Bomb said:

Did I mention that we give prizes to top Joust players, top Melee players and top Overall players. Also, with the overall scoring system explained in the FAQ, making top 8 in the Joust pretty much guarantees you a place in the overall top 16, even if you are last in the Melee. Being Joust champion and participating in the Melee nets you 49 points and winning any tiebreaks (assuming Joust is the bigger event). To pass you:

• the 2nd (42 points) needs to be 13th in the Melee (9 points)
• the 3rd (37 points) needs to be 11th (13 points)
• the 4th (33 points) needs to be 9th (17 points)
• the 5th (29 points) needs to be 7th (23 points)
• the 6th (26 points) needs to be 6th again (26 points)
• the 7th (23 points) needs to be 5th (29 points)
• the 8th (20 points) and 9th (17 points) need to be 4th (33 points)
• the 10th (15 points) and 11th (13 points) need to be 3rd (37 points)
• the 12th (11 points) and 13th (9 points) need to be 2nd (42 points)
• the 14th (7 points), 15th (5 points) and 16th (3 points) need to be 1st (48 points)
• all others (1 point) cannot pass you

About the uncompetitiveness of control: you need a specific deck for melee, because the game flows differently and cards that are effective in joust are not necessarily effective in melee (and vice versa). So yes, a control deck made for joust will not be competitive in melee (any deck made for joust won't fare that well in melee - though I'll concede you that rush joust decks will fare better than joust control decks). But cards like Queen's Guard (useless in joust) and Flogged and Chained can be used to make an effective melee Lannister kneel deck (though you still need to grab power, because melee games don't last many turns).

About the randomness of melee: if it is so random, why do some players consistently make tops in melee? You might not like competitive melee, but saying it's random is just false (someone already said that, but I'll repeat it). Also note that you can (and as a matter of fact, you should) play completely different decks in both events (you don't even have to play the same House).

We will be playing MELEE at our Regionals in Halifax, Canada. Out of a dozen gamers in our league it was unanimous- Melee- Hard on those who have to travel if you held both melee and joust. I'd actually contemplate boycotting a tournament if i found out there was no melee. There's other metas in couple other cities who prefer joust. But we have home pick. hehe.

Hah, snaggrriss: I just emailed the store hosting yesterday to find out details for the Halifax regional. I'm unsure if I can make it or not, but it's funny to get the details here!

For the record, I'm as shocked by a Regional with only Melee as by a Regional with only Joust. One of the things I love about this game is that it can be played in both formats. I understand that travel can be hard for a full weekend, but players are in no way forced to play both formats even if your event has both.

Khudzlin said:

Thats not necessarily true. At the Connecticut regional this weekend, they are having melee and joust together; one entry fee for both formats, no option to pay less and do only one, overall champ only, no prize support for melee winner, no prize support for the joust winner. I'm going, but I know this setup drove away a number of people who otherwise were going to come. I'm all for melee, but I don't think it's right to do this particular kind of combination as it DOES force people to play both if they want to compete in either.

Which is why I said previously that they should be treated separately with different prizes. In this format the first place player in either format may not even be top 4 overall if they don't place well enough in the other format. That just seems terribly wrong.

Vaapad said:

Now, that's sad. In French tournaments, entry for one format costs 10€ while entry for both formats costs 15€. And there are prizes for all 3 tops (joust, melee, overall).

@Bomb: as a matter of fact, such a player could even be pushed out of the overall top 8. But I'll ask you a question: is the player who is 1st in one format and last in the other a better overall player than the one who is in the top 8 of both formats?

Khudzlin said:

What's the average size for your tournaments? I have a feeling it is significantly larger than the average size of a US tourney, but would like to know for sure.

Khudzlin said:

I actually meant that someone can receive 1st place and not win a tournament and that seems very wrong. Receiving 1st place should be more than just receiving a better shot at getting "overall". I hate typing on my phone so I submitted my comment quickly before proofreading it.

As for your question… I think if someone wins a tournament, then they have already played better than someone who has not. This is particularly why I think prize support should be provided for each tournament.

Did not read most of the post but here are some simple facts:

Melee is played way more then jouste. Most players of AGoT only play melee, most players being casual.

Both formates are super fun.

Melee is easier to cheat at….Melee is a bit harder to play…

Joust and Melee take a lot of skill to be good at.

