Yes, knowing you have to change tactics is not cheating. However going online and finding the winning strategy and the using other tools to collect what you need to pull off the strategy is cheating.
Also I just don't like when people put "meta" infront of words.
See I would think that still falls under "preparing."
Now, it may be douchebag preparing, but I can see that falling under "preparing."
Yes, knowing you have to change tactics is not cheating. However going online and finding the winning strategy and the using other tools to collect what you need to pull off the strategy is cheating.
Also I just don't like when people put "meta" infront of words.
What? No it isn't.
If I get a book written by Kasparov about how to win at Chess and then I do what his book says, that's NOT cheating. That's studying and practicing. If I watch tournament-level Starcraft matches and try to copy their moves, that's not cheating. It's studying and practicing. Shit, I guess that if I go over to Mr. Miyagi's house and learn the crane kick from him BEFORE entering the tournament, then that's "cheating" too.
I would rather lose with something interesting than win with something boring, yes.
Preach it!
That's complete bullshit.
The game becomes interesting when you start finding "unbeatable" or "broken" strategies and then play through those plateaus and OH LOOK THAT UNBEATABLE SHIT WASN'T UNBEATABLE. Once more, unless the game has very poor balance, there is no single ultimate strategy or tactic or technique. Throwing up your hands and saying "this is boring, that move is unbeatable" is being a crybaby. Don't bitch out like that, raise your game and beat that shit. You know what he's gonna do, right? So counter it! Stop him from doing it before he get it working! Turn it against him! Figure something out, instead of crying that it's "too good." Because if the game's made right, it's not too good, the problem is that you're not good enough as a player.
I don't think that's what he's saying, Defender.
I think he's saying that he'd rather have more fun trying something cool, and possibly losing, than trying something with a higher success rate that's been done to death.
Nobody said anything about unbeatable moves.
Enforced fairness has a way of feeling unfair to those who excel. If you're playing to have fun with your friends, these are all opportunities for joy. If you play videogames to express your dominion over others, they are impediments to your regime.
silly tycho that's the opposite of how competitive people work
Yes, knowing you have to change tactics is not cheating. However going online and finding the winning strategy and the using other tools to collect what you need to pull off the strategy is cheating.
Also I just don't like when people put "meta" infront of words.
What? No it isn't.
If I get a book written by Kasparov about how to win at Chess and then I do what his book says, that's NOT cheating. That's studying and practicing. If I watch tournament-level Starcraft matches and try to copy their moves, that's not cheating. It's studying and practicing. Shit, I guess that if I go over to Mr. Miyagi's house and learn the crane kick from him BEFORE entering the tournament, then that's "cheating" too.
Ok so if you did those things and you actually had some skill you may be able to hold your own. Otherwise a skilled player will just beat you everytime, simply because you don't know how to play, you only know how to copy moves. That is what seperates cheating from preparing.
Blip2004 on
0
Options
Munkus BeaverYou don't have to attend every argument you are invited to.Philosophy: Stoicism. Politics: Democratic SocialistRegistered User, ClubPAregular
The thing that really annoys me about so-called competitive play in any game is that it really limits creativity.
You can't try anything new, because you'll always lose to the guy who always uses what is most likely to win, no matter what. It really kills any aspect of fun for me.
Hear hear!
I don't understand this sentiment. Things become over-used because they are things that consistently work. You're not going to win a game of baseball by holding the bat upside-down, and you're not going to find much sympathy from people when you start crying about how your new strategies aren't working. On the flip-side, the game of football has changed a lot over the years. Strategies adapted and changed as new methods were discovered and proven successful.
I mean, essentially what I get from you two "I don't like playing against people who want to win because I lose!"
Munkus Beaver on
Humor can be dissected as a frog can, but dies in the process.
0
Options
Munkus BeaverYou don't have to attend every argument you are invited to.Philosophy: Stoicism. Politics: Democratic SocialistRegistered User, ClubPAregular
edited February 2008
and the metagame is best understood with poker
The game is playing the cards.
The metagame is playing the opponent.
Munkus Beaver on
Humor can be dissected as a frog can, but dies in the process.
I don't think that's what he's saying, Defender.
I think he's saying that he'd rather have more fun trying something cool, and possibly losing, than trying something with a higher success rate that's been done to death.
Nobody said anything about unbeatable moves.
He set up a dichotomy between doing something new and winning.
The thing that really annoys me about so-called competitive play in any game is that it really limits creativity.
You can't try anything new, because you'll always lose to the guy who always uses what is most likely to win, no matter what. It really kills any aspect of fun for me.
Hear hear!
I don't understand this sentiment. Things become over-used because they are things that consistently work. You're not going to win a game of baseball by holding the bat upside-down, and you're not going to find much sympathy from people when you start crying about how your new strategies aren't working. On the flip-side, the game of football has changed a lot over the years. Strategies adapted and changed as new methods were discovered and proven successful.
I mean, essentially what I get from you two "I don't like playing against people who want to win because I lose!"
yes, but playing with people who only want to win at the expense of everything else is not fun
in FPS they call those people Spawn Campers.
I am not a competitive person. I play games to enjoy them. Playing someone who uses the exact same character on the exact same stage with the exact same settings all the time is not enjoyable to me. For people who do not understand anything but trying to win, I do not expect this to be easy to comprehend.
I don't think that's what he's saying, Defender.
I think he's saying that he'd rather have more fun trying something cool, and possibly losing, than trying something with a higher success rate that's been done to death.
Nobody said anything about unbeatable moves.
He set up a dichotomy between doing something new and winning.
Alrighty then.
I'm going to stick by what I just said, though.
I'd rather have fun trying something new that maybe won't work, than doing the same old thing that has a much higher rate of success, but is boring as hell.
Yes, knowing you have to change tactics is not cheating. However going online and finding the winning strategy and the using other tools to collect what you need to pull off the strategy is cheating.
Also I just don't like when people put "meta" infront of words.
What? No it isn't.
