| 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 |
|
pac
Joined: Oct 03, 2005
|
 Posted:
Jul 11, 2008 - 13:03 |
 
|
| 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). |
I've never seen one, so that's a hypothetical question to me. 
Anyway, this is certainly a case where the counter-move(s) is/are obvious: how will those Beastmen handle mass Guard and/or mass Dodge? Claw/RSC is no use if you can never knock the opponent down or get a two dice block. |
|
|
Leniyuhl
Joined: Sep 25, 2005
|
| Posted:
Jul 11, 2008 - 13:04 |
|
In my opinion the article has merit. A common thing that most people seem to assume however is that everyone else is bound by their rules or that their own rules are more "real". This article helps shine a light on that. Playing to win is not the purpose of a competative game however. Purpose is brought to the game by the players. For a scrub the purpose is not to win and for a competative player it is.
As long as you understand what your goal in the game is and that your opponent isnt necessarily sharing that goal you will have a lot more fun. |
|
|
pac
Joined: Oct 03, 2005
|
| Posted:
Jul 11, 2008 - 13:18 |
|
| Wraith wrote: | | 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). |
Can you define this 'point of abuse'?
It seems like you just mean 'the things I would never do but my opponents (sometimes) do'.
Why do you get to define it? What happens if someone else considers the 'point of abuse' to start somewhere else?
After how many blocks does blocking become abusive? 10? 30? 100?
| Quote: | | 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. |
What you have to remember is that it was people who were prepared to try any approach in order to win who invented and developed all the techniques which make the game interesting.
Caging? First deployed by someone trying to win. Without that we'd all be running our ball-carriers into the middle of nowhere and crossing our fingers. Would that be more fun?
Chainpushing (and all the many purposes it can be put to). Crowdpushing techniques. Block maximisation. Yes, even maximising your foul assists! And the counters to all these. All these techniques were developed by people who were trying to win, and they are what makes the game a deep and fascinating thing.
Blood Bowl, just by its nature, is an entertaining game regardless of the skill level of those involved. Watching two beginners play each other can be fun. But watching two expert coaches who know how to deploy every technique in the game is a far deeper experience. Sure, you can play the game by just throwing the dice, as you can play a fighting game by just bashing the buttons, but there's a whole world more to it out there, you know.
| Quote: | | The writer of the article is ignorant IMHO, because he wants to call people who don't play "his way" scrubs. |
That's just part of the rhetoric of his argument. You have to bear in mind that this is just an extract from a much longer piece which has a particular aim (to help people who want to get into the winning mindset). (And, frankly, someone who turns up at a competitive tournament and then whines about the opposition being 'cheap' and 'unskilled' deserves his contempt.)
From the start of his argument:
| Quote: | | Imagine a majestic mountain nirvana of gaming. At its peak are fulfillment, “fun,” and even transcendence. Most people could care less about this mountain peak because they have other life issues that are more important to them, and other peaks to pursue. There are a few, though, who are not at this peak, but who would be very happy there. These are the people I’m talking to with this book. |
So, if some kind of variation on this (silly) definition doesn't fit you then, really, you don't need to get too upset by what he has to say. 
He goes on:
| Quote: | | Some of them don’t need any help; they’re on the journey. Most, though, only believe they are on that journey but actually are not. They got stuck in a chasm at the mountain’s base, a land of scrubdom. Here they are imprisoned in their own mental constructs of made-up game rules. If they could only cross this chasm, they would discover either a very boring plateau (for a degenerate game) or the heavenly enchanted mountain peak (for a “deep” game). |
This illustrates what I was talking about to Jan: yes, if you apply the tools he's talking about, a 'broken' (degenerate) game is revealed for what it is with all its flaws. However, it is also the only way to open up a game and discover how good it can really be. And again, it must be stressed that - thanks to the fact that one player can learn from another - those who experiment to find better ways of winning develop techniques that anyone can employ and enjoy whether they are obsessed with winning or not.
Further:
| Quote: | | A lot of people get rubbed the wrong way by this stuff because they think I want to apply “playing to win” to everyone. I don’t. It’s not that I think everyone should be on this particular peak or that everyone would even want to be. There are other peaks in life, probably better ones. But those who are stuck in the chasm really should know their positions and how to reach a happier place. |
So, on the whole there's no call to be insulted.  |
|
|
pac
Joined: Oct 03, 2005
|
| Posted:
Jul 11, 2008 - 13:41 |
|
Incidentally, further reading reveals that Plorg has been dishonest with us, since BB is not the type of game the author intended to cover at all:
| Quote: | | I recommend a game that allows all players to start with equal materials and advantages. For example, a fighting game allows players to start with different characters, but all players are free to choose any character they like before the match begins. Magic: The Gathering is a card game that allows players to bring different decks to a tournament, but assuming all players have equal access to all cards beforehand (which you must assume at the tournament level of play), then anyone could have brought any deck. But games based on “leveling up” a character such as many massively multiplayer games allow one player to have material advantage at the beginning of a “match” merely because he put in more time than the other player. Seek out games that do not artificially stack the deck, but instead reward only the player-skill that one takes into a game. |
(Although this doesn't mean that it has no bearing on it.) |
|
|
Purplegoo
Joined: Mar 23, 2006
|
| Posted:
Jul 11, 2008 - 13:47 |
|
Yes - I went on to read further too. The point about Akuma in tournaments I found to be a little applicable to FUMBBL as a site. However, the between-the-lines respect he seemed to have for the Japanese seemed at odds with his overall tone.