Their should be a overall winner for having the skill to do well at both types of events which only a small % of competative players have.

Dark,

I really respect your opinion, and most pro Melee people as well.

But I gotta ask; you really think Melee takes more skill? Really? I can't see it. My personal experience has been anything but. I dont' claim to be a good Melee player but my games at Gencon and Days of Ice and Fire went something like this:

4 players sit down. Everybody turtles up, then some poor guy (usually me) doesn't have good board position or gets thrown under the bus. Players alternate beating said shmuck down for power. Then time is called and the guy who hoarded the most power grab cards wins. At some point a deal is made for 1st and 2nd . So most times, I notice players deal making for 2nd. Just the way scoring worked, and I don't blame them. But when you're happy you got 2nd place, I have to say thats lol worthy. You know why? Because in the world of Melee sometimes not winning is just as good as winning for the purpose of advancing.

Round after round of this occurs where the game is stagnant for the first few rounds until the game is decided by the luck of the person(s) who didn't get messed with combined with the last 5 minutes to determine a winner.

I don't care what people say, but there is always going to be a soft spot at the table. Just ask the guy who made the final table playing Targ at WCW. He wasn't even a factor. The year before at Gencon? Eric made a smart play and ensured he got 2nd just to get a chance at the overall title. 2 years in a row the results are the same, and would make for a great corporate team building exercise.

Like it or not, there are people like me who wander in these things to goof around and have fun. I have to apologize to the people who take Melee seriously since I'm probably screwing with their chances at winning but then again, thats Melee for you.

I like to think most people who enjoy Melee and who are good at at are skilled at Joust too. I think they understand perfectly well why Melee and Joust are good. Where the disconnect is, at least for me is where we (coming from higher level competitive 1v1 card games) is how these players overlook or do not address things like:

This environment (not sure much has changed) usually runs no reset plot

This enviroment has most games ending 3-4 plots in. Wow.

This environment is populated more heavily by casual players, therefore the skill level and competition in my mind is lower.

This environment has a great deal of king making, new tourney rules or not.

This enviroment has inherent randomness (same table meta mates, bounty hunting well known players, personal grudges, getting bad draws and becoming a punching bag)

This environment has scoring rules that reward people for not winning.

These issues are not a big deal since the format to me is fun, not serious. So when people say what takes more skill or why do some players get annoyed when taking about "overall" champ those are a few things to me that stick out in my mind.

People throw alot of metaphors around about this format but I'll use my own: its an issue of poker vs chess. What takes more skill? What rewards you for winning, and winning only? What is pure skill, my knowledge against yours, my experience vs yours?

I've seen and done it in other games, good players will be good at bad formats. What I don't get is why people fight to the death how Melee is a seperate but equal skill. No other CCG of equal prestige and design has Melee in any sort of format other than fun, but here it is treated like a sacred cow.

Look, it's late, I'm tired and I should have gone to bed awhile ago to get back up in time for work, but before I do, I have to say…

Sacred cow? Melee is anything but around here. Honestly, I'm just freaking tired of people beating the hell out of melee because they don't enjoy playing it. If you don't, good for you, but over the last few years, there are quite a few people that have been pretty derogatory to it. Why tear down something that other people do enjoy?

@mdc: off the top of my head, about 50 (the one that is a FFG regional is 80-100) - when I said we have FLGS tournaments (those are jousts with only swiss rounds) bigger than the SF Regional, I was literal and they are sometimes as big as the Cincinnati Regional

@Bomb: that's why we have separate prizes for joust and melee, as well as overall; there are also prizes for the top player from each House (only players who enter both tournaments with the same House are eligible). So the joust champion gets his prizes for that (and additional prizes for his place in the overall top); so does the melee champion. Before FFG introduced rules for calculating combined standings last year, we just added the ranks from both events and the player with the lowest total was declared champion. The current rules are much more advantageous to players who place well in one event than that (I'm curious about how it was done at the WC at that time).

How melee is played around here:

In the first turn or two, grab power quietly. Getting too much ahead will make the other players focus on you (so does playing really annoying characters, like Ellaria Sand or CS Melisandre - though targeted removal is the usual solution for that). When you (think you) can win, take the initiative (or prevent others from winning before you) and do it. Deal if you have to, break your deals if it makes you win (if you break your deals before, there will be consequences). You go where you can when everyone is scrambling for places at the end (before that, you try to prevent the leading players from gaining power too fast). Ask the World Champion, he's a regular at final melee tables at home.