If I get a book written by Kasparov about how to win at Chess and then I do what his book says, that's NOT cheating. That's studying and practicing. If I watch tournament-level Starcraft matches and try to copy their moves, that's not cheating. It's studying and practicing. Shit, I guess that if I go over to Mr. Miyagi's house and learn the crane kick from him BEFORE entering the tournament, then that's "cheating" too.
Ok so if you did those things and you actually had some skill you may be able to hold your own. Otherwise a skilled player will just beat you everytime, simply because you don't know how to play, you only know how to copy moves. That is what seperates cheating from preparing.
NOTHING IN THIS SCENARIO IS CHEATING!
Tricking the other guy into looking away from the board and then removing one of his rooks is cheating. Using steroids in baseball is cheating. Having your friend strike the opposing ice skater in the knee with a crowbar is cheating. Biting the other boxer is cheating. Studying the masters and attempting to emulate a strategy from someone who is at a higher level of skill than yourself is NOT cheating.
Enforced fairness has a way of feeling unfair to those who excel. If you're playing to have fun with your friends, these are all opportunities for joy. If you play videogames to express your dominion over others, they are impediments to your regime.
silly tycho that's the opposite of how competitive people work
I find joy in playing my best against an opponent who is of similar skill. I don't mind losing when the other player is clearly just plain better at the game. I also don't enjoy winning if the other player just plain sucks. I like games that are close, games that are hard to win, especially games that come down to the wire. Naturally, when a game comes down to the wire, it's a little disappointing to lose and it's really exciting to win, but I like playing games where my odds of winning are roughly 50/50.
Defender, I'm fairly sure all Shoe was saying is that he'd rather not win by being pigeon-holed into what has been done to death.
You may be reading too much into this.
Yeah, I know that he's saying that. And he's strongly implying that the only way to win is to use "boring" strategies that have been done to death. That's the problem; if the game is designed well, that is, has good depth and balance, then it's NOT just a boring "do the same thing the same way every time" grind. And if a game IS designed that way, then, frankly, I don't want to play it at all. That's like tic-tac-toe. That's a fucking boring game.
Defender on
0
Options
Munkus BeaverYou don't have to attend every argument you are invited to.Philosophy: Stoicism. Politics: Democratic SocialistRegistered User, ClubPAregular
Defender, I'm fairly sure all Shoe was saying is that he'd rather not win by being pigeon-holed into what has been done to death.
You may be reading too much into this.
No, I get the same thing from it. Shoe is bitching about losing to people who play to win because they use proven methods. There are two problems with this, first he's putting himself in the crowd that play to win by bitching about losing, second unexpected/new strategies do work. Shitty strategies don't.
Munkus Beaver on
Humor can be dissected as a frog can, but dies in the process.
I hate when I'm playing Rock Band and people are like "YOU GOTTA HIT GREEN AND RED HERE"
And I'm all like "FUCK YOU I WANNA HIT NOTHING BUT ORANGE AND THE WHAMMY"
Defender, I'm fairly sure all Shoe was saying is that he'd rather not win by being pigeon-holed into what has been done to death.
You may be reading too much into this.
No, I get the same thing from it. Shoe is bitching about losing to people who play to win because they use proven methods. There are two problems with this, first he's putting himself in the crowd that play to win by bitching about losing, second unexpected/new strategies do work. Shitty strategies don't.
I am not bitching about losing. I have no problem with losing, I do it all the time. What I have a problem with is people who only do the thing that's most likely to win instead of coming up with new strategies and countering them. This rarely happens. This is my problem. And it's all well and good to say the idea is to figure out how to beat what appears unbeatable, but there are limits to game balance, and what do you do when you've gotten to the point where you're up against something that is pretty much genuinely unbeatable?
The thing that really annoys me about so-called competitive play in any game is that it really limits creativity.
You can't try anything new, because you'll always lose to the guy who always uses what is most likely to win, no matter what. It really kills any aspect of fun for me.
Hear hear!
I don't understand this sentiment. Things become over-used because they are things that consistently work. You're not going to win a game of baseball by holding the bat upside-down, and you're not going to find much sympathy from people when you start crying about how your new strategies aren't working. On the flip-side, the game of football has changed a lot over the years. Strategies adapted and changed as new methods were discovered and proven successful.
I mean, essentially what I get from you two "I don't like playing against people who want to win because I lose!"
yes, but playing with people who only want to win at the expense of everything else is not fun
in FPS they call those people Spawn Campers.
I am not a competitive person. I play games to enjoy them. Playing someone who uses the exact same character on the exact same stage with the exact same settings all the time is not enjoyable to me. For people who do not understand anything but trying to win, I do not expect this to be easy to comprehend.
Spawn Camping is indicative of a flaw in the game's design, though! That's exactly the point that I'm making. And you know how to fix spawn camping? I'll give you the easiest possible solution. When a player spawns, he is invulnerable for 5 seconds. Bam. Spawn-camping is now useless. If that's not good enough, spawn him with a rocket launcher and one or two rockets that he loses after 5 seconds. Now he's invulnerable and deals massive damage for an extremely short time. Hanging around where he spawns is now a TERRIBLE idea, so nobody will do it.
And there's another false dichotomy you've set up: "I'm not competitive, I play games to enjoy them." I am competitive, and I play games to enjoy them. EVERYBODY PLAYS GAMES TO ENJOY THEM, with the possible exception of tournament professionals who play for money. And even those people almost certainly love the game, or else they probably wouldn't have worked so hard to make it their careers. Seriously, find an NBA player who grew up not enjoying basketball. Not gonna be a lot of those.
Defender on
0
Options
Mx. QuillI now prefer "Myr. Quill", actually...{They/Them}Registered Userregular
I don't think that's what he's saying, Defender.
I think he's saying that he'd rather have more fun trying something cool, and possibly losing, than trying something with a higher success rate that's been done to death.
Nobody said anything about unbeatable moves.
This.
