| Poll |
| What say ye? |
| I play for fun |
|
39% |
[ 126 ] |
| I play to win |
|
20% |
[ 65 ] |
| To me, Winning = Fun |
|
28% |
[ 92 ] |
| Plorg is on my blacklist |
|
7% |
[ 23 ] |
| None of the above (explain) |
|
4% |
[ 15 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 321 |
|
JanMattys
Joined: Feb 29, 2004
|
 Posted:
Jul 11, 2008 - 10:27 |
 
|
| pac wrote: | | JanMattys wrote: | | What if there ISN'T a valid counter to a cheap tactic? |
Then the game is not a very good one and you should find something better to do with your time. 
(Which is always the ultimate counter.  ) |
The thing is that I hate the moral highground of the article.
I imagine the guy zerging me to hell.
I imagine me telling him that I have no fun zerging back, and that Starcraft without the 1.08 patch which fixes zerging is lame and I'm not gonna play it.
I imagine the guy calling me a scrub and a loser and writing that article with me in mind.
This pisses me off. Mainly because I'm sure he's so self-confident he will never even suspect I might have reasons just as good as his... |
_________________
 |
|
pac
Joined: Oct 03, 2005
|
| Posted:
Jul 11, 2008 - 10:30 |
|
| rumpage wrote: | | I stopped reading somewhere into Street fighter. Because hell, who the hell makes a throw 5 times in a row? It spoils the fun! |
Isn't the question you're looking for - who lets themselves be thrown five times in a row? |
|
|
Epic_DT
Joined: Mar 25, 2008
|
| Posted:
Jul 11, 2008 - 10:30 |
|
It makes me remember the time I was playing Tekken with my friends, and when they agreed together not to perform some moves more than 2 times per match, because they thought there were just "too" good (I think about Law and Lei lowkicks, don't know the exact term, but in french you call that "balayette" ).
That was stupid : OK, this move is actually good, because it's very fast, difficult to anticipate and makes you fall if you're hit. But it wasn't unbalanced, it was possible, with some skills, to dodge it, or even counter it. As far as there is one or more decent tactics to cope with a move, a team, a race, whatever.. I'm ok with that
(Playing Eddie and frenetically pushing O and X was unbalanced though  ). |
|
|
Manbush
Joined: Nov 08, 2005
|
| Posted:
Jul 11, 2008 - 10:31 |
|
I say the ultimate unbeatable move was the elbow in the Double Dragon arcade game. And anyone who knows what I'm talking about is over 30 years old |
_________________
Happy is the person who can laugh at himself. He will never cease to be amused
I put the liquor in the same bottle his and mine, and mine was at the bottom, and, sure, I was obliged to drink his to get at mine |
|
pac
Joined: Oct 03, 2005
|
| Posted:
Jul 11, 2008 - 10:41 |
|
| JanMattys wrote: | The thing is that I hate the moral highground of the article.
I imagine the guy zerging me to hell.
I imagine me telling him that I have no fun zerging back, and that Starcraft without the 1.08 patch which fixes zerging is lame and I'm not gonna play it.
I imagine the guy calling me a scrub and a loser and writing that article with me in mind.
This pisses me off. Mainly because I'm sure he's so self-confident he will never even suspect I might have reasons just as good as his... |
I think you have to remember that this article is an extract from a much longer piece whose overarching theme appears to be: how to play to win. The argument is deliberately harsh in an effort to get everyone to wonder if they're a 'scrub' and get them to re-examine their own mindset.
That a game is 'balanced' is an assumption that the whole argument rests on, so to talk about situations where one isn't doesn't address the thrust of the argument, in my opinion.
Yes, a player playing (unpatched) Starcraft according to the modus operandi described would zerg rush if that's what would win. However, there is nothing to say that such a player wouldn't decide that such a boring winning move made the game uninteresting and would do something else. In addition, once the game is patched, a player following this mode would be quick to learn new strategies, and would not be hanging around sulking that zerg rushes were never broken and shouldn't have been 'nerfed'.
There's no context to your Starcraft example. If he was a friend and you'd agreed to have a nice game and build cool stuff - and he just used Zergs - you'd have a point. If he was a random guy who you were playing on-line in a competitive situation, then you don't have any business complaining, imo. If a game is 'broken', don't play it competitively.
Manbush: Yes, I remember the Double Dragon elbow! And I'm not even 30.  |
|
|
orangetruck
Joined: Aug 30, 2007
|
| Posted:
Jul 11, 2008 - 10:49 |
|
The vote for winning = fun seems most popular (42% of first 33 votes).