Sorry in advance for this, but I'm going to be blunt, obtuse and even partly irritated next. Like Kennon, I'm completely sick of Melee being systematically insulted year-on-end by Joust-only players. So, nothing personal here, this particular joke just got old for me years ago.

ccgtrader99 said:

Take it for what you will, but: This has absolutely nothing in common with how any of my games at the European Championship Melees (went 2nd there running a Targ Knight hybrid of burn and power-gain) last year.

Honestly, that sounds to me a lot like 4 Melee newbies sitting down at a table, not a high-level competition. Good Melee decks are able to withstand a pretty hefty amount of punishment, and have plenty of tricks to make sure their board presence doesn't get steamrolled. Repeatable saves, challenge control and an even and complete icon distribution are just that important in Melee.

It's pretty much like how a Joust game between two newer players tends to go "One player floods the table, the other Valars, and then the one with more characters/draw post-Valar wins".

~ Your statement would then be pretty close to the Melee-version of: "Valar is completely OP in Joust! It always killz mah dudez!".

ccgtrader99 said:

All of the games I participated in had at least one Valar, in addition to the Threat from the North (working around Power of Blood can be important) I was running. No correlation to what I saw.

ccgtrader99 said:

I think it was closer to 4-5, never around the plot deck though. But 4-5 rounds of Melee is a lot longer and more grueling than the similar in Joust, since there are much less rounds where nothing happens due to control or post-reset.

~Also, mathlete just won all of his 8 games in 21 rounds at a Tourney, so it's not like similar length games don't happen in Joust…

You're right however in that something like 1.5 years ago Joust was all control and power-gain was useless, and Melee was all power-gain and controi was useless. However, based on what I've seen, the environment in both gametypes has shifted more towards that golden middle-road, where different strategies are viable.

ccgtrader99 said:

True, king-making situations sometimes do arise, and such cases do need a bit of character from the player who falls into that situation.

ccgtrader99 said:

Didn't see any of the items you list having any important impact at Stahleck.

~And of course it has inherent randomness, it's a bloody cardgame . If you don't want randomness, go play Euro-boardgames.

There's a very similar set of randomness happening in Joust, since you can either get draws from hell and have no chance of winning or (due to the rock-paper-scissors meta-thing) just run into the deck that's pretty much a hard-counter for what you're running (especially frustrating if it's a deck that you run into during Swiss, and know that it doesn't have a real chance of making the cut).

ccgtrader99 said:

Well, to be more exact, it has scoring rules that reward you for placing as high as possible and Sportsmanship Rules that say that you have to always play for the win (although these are a new thing). Honestly, if only one player out of 4 recieved any points in a round, then the number of rounds required to get a decently reprenstative Final Table, especially with the near 2 hour game-time would be… terrible.

ccgtrader99 said:

Honestly? Because for every one who bothers to fight, there are ~20 Joust-only players who fancy themselves "Jaime" and try to insult Melee whenever possible. Sacred cow? More like pet punching-bag.

The games, like Chess and Poker, are honestly so different that it's comparing apples to oranges. So, if a person wants to say that one requires more skill than another, it's their job to first explain how the apple actually looks a lot like an orange in this light, and that both are pretty spherical and grow on a tree.

Now… if you really wanted to make an argument about why Melee isn't as competitive, I'd say the most important part is the length of a single game (especially with Control having a lot more teeth in Melee than it did a while back), which makes it much harder to get enough of them under your belt to start really seeing the flow of it all. Oh, and this also reflects a lot into deckbuilding, since it's much harder to get enough test games in with a deck, in order to iron out all of it's kinks and really learn how to run it. But that's really a pretty inherent problem of multiplayer games in general, they just last longer. This is best offset by having both an active meta and Tourney scene for Melee, and more discussion on what works in Melee and what doesn't.

@Dobbler: I'd echo what Khudzlin said about always having a player that's not participating in the game Judge any arising issues. They don't even have to be full Judges, just people with good Rules knowledge that are nominated as arbiters for issues arising in a situation where all of the Judges are participating at the table in question. Honestly, getting an unbiased ruling (whether it's right on the money or not) is most important in these cases. The Finnish Regional will have a Melee with Judges participating as players, and this is what we will do in such cases.