It's the same in Pokemon; so many people use Pokemon like Tyranitar, Skarmory, and Blissey because they have crazy high stats; Tyranitar has godly Attack, Skarmory exceels at Defense, and Blissey has a literal ton of HP and Special Defense. It is cheap to use Pokemon like them since they are very hard to kill, even with the proper counter. The people over at sites like GameFAQs actually ridicule those who do not use them! They're like that little brat Gabe fought in the Tournemon, who got his ass kicked by a Rotom despite using naught but Legendaries.
That's why I prefer using stuff like Hitmontop; it is rarely used, so it has an element of surprise and is interesting to use. Hell, I've even OHKOed a Tyranitar with it once.
Mx. Quill on
0
Options
Munkus BeaverYou don't have to attend every argument you are invited to.Philosophy: Stoicism. Politics: Democratic SocialistRegistered User, ClubPAregular
Defender, I'm fairly sure all Shoe was saying is that he'd rather not win by being pigeon-holed into what has been done to death.
You may be reading too much into this.
No, I get the same thing from it. Shoe is bitching about losing to people who play to win because they use proven methods. There are two problems with this, first he's putting himself in the crowd that play to win by bitching about losing, second unexpected/new strategies do work. Shitty strategies don't.
I am not bitching about losing. I have no problem with losing, I do it all the time. What I have a problem with is people who only do the thing that's most likely to win instead of coming up with new strategies and countering them. This rarely happens. This is my problem. And it's all well and good to say the idea is to figure out how to beat what appears unbeatable, but there are limits to game balance, and what do you do when you've gotten to the point where you're up against something that is pretty much genuinely unbeatable?
The problem here is that you're flat out wrong. I'll give you a simple example. I was playing against probably the third or fourth best smash player in the state at a tourney I went to, he was a lot better than me. He beat me in the first round, so I chose Jungle Japes as the next stage to play. I then beat him by using the stage to my advantage, I stayed on the left platform and forced his character down into the water.
Shit, that's how I win most of my matches against more skilled players. I get them out of their comfort zone. And of late, there's been a newcomer to the best of the best in smash in the US. His name is Mango, and he plays Jiggs, who is pretty far from being considered 'the best' character.
Munkus Beaver on
Humor can be dissected as a frog can, but dies in the process.
I think the underlying problem with the is that: Apply the "shitty game design has shitty one win strategy" to SSBB.
I would care to guess that there are a metric fuck ton of anticipated Wii users that have nothing to do then watch the sand dribble down until SSBB is in their hands.
If as noted that the "win button" is pick shock rat, hit A a bunch of times, and win, then there is gonna be a massive collective sign of frustration.
November6 on
fucos: Past tense of focus, you have already lost focus that you can't even spell focus. Can be combined with shit for impressing anonymous crowds; fucoshit. source: Wil Weaton
0
Options
Munkus BeaverYou don't have to attend every argument you are invited to.Philosophy: Stoicism. Politics: Democratic SocialistRegistered User, ClubPAregular
I don't think that's what he's saying, Defender.
I think he's saying that he'd rather have more fun trying something cool, and possibly losing, than trying something with a higher success rate that's been done to death.
Nobody said anything about unbeatable moves.
This.
It's the same in Pokemon; so many people use Pokemon like Tyranitar, Skarmory, and Blissey because they have crazy high stats; Tyranitar has godly Attack, Skarmory exceels at Defense, and Blissey has a literal ton of HP and Special Defense. It is cheap to use Pokemon like them since they are very hard to kill, even with the proper counter. The people over at sites like GameFAQs actually ridicule those who do not use them! They're like that little brat Gabe fought in the Tournemon.
That's why I prefer using stuff like Hitmontop; it is rarely used, so it has an element of surprise and is interesting to use. Hell, I've even OHKOed a Tyranitar with it once.
This is extremely true. I see the 'unbeatable' pokes then I know what the strat is going to be, I feel fine. More often than not, if I lose it's to a guy using some poke in a way I've never seen before.
This is why people fear Jim.
Munkus Beaver on
Humor can be dissected as a frog can, but dies in the process.
I was not making the point that competitive players do not enjoy games, though it was worded that way. And you make a very good point about the spawn camping thing, but you can't fix that stuff post release in a console game.
well, a wii game, anyways.
If you're playing in a serious tournament, I have no problem with you using exploits, doing the stuff that is guaranteed to work if you do it competently, etc, you do that stuff in a serious tournament because winning actually means something.
But does it really kill you to just dick around when you're playing a friendly game, try something different for once?
Defender, I'm fairly sure all Shoe was saying is that he'd rather not win by being pigeon-holed into what has been done to death.
You may be reading too much into this.
No, I get the same thing from it. Shoe is bitching about losing to people who play to win because they use proven methods. There are two problems with this, first he's putting himself in the crowd that play to win by bitching about losing, second unexpected/new strategies do work. Shitty strategies don't.
I am not bitching about losing. I have no problem with losing, I do it all the time. What I have a problem with is people who only do the thing that's most likely to win instead of coming up with new strategies and countering them. This rarely happens. This is my problem. And it's all well and good to say the idea is to figure out how to beat what appears unbeatable, but there are limits to game balance, and what do you do when you've gotten to the point where you're up against something that is pretty much genuinely unbeatable?
I remember going over to Callius' house, and I believe you were there, and he complained that Evander used Raphael's Forward+B,B,B move (the stab-stab-stab move where he lunges forward really fast) and just won every round with it. So I spent time with him just doing that move and told him to play as Cassandra or Yun-Seong. Both characters have a bunch of sidestep-and-duck moves. We spent maybe like 15 or 20 minutes doing that. Then Evander came over and played as Raphael and Callius destroyed that shit.
So the problem here was that BOTH players were doing the same move over and over again. Evander had no reason to change; his "same boring move" kept winning. Callius needed to raise his game to counter that move. The problem for Callius was that he hadn't taken the time to look at his options, to "try something new" as you call it. So I helped him by pointing him to two possible "new things" that he could try. After that, Callius had two new characters to learn, and Evander had to abandon his "boring move that [strike]always works[/strike] doesn't work any more."
