Play To Win
Kenichi
This is not a pie. Join Date: 2002-11-01 Member: 2941Members, NS1 Playtester
This is not a pie. Join Date: 2002-11-01 Member: 2941Members, NS1 Playtester
<div class="IPBDescription">don't be scrubs</div> This was posted in another thread but i really felt that the concepts in the link itself needed its own topic.
<a href='http://www.sirlin.net/Features/feature_Pla...yToWinPart1.htm' target='_blank'>http://www.sirlin.net/Features/feature_Pla...yToWinPart1.htm</a>
These are the words of true competition gaming right here. You play to win. It's just that simple.
I hope all you scrubs out there learn something.
<a href='http://www.sirlin.net/Features/feature_Pla...yToWinPart1.htm' target='_blank'>http://www.sirlin.net/Features/feature_Pla...yToWinPart1.htm</a>
These are the words of true competition gaming right here. You play to win. It's just that simple.
I hope all you scrubs out there learn something.
Comments
<a href='http://www.sirlin.net/Features/feature_PlayToWinPart1.htm' target='_blank'>here's the working link</a>
This article is mostly worthless except when paired with his OTHER article at that site, <a href='http://www.sirlin.net/Features/feature_GameBalancePart1.htm' target='_blank'>Game Balance, Part 1</a>. Go ahead and read that, and come back.
NS is not currently balanced, although this will be fixed in 1.1. The reason it is not currently balanced is stated in the following quote:<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->A multiplayer game is balanced if a reasonably large number of options available to the player are viable—especially, but not limited to, during high-level play by expert players.
...
Whether MvC2 is anything close to balanced is an incredibly complicated question that we’ll have to come back to. For now, let’s say that most players agree that there are about 10 “top tier” characters in the game. Certainly no more than 15. Yet the game offers a whopping 54 characters! Although percentage-wise, that’s pretty poor, I’d have to say that 10-15 characters that are all extremely viable for tournament play is pretty darned good for a fighting game…even if the batting average of playable characters if low. Others might care more about the percentage, but it’s a minor point. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It's talking about Marvel vs Capcom 2 there, which is a great game but unrelated to NS. The point is that for marines, there is 1 strategy (or so I hear, I only play pubs myself) and 1 strategy only, that is used: The JP rush. It's not that other strategies aren't possible, its just that the JP rush is so good using anything else is hurting yourself (if done correctly, which clans can do).
Currently, there are not a reasonable number of options available in high tier play. This is being fixed (yay!). In low tier play, on the other hand, there are PLENTY of options available for BOTH sides, (although aliens do tend to win more often then not, this tends to be because most experienced pub players go alien nearly exclusivly, and most new players go marine almost exclusivly) because the JP rush doesn't always work when your personal skill level isn't good enough. Relocating doesn't always work, it's a gamble. HA/HMG rushing only works if you have a large enough income. Plenty of options, see?
Aliens of course, have different options as well, they can 2nd Hive rush (doesn't work against a skill JP rush, but remember, we're talking low level play here)... they can choose when to get each of the three levels of carapace... they can choose which hive to go for next... they can choose rush or containment starting strategies... they can choose to concentrate on defending the gorge or hunting the enemy... they can forgo lerks until the 2nd hive (more res for the gorges), or go for lerks earlier (long rang weaponry + flight)... they can have two gorges or one (yes, two gorges can be a valid strategy on larger servers) they can have skulks cap res nodes at 33 or save the resources for fades later...
Low tier play is still plenty fun. It's the upper tier play that currently suffers, and that's being fixed in 1.1... so I have no fears of NS dying until then.
But no really, The game isnt about winning, its about having fun. If you only get enjoyment from winning, i'd be worried. There are lots of games i have played where it was fun working together, even if we didnt win.
So while playing to win is what everyone should do, shouldn't anyone have fun? Doesn't seem to be fun if you play to win, but get beaten now and then, and don't get any real satisfaction out of winning, since you know you had to use "this or that strategy that has been acknoledged as too strong" to win, or you would be in for one looooong game...
Im rambling. Nevermind.
Still, I tend to get rather annoyed when losing 3 times in a row, since Im usually not having fun, and if I had played to win those 3 times, I would be cussing left and right to random people who I tought were **obscenity** **obscenity** **obscenity** **obscenity** or something along those lines...
Its also a sort of self proclaimed guide on how to be the best within a game. This is of course assuming you want to win at all costs.
See, people either play one of two ways, to have fun, or to win. This isn't to say their isn't necessarily a hybrid between the two, some people only have fun if they win (a sad case in my opinion, but that's just me...)