I think the initial post refers best to FUMBBL when taken in the context of on-field activity. There, I think it's about right. But spreading it to something like FUMBBL in a wider sense - it's too neat, too black and white. We're a glorious grey mush. 
When you apply the theory to a sporting contest, or any game where player a) has exactly the same chance of winning as player b), seems spot on to me, if a little snooty. Although I guess that tone inspires debate! |
Last edited by Purplegoo on %b %11, %2008 - %13:%Jul; edited 1 time in total |
|
pac
Joined: Oct 03, 2005
|
| Posted:
Jul 11, 2008 - 13:55 |
|
Another relevant quote:
| Quote: | “This game is dumb / too random / too boring.”
In all fairness, sometimes the game is dumb or too random or too boring. In that case, you should stop playing it altogether and find something better to do with your time. But these claims are often made against perfectly good games. For the “dumb” game, there might be another level of understanding above your own that makes the game brilliant.
The “too random” game is a bit trickier. On the one hand, the more random a game is, the worse it probably is for serious competitive play. But randomness can add “fun” to a game. Usually, though, there is only one meaningful way to answer this complaint: examine whether the same players can consistently win at it. One could make a strong argument that the card game Magic: The Gathering is “too random,” yet the same players are able to win national and international tournaments over and over. Kai Budde, the best player in the world as of this writing, routinely shows up to tournaments with the exact same deck as his teammates—yet Kai wins. Apparently the game isn’t “too random.” |
Also: What Should Be Banned? |
|
|
SillySod
Joined: Oct 10, 2006
|
| Posted:
Jul 11, 2008 - 14:44 |
|
None of the above.... I vote for fun and since that wasnt an option I've now blacklisted Plorg. |
_________________
Putting the "eh?" back into Sexeh.
"There are those to whom knowledge is a shield. There are those to whom it is a weapon. Neither view is balanced." |
|
hotspurstu
Joined: Feb 14, 2007
|
| Posted:
Jul 11, 2008 - 14:59 |
|
While I get the point the guy is trying to make. I do think he has some issues that he needs to contend with.
It could be argued that it's possible to walk around in the real world being an overbearing, aggressive, bully and finding that many people cave in to it. This means that you get what you want a lot of the time and that the people that let you get your own way do so because they're soft. While getting your own way might be nice for you, it doesn't mean you're not a crass, retarded, tw@. The people that allow them to get away with it probably just don't want the hassle of constantly having to stand up to and fight against these morons. Personally I think mankind has evolved from that typical caveman style attitude, to become something better.
I do think there are many things in life that you should fight for and defend to the hilt. But you can't be like it with everything that seems wrong or unjust. I certainly don't think a game of street fighter would fall into that category for me.
An example from my own life might be football (soccer). I played it ever since I was 5 years old. I've never been paid to do it and never came close to that possibility. There are things I don't like about the game as it's changed. There are even things I don't like about my chosen club and the way they are run. But ahead of all that is my love of the game which I developed by actually playing it. To me, it always has been and will be, more fun to take part in, than to watch or follow. I know others who love football as much as me, who are less skilled than myself. When we used to play fun, friendly games as kids the better players would often make an effort to incorporate the less good ones into the game, rather than just bypass them. This was because we were friends and the better ones knew the less good ones still loved the game. This may not be optimum to win the said game. Maybe we should have shown them the harsh reality that they were rubbish at it and we were better. But would we really be showing our own love for the game? Or just massaging our own fragile egos.
Personally I hate bullies, unnecessarily rude people and bad winners. I can get bad losers, to a point, so long as they don't take it too far. This might make me a 'scrub' in that guys eyes. But I would assert that I am not a 'scrub'. Because a 'scrub' is something made up by a bad sport and a guy who's clearly a complete numpty. |
_________________
"When I die, I want to go peacefully in my sleep, like my Grandfather did. -- not screaming, like the passengers in his car" |
|
pac
Joined: Oct 03, 2005
|
| Posted:
Jul 11, 2008 - 15:03 |
|
| hotspurstu wrote: | While I get the point the guy is trying to make. I do think he has some issues that he needs to contend with.