Now, I seem to recall Evander bitching out and refusing to play at that point, but that's the difference between a true competitive player, i.e. one who loves to have a good match, and a player who simply likes to win and doesn't care about actual competition.
Defender on
0
Options
Munkus BeaverYou don't have to attend every argument you are invited to.Philosophy: Stoicism. Politics: Democratic SocialistRegistered User, ClubPAregular
Defender, I'm fairly sure all Shoe was saying is that he'd rather not win by being pigeon-holed into what has been done to death.
You may be reading too much into this.
No, I get the same thing from it. Shoe is bitching about losing to people who play to win because they use proven methods. There are two problems with this, first he's putting himself in the crowd that play to win by bitching about losing, second unexpected/new strategies do work. Shitty strategies don't.
I am not bitching about losing. I have no problem with losing, I do it all the time. What I have a problem with is people who only do the thing that's most likely to win instead of coming up with new strategies and countering them. This rarely happens. This is my problem. And it's all well and good to say the idea is to figure out how to beat what appears unbeatable, but there are limits to game balance, and what do you do when you've gotten to the point where you're up against something that is pretty much genuinely unbeatable?
The problem here is that you're flat out wrong. I'll give you a simple example. I was playing against probably the third or fourth best smash player in the state at a tourney I went to, he was a lot better than me. He beat me in the first round, so I chose Jungle Japes as the next stage to play. I then beat him by using the stage to my advantage, I stayed on the left platform and forced his character down into the water.
Shit, that's how I win most of my matches against more skilled players. I get them out of their comfort zone. And of late, there's been a newcomer to the best of the best in smash in the US. His name is Mango, and he plays Jiggs, who is pretty far from being considered 'the best' character.
for every competitive player who does try new strategies, there's about a hundred who fall into the whole "no items, fox only, final destination" category
or at least, those are the only people I ever seem to play.
Kuribo's Shoe on
0
Options
Munkus BeaverYou don't have to attend every argument you are invited to.Philosophy: Stoicism. Politics: Democratic SocialistRegistered User, ClubPAregular
I don't think that's what he's saying, Defender.
I think he's saying that he'd rather have more fun trying something cool, and possibly losing, than trying something with a higher success rate that's been done to death.
Nobody said anything about unbeatable moves.
This.
It's the same in Pokemon; so many people use Pokemon like Tyranitar, Skarmory, and Blissey because they have crazy high stats; Tyranitar has godly Attack, Skarmory exceels at Defense, and Blissey has a literal ton of HP and Special Defense. It is cheap to use Pokemon like them since they are very hard to kill, even with the proper counter. The people over at sites like GameFAQs actually ridicule those who do not use them! They're like that little brat Gabe fought in the Tournemon.
That's why I prefer using stuff like Hitmontop; it is rarely used, so it has an element of surprise and is interesting to use. Hell, I've even OHKOed a Tyranitar with it once.
This is extremely true. I see the 'unbeatable' pokes then I know what the strat is going to be, I feel fine. More often than not, if I lose it's to a guy using some poke in a way I've never seen before.
This is why people fear Jim.
Yeah, this is another reason why I actually pumped Special Defense into my Scizor; people expect it to have nothing but Attack and maybe some Defense, so they hit it with something like Alakazam. Then end up with a Swords Danced Technicianed Life Orbed Quick Attack up the ass.
I was not making the point that competitive players do not enjoy games, though it was worded that way. And you make a very good point about the spawn camping thing, but you can't fix that stuff post release in a console game.
well, a wii game, anyways.
If you're playing in a serious tournament, I have no problem with you using exploits, doing the stuff that is guaranteed to work if you do it competently, etc, you do that stuff in a serious tournament because winning actually means something.
But does it really kill you to just dick around when you're playing a friendly game, try something different for once?
That's all I want to know.
Do you have to ask? I played that GC Pac-Man with you and Callius. I guess I was playing my best, though, although it's not like I was winning, since you guys knew the game and I didn't. I played Mario Party 7 on a Wii with my girlfriend and her college friend and her friend's fiancee. There's no serious competitive play in that. I mean, I did my best at the little mini-games and shit, but I didn't care who won.
And you've seen me play Soul Calibur 2 as Maxi with my goddamn eyes shut. One of you fuckers even unplugged my controller and I was sitting there going "why don't I hear any attack noises coming out of my guy?" with my eyes closed like a fucking idiot. I also figured that it would stop the game if the system noticed a controller being unplugged, because Soul Calibur 1 on the DC did that.
So you have seen me just dick around and not play super hardcore.
That said, I much prefer competitive play. I find it much more exciting, I like to get into it, and most of my friends are the same way, so we have a lot of fun just playing our best. We don't care who wins. And if one guy starts winning 75% of the matches and it gets frustrating, we will change characters or something, though that rarely ever happens, because we are all trying to win and thus we end up with similar skill levels.
Defender on
0
Options
Munkus BeaverYou don't have to attend every argument you are invited to.Philosophy: Stoicism. Politics: Democratic SocialistRegistered User, ClubPAregular
Defender, I'm fairly sure all Shoe was saying is that he'd rather not win by being pigeon-holed into what has been done to death.
You may be reading too much into this.
No, I get the same thing from it. Shoe is bitching about losing to people who play to win because they use proven methods. There are two problems with this, first he's putting himself in the crowd that play to win by bitching about losing, second unexpected/new strategies do work. Shitty strategies don't.
I am not bitching about losing. I have no problem with losing, I do it all the time. What I have a problem with is people who only do the thing that's most likely to win instead of coming up with new strategies and countering them. This rarely happens. This is my problem. And it's all well and good to say the idea is to figure out how to beat what appears unbeatable, but there are limits to game balance, and what do you do when you've gotten to the point where you're up against something that is pretty much genuinely unbeatable?