I myself don't always want to go into a game of counter strike, sit in the one corner that gives me a tactical advantage with an awp, and snipe off every person who comes into the room. It may give me the higher advantage in the long run, but it sure as hell isn't fun to me.
Now if I'm playing in a competitive environment for example, such as a tournament, I'd expect to find myself playing in a more suiting manor.
Basically, this article was probably written in response to having nubs throw out the words, "cheap!" and "omg you sux0r can't you do anything else!?" in frustration.
This article has also been brought up more than enough times to realize that those who bring it up, are just like the author, and are probably looking for an excuse to talk some smack to people who cry out "cheap" :\
If a game allows enough depth, then playing to win becomes MUCH more fun than playing "For fun". This is only possible when there is sufficiant depth. I don't play counterstrike, but from your comment, I would wager that CS does not have the required depth. It remains to be seen whether 1.1 will have the required depth. Please note that the article in question is located on a web site for DEVELOPERS about GAME DESIGN. Click the link on the side labeled "Playing to Win 0: Why Bother" for the purpose of the article.
I'd have thought it obvious, but then, I guess not everyone thinks this way.
Higher level play tends to be much more fun than lower level play.
I will start out by using a non-video game example: Swordfighting.
I love swordfighting. From a very young age, my friends would play guns, I'd get a stick and play swords. I'd make swords out of venesian blinds, I'd make swords out of chinup bars. I'd always be making and playing swords. I never actually fenced though. It was fun for what it was worth, imagining what it would be like to be a knight or whatever. Kid stuff.
When I was a "pre-teen"... 10 or 12 or so years old, I got with a friend, and using sturdier weapons, straight wooden rods, we'd actually start swordfighting. We hadn't a clue what we were doing. We'd swing and defend though, and we try all kinds of things. Just fooling around.
Recently, I've taken up the martial art of Kendo (Japanese Fencing), and I learned how really stupid what I had been doing before had been. Sure, it may be "fun" to swing a sword arouund and hope to hit things, but it's much more fun to try and hit a person who is capable of defending, and is also capable of breaking through your own defences. It turns out that kendo is a THINKING sport, and that planning and strategy are involved at very high levels.
As I practice kendo more and more, I'm unlocking my potential, growing as a human being and as a man, gaining confidence, and having a heck of a lot of fun. There are people I respect because they are much better than I, and people I am trying to help get up to my level. Battles with those who are as skilled as me are VERY enjoyable, battles with those more skilled than me are VERY intense and I learn a lot from them, and battles with those less skilled than I are an exersize in patience and teaching. All thinking stuff.
And then, every once and a while, I'll pick up a stick again and play with someone "Just for fun". More often than not, the person I play against in this situation is a major scrub. A scrub is a state of mental being, not simply a matter of skill.
What I almost always encounter is that the other person won't try to hit me, he/she'll try to hit my sword instead. This is not the game. The game is to try to hit me. It's for me to try to hit you. That's how it works. Maybe it's fun to hit sticks against each other... as a kid, I loved it. But now... it's so simplistic and stupid, and not fun at all. I'd much rather play the game of strategy in trying to defend and attack then just a game of making loud noises.
There is so much to actually knowing the rules of the game, and knowing how to win at it, and then trying to win against another person who is trying likewise, and also knows how to do it. This is intense, it's extreme, and it's a boatload of fun. There's just so much involved! It's really really great!
But if you don't start playing the game... the ACTUAL game (hit the other person, try not to get hit) and not the pretend game that exists in your own head (hit the sticks together), you'll never -get- that enjoyment. But do you know the interesting thing? I still will. You'll lose, I'll win, and yet I had fun. I don't think you could possibly have had as much fun as I just did.
Now. As applied to NS...
This only works, this is only true, if, and only if, the game has depth and balance at the higher levels of play. If it doesn't, maybe the game NEEDS artificial pretend rules of "honor" and such to MAKE the game remain fun. As it is right now, I don't think high-level play is available, because, as I mentioned, the JP rush. This is going to change by way of 1.1. I'm looking forewards to it.
no i don't want no scrubs, a scrub is a guy that can't get no love from me...
(i had to)
So using the first part, marines should be able to abuse processing on hera because they must play to win. But wait, processing can only be abused by one side (aka player 1) so marines shouldn't use it??
I feel like the article was making a big important point about gaming and then just fell to pieces in the end.
