widowmaker93 said:

That is simply nowhere near the truth. The melee game has absolutely grown on me over the years. I would still play in Melee worlds even if it no longer factored into the overall championships. Some people might find aspects of it not to their liking. Thats fine. But it is still a viable format for competitive play.

mdc273 said:

In all openess - I have been close friends with Corey and Erick for 15 years. The only AGOT tournaments I have ever played in was GenCon 2011. I hated melee, playing one of the two decks that we developed testing for the event (Dragons - obvioulys Martell Maesters was a better choice). I played Ghaston Gray to a 5-1 Joust result that year. The one thing I know is that few people understand the finer point of AGOT then Corey…maybe no one. When people start talking about other choices besides "the best deck", I know they are wrong. That doesn't mean the best deck will always win…but if Corey says there is a best deck, there is a best deck.

I would never play in a melee event again unless I had no other option. To me the format is awful.

I think the majority of the player base that travels to play in events will continue to play in any format because they are more concerned with the comraderie of the players then anything else. FFG could dump melee and come out with a new second format and people would play that…because they are they to play AGOT and hang out with friends. I don't think most people make their decisions based on the ruling for or against those at the top…and I don't think that people believed the anti-collusion rules would prevent any behavior (it would just make people hide their purpose better).

papalorax said:

I agree with this statement 100%.

Dobbler said:

Does this mean that any group of metamates who bring the same control decks to melee should be DQ'd, while bringing rush decks is OK? I guess it really comes down to whether they win. If you don't win with your control deck, as Chad pointed out in another thread, then you're OK. But if you win, better watch out because winning with the same deck = collusion.

Twn2dn said:

If you bring any deck that intentionally get exponentially better when a metamate uses the exact same deck, intentionally work together with metamates, get warned and then continue to work exclusively to lock out other players in games, then yeah, I'm guessing there is a chance you get DQed.

The DC guys deserve some props. Credit them at least for beta testing and breaking this bad format please. They got screwed at the biggest tournament of the year and coming from experience I can only say they have been classy.

I fall into the category of people who view melee as an oddity; but given the fact it has been shoved down our throats (coming from a joust centric player) I’ve played it at multiple Gencon events, Days of Ice and Fire, etc. I can’t say I like it. I feel it is random at best, and “colluding” meta mates at worst. Tie it in with Joust and the running gag of overall champ and you have a real mess on your hands.

Are we expected to pretend we don’t know our friends at the same table? Because every time I’ve played in a tournament dealing (as in arranging who gets 1st,2nd) has always happened more often than the rest of the stuff before who love melee talk about. Of course, that wasn’t always between people in the same group of players so that is ok. I didn’t get mad because I don’t care for and don’t value the format.

The DC guys (and I suspect the MO crew) are probably the largest and most serious about all formats in the states. I think both of their efforts should be commended; it forces positive change. Separate restricted list? Check. Different way to pair players for next year? Check. All made possible by them poking holes and beta testing the format so many of you semi competitive players love.

Again, as a joust centric player I have no stake in this. But I grow weary of reading personal attacks coming from people who probably didn’t even care about melee in the first place. If you do play melee then take notes, it is pretty smart thinking. If you consider the fact that Joust got all the FAQ love until recently, Melee surely needed an overhaul by now.

I know somewhere the most vocal opponents of the women’s division are chuckling since this is everything we hate about the format, but you can’t deny they outsmarted the system. Unfortunately, a murky ruling was enacted. I don’t know, I can only go by what I read and the general tone of the pages and pages of threads on this subject.

Besides the DC guys I feel bad for the guy who “won” over all champ. I sure he played a great weekend, but that type of stuff taints any kind of win and for that I’m sorry.

One last note; guys there is larger world out there and if AGOT grows each year prepare to get other people who love the game and who take is seriously. Team melee, hive mind deck builds all this stuff is nothing new, and honestly maybe AGOT was ready for some new rules regarding a format they have pushed into the spotlight. So while I don’t care for multiplayer, I will simply say thank you for at least making this game better.

Dobbler said:

Why? The rules state you cannot make deals before games - they certainly do not say you can't play the same deck. You are assuming that they had made a deal. The deck clearly stood on its own without friends help…so perhaps they all agreed it was the best option.

Of the three in the final - who should have broken out to work with the other guy?

Last weekend, FFG knew that the DC meta brought effectively the same deck before the Melee event started. They also had a pretty good idea of what it could do. But the potential power of a deck, and the exponential efficiency of it with a mirror at the table, was not collusion or unsporting in and of itself. The deck(s) were not the problem.

It was the "in practice" use that created the collusion problem. Specifically, when two metamates are at a table and ALWAYS take away all of the other 2 players' icons, but RARELY take away each other's icons, there is something else going on. That was why they were warned after Round 1 (based on how they played the deck) rather than before Round 1 (based on the decklist). No matter what the other players at the table had or how deals with them might have been more beneficial to an individual player, those factors were never explored or even considered. In most cases, they stuck to the pre-arranged strategy to effectively turn the 4-player Melee into a 2-player Melee.