The problem here is that you're flat out wrong. I'll give you a simple example. I was playing against probably the third or fourth best smash player in the state at a tourney I went to, he was a lot better than me. He beat me in the first round, so I chose Jungle Japes as the next stage to play. I then beat him by using the stage to my advantage, I stayed on the left platform and forced his character down into the water.
Shit, that's how I win most of my matches against more skilled players. I get them out of their comfort zone. And of late, there's been a newcomer to the best of the best in smash in the US. His name is Mango, and he plays Jiggs, who is pretty far from being considered 'the best' character.
for every competitive player who does try new strategies, there's about a hundred who fall into the whole "no items, fox only, final destination" category
or at least, those are the only people I ever seem to play.
At this point, I have no idea what the fuck you even mean by 'strategies,' since you haven't given a clear-cut example of what you mean by it, other than this stereotypical 4-chan response to smash competitive play.
Munkus Beaver on
Humor can be dissected as a frog can, but dies in the process.
Defender, I'm fairly sure all Shoe was saying is that he'd rather not win by being pigeon-holed into what has been done to death.
You may be reading too much into this.
No, I get the same thing from it. Shoe is bitching about losing to people who play to win because they use proven methods. There are two problems with this, first he's putting himself in the crowd that play to win by bitching about losing, second unexpected/new strategies do work. Shitty strategies don't.
I am not bitching about losing. I have no problem with losing, I do it all the time. What I have a problem with is people who only do the thing that's most likely to win instead of coming up with new strategies and countering them. This rarely happens. This is my problem. And it's all well and good to say the idea is to figure out how to beat what appears unbeatable, but there are limits to game balance, and what do you do when you've gotten to the point where you're up against something that is pretty much genuinely unbeatable?
I remember going over to Callius' house, and I believe you were there, and he complained that Evander used Raphael's Forward+B,B,B move (the stab-stab-stab move where he lunges forward really fast) and just won every round with it. So I spent time with him just doing that move and told him to play as Cassandra or Yun-Seong. Both characters have a bunch of sidestep-and-duck moves. We spent maybe like 15 or 20 minutes doing that. Then Evander came over and played as Raphael and Callius destroyed that shit.
So the problem here was that BOTH players were doing the same move over and over again. Evander had no reason to change; his "same boring move" kept winning. Callius needed to raise his game to counter that move. The problem for Callius was that he hadn't taken the time to look at his options, to "try something new" as you call it. So I helped him by pointing him to two possible "new things" that he could try. After that, Callius had two new characters to learn, and Evander had to abandon his "boring move that [strike]always works[/strike] doesn't work any more."
Now, I seem to recall Evander bitching out and refusing to play at that point, but that's the difference between a true competitive player, i.e. one who loves to have a good match, and a player who simply likes to win and doesn't care about actual competition.
it's the second thing there that I have a problem with, defender
and I suppose it's less common in smash than I thought, but there are plenty of examples of this kind of thing in other games, where the ways to win have been written in stone, and anything new or different is immediately laughed out of the room.
Defender, I'm fairly sure all Shoe was saying is that he'd rather not win by being pigeon-holed into what has been done to death.
You may be reading too much into this.
No, I get the same thing from it. Shoe is bitching about losing to people who play to win because they use proven methods. There are two problems with this, first he's putting himself in the crowd that play to win by bitching about losing, second unexpected/new strategies do work. Shitty strategies don't.
I am not bitching about losing. I have no problem with losing, I do it all the time. What I have a problem with is people who only do the thing that's most likely to win instead of coming up with new strategies and countering them. This rarely happens. This is my problem. And it's all well and good to say the idea is to figure out how to beat what appears unbeatable, but there are limits to game balance, and what do you do when you've gotten to the point where you're up against something that is pretty much genuinely unbeatable?
The problem here is that you're flat out wrong. I'll give you a simple example. I was playing against probably the third or fourth best smash player in the state at a tourney I went to, he was a lot better than me. He beat me in the first round, so I chose Jungle Japes as the next stage to play. I then beat him by using the stage to my advantage, I stayed on the left platform and forced his character down into the water.
Shit, that's how I win most of my matches against more skilled players. I get them out of their comfort zone. And of late, there's been a newcomer to the best of the best in smash in the US. His name is Mango, and he plays Jiggs, who is pretty far from being considered 'the best' character.
for every competitive player who does try new strategies, there's about a hundred who fall into the whole "no items, fox only, final destination" category
or at least, those are the only people I ever seem to play.
But since you never play competitively and never try to raise your game, you do not give them any reason to change up their moves. Why should they change up their moves if what they're already doing works? That's basically saying that they should lose on purpose.
Defender, I'm fairly sure all Shoe was saying is that he'd rather not win by being pigeon-holed into what has been done to death.
You may be reading too much into this.
No, I get the same thing from it. Shoe is bitching about losing to people who play to win because they use proven methods. There are two problems with this, first he's putting himself in the crowd that play to win by bitching about losing, second unexpected/new strategies do work. Shitty strategies don't.
I am not bitching about losing. I have no problem with losing, I do it all the time. What I have a problem with is people who only do the thing that's most likely to win instead of coming up with new strategies and countering them. This rarely happens. This is my problem. And it's all well and good to say the idea is to figure out how to beat what appears unbeatable, but there are limits to game balance, and what do you do when you've gotten to the point where you're up against something that is pretty much genuinely unbeatable?
I remember going over to Callius' house, and I believe you were there, and he complained that Evander used Raphael's Forward+B,B,B move (the stab-stab-stab move where he lunges forward really fast) and just won every round with it. So I spent time with him just doing that move and told him to play as Cassandra or Yun-Seong. Both characters have a bunch of sidestep-and-duck moves. We spent maybe like 15 or 20 minutes doing that. Then Evander came over and played as Raphael and Callius destroyed that shit.