When he says "side" he means side as in left or right, not which player, team or race, but which side of the screen your fighter starts at.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->So were allowed to be slightly unfair, but not overly unfair?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't think you understood the article. If there is a tactic7bug/exploit that is *completely* over-powered then it should be avoided. If you could enter "god mode" in NS by a certain combination, making you invulnerable, it shouldn't be used because it would break the game. Everyone would do it and there wouldn't be a game, just a bunch of players running around invulnerable. Siegíng from processing is just a strong tactic and AFAIK there are no "tactics" in NS that would be considered "unfair" enough not to use.
but then playing against my other mate who was VERY good, we would play for hours the same map, same settings, both trying to gain the upper hand mentally and in the game. it was amazing the tactics and stuff we would come up with.
the game was balanced because if you chose the same height characters, the only thing that differed was your skills using differnet weapons.....
we got so good at that game there was nobody i knew who could beat us 2v2 <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
About CS - it is actually EXTREMELY balanced at high levels of play, and thats why its so popular. the tactics used by teams - like on aztec terrorists rushing the bridge - can be countered and so forth, and high levels of the game are amazingly fun.
that guy is kinda right.....but i do think he misses the point of gaming.
Game - the word means fun, fun for everyone! your playing a game, which denotes there is a time to scrub and a time not to.
competitive high-level competetions are times when you aren't playing a game anymore, your competing, like you can run against friends for fun, then you can run in a race. we should all be scrubs when we play on pub servers, play with mates, when we don't play seriously.
but when we are palying seriously we aren't just not scrubs, we aren't players, we are competitors.
Game - the word means fun, fun for everyone! your playing a game, which denotes there is a time to scrub and a time not to.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I really don't have to say anything myself:
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->But any close examination will reveal that the experts are having a great deal of fun on a higher level than the scrub can even imagine.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think some of you, more or less, actually gets the point of the article. <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
This is so true.
I used to play in a fairly highly-ranked QW/TF clan (about four years ago). Like most good clans, we did two pracs a week, plus matchs, tourney games, and the occasional scrimmage. And we were all very serious about it, and played games full-bore. And everyone was all pumped up when we won a match, and ten kinds of **** when we lost.
And it was fun, for that part of my life.
These days, I'm lucky to get in a few hours of playing on a weekend. When I do, I want to have a nice, low-intensity, fun pick-up game. I just left a certain clan's server. One of their members was playing, and was just totally freaking out. He was shouting long streams of expletives at people over voicecomm. He <i>banned</i> a guy for <i>going gorge</i>, because he thought it would hurt the team's chances of winning.
That's not for me. I'm not keen on having a gorge-induced aneurysm. If that makes me a scrub, then I guess I can live with that.
" If the game is a good one, it will become deeper and deeper and more strategic. Poorly designed games will become shallower and shallower. This is the difference between an arcade game that lasts years in an arcade versus one that lasts 4 months. This is the difference between a PC game that lasts years on the shelves (Starcraft) versus one that quickly becomes boring (I won?t name any names). The point is that if a game becomes ?no fun? at high levels of play, then it?s the game?s fault, not the player?s. Unfortunately, a game becoming less fun because it?s poorly designed and you just losing because you?re a scrub kind of look alike. You?ll have to play some top players and do some soul searching to decide which is which. But if it really is the game?s fault, there are plenty of other games that are excellent at a high level of play. For games that truly aren?t good at a high level, the only winning move is not to play."
I like that bit, purely because after 3 solid years, I still play Starcraft and Unreal Tournament a heck of alot!
Hmm, scrubs...Such as the 2 hive lockdown or the JP rush...People call it cheap or lame, but the fact is, it wins you the game which is why alot of us play.
Such as Starcraft games...I'm Zerg for example happily building my base up...When suddenly, I move my unit to the left of my base, uncover the fog of war and see a wall of Protoss Cannons pushing towards my bass...Mostly, you die to that...People call it cheap, but it's a tactic purely down to the principles of winning...
-psygnosis-
i feel the need to copy down that post on Kendo to send to my classical fencing buddies and NS clanmates.
back on topic, there IS something to be said for the honor level with certain bugs. i imagine a few people running an olympic sprint, and the guy who plays to win sprinkling epoxy over everyone else's lanes. it's simply not right. one COULD evolve to a higher level of play by then countering with some sort of hovering shoes, but now the race has been too radically changed. (and i really hope my metaphor hasnt gone too far as to be unintelligible.) the point is, at some point these "competetive levels" simply go too far, but situations like those require incredible amounts of freedom.
in kendo you have the freedom to move the sword at any angle or rotation or velocity imaginable, allowing for infinite depth, where as from within the confines of half life, theres only so much you can do with an acid rocket or an HMG. the tactics will top out somewhere.
I played CS competitvely, and it was alot of fun in that the games were all 'make or break'. Every win was rejoiced but every loss was crushing. However, it was a <i>different kind</i> of fun, not a flatout <i>better</i> fun.
