Playing to win

[BHack]

http://www.sirlin.net/Features/featu...ToWinPart1.htm

This was posted on totalbf2.com and I'd thought I'd post it here. It's an interesting read.

Obviously this is on the opposite side of the spectrum that TG plays on.

Discuss, scrubs.

[Wyzcrak]

So hollow.

Play to play. If that, to you, is the same as "playing to win," then more power to you.

But don't play to win at the cost of playing to play.

[TG_JBRanger]

AMEN Borther Wyzcrak! Preach on!

[BHack]

I hope that comment isn't directed at me...

I have no affiliation to that article, nor do I endorse it in any way. I do, however, find it an interesting read, and thought TG would like discussing it.

[Wyzcrak]

It is directed at you.

And by that, I do mean... no, of course it isn't directed at you.

[Steeler]

Originally Posted by Wyzcrak

It is directed at you.

And by that, I do mean... no, of course it isn't directed at you.

Show me "wax on, wax off" Daniel-san.

[icky]

I play to make other people happy. I know how troubling it is to play without easy targets, so I strive to fill that void for the players on the other team. I try to make it interesting, so that they will feel good about themselves when they kill me, but ultimately I am just handing out easy kills.

Now if everyone would just reciprocate, *I* would have lots more fun.

[James315]

I don't understand the distinction made by the author. He concedes that there are some extra rules that can be added to a game, like not taking advantage of bugs that stop gameplay or using characters that are way too powerful. Suppose someone added a rule like "no throwing." Would people who play to win under the new framework still be considered scrubs? Where do you draw the line?

At TG we play to win, but with some extra rules that other servers don't have (no bunnyhopping, etc.). I guess you could make the argument that the Gentleman's Contract falls under the category of scrubbishness because they're rules that not everyone has to play by. But suppose the Gentleman's Contract rules were codified under the Official TG Rules. Isn't the difference between someone who plays scrubbishly and someone who plays competitively dependent on the official status of the rule, not the mindset of the player?

[Wyzcrak]

It all comes down to:

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

You see this in NS, where the community is small enough that competitive players often play with casual "pubnubs." One crowd is "playing to win," while the other crowd is "playing to play," and plenty in between. Different places consider different things legitimate. Different places allow different behaviors.

Most tell you that whatever needs they have are more important than any other needs the next might have. If you want drama, there's plenty to be had there.

But if you really just want to enjoy yourself, then you quietly find somewhere to play that supports and promotes what you prefer, regardless of who else thinks it's better (that's us). If you can't find that "somewhere," you create it (that's Apophis).

TG is many folks' "somewhere." It seems better to us, but one could also argue that it's nothing more than what we "prefer," merely "different" than those "somewheres" we prefer to avoid.

[James315]

Originally Posted by Wyzcrak

But if you really just want to enjoy yourself, then you quietly find somewhere to play that supports and promotes what you prefer, regardless of who else thinks it's better (that's us). If you can't find that "somewhere," you create it (that's Apophis).

TG is many folks' "somewhere." It seems better to us, but one could also argue that it's nothing more than what we "prefer," merely "different" than those "somewheres" we prefer to avoid.

I think a post like this is best made from a laptop while sitting on the peak of a mountain, with ambient music playing softly in the background.

[Wulfyn]

The author is of course, talking crap. So much crap it had me in stitches. He assumes that in order to out do a cheap move you have to better it with a cheap move. He assumes that in order to improve yourself as a player you have to take advantage of any little rule in order to give yourself a small percentage chance of winning, and it is through the discovery of these rules that you go on to improve yourself.

But is that true?

Ok, so we all know that ping is important in an FPS game. If we are firing 20 bullets a second at each other, and we need 10 hits to kill, then assuming that all hit is comes down to who fires first. Well I live about 5000 miles further away from the servers than most of you guys reading this, which means that with equal reactions I'm about 2 bullets behind at that rate. Does my starting with that deficit make me better or worse? How does it affect my improvement.

I think it makes me better. I know I cannot afford to just rely upon reactions and aim to win the game, I have to look for other methods of improvement in order to win. So I adjust my tactics, I look to gain initiative, use my squad mates, and apply all of the other resources that I see around me. I learn to cope with the deficit that has been put in front of me becuase it is an obstacle I need to face. Of course if I play on a UK server i get all of this that I have learnt, and now the penalty is removed.


The author also makes a critical mistake that it takes cheap moves to win a game. He was very focused in his examples being from the beat'em'up genre, something I know little of, so won't comment or criticise him in this respect. But when he talks about the need to exploit a game in order to have a higher understanding or to develop game theory out of something... well with all respect he's talking out of his arse.

Take bunny hopping as a well accredited bug that is seen as cheap. So I am defending this objective, and along comes a group of people from another flag that are bunny hopping, crack jumping, and dolphin diving their way across the screen. Here they come. No point shooting at them of course as their hit boxes are moving way to fast, especially with my crappy ping. Covering the ground they approach the flag. We're calm tho. Because 5 seconds ago I just asked the CO for some air support, and on my mini-map I can see a cobra inbound.

That's the strength of BF2 at TG, and one of the reasons I feel that BF2 is one of the best games ever made. Sure it may have a few bugs and issues, but it is one of the best games made that supports teamplay at an integral level of the design. I don't need to utilise any of those cheap tricks, because although it might improve my personal abaility to win a 1 on 1 fight, overall that means nothing. The way to win in BF2 is to have your squad have your back. to support them as they support you. To work as a free flowing team hell bent on using the best strategies and tactics possible in order to overcome any obstacle at hand.

And ultimately working together towards a common cause is fun.