So the problem here was that BOTH players were doing the same move over and over again. Evander had no reason to change; his "same boring move" kept winning. Callius needed to raise his game to counter that move. The problem for Callius was that he hadn't taken the time to look at his options, to "try something new" as you call it. So I helped him by pointing him to two possible "new things" that he could try. After that, Callius had two new characters to learn, and Evander had to abandon his "boring move that [strike]always works[/strike] doesn't work any more."
Now, I seem to recall Evander bitching out and refusing to play at that point, but that's the difference between a true competitive player, i.e. one who loves to have a good match, and a player who simply likes to win and doesn't care about actual competition.
it's the second thing there that I have a problem with, defender
and I suppose it's less common in smash than I thought, but there are plenty of examples of this kind of thing in other games, where the ways to win have been written in stone, and anything new or different is immediately laughed out of the room.
I once played literally hundreds of 2v2 games in Warcraft 3: TFT using "mass moonwells" as my strategy. I played with RedTide and Musashi, and each of those teams (me + RedTide, me + Musashi) had a win rate of slightly over 50%. For those who don't know, basically the strategy is to build no army and no defenses, just three heroes and a lot of moonwells. Once the momentum gets going, it's incredibly hard to break.
People often attempted to laugh me out of the room, called me a noob for not having an army, and more often than not, those players got STOMPED by my army-less ass.
Defender, I'm fairly sure all Shoe was saying is that he'd rather not win by being pigeon-holed into what has been done to death.
You may be reading too much into this.
No, I get the same thing from it. Shoe is bitching about losing to people who play to win because they use proven methods. There are two problems with this, first he's putting himself in the crowd that play to win by bitching about losing, second unexpected/new strategies do work. Shitty strategies don't.
I am not bitching about losing. I have no problem with losing, I do it all the time. What I have a problem with is people who only do the thing that's most likely to win instead of coming up with new strategies and countering them. This rarely happens. This is my problem. And it's all well and good to say the idea is to figure out how to beat what appears unbeatable, but there are limits to game balance, and what do you do when you've gotten to the point where you're up against something that is pretty much genuinely unbeatable?
The problem here is that you're flat out wrong. I'll give you a simple example. I was playing against probably the third or fourth best smash player in the state at a tourney I went to, he was a lot better than me. He beat me in the first round, so I chose Jungle Japes as the next stage to play. I then beat him by using the stage to my advantage, I stayed on the left platform and forced his character down into the water.
Shit, that's how I win most of my matches against more skilled players. I get them out of their comfort zone. And of late, there's been a newcomer to the best of the best in smash in the US. His name is Mango, and he plays Jiggs, who is pretty far from being considered 'the best' character.
for every competitive player who does try new strategies, there's about a hundred who fall into the whole "no items, fox only, final destination" category
or at least, those are the only people I ever seem to play.
But since you never play competitively and never try to raise your game, you do not give them any reason to change up their moves. Why should they change up their moves if what they're already doing works? That's basically saying that they should lose on purpose.
the problem is, anything I have been competitive in in the past, I have tried to find ways to counter the tried-and-true stuff. It's very difficult. Especially in something like a card game where the best cards are very rare and expensive. I suppose that could be a sign I'm just not very good, though.
Man I don't get why you guys are having such a hard time getting what shoe is saying.
He's not talking about being good, being competitive, he's talking about being a dickhead.
I know what he's talking about because I used to do that shit.
I used to play SFII with my friends in middle school and it didn't matter what character I chose or they chose; I could beat any of them in seconds, with a perfect virtually every time. Obviously I was far better at the game than any of them, but it wasn't a matter of them getting better because I didn't let them. I didn't even give them a chance to move, I would just destroy them seconds into each match. If they practiced on their own, they might improve somewhat, but when they'd go back up against me it was the same thing. But usually they didn't even practice on their own because I made them hate the game so much they didn't want to.
At the time I'm sure I had something I was trying to prove; but looking back it was just stupid. They weren't having fun because they literally weren't able to play, and I wasn't having fun because I might as well have been playing nobody.
It's not a matter of "changing things up" or "getting better"; it's a matter of playing against someone who is so focused on winning they won't even let you play. There's always going to be someone who is going to air juggle you in KI right off the bat and you might as well put the controller down and walk away because you'll have no chance of using it. There is something like this in most games. The person who wins isn't "cheating" or "exploiting", they're playing the game with the mechanics of the game; but certain ways of playing completely prohibit competition or improvement.
And in these situation it's a lose lose. I'm sure there are people out there with such fragile psyches that they need these "wins" to satisfy some malfunction in their brain, but fuck them.
Though, on the other hand; there's always that random game like SCII or Guilty Gear, where somehow in the mechanics of the game someone who just slams the buttons can inadvertently counter a skilled player and win. This isn't the norm though.
Posts
Preach it!
See I would think that still falls under "preparing."
Now, it may be douchebag preparing, but I can see that falling under "preparing."
What? No it isn't.
If I get a book written by Kasparov about how to win at Chess and then I do what his book says, that's NOT cheating. That's studying and practicing. If I watch tournament-level Starcraft matches and try to copy their moves, that's not cheating. It's studying and practicing. Shit, I guess that if I go over to Mr. Miyagi's house and learn the crane kick from him BEFORE entering the tournament, then that's "cheating" too.
That's complete bullshit.
The game becomes interesting when you start finding "unbeatable" or "broken" strategies and then play through those plateaus and OH LOOK THAT UNBEATABLE SHIT WASN'T UNBEATABLE. Once more, unless the game has very poor balance, there is no single ultimate strategy or tactic or technique. Throwing up your hands and saying "this is boring, that move is unbeatable" is being a crybaby. Don't bitch out like that, raise your game and beat that shit. You know what he's gonna do, right? So counter it! Stop him from doing it before he get it working! Turn it against him! Figure something out, instead of crying that it's "too good." Because if the game's made right, it's not too good, the problem is that you're not good enough as a player.