Now if we get rid of the premise that ultra-competitive play is inherently better <b>for every gamer</b> then the whole article falls apart. Most gamers play <b>because gaming is fun</b> in whatever form/level they play at. If it wasn't, they wouldn't play. And what is fun for one person isn't fun for others.
Winning is not everything to me. Having fun while winning/losing/whatever is everything to me. I see a victory from a successfull processing rush as a hollow victory. There werent any heated battles going back and forth between fades/lerks vs HA/HMG with gorges trying to web down a JP/HMG distraction at another hive. There wasn't a mad scramble as the phase to the third hive went down. Sure we won, but whoopdedoo. The only purpose that winning serves, IMO, is to change the map.
-=-=-=-=-==-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-==--==-=-
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->When he says "side" he means side as in left or right, not which player, team or race, but which side of the screen your fighter starts at.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Hmm, lemme clarify. If there is an interactive part of the level on a fighter game, and when player one uses it it does nothing but when player two uses it it virtually guaruntees player two's victory, wouldn't that be considered one of the authors 'do not use' exploits (in that the benefit from the exploit is only available to one side)? And isn't that what processing is?
-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-==--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--
EDIT: Ok, I guess i'm just completely failing at getting my point across seeing as I agree with Kazyras's points even though I think he thought he was arguing against me. I guess i'm a pseudo-scrub, seeing as I <i>will use</i> some of the unbalanced/lame/exploity stuff in the game, but I feel that if that stuff were removed, the game would be more fun, not less fun.
Thinking playing to win and playing for fun are mutually exclusive is typical scrub mentality. Unless I'm trying my damnest to win against a (several) competent player(s), I'm not having fun as much fun as I could have. The harder it is to win and the more intense the effort, the more entertained I am. This is assuming there are no "bad" factors that could mar my fun (lopsided teams, hopelessly unbalanced map, presence of a cheater, etc.) but it is true for the most part.
Playing to win against an opponent who's doing the same is what's fun, not the act of winning itself. Hell, the best NS game I've had this week is one that my team lost. I still remember when I discovered the world of CS tournaments over 2 years ago. My team was getting creamed, but I was giggling with glee. It's in one of these tournaments that I've had the best CS game I've ever played in over 3 years, even if we got rocked ?? to 1 or 2. They were playing like complete little **** doing absolutely everything they could to win, and so were we. Never had this much fun in a CS game.
I agree that this is a problem in NS. I haven't played competitively, but I've played a number of very competive games with skilled clanners. The scrub may secure only one hive because "it's supposed to be HA\HMG vs Fades" but the smart commander secures two hives as soon as possible. Motion tracking is an obscenely unfair advantage for the marines, and you'd be a fool to not use it. JP raping a hive screams "LAME! LAME! LAME!" to me because it's very very hard to take down a JP without acid rocket, however it's so effective (and the aliens kick to much backside) that it has to be used.
To an extent, I guess there's an element of the capcom "imbalance everything" approach, on a smaller scale. A talented skulk is untouchable, and slaughters entire squads. On the other hand, even a talented skulk can't do a damn thing about a skilled JP\HMG, especially in a vent.
However, even with all this left in I don't think NS is broken, because it's a case of "don't let the enemy get you into this situation". If you want to stop them locking down two hives, you have to react and kill them as they're setting up before the defenses come up. If you don't want to be dodging HMG rounds and grenades, don't allow them to hold any RTs. Once again, I haven't played at tournament level but I don't think NS is as broken as other games. It needs a bit of work, yes, but it's not completely shot to hell. And by broken I mean lack of variety, not lack of fun <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
If anything, I found that his articles are really a way to attempt to justify his style of game play. Something I tend to disagree with overall. However, that author is entitled to his opinion just as I am, and I respect his opinion even if I don't agree with it. He makes some interesting points and has some interesting ideas.
However, don't get me wrong here. I have said in other threads that the type of 'win at all costs' game play you see on servers is EXPECTED. Like electricity, tactics in these kinds of multiplayer games will often take the path of least resistance. That doesn't mean I AGREE with it, but I understand it.
In fact, in many ways I am GLAD that it happens! Since people are exploiting these 'dubious' tactics more and more, the developers are now REMOVING those tactics from the game. Therefore, in the end, the abuse of certain tactics is actually improving the game. I'm sure we can all respect that. Perhaps the time will come when there won't be any 'real' exploits, and then people can play a fair and balanced game.
Once those tactics are removed, the people who exploit the same tactics repeatedly will actually have to LEARN how to play the game 'properly'. (Properly - IE as the developers intended.)