EDIT: Khudzlin ninja'd my wall of text, his description of game flow is a lot more like what I've seen.

Well, I'd bet you are a more experienced melee player than me (I have probably played more melee games during tournaments than out of them - I always play both formats at each tournament I go to, but I rarely have the opportunity to play casual melee), so I'm glad I wasn't too wrong.

Have the new rules fixed the “deal making outside the table” thing that was pretty much making a joke of the format?

If they have - i would be willing to give the format another chance competitively - kingmaking At the table and diplomacy will always be factors and are part of the appeal for me. But the idea of the more populous metas getting together to arrange their "team" placing well and targeting other threat players or people without as many "teammates" was a huge turnoff and detracted from the feel of a serious competitive format.

I am hoping they got this fixed because the most fun i have ever had with Thrones was in multiplayer matches.

We shall see. It'll be hard to really test out the new code of conduct with so few Regionals offering a melee tournament, but I have high hopes for Days of Ice and Fire and would love to find out more about that Melee this weekend. If only it didn't overlap with Tulsa's regional here. It just made so much more fiscal sense to come to the one a couple hours away instead of driving way up there.

Stag Lord said:

D:

Tournament Doc:

"By entering an A Game of Thrones organized play event, you attest that you are and will be competing as an individual. You attest that you will do your utmost to show respect to fellow competitors, tourney officials, and Fantasy Flight Games, by observing and honoring both the letter and the spirit of the rules. You acknowledge that you are here to compete with likeminded individuals, and that everyone is here to have an enjoyable gaming experience. You understand that competing in A Game of Thrones organized play is a privilege and not a right, and that the breaking of this Code of Conduct is cause for Fantasy Flight Games to suspend or even permanently revoke this privilege.

Collusion
Collusion refers to any attempt by two or more players to act as partners or teammates sharing a common hidden or premeditated strategy for a match or tournament, with the intent of gaining competitive advantage for one or more of the cheating party. Collusion does not refer to temporary, tactical agreements that are made between players who are legitimately competing for themselves (i.e., not working as partners), in response to natural developments that arise during the course of a game. Categorical methods of collusion include (but are not limited to) the following:

Soft Play refers to behavior by which one partner either takes an action in a situation that would not normally warrant it, or fails to take an action in a
situation that would normally warrant it, with the primary intent of helping the other partner.

Throwing a Game refers to behavior by which one partner deliberately loses to another partner, or allows a partner to move up in rank or score before closing out a game.

Information Sharing refers to the communication of exclusive information between partners during a game with the intent of gaining a competitive
advantage. This can refer to behavior that is taking place secretly within a game via gestures, codes, or signals exchanged with a partner at the table, or to information being received from a partner who is observing the match.

Bribery and Coercion refers to any attempt by a player to use external threats, or promises of compensation, incentive, or service, in an attempt to
manipulate the outcome of a game or tournament.

Bullying refers to any situation in which partners have identified a player and are competing with the artificial goal of minimizing that player’s results and/ or tournament experience.

Team Play refers to the act of entering and/or approaching an event as a team or block of players, with the intent to manipulate the field so as to gain
advantage against players who are competing as individuals. The team uses one another’s deck selections to inform or dictate their own deck
selections, which are intended to be made as individuals. Such an approach may be accompanied by an implicit agreement to not fully compete with
one another, or to allow identified members (such as the strongest players on the team, or the members of the team who are ranked highest in the competition) of the group to advance any time another member of the team is encountered in the tournament.

This is turning into an interesting topic. I'll say I'm sorry now in case anyone felt like I'm attacking their skill since that is not my intention.

Again, I'll say I enjoy casual games once in a while of Melee but this struck me as odd:

Honestly, that sounds to me a lot like 4 Melee newbies sitting down at a table, not a high-level competition. Good Melee decks are able to withstand a pretty hefty amount of punishment, and have plenty of tricks to make sure their board presence doesn't get steamrolled. Repeatable saves, challenge control and an even and complete icon distribution are just that important in Melee.

I'd agree since I consider myself a noob at this game, but….every table I sat at had 1 former Melee or Joust champ. I can't speak for me, but they were not newbies. In fact, I went out of my way to just observe the flow of the game rather than just win. I was trying to understand the hype and it played out as I stated. I also tried to sabotage their chances since I viewed them as a threat to my victory. Neither of us won that table.