I think he's saying that he'd rather have more fun trying something cool, and possibly losing, than trying something with a higher success rate that's been done to death.
Nobody said anything about unbeatable moves.
This is pretty funny to me.
silly tycho that's the opposite of how competitive people work
Ok so if you did those things and you actually had some skill you may be able to hold your own. Otherwise a skilled player will just beat you everytime, simply because you don't know how to play, you only know how to copy moves. That is what seperates cheating from preparing.
I don't understand this sentiment. Things become over-used because they are things that consistently work. You're not going to win a game of baseball by holding the bat upside-down, and you're not going to find much sympathy from people when you start crying about how your new strategies aren't working. On the flip-side, the game of football has changed a lot over the years. Strategies adapted and changed as new methods were discovered and proven successful.
I mean, essentially what I get from you two "I don't like playing against people who want to win because I lose!"
The game is playing the cards.
The metagame is playing the opponent.
He set up a dichotomy between doing something new and winning.
yes, but playing with people who only want to win at the expense of everything else is not fun
in FPS they call those people Spawn Campers.
I am not a competitive person. I play games to enjoy them. Playing someone who uses the exact same character on the exact same stage with the exact same settings all the time is not enjoyable to me. For people who do not understand anything but trying to win, I do not expect this to be easy to comprehend.
Alrighty then.
I'm going to stick by what I just said, though.
I'd rather have fun trying something new that maybe won't work, than doing the same old thing that has a much higher rate of success, but is boring as hell.
NOTHING IN THIS SCENARIO IS CHEATING!
Tricking the other guy into looking away from the board and then removing one of his rooks is cheating. Using steroids in baseball is cheating. Having your friend strike the opposing ice skater in the knee with a crowbar is cheating. Biting the other boxer is cheating. Studying the masters and attempting to emulate a strategy from someone who is at a higher level of skill than yourself is NOT cheating.
You may be reading too much into this.
I find joy in playing my best against an opponent who is of similar skill. I don't mind losing when the other player is clearly just plain better at the game. I also don't enjoy winning if the other player just plain sucks. I like games that are close, games that are hard to win, especially games that come down to the wire. Naturally, when a game comes down to the wire, it's a little disappointing to lose and it's really exciting to win, but I like playing games where my odds of winning are roughly 50/50.
Yeah, I know that he's saying that. And he's strongly implying that the only way to win is to use "boring" strategies that have been done to death. That's the problem; if the game is designed well, that is, has good depth and balance, then it's NOT just a boring "do the same thing the same way every time" grind. And if a game IS designed that way, then, frankly, I don't want to play it at all. That's like tic-tac-toe. That's a fucking boring game.
No, I get the same thing from it. Shoe is bitching about losing to people who play to win because they use proven methods. There are two problems with this, first he's putting himself in the crowd that play to win by bitching about losing, second unexpected/new strategies do work. Shitty strategies don't.
And I'm all like "FUCK YOU I WANNA HIT NOTHING BUT ORANGE AND THE WHAMMY"
I am not bitching about losing. I have no problem with losing, I do it all the time. What I have a problem with is people who only do the thing that's most likely to win instead of coming up with new strategies and countering them. This rarely happens. This is my problem. And it's all well and good to say the idea is to figure out how to beat what appears unbeatable, but there are limits to game balance, and what do you do when you've gotten to the point where you're up against something that is pretty much genuinely unbeatable?
Spawn Camping is indicative of a flaw in the game's design, though! That's exactly the point that I'm making. And you know how to fix spawn camping? I'll give you the easiest possible solution. When a player spawns, he is invulnerable for 5 seconds. Bam. Spawn-camping is now useless. If that's not good enough, spawn him with a rocket launcher and one or two rockets that he loses after 5 seconds. Now he's invulnerable and deals massive damage for an extremely short time. Hanging around where he spawns is now a TERRIBLE idea, so nobody will do it.
And there's another false dichotomy you've set up: "I'm not competitive, I play games to enjoy them." I am competitive, and I play games to enjoy them. EVERYBODY PLAYS GAMES TO ENJOY THEM, with the possible exception of tournament professionals who play for money. And even those people almost certainly love the game, or else they probably wouldn't have worked so hard to make it their careers. Seriously, find an NBA player who grew up not enjoying basketball. Not gonna be a lot of those.
This.
It's the same in Pokemon; so many people use Pokemon like Tyranitar, Skarmory, and Blissey because they have crazy high stats; Tyranitar has godly Attack, Skarmory exceels at Defense, and Blissey has a literal ton of HP and Special Defense. It is cheap to use Pokemon like them since they are very hard to kill, even with the proper counter. The people over at sites like GameFAQs actually ridicule those who do not use them! They're like that little brat Gabe fought in the Tournemon, who got his ass kicked by a Rotom despite using naught but Legendaries.
That's why I prefer using stuff like Hitmontop; it is rarely used, so it has an element of surprise and is interesting to use. Hell, I've even OHKOed a Tyranitar with it once.
The problem here is that you're flat out wrong. I'll give you a simple example. I was playing against probably the third or fourth best smash player in the state at a tourney I went to, he was a lot better than me. He beat me in the first round, so I chose Jungle Japes as the next stage to play. I then beat him by using the stage to my advantage, I stayed on the left platform and forced his character down into the water.
Shit, that's how I win most of my matches against more skilled players. I get them out of their comfort zone. And of late, there's been a newcomer to the best of the best in smash in the US. His name is Mango, and he plays Jiggs, who is pretty far from being considered 'the best' character.
I would care to guess that there are a metric fuck ton of anticipated Wii users that have nothing to do then watch the sand dribble down until SSBB is in their hands.
If as noted that the "win button" is pick shock rat, hit A a bunch of times, and win, then there is gonna be a massive collective sign of frustration.
This is extremely true. I see the 'unbeatable' pokes then I know what the strat is going to be, I feel fine. More often than not, if I lose it's to a guy using some poke in a way I've never seen before.
This is why people fear Jim.
well, a wii game, anyways.