[SgtHoman]

Originally Posted by Wulfyn

That's the strength of BF2 at TG, and one of the reasons I feel that BF2 is one of the best games ever made. Sure it may have a few bugs and issues, but it is one of the best games made that supports teamplay at an integral level of the design. I don't need to utilise any of those cheap tricks, because although it might improve my personal abaility to win a 1 on 1 fight, overall that means nothing. The way to win in BF2 is to have your squad have your back. to support them as they support you. To work as a free flowing team hell bent on using the best strategies and tactics possible in order to overcome any obstacle at hand.

And ultimately working together towards a common cause is fun.

This, I think, is where his argument falls apart. The fight in BF2 does not involve how good I am at the game. If I am the best bf2 player ever, but my team is not working together, or very good, then in the end I will lose- no matter how great my kill/death ratio is. Teamwork is essential, and the cheap tactics employed by some people are not enough to take out a well-coordinated team. I don't care how much you bhop, you will not survive a cobra attack, or well placed artillery.

Also, the author is mostly talking about fighting games, which I happen to know something about, at least in regards to Jedi Knight II and Jedi Academy. Those games are all about light saber combat, and duels can become very, very competetive. Now, I would agree with him that people start off as scrubs, but i hate that word so I'll say newbs, because it's nicer and more universal. After a bit of playtime in teh multiplayer world, with the new player getting his butt handed to him, he becomes better, and learns from his mistakes. He knows what to do, what works. Then, he moves to the "this move is awesome" phase. This is the middle ground for most players in the fighter world, and I think the original poster is at the higher end of this spectrum. At this point, players find one move that works very, very well. Then, commence the spamming. They time it, they use it, they perfect this one move or two that they can use to defeat a goodly amount of their opponents. People call them cheap and spammers (and rightly so), but they just assume these people suck, and don't listen. The original poster simply knows lots and lots of "Awesome" moves, so he can counter and counter-counter these moves. But they're still just easy to pull off moves that are meant to be abused.

However, this is not the top tier of players. I think that a good player, either by meeting a player past this point or simply improving by himself, moves past this point. In Jedi Knight II and Academy, if you played enough you could spot these people and dispatch them easily. They, in fact, become easier to kill than the new player, who will react to situations with no set pattern because they have no idea what is going on. Maybe it was the feel of being a Jedi in that game that made winning with skill and not the "win in whatever way you can" not only appreciated but expected.

In the end, making rules in your mind, or trying to go with the spirit of the game isn't bad at all. I think it's fun, to be sure. Honor isn't a bad thing. Good Sportsmanship isn't a bad thing. This is the same way of thinking that every villain posits. Because the hero has a set of rules (right and wrong, compassion, honor, whatever), the villain can do things not that the hero can't do, but what he won't do. People like the author would say that that is weak.

I say it is strength.

-Homan

[Bommando]

Originally Posted by SgtHoman

The villain can do things not that the hero can't do, but what he won't do. People like the author would say that that is weak.

I say it is strength.

Bingo. Much rep to you.

[jepzilla]

Originally Posted by SgtHoman

Also, the author is mostly talking about fighting games, which I happen to know something about, at least in regards to Jedi Knight II and Jedi Academy. Those games are all about light saber combat, and duels can become very, very competetive. Now, I would agree with him that people start off as scrubs, but i hate that word so I'll say newbs, because it's nicer and more universal. After a bit of playtime in teh multiplayer world, with the new player getting his butt handed to him, he becomes better, and learns from his mistakes. He knows what to do, what works. Then, he moves to the "this move is awesome" phase. This is the middle ground for most players in the fighter world, and I think the original poster is at the higher end of this spectrum. At this point, players find one move that works very, very well. Then, commence the spamming. They time it, they use it, they perfect this one move or two that they can use to defeat a goodly amount of their opponents. People call them cheap and spammers (and rightly so), but they just assume these people suck, and don't listen. The original poster simply knows lots and lots of "Awesome" moves, so he can counter and counter-counter these moves. But they're still just easy to pull off moves that are meant to be abused.

However, this is not the top tier of players. I think that a good player, either by meeting a player past this point or simply improving by himself, moves past this point. In Jedi Knight II and Academy, if you played enough you could spot these people and dispatch them easily. They, in fact, become easier to kill than the new player, who will react to situations with no set pattern because they have no idea what is going on. Maybe it was the feel of being a Jedi in that game that made winning with skill and not the "win in whatever way you can" not only appreciated but expected.

JK2 is a good example of a game that if you don't play 'fair' gets pretty boring. There is an almost judo-like technique in the game where if you let your opponent attack you, you can get an almost gauranteed kill. It's extremely effective. And when everybody knows and uses it, it makes the game extremely boring. Every player stands around trying to trick the other person into making an attack and nothing happens. That's 'playing to win'. But it's not very fun.

The author concedes at the end that there are certain rules needed to keep the game fun (no crashing, no using extremely overpowered characters, etc...). He contradicts his own absolutist position.

[Dave-o]

Originally Posted by icky

I know how troubling it is to play without easy targets, so I strive to fill that void for the players on the other team.

heh, me too.

Everybody thinks my name is Mark. It's not. It's Dave. I only go by EasyMark because EasyTarget, RunningTarget and MovingTarget were all taken in all the variations I could think of

It's true. I play pretty exclusively on TG, and my kill:death ratio is something like 1/3.

I play for the excitement. I play for the firefights and the desperate feeling you get when that tank's rolling in on you and you have nothing to do but dive for cover and pray that there's an AT, a friendly tank or a friendly chopper nearby to take it out, and the triumphant feeling when you blow your C4 and the enemy tank goes up, or when you're riding in the tail end of a Humvee and you roll into an enemy flag, dismounting and sweeping the area before putting bodies on the flag in a well-coordinated attack.

This is fun. It's the only place where I can get into the excitement of a firefight or something similar without the danger of dying.