Because for every one who bothers to fight, there are ~20 Joust-only players who fancy themselves "Jaime" and try to insult Melee whenever possible. Sacred cow? More like pet punching-bag.

Like I said before, Melee is fun. Melee is more random. More randomness added to this game makes for more luck. If you try to take out some of that element you have collusion. I don't know why so many folks get mad when we point this out. You mention Euro board games, but AGOT already has the random ccg element of your random draw vs 1 opponent. Add 2 more guys to that seems to add more luck to me. Maybe I'm wrong.

Let's take a game that most can agree is perfect (community behavior aside) representation of card game skill: Magic. There are many ways to prove your skill (draft, standard, extended etc). Different formats, different card pools, still 1v1. I'm not arguing that Melee takes no skill. What I am saying is that some folks feel that it isn't perhaps the best representation of pure card game skill since their are elements beside the draw and a player's skill that can determine an outcome. And if you feel like that other stuff I mentioned doesn't happen, I am really amazed. Maybe its just better in Europe and the states is just lagging behind. I wish that were true.

You don't need to agree, but I just wish that we didn't combine them. Obviously, people like both formats and Melee should get a fair shake as much as Joust. I just don't like how we are forced to play both to be called a champion. Yes, I know we are talking about semantics.

The games, like Chess and Poker, are honestly so different that it's comparing apples to oranges. So, if a person wants to say that one requires more skill than another, it's their job to first explain how the apple actually looks a lot like an orange in this light, and that both are pretty spherical and grow on a tree.

I also have to disagree with your apples and oranges statement a bit. Yes, mind set when meta gaming or deckbuilding is different but it is the same game. AGOT has the same base rules when you draft, play classic , standard or melee. The difference with Melee is:

king-making situations sometimes do arise, and such cases do need a bit of character from the player who falls into that situation

Before I address this I'll say this community is great and has very mature, fun and intelligent people. How could anyone who has played this game for any amount of time expect in a situation (using myself for example) that I'd pick someone other than my friend to win if the situation did arise. If only 1st place games counted (like how Joust has 1 winner) then I could at least say you're always playing to win; rather than I'm playing to not lose.

This format is evolving (good) has been a joke in the states for 2 years (bad) and is moving to become better. I've already stated before why I suggest not combining the two for a regional event, and it doesn't need to be rehashed.

New tourney rules are a good step, but frankly either too heavy handed or nearly impossible to enforce. Take last year for example , it was clear these guys were playing to win but just excluded the 4th person to make it a 3 person game. In my mind (I wasn't there) what were they supposed to do? Let him back in? These things are more common than you may think, at least in my experience.

I hope that Europe's great AGOT scene continues and you have fun in Melee. I also wish that for the states. Me? I'll be playing Netrunner on Friday

"You mention Euro board games, but AGOT already has the random ccg element of your random draw vs 1 opponent. Add 2 more guys to that seems to add more luck to me. Maybe I'm wrong."

That depends. Do you view plays that you did not anticipate flummoxing your plans as luck or skill? If it is skill then having two more players doing the same is also skill, the fact that the more people there are in a game the harder it is to rely purely on your cards to get you out of bad positions and instead the more you have to rely on strategy to do it is not about luck. It is about skill, but one which does not come to the forefront as strongly in head to head play.

50 different cards in play with three other opponents and there varying intellects and personalities creates a lot for a single player to track. The best players in melee are those who can do just that. They track the board and the players various strengths and weaknesses and use their cards when possible to push or pull the game to suit them. They are also abundantly aware that each other person at the table may have a card that could defeat their goals and wreck their plans, so they use their ability to form alliances or at least sow dissension between players to encourage or discourage use of certain effects or plays that would negatively impact them.

The biggest difference between an excellent melee player and an excellent joust player is that the joust player will usually try to win as fast as possible before the opponent can interfere, or remove every possible choice from their opponent to actively affect the game board, while the excellent melee player is trying to manipulate the other players or the board itself to do his work for him, allowing him to save his cards for those pushes when diplomacy fails.

Penfold said:

smartest thing you've said.

dcdennis said:

Very insightful, and I will reiterate that Melee isnt for the scrubs like me.

I disagree how you put Joust games in the box of win quick, or win later. Isnt that all games?