If you're playing in a serious tournament, I have no problem with you using exploits, doing the stuff that is guaranteed to work if you do it competently, etc, you do that stuff in a serious tournament because winning actually means something.
But does it really kill you to just dick around when you're playing a friendly game, try something different for once?
That's all I want to know.
I remember going over to Callius' house, and I believe you were there, and he complained that Evander used Raphael's Forward+B,B,B move (the stab-stab-stab move where he lunges forward really fast) and just won every round with it. So I spent time with him just doing that move and told him to play as Cassandra or Yun-Seong. Both characters have a bunch of sidestep-and-duck moves. We spent maybe like 15 or 20 minutes doing that. Then Evander came over and played as Raphael and Callius destroyed that shit.
So the problem here was that BOTH players were doing the same move over and over again. Evander had no reason to change; his "same boring move" kept winning. Callius needed to raise his game to counter that move. The problem for Callius was that he hadn't taken the time to look at his options, to "try something new" as you call it. So I helped him by pointing him to two possible "new things" that he could try. After that, Callius had two new characters to learn, and Evander had to abandon his "boring move that [strike]always works[/strike] doesn't work any more."
Now, I seem to recall Evander bitching out and refusing to play at that point, but that's the difference between a true competitive player, i.e. one who loves to have a good match, and a player who simply likes to win and doesn't care about actual competition.
Uh, I do it all the time. That's how you get better.
for every competitive player who does try new strategies, there's about a hundred who fall into the whole "no items, fox only, final destination" category
or at least, those are the only people I ever seem to play.
Is this english? I have no idea what the fuck you're trying to say.
Yeah, this is another reason why I actually pumped Special Defense into my Scizor; people expect it to have nothing but Attack and maybe some Defense, so they hit it with something like Alakazam. Then end up with a Swords Danced Technicianed Life Orbed Quick Attack up the ass.
Jim is pure evil, even when you know his moveset.
Do you have to ask? I played that GC Pac-Man with you and Callius. I guess I was playing my best, though, although it's not like I was winning, since you guys knew the game and I didn't. I played Mario Party 7 on a Wii with my girlfriend and her college friend and her friend's fiancee. There's no serious competitive play in that. I mean, I did my best at the little mini-games and shit, but I didn't care who won.
And you've seen me play Soul Calibur 2 as Maxi with my goddamn eyes shut. One of you fuckers even unplugged my controller and I was sitting there going "why don't I hear any attack noises coming out of my guy?" with my eyes closed like a fucking idiot. I also figured that it would stop the game if the system noticed a controller being unplugged, because Soul Calibur 1 on the DC did that.
So you have seen me just dick around and not play super hardcore.
That said, I much prefer competitive play. I find it much more exciting, I like to get into it, and most of my friends are the same way, so we have a lot of fun just playing our best. We don't care who wins. And if one guy starts winning 75% of the matches and it gets frustrating, we will change characters or something, though that rarely ever happens, because we are all trying to win and thus we end up with similar skill levels.
At this point, I have no idea what the fuck you even mean by 'strategies,' since you haven't given a clear-cut example of what you mean by it, other than this stereotypical 4-chan response to smash competitive play.
it's the second thing there that I have a problem with, defender
and I suppose it's less common in smash than I thought, but there are plenty of examples of this kind of thing in other games, where the ways to win have been written in stone, and anything new or different is immediately laughed out of the room.
But since you never play competitively and never try to raise your game, you do not give them any reason to change up their moves. Why should they change up their moves if what they're already doing works? That's basically saying that they should lose on purpose.
I once played literally hundreds of 2v2 games in Warcraft 3: TFT using "mass moonwells" as my strategy. I played with RedTide and Musashi, and each of those teams (me + RedTide, me + Musashi) had a win rate of slightly over 50%. For those who don't know, basically the strategy is to build no army and no defenses, just three heroes and a lot of moonwells. Once the momentum gets going, it's incredibly hard to break.
People often attempted to laugh me out of the room, called me a noob for not having an army, and more often than not, those players got STOMPED by my army-less ass.
the problem is, anything I have been competitive in in the past, I have tried to find ways to counter the tried-and-true stuff. It's very difficult. Especially in something like a card game where the best cards are very rare and expensive. I suppose that could be a sign I'm just not very good, though.
He's not talking about being good, being competitive, he's talking about being a dickhead.
I know what he's talking about because I used to do that shit.
I used to play SFII with my friends in middle school and it didn't matter what character I chose or they chose; I could beat any of them in seconds, with a perfect virtually every time. Obviously I was far better at the game than any of them, but it wasn't a matter of them getting better because I didn't let them. I didn't even give them a chance to move, I would just destroy them seconds into each match. If they practiced on their own, they might improve somewhat, but when they'd go back up against me it was the same thing. But usually they didn't even practice on their own because I made them hate the game so much they didn't want to.
At the time I'm sure I had something I was trying to prove; but looking back it was just stupid. They weren't having fun because they literally weren't able to play, and I wasn't having fun because I might as well have been playing nobody.
It's not a matter of "changing things up" or "getting better"; it's a matter of playing against someone who is so focused on winning they won't even let you play. There's always going to be someone who is going to air juggle you in KI right off the bat and you might as well put the controller down and walk away because you'll have no chance of using it. There is something like this in most games. The person who wins isn't "cheating" or "exploiting", they're playing the game with the mechanics of the game; but certain ways of playing completely prohibit competition or improvement.
And in these situation it's a lose lose. I'm sure there are people out there with such fragile psyches that they need these "wins" to satisfy some malfunction in their brain, but fuck them.
Though, on the other hand; there's always that random game like SCII or Guilty Gear, where somehow in the mechanics of the game someone who just slams the buttons can inadvertently counter a skilled player and win. This isn't the norm though.
Origin: Galedrid - Nintendo: Galedrid/3222-6858-1045
Blizzard: Galedrid#1367 - FFXIV: Galedrid Kingshand