Theory

[icycalm]

A clarification from here: http://forum.insomnia.ac/viewtopic.php?p=8121#8121

Strictly speaking, the expression "competitive play" is a pleonasm, because all play is competitive.

I rest my case.

[icycalm]

As a corollary of the above, it should be noted that "competitive player" is also a pleonasm, since all players are competitive, whether they want to or not. The only difference is that some players are more competitive than others (which is the same thing as saying that some players are better than others).

I have now demonstrated why the following statement:

competitive players are a giant fucking plague for any mod/game they touch

is absurd, since if it were true, and if "competitive players" were a plague for any game they touched, that would mean that players were a plague for every game they touched, a statement which is clearly wrong if one considers that games without players cannot exist -- or if they do, they are of no interest to anyone.

The only case in which Jon R.'s statement is not absurd is if one considers games a plague. In that case the statement would be justified, since players are a prerequisite for games, i.e. for "plagues".

In conclusion, lol.

[Jon R.]

You can rest your case so easily because it's not a matter of perception or really even experience. I put "competitive" in quotes a fair bit specifically because of the way they've decided to separate themselves.

It's not what competitive players are as a whole, but what they've become within the context of, basically, what a self-referential few have defined as competitive play. And that definition applies only to them, which is basically my entire problem with most of that scene as well as why my position isn't very different from what you just said.

The biggest example of this was with the Half-Life mod Natural Selection, where those who played "competitively" and those who playtested shut out everyone else. They were the organized clans and furrowed-brow testers, therefore anyone else's views were inferior in comparison. If you weren't a clanner or a playtester, everything you said about the game's balance was soundly met with some fuckball basically saying "You don't know anything because you're not a private tester/clanner". The end result was a mod where nothing made sense outside of the rote procedures and buildouts, and nothing was satisfying to anyone who didn't care about them.

Ultimately, it alienated everyone who wasn't either a clanner, playtester, or an idiot. The mod ended up stagnating because the rest of us got sick of everything we said being stonewalled by some myopic, self-absorbed jagoff. We said "Oh fuck this. Go screw", and in doing so, they effectively killed the mechanics and the very pool from which the scene drew its players.

Personally speaking, i was done with 10 years of multiplayer experience with several games, some in clans, completely discarded or scoffed at purely because i wasn't part of a clan for that specific game, and i came to utter disdain when instead of insight or foresight it basically came down to retroactively trying to justify the petty parlor tricks they'd spent hours mastering from previous iterations.

[icycalm]

I can't even fathom what all the above has to do with the topic at hand. It sounds like whining to me because some of your friends disregarded your opinion. Boo hoo hoo. If you are so much as pressing a button in a game you are being competitive, whether you want to or not. To call others competitive and to exclude yourself from that group is simply a symptom of being butthurt. The only solution at that point is to stop being a little child, man the fuck up, and face the issues at hand. You cannot expect people to stop improving (i.e. playing) when they become better than you, just because you are not enjoying being beaten. If everyone adopted this outlook everyone would eventually had to stop playing -- even you (because there will always be players worse than you who will look up to you as being "too competitive" -- i.e. too much better than them).

On another note, if you are not prepared to capitalize your i's please stop posting. I've already said this to you once, and it's also in the rules, so I won't say it again.

[Jon R.]

You cannot expect people to stop improving (i.e. playing) when they become better than you, just because you are not enjoying being beaten. If everyone adopted this outlook everyone would eventually had to stop playing -- even you (because there will always be players worse than you who will look up to you as being "too competitive" -- i.e. too much better than them).

I never expected people to stop improving, nor did I ever imply that I did. What I took exception to was narrowing the scope of improvement and experience to insular clan play and exploits.

[icycalm]

I never expected people to stop improving, nor did I ever imply that I did.

Oh, but you did. In fact, that's ALL you've been doing.

What I took exception to was narrowing the scope of improvement and experience to insular clan play and exploits.