It takes less skill to use an exploit than to actually play the game as the developers intended. The 'easy way out' mentality is often a way for players to balance their lack of skill against other players. These players will be at a great disadvantage to the people who HAVEN'T used exploits.
For example. I don't use drawviewmodel to turn off the teeth/model. If a player who HAS used that exploit finds himself unable to turn off the teeth because the developers have lockd it out, who do you think will play a better game? The person who never used the exploit, or the person who did?
In the end, while the exploiters may reap short term gains, they will NOT reap long term benefits. In fact, those same players will likely be complaining about how the game is imbalanced when they can NOT use their exploits and are hard pressed to win the game without them.
That day will be worth waiting for.
Regards,
Savant
Main Entry: 1game
Pronunciation: 'gAm
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English gamen; akin to Old High German gaman amusement
Date: before 12th century
1 a (1) : activity engaged in for diversion or amusement : PLAY (2) : the equipment for a game b : often derisive or mocking jesting : FUN, SPORT <make game of a nervous player>
2 a : a procedure or strategy for gaining an end : TACTIC b : an illegal or shady scheme or maneuver : RACKET
3 a (1) : a physical or mental competition conducted according to rules with the participants in direct opposition to each other (2) : a division of a larger contest (3) : the number of points necessary to win (4) : points scored in certain card games (as in all fours) by a player whose cards count up the highest (5) : the manner of playing in a contest (6) : the set of rules governing a game (7) : a particular aspect or phase of play in a game or sport <a football team's kicking game> b plural : organized athletics c (1) : a field of gainful activity : LINE <the newspaper game> (2) : any activity undertaken or regarded as a contest involving rivalry, strategy, or struggle <the dating game> <the game of politics>; also : the course or period of such an activity <got into aviation early in the game> (3) : area of expertise : SPECIALTY 3 <comedy is not my game>
4 a (1) : animals under pursuit or taken in hunting; especially : wild animals hunted for sport or food (2) : the flesh of game animals b archaic : PLUCK c : a target or object especially of ridicule or attack -- often used in the phrase fair game
synonym see FUN
- game·like /-lIk/ adjective
All i see is alot of arguing over someone's opinion. It may not be everyone elses opinion, but nevertheless everyone is entitled to one.
The ones who think the aforementioned article is required reading for the world of gaming, that the fun derived from playing on the "higher-level" plane is the *ONLY* way to have fun,
Those who enjoy playing in a more relaxed, casual atmosphere where the pressure is not on solely to win the game,
Those who want to hide behind the "I'm only playing to have fun" mentality and use it as an excuse to try to prove the other party's opinion wrong,
Those who want to use the "playing to win is the only way to play and have fun" argument to try to prove the other side's opinion wrong.
Its really all quite entertaining, because you see, nobody is wrong in the way they play the game. Its just whatever you have the most fun doing. People are naturally going to cry out, "Scrub!" or "Cheap!", its human nature, because if you look closely, these terms are always yelled whenever said individual plays someone who plays a different way than they do. Its human nature to shun what you're not used to, and unfortunately as is evident in certain people's posts, put down other people when they promote a different ideology than yourself.
It's simply pointless and frustrating for everyone to insult other players because of their aggressive playing style or their abusing of balance issues. You won't convince them to play by your special rules. Don't bother.
When you start playing the game, ask yourself: "Am I playing to win?". If the answer is "no", then have fun and don't complain if you lose. If the answer is "yes" and you lose still, then don't complain, because you didn't use the right tactics. If you are convinced the game lacks the depth or the exploit/tactic used is unbeatable, play a different game or wait for the next version.
Nobody will convince a scrub to become a truly competitive player or the other way round here. Both playing styles are valid and can be fun.
There was a time when I called everyone in CS using an AWP a "lame rail gunner". Repeatedly. Those times are over, now I use whatever weapon I find to be the most stylish in every HL mod. I have made a decision.
Have you?
In fighter games, there are no updates. The game is released, play it or dont play it, it will never change. There can be no bug fixes, no rebalancing of characters or moves. In order to be successful then, you must play to win, as the author of the article pointed out. And because those imbalances/bugs will always be there, in order to win you have to use them.
In mods (and practically any modern pc game for that matter) any imbalances/bugs/oversights of the developers may be corrected. The game can evolve and change based on the opinions of the developers and to some extent that of the players. This, in almost every case, involves the <b>removal</b> of imbalances, exploits and bugs. Those very things that the author would have us believe must be abused in order to have the most fun.
Doesn't his argument sound a little strange when you consider that from his view, the developers are actively working to decrease the enjoyment the hardcore, dedicated players get??