So, I was doing what I do best (being VERY lazy) when Rivera messages me and tells me he has a spot in his lineup that he needs to fill. Basically, any monkey with a typewriter would have worked but since I’ve indeed managed to not hurt myself while getting dressed in the morning for some amount of consecutive mornings, I get to be YOUR monkey with a typewriter. Not exactly something I’d jot down on the resume, but whatever works, right?

I just so happen to have a hot button topic I feel strongly about and if you are reading this, I also happen to have an audience. What can I say? Sometimes you run good.

How good are you at this game? I’m pretty lucky that I have enough people that I can compare myself to and find a good idea of where my “power level” as a player is at. As it turns out, I’m not the worst but I’ve still got some hurdles to clear. Sounds like work and I’m avoiding that like the plague at the moment. Also, being pretty arrogant, I just assume I’m better than my opponent until they push my teeth in. Maybe not the best of approaches in building friendships, but….if you’ve ever seen me, I’m not too big on the caring about appearances, so no surprises. Respect is something that you get some amount of as a person, but if you want respect as a player, that must be earned.

Everyone plays for their own reasons. Some play for the social atmosphere, some love to pull off some crazy 9 card combo that doesn’t even win the game (hi Shaner!), some would rather fill their Friday Nights/Weekends with gamers and cardboard (no accounting for taste, I guess). I personally have a rather convoluted mental process that loops back on itself and feeds itself. I play for respect.

I am an unabashed attention whore and if that spotlight is not filled with the Big Dog, I’m going to find a way to put myself there (I knew I wrote articles for a reason!).  Doing this constructively is what the key is. It isn’t enough for me to want to be there, or by being there period, I need an audience to want me to be there. How do I do that? I earn it. I play to win and show that I can perform in the spotlight. I write articles extolling my virtues (Did I mention I’m only 220 lbs?). I swallow my pride and do my best but not in a way that negatively impacts the community.

In the immortal words of one of my heroes, “The point is, Ladies and Gentlemen, that Greed, for lack of a better word, is Good.” I use my goals for positive things and to enact positive change in my playing community. I make sure that I learn every bit I can from every win and every loss, because every percentage point matters to win the most games I can and get that respect. I cultivate new players and help them with decks because I need them to keep playing to accomplish my goals and I want them to get better so I can learn from them as they improve themselves.

Which brings me to the most elusive thing you can ever find in any discussion I ever have: my point. Ratings which clarify playskill are a force for good. They give you hard data and a clearly defined rate of progress, which if you are seeking to become better at this game, is indispensable. In my opinion, it’s hard to take an organized play program seriously if players aren’t given some kind of backdrop to measure their skill versus. Other players are the mirrors in which you can see yourself truly reflected in all of your flaws (which you can then work on fixing) and all of your glory (you can’t play this game by yourself).

When you play in a tournament, why are you there? If you don’t care who wins, then why not just play pickup games with your friends at the kitchen table round robin. Why have different prizes for higher placement? In life, not all things are equal nor should they be. You should be rewarded for putting time and energy into improving your game. Ratings for players, finding out if you are truly doing well and where you rank in that ladder are a tool for unparalleled comparison. I go to big tournaments because I think I can win and because I want to a way to measure my skill, but also because I want to play versus the best in the world.

Cryptozoic has stated that they believe that their Honor system is an adequate way to measure this. I respectfully disagree. The way it is set up does not accurately show where you rank in your state/province/country/world. Win percentage is a fantastic piece of data but if you are the best player in your playgroup, but still significantly behind the world average, then that data is misleading at best. A system that changes depending on the skill of your opponents is necessary for that to be an accurate comparison of yourself to the world. If the statement “Honesty is the best policy” can be widely acknowledged to be accurate, then more correct data can only be the best policy.

During a recent thread, some points were made arguing for no rating system. I’d like to dispute one in particular. The statement that a rating system fosters poor behavior or discourages less able players is frustrating. As a group, I would like to imagine that we can agree that everyone should, at least, be responsible for themselves. The law of probability does exist, even when it feels like it doesn’t. An ELO system is not optimal given the variance involved in card gaming, but with enough points of data, they will give you an accurate assessment of your position. Ratings don’t make bad people; bad people make bad people. If people are responsible for their actions, then providing data that they may or may not want to hear is not the cause of any sort of negative behavior.

A point that was brought up and is very valid, however, is a situation that can frequently occur in other card games where you can qualify for top end tournaments via rating. In other card games, it is possible to be above the cutoff to qualify for one of those tournaments and it would become a better decision to refrain from playing to maintain that status until after the tournament in question. This can very simply be solved with a threshold system, where if you pass a certain rating threshold in a 1 year/6 month timeframe, you lock in your qualification.

The name of this website is “Daily Metagame.” Wikipedia defines a metagame thusly:

Metagaming is a broad term usually used to define any strategy, action or method used in a game which transcends a prescribed ruleset, uses external factors to affect the game, or goes beyond the supposed limits or environment set by the game. Another definition refers to the game universe outside of the game itself.

It’s basically like Inception. It’s the game within the game within the game. The core game is the actual physical game you are playing. The interior metagame is your deck choice and card choices. The exterior metagame is you reading articles and finding your spot on a ratings ladder and how you best want to move within that exterior metagame.

In the end, Ratings are like most things in life. You get out what you put in. It is only more data for you to use in whatever manner you can. It isn’t evil and it isn’t good, it’s just information. And I feel that more information is almost always better. Given Cryptozoic’s stance of great communication with its player base, withholding this information, which other game companies provide, removes an exciting metagame for those that care about ratings and an important tool for those interested in becoming more skilled.

The truth is never a bad thing. How you react to the truth is your choice. I’d much rather be told that I am nowhere as good as I thought than labor under the impression that I was the best if I was not. I can only correct my actions insofar as I know what needs correcting.

And on a more personal note, the Other Kevin Lambert in Washington doesn’t appear to be playing anymore, so it would be nice to finally be able to point out that I am indeed the Best Kevin Lambert currently playing WoWTCG. (What can i say? I’m pretty greedy).

Thanks for reading everyone.