlete. A format that should be "fun" becomes the kingdom of unfairness and bad games... this is not due to players, I'm not ocmplaining with them, but with tourney rules...

while I agree that the Melee tournament does catch the spirit of the original Game of Thrones story, I think it would just be better to have a different format to play. For example 2vs2.

Syd said:

Yes, please. Of course it also has it flaws, but i think it´s much better than the current melee format for competive play.

Syd said:

~Thank your for that. It´s not like the overall presence of players from the 190+ countries of the world was overwhelming at "worlds", but now these players are encouraged to join the tournament and become a member of the "brotherhood without banners ". LoL.

I hate melee for exactly the reasons in this thread. I wonder if a revamping of the rules to something similar to VTES would be better, where players can only direct challenges towards say the person on their left, while defending against the player on their right (predator/prey). Not sure if that would be good, but it would balance the amount of damage partners could do, and playing attachments against or directing non-response effects could also be restricted to your prey, with active trait effects and plots being the only effects that are universal.

The only exploit I can see is elaborate plot collusion, or in a scenario where meta mates are seated adjacent, the predator wouldn't apply any pressure but even then that would still give players without an alliance a better chance. Just an idea but maybe it's nuts.

How about a Joust report??

Syd said:

Why would you do random pairing?

It would go, you sign-in, with your partner, as a team. IF you do not have a partner, then you can be given a partner IF there is someone else who signed in solo. First-come first-serve.

sWhiteboy said:

I think the point is to stop abusive combos. Otherwise 2v2 boils down to about 3 or 4 possible combinations, and who gets there's off first. I haven't actually played this in several years, but perhaps others have alternate experience.

Having people build competent individual decks that may have small synergies is the better test of teamwork. I guess it just depends on what your having the tourney for.

Yeah, the random 2v2 (and no meta pair-ups) keeps really abusive combos and plot-planning (where some of the worst abuses hide in 2v2) down. You would be forced to build a deck that works well in support of a teammate, but in a more general way rather than specific card-combos between decks. You could even switch the pair-ups between rounds, allowing for a single eventual winner in a format that historically has two winners.

Word...

+1

(more words to make post postable)