It could be argued that it's possible to walk around in the real world being an overbearing, aggressive, bully and finding that many people cave in to it. This means that you get what you want a lot of the time and that the people that let you get your own way do so because they're soft. While getting your own way might be nice for you, it doesn't mean you're not a crass, retarded, tw@. The people that allow them to get away with it probably just don't want the hassle of constantly having to stand up to and fight against these morons. Personally I think mankind has evolved from that typical caveman style attitude, to become something better. |
Again, you need to bear in mind that in the top post you are just reading one extract. Elsewhere, he draws a clear distinction between in-game and out-of-game behaviour, and indeed recommends being friendly to opponents (outside the game) as being more beneficial than trying to intimidate them.
These people you hate do exist - but I don't think, if you read more, you would necessarily conclude that this guy was one of them.
(BTW, I do think that Plorg has deliberately selected and posted the most provocative, jolt-you-out-of-your-comfort-zone extract from the text. ) |
|
|
JanMattys
Joined: Feb 29, 2004
|
| Posted:
Jul 11, 2008 - 15:15 |
|
Seriously, though... do we really need to be educated by such a guy? (read the Street Fighter description).
I mean, to me that's the antithesis of "gaming". It's the kind of guy who would sit with a cold beer in one hand for the whole 4 mins of his turn in a BB game while watching you sweating your ass off, just because he knows you have no beer and the hot is driving you crazy... So he waits till 3:59 to move the turn counter throughout the game just to have an advantage over you.
If you're really THAT competitive, stop playing games at a pro level, and dedicate yourself to REAL pro sports... you might become rich, that way...  |
_________________
 |
|
pac
Joined: Oct 03, 2005
|
| Posted:
Jul 11, 2008 - 15:26 |
|
| JanMattys wrote: | | Seriously, though... do we really need to be educated by such a guy? (read the Street Fighter description). |
Er, Jan, did you even read to the last paragraph yourself?
| Quote: | | The lesson to learn from my play style is that while it can get extremely far, obsession with a single aspect of a game just can’t go all the way. Even in my most successful showings in Alpha 2, my secret was that at the highest level of play against Valle and Choi, I had to abandon my “same move over and over” tactics in favor of using my backup characters, which I played with a much more well-rounded style. After realizing the superiority of Choi’s style, I have attempted to change my focus and “use all the buttons.” |
So his point was that his approach - "doing the same move over and over again" - in the end wasn't enough. Just as waiting the full four minutes to take a turn would not be enough. (And, in my experience, playing at Woodstock speed does far more to throw off opponents than slow-play if that's your objective.)
Again, you have to remember: he's talking about competition. Not leisure (except in that for some competition may also be leisure). If you're just playing for fun, then you will obviously avoid people who play slow. But if you're playing competitively, you're going to have to deal with them. (On occasion, yes, you may even have to be one of them. ) |
|
|
Fizban
Joined: Sep 09, 2003
|
| Posted:
Jul 11, 2008 - 15:28 |
|
| DragonsMaw wrote: |
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 completely agree with you. it makes me happy when I win, but not as happy as it makes me when I have a good, fun game (independent of winner). Of course, winning a good, fun game is best.
Fiz |
|
|
JanMattys
Joined: Feb 29, 2004
|
| Posted:
Jul 11, 2008 - 15:29 |
|
My point stands.
I don't want an obsessed-with-winning guy to be my gaming mate. And sure I don't want him to be my gaming guru. Because:
1- I will not listen to him
and
2- Should I listen to him, I think I'd get less enjoyment from the single couple hours of free time I get in my life every week.
That's MY view on the matter anyway, and I thank Plorg for bringing an interesting point of view up for the discussion.
Just that.
ps: I can be definitely competitive when it matters. It's not a "learn to be rock hard, or you will fail to be tough when it matters" thing. I know I can be very hard to chew if i really care. But that's managers' talk, it's a motivation speech for white collars, and doesn't belong to my view on GAMES, something I use to keep the little boy inside myself alive. |
_________________
|
|
rumpage
Joined: Feb 06, 2008
|
| Posted:
Jul 11, 2008 - 15:36 |
|
If that guy could beat everyone at "banging head into wall" he would do it.
All this talk about Street Fighter makes me just skim trough the text though. What sane man would go on blabbering about SF all the time? |
|
|
pac
Joined: Oct 03, 2005
|
| Posted:
Jul 11, 2008 - 15:37 |
|
| JanMattys wrote: | | I can be definitely competitive when it matters. It's not a "learn to be rock hard, or you will fail to be tough when it matters". I know I can be very hard to chew if i really care. But that's managers' talk, it's a motivation speech for white collars, and doesn't belong to my view on GAMES, something I use to keep the little boy inside myself alive. |
Well, this gets to the heart of it: you're not interested (in gaming/BB terms) in competition. So he's not talking to you - and he knows that and you (since you've read elsewhere on his site) must also know that. (Nor are his points all merely empty and motivational - he addresses plenty of specific and technical gaming points.)
Given this, I find some of the comments aimed at him (more by other posters than by you) hard to understand ... |
|
|
|
|
| |
Vamps win another ma...
Search