What you call "insular clan play" others call "awesome team-based play", and what you call "exploits" others call "superior knowledge of the game". See also here.

All you are doing is simply changing the names of things in order to make those who lord it over you with their superior skills seem like the bad guys. This is an ancient tradition among losers. It goes all the way back to Jesus of Nazareth and his followers, if not even further than that. It's clever and subtle, I'll give you that, but, unfortunately for your kind, not everyone can be deceived by it.

Note: Jon posted many other, highly disrespectful comments, which I deleted, and banned him for them. He will be missed.

[Kuzdu]

Would you say that things like parimutuel betting or Roulette are competitions against "fate/luck"?

[icycalm]

Yes, because when you win in such games your winnings come out of fate's pockets.

Jesus.

[Kuzdu]

Ah, you're right, I hadn't really thought those examples through. I was thinking too much about more direct forms of competition. My apologies!

[WreckedAscott]

A clarification from here: http://forum.insomnia.ac/viewtopic.php?p=8121#8121

Strictly speaking, the expression "competitive play" is a pleonasm, because all play is competitive.

I rest my case.

I think the term is used because of the mindset of competitive players that the only way to enjoy the game is to win, even if that means choosing a character or set of options that you dislike. What other term would you propose to describe gamers currently described as "competitive"?

[icycalm]

I think the term is used because of the mindset of competitive players that the only way to enjoy the game is to win

The only way to enjoy the game is not to win -- it is to play to win. And since everyone is playing to win by definition (that's what the verb "to play" means), everyone is already playing to win, whether they want to or not.

even if that means choosing a character or set of options that you dislike.

Good point. This broadens people's horizons. They should introduce it in schools.

What other term would you propose to describe gamers currently described as "competitive"?

Why would I propose a new term? What term other than 'bread' would you propose to describe bread? "Competitive" is just another word for "better". Our languages are already inundated with redundant words -- there's nothing to be done about it. Just realize the redundancy, and try to use words more correctly, so as not to come off as a retard when discussing things with smart people.

[WreckedAscott]

The only way to enjoy the game is not to win -- it is to play to win. And since everyone is playing to win by definition (that's what the verb "to play" means), everyone is already playing to win, whether they want to or not.

Not necessarily. You can enjoy a game for its own sake as well as any victories you might pick up.

Good point. This broadens people's horizons. They should introduce it in schools.

I think you've missed the point, here. I'm talking about people who have gone through all the options available to them and decided that some of them don't suit their playstyle. It's not a case of "broadening horizons" if they're forced into playing in a fashion that they've already decided they don't like.

Why would I propose a new term? What term other than 'bread' would you propose to describe bread? "Competitive" is just another word for "better". Our languages are already inundated with redundant words -- there's nothing to be done about it. Just realize the redundancy, and try to use words more correctly, so as not to come off as a retard when discussing things with smart people.

There's obviously a need to distinguish between scrubs and the competitive crowd. That's why the terms came about in the first place.

[icycalm]

Not necessarily.

Yes necessarily.

You can enjoy a game for its own sake as well as any victories you might pick up.

This is a retarded sentence, but I'll address it anyway.

You always enjoy a game for its own sake. You always enjoy any victories you might "pick up". You always also enjoy any losses you might "pick up" (the victories in fact are only ever enjoyable because of the losses; without them, they wouldn't be enjoyable at all). So the point is to always do your best. And since everyone is always doing their best and cannot do otherwise, everyone is always doing the right thing.

You are not saying anything in that sentence.

It's not a case of "broadening horizons" if they're forced into playing in a fashion that they've already decided they don't like.

No one is forced to do anything. I think you have videogames confused with African dictatorships.

There's obviously a need to distinguish between scrubs and the competitive crowd. That's why the terms came about in the first place.