Melee just takes into account that you will get beat down if you go too fast. Patience is the hallmark of all formats.

You state a Melee player has to more to focus on, but isnt it also true they have less pressure some turns than others?

The ebb and flow of Melee dictate that some players are bigger targets than others at a given time, right?

In Joust it is a case of you're winning or you're not. No deals, no king making, meta mate buddies just win or go home. I would also argue that there is a bigger premium on correctly predicting the meta and using secret tech to win.

Maybe its just me, but 99 percent of the community seems more interested in Joust reports, decklists and even FFG has Joust finals on the web, so do a slew of other sites and metas. Melee is lacking in that regard. We can agree on that right?

Lets assume that both formats are equal skill in

deckbuilding and playing. So why does it seem that the competitive community as a whole (even hardcore Melee folks) seem to prefer following the evolution of Joust?

Is it maybe possible that its tougher to succeed in Joust with consistency? Is it more fun to watch? Is is a representation that the competitive community prefers Joust?

Love to hear your thoughts.

Sorry about the formatting nightmare, mobile post: I'll copy it so it's a little easier to digest:

Very insightful, and I will reiterate that Melee isnt for the scrubs like me. I disagree how you put Joust games in the box of win quick, or win later. Isnt that all games?

Melee just takes into account that you will get beat down if you go too fast. Patience is the hallmark of all formats. You state a Melee player has to more to focus on, but isnt it also true they have less pressure some turns than others? The ebb and flow of Melee dictate that some players are bigger targets than others at a given time, right?

In Joust it is a case of you're winning or you're not. No deals, no king making, meta mate buddies just win or go home. I would also argue that there is a bigger premium on correctly predicting the meta and using secret tech to win.

Maybe its just me, but 99 percent of the community seems more interested in Joust reports, decklists and even FFG has Joust finals on the web, so do a slew of other sites and metas. Melee is lacking in that regard. We can agree on that right?

Lets assume that both formats are equal skill in deckbuilding and playing. So why does it seem that the competitive community as a whole (even hardcore Melee folks) seem to prefer following the evolution of Joust? Is it maybe possible that its tougher to succeed in Joust with consistency? Is it more fun to watch? Is is a representation that the competitive community prefers Joust?

Love to hear your thoughts.

ccgtrader99 said:

Honestly, without having been there, it's impossible to say. Theoretically this could arise from anything from the game being very different in Metas, to the way we read the flow of the game… All I can say is that our mileage definitely varies.

ccgtrader99 said:

Well, not exactly. Even having the exact same building blocks doesn't make two things the same, go ask graphite and diamond about this.

And there are a whole lot of both new rules (title-related stuff, like "how do Varys and Crown Regent interact?") and interactions (think Dragonbone Bow and jumping as a third player into any challenge) in Melee, that are completely missing in Joust. When every single card in the game has to be re-evalued between the two formats, that really makes me think they are different games, played with the same cards. Pretty similar to how Blackjack and Poker are not the same game, but both have an Ace of Spades.

ccgtrader99 said:

If I get stuck into a purely obvious and binary Kingmaker situation I flip a coin. Literally. At least it's fair on all the participants, and stops me from being biased.

If it's not as obvious, then I choose the player I have a better theoretical chance of interrupting from winning if they make a mistake (often leading to me stopping the immediate winner from winning, and hoping that the one who this benefits misses something). Of course this is a judgement call, but that's what games are based on.

ccgtrader99 said:

I think the oddest thing with the new rules is that… they are being dismissed as being too ' heavy handed ' or ' impossible to enforce ', without them actually being tried anywhere (at least in the US) yet.

Now to me, that sounds a whole lot like prejudice towards the format.

It's not like people are going " Joust judges now suddenly have the explicit power to remove people from Tourneys, and there's even a strict code on shuffling / selectively missing passives / scouting opponents! This is un-enforcable and too heavy-handed! Joust Judges can no longer participate in Tourneys if it's like this!"

Will be interesting to see how the rules actually unfold in use. We'll be having the Finnish Regionals in a little over a week, with what looks to be around a ~16 player field for Joust and Melee (based on current signups, both events separate and on different days, but additionally calculating an Overall). Like the way you describe wanting to find out how a thing works (regarding competitive Melee), I tend to favor first-hand experience on these things over hype. Pre-judgements made mainly on theory just lead to stuff like TLS getting restricted.