This idea is well-illustrated by the final table. It's not the plots making it impossible for Mathieu to attack that evidence collusion and unsportsmanlike conduct; it was the fact that they effectively ignored him, playing the game as a 3-player Melee. Notice that when the plots were out and Mathieu couldn't attack, they ignored him entirely and didn't bother taking away the Dragon's icons - until he surprised them by using the "Supports" mechanic to take a challenge against himself, win on defense, and wreck a lot of havok (against Rick). After that, the first thing done every round, more or less, was to take out the Dragons' icons, even though he still couldn't attack. The 4-person table became a 3-person Melee, even though Mathieu was well positioned to help any one of them against the other 2.

Anyway, the point is that everyone playing the same deck (while disappointing from an individual effort point-of-view) is not "collusion." How they (usually) played it was.

So please stop trying to simplify the argument to any of these one individualistic thoughts: "people can't bring the same deck", or "people can't bring control decks", or "people can't work together".

Sorry about the formatting. My copy and paste from another word document didn't go as I planned.

Dobbler said:

But now you are saying the essence of melee is collusion. That two people who see working together is the right choice and execute that strategy during the game…that they can't do that if they know each other. The collusion rule is you can't make a deal before the game…and it seems what you are saying is that two friends who work together from the beginning should be assumed to be colluding.

Table Talk
During a Melee game, players may discuss the game
with one another, at any time. Of course, there is no
guarantee that any given player is telling the truth,
and the wise AGoT player takes everything that is
said with a grain of salt. Players are not allowed,
however, to show the contents of their hand, deck, or
unrevealed plot cards to an opponent, unless a card
effect or game effect instructs them to do so. Making
deals before or in between games however is deemed
collusion and is expressly forbidden.

Dobbler said:

Dobbler said:

this is completely false. Matheiu made it very clear in swiss (i played at his table round 2) and early on in the final table that he was not open to ANY deals. he was offered them repeatedly for plot swapping and the standard 'i wont attack you etc..' type deals, and he refused to make any deals. He wanted to play it completely solo. I would appreciate people not perpetuating this rumor because it is just not true. We 'ignored him' because he wasn't interested in negotiating.

Dobbler said:

And despite all of this being true, it seems entirely possible, highly probable even, that if that last challenge hadn't taken so long, and if the attempt to arrange the ranking of the four players instead of just winning the game hadn't been so glaingly obvious, the DQ wouldn't have happened, and we wouldn't discuss any of this.

Dobbler said:

If stripping a mirrored deck's icons results in all your icons being stripped for no challenges, no renown, no uo power (mutually assured destruction) and stripping opponents' icons protects you from challenge claim and guarantees uo power (uo plus active red viper is minimum of 6 power per turn) what reason does someone have to play the deck any other way regardless of whether the person sitting across the table is from their meta or not? It's not pre round determination that decides the result, it's playing the cards on the table to your own interest making the best deal for you in round.

HoyaLawya said:

But Brian, herein is where that argument falls short. Since you guys all brought that same deck, there was predetermination. So you are right, if you sat at a table with a random opponent using the hellholt/Scourge tactics, and then proceeded to say "I won't remove your icons if you don't remove mine", there was no pregame intent. But because that entire metagroup made the conscious choice to bring it AND use it together, you have both premeditated intent and collusion.

In 2011 I would have applauded this move as the smartest move in the history of Game of Thrones Melee at a world championship event. But that was BEFORE we had collusion rules. When FFG decided to institute collusion rules, things changed.

I will agree with papalorax and anyone else who states that the collusion rules are too loose and open for interpretation. That was basically my point of creating this thread.

If what the DC group did isn't collusion, then what is?

___

Twn2dn said:

Twn2dn said:

Hyperbole

jack merridew said:

Pedantry

Dobbler said:

Now that you agree with me I will stop…that was I all I wanted

The Cossack said:

"A pedant is a person who is excessively concerned with formalism and precision, or who makes a show of his or her learning."

calling a hyperbolic statement hyperbole would fall firmly in the category of keeping a discussion honest.

jack merridew said:

Thanks for making a show of your learning there. ;P

Dobbler said:

Dobbler said:

I agree. I know I am way in the minority on this topic, but I believe Collusion is what makes Melee, well Melee. embrace it.. Just imagine all the scheming and conniving that would occur next year when we have the DC Meta vying with So CAL meta and Missouri Meta's. How Nedly would that be! What alliances would be made with those areas with smaller meta's such as TN, or better yet the OCTGN meta. When would the alliances break? Ahhh such questions. Such potential fun.. My mouth is watering just thinking about the possibilities…

Melee - Collusion - Embrace It

~ducks back behind the wall as the arrows fly.

orclrob said:

I don't think you are in the minority - whether it's because people like the collusion or realize you can't get rid of it…lots of people likely agree.

finitesquarewell said:

Please note that I didn't comment on whether I thought the DQ was justified or not. Maybe I shouldn't have used the words "glaringly obvious" in my previous post either. I'm just saying that it seems likely that the DQ might not have happened without the talk about "making Erick second" while agonizing about the best way to make that last challenge.

I'd like to say that I did find the personal attacks levelled at the protagonists of this piece unnecessary and distasteful. Thankfully, most of the discussion has been civil and matter-of-fact.

Since you brought it up yourself, let me take this opportunity to say that I did find the Penfold thread distasteful in the extreme as well. But let's not open that particular can of worms here.

papalorax said:

I am not opposed to doing away with the anti-collusion rules in melee.

But if they decide to keep anti-collusion rules in place, we need a stronger definition of what that means.

The Cossack said:

it was a show of your misuse of the word. . . . . =/