Game as defined by the dictionary brings two things to the table. An activity providing entertainment or amusement, a pastime. AND A competitive activity or sport in which players contend with each other accord to a set of rules. I think everyone needs to carefully read those two. Because people are on both sides of that line. There are the competitive people, and there are the people playing for fun. I'm not going to say the competitive people don't have fun, because if anyone doesn't have fun, it stops being a game, and hopefully, that person would take a step back and take a break untill the game becomes fun again. Whichever side of the line you're on you need to make a choice. Competitive people play to win, they enjoy the game because of the challenge presented to them in overcoming an opponent through strategy and superior play. Fun people play for entertainment. They play to have fun while partaking in an activity that they enjoy. Every person, is a little bit of both. It just boils down to what percentage of each they are, and everyone is different. No one style is "superior" or "preferred" because the game encourages BOTH styles. So now we must examine where a complain would stem from. I see two possible areas, a person playing mostly for "fun" who loses an unfair matchup to the competitive person and thus does not enjoy the game, AND a person playing competitively who because of the push of "fun" being put on them, tries out more creative teams, and loses, and thus does not enjoy themselves because their main drive is to win or at least be very competitive. The only way to fix both of these problems would be to institute a type of system, where as the "fun" and "competitive" players could know which events are which, but then you would create a system where the player base is divided, as there are alot that can do both styles, but some who don't like one side or the other. And in this game, we do not wish to keep the player base per event as large as possible, instead of trying to limit the player base. It comes down to, trying to force people to play styles they are not comfortable with, such as making a "fun" player make a competitive army, or a "competitve" player making a fun army. Scenarios and special build rules are then introduced to the system to attempt to balance the gap between the two. These help, and are a good middle ground, but cannot solve the problem entirely. But I still believe the best solution to have these two meet is a scenario, which can be experimented with and eventually you can arrive at a few scenarios which are excellent at their assigned task, to even the playing field and introduce more fun to the environment by changing the rules slightly. Another complaint recieved commonly in the clix world is about "strategy" such as turtling and hooker bombs and other various plans. The dictionary define strategy as "an elaborate and systematic plan of action". Applied to gaming this would mean, what you are going to do to try to win. There is no superior or approved strategies. It's what you do to win. Every strategy has a counter strategy, plain and simple. No matter how somone plays, there is another way to play, to mess up their strategy. Alot of people do not realize these counter-strategies, or have not learned these with time, or taken the time to develop them, but there are ways to beat anything. Certain people play very similar strategies every time they field a team, and some people do not enjoy them. Even though all they would need to do is figure out a way to beat it, they take the easy way out, and complain about the person's strategy. This takes us back to the two types of players, the fun and the competitive. There are a few strategies the fun group has labeled as "cheese", or not much fun to play against. But rest assured, every single form of cheese is beatable. If you use wildcarders and make your entire team stealth in an all DC environment it is sometimes considered cheese, but in an all Indy environment, it is not. Simply because of figure availability, but in that instance you are taking a common occurance in one that is fine with most players, and making it something bad in a different occurance. That is wrong. It should not matter what a person is playing or how they are playing it, if you are playing the game to be competitive, you will become a better player for playing something difficult, and if you are playing for fun, you should be able to ignore the competitive people and take a loss because you are after all, playing for fun. Now if you are playing for fun and EVERYONE else is playing a competitive team, then it is time to reassess you're venue (if you have that option) or reassess you're playing style. But even a fun player, when presented with enough time, can modify his playing style and team building enough to be competitive with what he considers a fun team, and find a happy middle ground. In closing, my point is this, people are different, and no matter how nice it would be if they were all the same, it will not happen. People play for different reasons, and we all need to learn to deal with that, and adapt. Instead of complaining about something, we should try speaking with the person who is the source of the frustration and seeing if we can work something out between all of us. The clix community is a very good one, and if we work to keep it strong, it will be for years to come, but if we do not take the time to change a little bit ourselves, and communicate with each other directly, it might turn into smaller groups of players, or fall apart entirely, as people go to find a new game to play.