Yes, just like the terms beautiful and ugly, hot and cold, tall and short, etc. came about. But there comes a time in a man's life when he has to stop being A FUCKING LITTLE BRAINDED RETARD, and realize that there is no opposition between these terms, that ugly is just another shade of beautiful, that hot and cold are simply different temperatures, that tall and short both refer to height -- and that "competitive" and "scrubby" both refer to different degrees of skill. There's no fundamental difference between one and the other -- no cut-off point that separates them -- it's only in language that the opposition appears, which is why it's only the braindead parrots who use language simply by mimicking others, instead of first thinking of its meaning, who become confused about it.

So stop being confused, little parrot. Either evolve to become a thinking human being, or take your retarded nonsense elsewhere.

[WreckedAscott]

You agree not to post any abusive, obscene, vulgar, slanderous, hateful, threatening, sexually-oriented material

That just applies to everyone on the board other than you, then?

You always enjoy a game for its own sake. You always enjoy any victories you might "pick up". You always also enjoy any losses you might "pick up" (the victories in fact are only ever enjoyable because of the losses; without them, they wouldn't be enjoyable at all). So the point is to always do your best. And since everyone is always doing their best and cannot do otherwise, everyone is always doing the right thing.

You are not saying anything in that sentence.

And you took an entire paragraph to say as little. Impressive. By what logic is everyone always doing their best?

Yes, just like the terms beautiful and ugly, hot and cold, tall and short, etc. came about. But there comes a time in a man's life when he has to stop being A FUCKING LITTLE BRAINDED RETARD, and realize that there is no opposition between these terms, that ugly is just another shade of beautiful, that hot and cold are simply different temperatures, that tall and short both refer to height -- and that "competitive" and "scrubby" both refer to different degrees of skill. There's no fundamental difference between one and the other -- no cut-off point that separates them -- it's only in language that the opposition appears, which is why it's only the braindead parrots who use language simply by mimicking others, instead of first thinking of its meaning, who become confused about it.

What in the name of Christ's sacred testicles are you talking about? Of course there's a fundamental difference between hot and cold. One's hot, the other's cold. Saying of the sun that it is a different temperature to the inside of a fridge really doesn't cut it, does it? And there is a fundamental difference between the mindset of competitive players who are willing to sacrifice hours at a time to learn the intricacies of a game which might allow them to win against other competitive players, and the mindset of scrubs who are perfectly happy to pick up a controller and knock someone similarly-minded around for a while. Saying that someone is a competitive player (using the original definition, the one that everyone already uses and will continue to do so) tells you something about them. It's not inaccurate, as it tells you that such a player is primarily concerned with the competition aspect of a game, rather than the game itself. There's nothing wrong with the term, and it's not redundant.

[icycalm]

You agree not to post any abusive, obscene, vulgar, slanderous, hateful, threatening, sexually-oriented material

That just applies to everyone on the board other than you, then?

Exactly.

And you took an entire paragraph to say as little.

Go fuck yourself, retard. It's not enough that I have to write an entire paragraph to show you that your sentence was nonsensical, I have to put up with your ingratitude as well? Banned.

By what logic is everyone always doing their best?

By the logic that says that, if they could have done better, they of course would have.

What in the name of Christ's sacred testicles are you talking about?

I was nurturing a tiny little hope that you'd understand. But it seems you really are a parrot, after all.

Of course there's a fundamental difference between hot and cold.

There isn't. Just as there isn't between a temperature of 15C and 16C. No fundamental difference.

One's hot, the other's cold.

No. One's hot, the other is less hot. Or one is cold, the other is more cold. Different shades of the same thing.

Saying of the sun that it is a different temperature to the inside of a fridge really doesn't cut it, does it?

Maybe it doesn't cut it if you are a braindead monkey. For thinking human beings, however, it cuts it very well thankyouverymuch.