My problem with that choice is that it suggests that those people do not have fun unless they win.
For me, I want to play so as to have fun whether I win or lose. |
|
|
JanMattys
Joined: Feb 29, 2004
|
| Posted:
Jul 11, 2008 - 10:52 |
|
I voted "none of the above".
For me it's the sum fun + win that matters. If I'm not having fun, I'll make damn sure that at least I take away the big prize. If I'm having a blast of a game, I don't care the result. I enjoy the experience in itself.
The higher the fun + win sum, the better. |
_________________
|
|
DukeTyrion
Joined: Feb 18, 2004
|
| Posted:
Jul 11, 2008 - 11:02 |
|
It is an interesting article, but it does not take into account that a player might have self imposed rules, without forcing them on the opponent.
I for instance do not use Dirty Players. I do not complain when my opponent fouls, I do not refrain from playing Dirty Players, but I have my own 'image of strategy' which I use to win games.
Some coaches do get fixed into a certain way of playing, but the ultimate gamer will be able to change their game in any situation they are both extreems on the scale, everyone is in the middle to a degree.
I do wonder how certain coaches will cope when LRB 5.0 for instance hits, when DP and Claw/RSC are not the devices they once were. Some will be able to convert into a new set of tactics, others will say the game was nerfed to the point it is no longer fun.
I think a gamer should be open to view all variations of a game, but that does not mean he has to force himself down a path he does not want to follow.
Sometimes when I play poker, I call to see the flop, where I should fold, to be more involved in the game. This certainly reduce my chances of winning, but I am fully aware of what I am doing and why. I will not complain if my opponent constantly folds.
I guess what I am saying is, there is a difference between accepting all the rules, but choosing a certain strategy regardless, to 'scrubs' as it were, who outlaw those rules in their own mind purely because they cannot counter them. |
|
|
Wraith
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Jul 11, 2008 - 11:55 |
|
I play for the challenge and for the fun. If any game gets reduced to it's lowest common denominator, for the sole reason of winning, it loses the fun factor (winning isn't fun for me, it's just the icing on the cake). I'd rather lose a close game, than win a blow-out, every time. The question I pose is... does the particular game even matter to these types of players or is it merely the thrill of the win?
Competition is about challenge, so I do understand what he's trying to say in the article. The trick is to play in your own league of "skill"... if you want to use "cheap" (or effective) tactics, play against like-minded people... this applies vice versa as well. I impose restrictions on my play, because I see certain things as imbalanced or fun-slaying. I try and play within the spirit of the game, so yes I foul and crowd surf opponent players, but not to the point of exploiting game mechanics to do so (I.E. reducing the game to the least common denominator, a mathematical equation).
Not saying that there's anything wrong with "playing to win", it's just not my thing. |
_________________
Insanity, is merely the lack of fear... to act on your deepest, darkest thoughts. |
|
pac
Joined: Oct 03, 2005
|
| Posted:
Jul 11, 2008 - 12:01 |
|
| Wraith wrote: | | I try and play within the spirit of the game, so yes I foul and crowd surf opponent players, but not to the point of exploiting game mechanics to do so (I.E. reducing the game to the least common denominator, a mathematical equation). |
How does using everything that the game gives you in order to win reduce it to the lowest common denominator?
On the contrary, it is those who restrict themselves from certain elements of the game (for whatever reason) who are reducing it.
Not that such restrictions/reductions are necessarily a bad thing - but they shouldn't be painted as something they're not. |
|
|
JanMattys
Joined: Feb 29, 2004
|
| Posted:
Jul 11, 2008 - 12:04 |
|
Ok, let's talk about bb.
Pac, do you find 11 Block Claw RSC beastmen an interesting roster to play against? (or with, it doesn't really matter). |
_________________
|
|
koadah
Joined: Mar 30, 2005
|
| Posted:
Jul 11, 2008 - 12:12 |
|
I voted none of the above as there is no option for 'playing to win AND have fun'.
Maybe winning is fun but fun covers much more than winning.
A certain coach keeps telling me that that elves should take dodge first. My argument against it is that I don't think that I would enjoy building a dodge first team.
I might win 5 or 10% more games but what is the point if I am not doing what I want to do.
I might stand a better chance in some tournaments if I coached dwarves. Am I a scrub because I don't want to coach dwarves?
It's not as if we're getting paid to win. If it is not fun to play why play?