And there is a fundamental difference between the mindset of competitive players who are willing to sacrifice hours at a time

No one is "sacrificing" anything, retard. THESE ARE VIDEOGAMES WE ARE TALKING ABOUT. PEOPLE PLAY THEM BECAUSE THEY ENJOY THEM -- NO ONE IS SACRIFICING THEIR TIME -- THEY ARE ENJOYING THEMSELVES FOR FUCK'S SAKE!

And there is a fundamental difference between the mindset of competitive players who are willing to sacrifice hours at a time to learn the intricacies of a game which might allow them to win against other competitive players, and the mindset of scrubs who are perfectly happy to pick up a controller and knock someone similarly-minded around for a while.

There is no fundamental difference. Everyone spends a number of hours playing a game -- in fact, you will never find two people who have played one game the exact same amount of time. And all players spend time trying to learn "the intricacies of a game which might allow them to win against other players" -- even the most lowly scrub does this. And moreover everyone is "perfectly happy to pick up a controller and knock someone similarly-minded around for a while" -- from the lowliest scrub to the number one ranked player in the world.

No fundamental difference at all.

Saying that someone is a competitive player (using the original definition, the one that everyone already uses and will continue to do so) tells you something about them.

It tells you nothing -- in fact, it tells you less than nothing, because you end up as confused as you are right now and unable to utter three words without coming off as a retard. And moreover, there is no "original definition". I am the one who provides the "original definitions" in this world -- and you either understand them, and use them, and start making sense, or you don't and you remain a little parrot for the rest of your miserably little life.

It's not inaccurate

It's not only inaccurate -- it's also stupid and terribly misleading.

as it tells you that such a player is primarily concerned with the competition aspect of a game, rather than the game itself.

All players are primarily concerned with the competition aspect of a game -- because that is what games are -- competitions. So the second part of your sentence contradicts the first. The game itself IS competition.

There's nothing wrong with the term, and it's not redundant.

Everything is wrong with the term and it is redundant.

[Beakman]

All this comes down to semantics. Icycalm has made his point. Therefore instead of "competitive player/play" maybe a better suited term would be "high level player/play"?

I hadn't noticed the redundancy in "competitive play" either, so thanks for that. You should see the massive amount of redundancies found in Spanish language!

[milkycha]

The main problem we have here is that WreckedAscott seems to have the point of view typically found on GameFaqs, IGN, /v/ etc. That is, the view that

"competitive players are losers who sink endless hours into the game and it's okay to lose to them because I'm just playing to have fun."

What people with this mindset always fail to realise is that these "competitive" (re: good) players are "playing to have fun", and in fact are probably having more fun than the lesser skilled players. They're having more fun because they have a deeper understanding of what makes the game tick, and they have this understanding because they like to play the game. They dont just arbitrarily pick a game and say "I will become godly at this by wasting my life and thus, teh n00bs will phear me" or any such retardation; the skill comes from time spent (not "wasted") doing something they enjoy.

A few weeks ago I was at a friend's house drinking some beers and playing some Tekken5DR with a bunch of people. After a sound defeat, one of the people threw the controller on the ground and pointed at me, yelling "This guy's bullshit! FUCK! At least let me get up! You're only so good because you play this all the fucking time." I replied "Well, yeah."

WreckedAscott and this guy share the same attitude.

[JoshF]

Yeah. But there's a little more salt in the wound when it's a 13-year-old asian kid schooling you on the court, isn't it scrubs?

[infernovia]

competition aspect of a game, rather than the game itself

What?

Some people participate in sports because of the people. They aren't playing the game for the game itself (this whole phrase is redundant), they are participating in a social event. So how is this playing the game itself?

Competitive players are truly the ones that are "playing games for itself". They play to win, because that is the only way to play a game at all.

[Afterburn]

Some people participate in sports because of the people. They aren't playing the game for the game itself (this whole phrase is redundant), they are participating in a social event.

I don't want to play sports (or games) with these people. These people shouldn't be playing sports; if they wanted to participate in a social event, go to a fucking dance or a party.

[Molloy]

This is all very common sense information. I wish all developers valued the most competitive players instead of the idiot masses. Gas Powered Games set up a ladder for Supreme Commander and consulted the top couple of players when it came to tweaking the game. The result was it went from being pretty awful to almost awesome in a matter of 3 or 4 patches. I'm pretty sure if they'd had more time/money/resources they could have made something astonishing.

The best players are the ones who have the most understanding. Theirs is the only opinion that matters. You generally find they don't want to change anything massively either, so catering for them is easy. The idiots always want to turn the game on its head because they feel it's the games fault they're shit rather than some deficiency on their part.

[bunuelo]

The idiots always want to turn the game on its head because they feel it's the games fault they're shit rather than some deficiency on their part.

Perhaps more precisely (or at least more commonly), the idiot wants to move the game as far as possible toward a game which is some mixture of randomness and full solvability. He tends to make the regular arguments about fairness and whatnot (fairness lol), but it is obvious that what he is asking for is that the rules be changed so that the game can only reward skill up to his own current skill level.

What he does not bother to realize is that the only such games that can exist are those whose optimal play can be exactly calculated during play (Tic-Tac-Toe), games with random mechanics (the Coin Flip), and mixtures of the two (Blackjack). [Edit -- upon further consideration, these three games are all instances of games whose optimal play can be exactly calculated during play. In the case of the coin flip, any decision is optimal.]

Any rule modification which does not reduce the game to one of these will necessarily leave room for a "competitive" (sigh) player to be better than the idiot. In other words, by hoping for a game whose rules cannot distinguish between him and a superior player, he is exactly hoping for the game to be as uninteresting as possible.

[Warden]

http://www.masscomm.loyno.edu/~dmyers/F99%20classes/Myers_PlayPunishment_031508.doc

Here's an interesting article about how being competitive in an MMORPG led to the player being completely ostracized by the community. He took the game totally seriously and recieved death threats for his trouble.

[Bradford]

He took the game totally seriously and recieved death threats for his trouble.

I haven't played City of Heroes, but it seems like that's giving him a little too much credit.

Based on his description of the teleport ability, it seems like something very nearly like a "win button," or at least such a powerful ability in conjuction with how drones work that it breaks game balance. In that case, he is largely missing the point in his essay.

Allow me to take things to an extreme for purposes of an analogy. Imagine that Street Fighter V comes out and contains an extraordinary amount of complexity and depth, except that in addition to its perfect character balance among all 20 fighters included in the game, Ken, and only Ken, will automatically win the match if you press all three punch buttons at the same time. The developers put the move in the game, they are aware it is there, players complain about it, but the developers don't care and don't change or remove it. The obvious consequence is that players would do what it takes to preserve the fun of what is otherwise a perfect game. Thus a social rule is created where everyone just agrees that no one will do that move if they pick Ken, because the only other rational option is to not play the game, which sucks, because except for that, the game is awesome - abiding by this invented and unofficial social rule is a small price to pay to have a lot of fun.

There is a difference, of course, that the author fails to acknowledge, between a game being unbalanced and a game having a powerful move that no one has figured out how to counter yet. I don't know which is actually the case for City of Heroes, but from the essay it seems like it is the former. In that case, it's harly rocket science that everyone is pissed off at him for exploiting an imbalance that people have consciously chosen to ignore in order to make an otherwise enjoyable game playable. Ultimately, of course, it is the developer's fault for making an unbalanced, and therefore bad, game.

[Warden]

But this is an MMO. Updates happen all the time in these kinds of games. If the developers really had a problem with it, they could ban him or change the game. But they never did. He didn't do anything "illegal" or even "unfair".

If it's really such an overpowered tactic, then either the developers are shitty for leaving it in, or they know that it's got some weakness that the players have not figured out because they chose to just not do it.

I think the main reason he got so much flak for it was because people eventually decided the pvp area was a great place to farm if you ignored the objective.