From a Fumbbl point of view I will play differently at different times and in different divisions. A [R] tournament is different to [R] open or an [L] league or an [A] game. Even in [A] I still play to win the game I just use a lightweight team and don't stall/foul so much.
I always play to win but sometimes other goals have a higher priority, |
_________________
[SL] + Official Stunty teams. Progression KO. Old & new teams welcome. 29th May! |
|
koadah
Joined: Mar 30, 2005
|
| Posted:
Jul 11, 2008 - 12:15 |
|
| JanMattys wrote: | Ok, let's talk about bb.
Pac, do you find 11 Block Claw RSC beastmen an interesting roster to play against? (or with, it doesn't really matter). |
Interesting and fun are not always the same.
That is the kind of team my kids make in the editor. I'll give all my flings DP too.
It sure is fun |
_________________
[SL] + Official Stunty teams. Progression KO. Old & new teams welcome. 29th May! |
|
Wraith
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Jul 11, 2008 - 12:37 |
|
| pac wrote: | | Wraith wrote: | | I try and play within the spirit of the game, so yes I foul and crowd surf opponent players, but not to the point of exploiting game mechanics to do so (I.E. reducing the game to the least common denominator, a mathematical equation). |
How does using everything that the game gives you in order to win reduce it to the lowest common denominator?
On the contrary, it is those who restrict themselves from certain elements of the game (for whatever reason) who are reducing it.
Not that such restrictions/reductions are necessarily a bad thing - but they shouldn't be painted as something they're not. |
I use every element in the game, just not to the point of abuse, simply because it gives me the highest probability to win. Turning everything in the game into a mathematical equation is reductionist... certain skills will never be selected (barring no other options), because they don't help a team win (as much as other skills).
The rules aren't perfectly balanced (better than many games, but far from flawless) and luck plays a large part in BB, that's a fact. We can argue to the end of time about this topic, but the truth of the matter is that we just have a different perspective...
I'm not painting anything, anyway... it's just how you perceive it. I didn't say that I will never use certain tactics (which would reduce elements of the game), just that I choose not to "abuse" certain tactics for the mere sake of winning. I don't consider math fun, nor is winning everything. I want to have a good time with my entertainment, that for me, is playing BB (within the spirit of the game... aka having a good time). It's not my place to try and prevent others from doing the same, which might be math and winning, that's why people should play against like minded players.
The writer of the article is ignorant IMHO, because he wants to call people who don't play "his way" scrubs. |
_________________
Insanity, is merely the lack of fear... to act on your deepest, darkest thoughts. |
|
DragonsMaw
Joined: Oct 08, 2005
|
| Posted:
Jul 11, 2008 - 12:41 |
|
I appreciate this article. And I thank whoever it was that posted it (can't remember and am too lazy to look) for doing so. It made me learn a few things...
1. I am a scrub. Fighting games, blood bowl, all that. I have limited myself, in my own mind, from tactics and ideas that could allow me to win these games.
2. I don't care. Ultimately, gaming should come down to enjoyment. Alot of the things that make me a scrub are derived from my fun first, win later mindset.
I made a few choices, and descisions based on this, some of them have been working through my mind for quite awhile, based on fumbbl, and the influence this community has had on me. Being a scrub is fine. I am, I know it, and now I have a less deragotory name for myself than 'loser'. The issue with scrubs is when they bring down the quality of a group, by NOT realizing it. For example, I used to be, and I know still am to a lesser extent, a very poor sport when I feel an opponent is taking the game to extremes. For example, the 16 fouls per game players, or the guys who spend 3 turns setting up a surf on your star player when they're already up by 3 with 4 turns left in the game. But I took it to the extreme myself, and refused to use tactics that mirrored that, even to a lesser extent. I didn't foul, I refused to use Slayers because I saw them as nothing but surf machines, and I was generally a butt to anyone who disagreed.
But in some of my leagues, I've found a happy medium. The point of the game is to have fun, as far as I'm concerned, but winning certainly adds to it. It comes down to what Wraith said in my mind. Reducing a game to its pure mathematical elements kind of kills it for me. Obviously, this only applies to a game like BB... You look at a fighting game, and thats a totally different type of skill, one I've never had, and one that I find at times to be nearly incomprable to a board game. I dunno, I guess I've shared my 2 cents. |
_________________
I've lost myself and gone to find me, if I get back before I get here, please ask me to wait. |
|
|
|
| |
Fumbbl and Android
Search
