Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Traditio wrote:

Noir wrote:The only reason I kind think of to not like throw spam is if you failed to figure out the counter.

Spamming one move is unsportsmanlike conduct. Spamming one move specifically because your opponent doesn't know how to counter it is unsportsmanlike conduct.

It's unfriendly. It's not fun to play against. It's not fun to watch.

It's just annoying to be involved in it.

If you are that guy, then shame on you. Stop it.

Its like you read the article about scrubs, and are now acting out every aspect of the scrub described in the article. And I quote:

The loser usually takes the imagined moral high ground by sticking to his Code of Honor, a made-up set of personal rules that tells him which moves he can and cannot do. Of course, the rules of the game itself dictate which moves a player can and cannot make, so the Code of Honor is superfluous and counterproductive toward winning. This can also take the form of the loser complaining that you have broken his Code of Honor. He will almost always assume the entire world agrees on his Code and that only the most vile social outcasts would ever break his rules.

Trasvi wrote:Its like you read the article about scrubs, and are now acting out every aspect of the scrub described in the article. And I quote:

The loser usually takes the imagined moral high ground by sticking to his Code of Honor, a made-up set of personal rules that tells him which moves he can and cannot do. Of course, the rules of the game itself dictate which moves a player can and cannot make, so the Code of Honor is superfluous and counterproductive toward winning. This can also take the form of the loser complaining that you have broken his Code of Honor. He will almost always assume the entire world agrees on his Code and that only the most vile social outcasts would ever break his rules.

The article basically took the non-megalomaniac/non-sociopathic/normal, reasonable human being position and gave it a bad name, ie., "scrub." He then said: "But, in point of fact, the only point of playing the game is winning. Repent, scrub, repent."

My answer: winning is not the only goal of a game. In fact, it is better to lose than to win in a cheap, unsportsmanlike way.

Traditio wrote:
Spamming one move is unsportsmanlike conduct.

So is crying "cheap" whenever someone beats you, instead of admitting that maybe they're just better at the game and you need practice.

Smacks wrote:So is crying "cheap" whenever someone beats you, instead of admitting that maybe they're just better at the game and you need practice.

I would take this point seriously, except for the fact that we're talking about spamming throws.

Traditio wrote:
The article basically took the non-megalomaniac/non-sociopathic/normal, reasonable human being position and gave it a bad name, ie., "scrub."

So unless you invent your own arbitrary rules about how a game is "meant" to be played and insult anyone who doesn't follow those rules you're a sociopath? Makes sense to me...

PS: implying that anyone who disagrees with you is a megalomaniac or sociopath is a blatant violation of rule #1. Please stop doing this.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Traditio wrote:
I would take this point seriously, except for the fact that we're talking about spamming throws.

What's so bad about spamming throws, besides your arbitrary rule that it's not how the game is "supposed to be played"?

Peregrine wrote:So unless you invent your own arbitrary rules about how a game is "meant" to be played and insult anyone who doesn't follow those rules you're a sociopath? Makes sense to me...

PS: implying that anyone who disagrees with you is a megalomaniac or sociopath is a blatant violation of rule #1. Please stop doing this.

I didn't say either of those things. I'm saying that if you read the article that you keep citing so fondly, Peregrine, the guy's manner of speaking and thinking strike me as frankly sociopathic. Compare this to the article that you keep citing. If that writer isn't a sociopath, then he sure writes like one.

http://www.healthguidance.org/entry/15850/1/Characteristics-of-a-Sociopath.html

Traditio wrote:

Peregrine wrote:So unless you invent your own arbitrary rules about how a game is "meant" to be played and insult anyone who doesn't follow those rules you're a sociopath? Makes sense to me...

PS: implying that anyone who disagrees with you is a megalomaniac or sociopath is a blatant violation of rule #1. Please stop doing this.

I didn't say either of those things. I'm saying that if you read the article that you keep citing so fondly, Peregrine, the guy's manner of speaking and thinking strike me as frankly sociopathic. Compare this to the article that you keep citing. If that writer isn't a sociopath, then he sure writes like one.

http://www.healthguidance.org/entry/15850/1/Characteristics-of-a-Sociopath.html

You really like judging other people don't you?

Traditio wrote:
I'm saying that if you read the article that you keep citing so fondly, Peregrine, the guy's manner of speaking and thinking strike me as frankly sociopathic.

Only because, in your world, "sociopath" seems to be a synonym for "someone who disagrees with me". Nothing in that article has anything to do with the concept of a sociopath as defined by the rest of the world.

Noir wrote:You really like judging other people don't you?

I'm not judging anyone. I'm judging the article, what it said and how it expressed it.

Traditio wrote:
I'm not judging anyone.

You constantly judge people. You called anyone who spends $200 on a MTG deck a "failure at life", you accuse anyone who doesn't pay your "Kant would say you're a bad person if you don't voluntarily add 50 points to your unit's cost" tax on Wraithknights of being a WAAC TFG, etc. In fact, it would be hard to find a post from you that doesn't judge people.

Peregrine wrote:Only because, in your world, "sociopath" seems to be a synonym for "someone who disagrees with me". Nothing in that article has anything to do with the concept of a sociopath as defined by the rest of the world.

Oh, yes, of course. Because the article didn't display, and just to name a few things:

Lack of empathy
Cold, calculating nature
Shallow emotions
Narcissism
Grandiose self image
Lawfulness (and here, in particular, I quote: "despite popular belief, a sociopath is not likely to be a problem to the law in later life, but rather will seek to find loopholes, to rise to a position of power, or to move to another area so that their behavior is tolerated"; in other words, "Tolerate me!!! Spamming throws is technically legal!")

Traditio wrote:

Smacks wrote:So is crying "cheap" whenever someone beats you, instead of admitting that maybe they're just better at the game and you need practice.

I would take this point seriously, except for the fact that we're talking about spamming throws.

If you aren't able to counter something as obvious and announced as the same move done over and over again, then I would say there is a very good chance you are bad at the game. So complaining that your opponent is "cheap" just because they beat you with one move sounds incredibly petty and unsportsmanlike.

Instead of moaning and being a sore-loser, why not learn to counter? Then they'll probably stop doing it.

Smacks wrote:If you aren't able to counter something as obvious and announced as the same move done over and over again, then I would say there is a very good chance you are bad at the game. So complaining that your opponent is "cheap" just because they beat you with one move sounds incredibly petty and unsportsmanlike.

Instead of moaning and being a sore-loser, why not learn to counter? Then they'll probably stop doing it.

If you're playing with the same people (a friend, let us assume), and you beat him by spamming throws the first time, that's fine. That's a laugh. Haha.

You (you in general, let us note) do it a second time, and that's pushing it. I think I got the message the first time. You can beat me by spamming throws. Very good. Let us move on with our day, thank you very much.

You do it a third time, and you're not worth playing against any more. Because at this point, you're just out to win. Not to have a fun time with your friend.

And if that's the case, you're not worth hanging out with. At least, I wouldn't want to hang out with you.

Traditio wrote:
Oh, yes, of course. Because the article didn't display, and just to name a few things:

Lack of empathy
Cold, calculating nature
Shallow emotions
Narcissism
Grandiose self image
Lawfulness (and here, in particular, I quote: "despite popular belief, a sociopath is not likely to be a problem to the law in later life, but rather will seek to find loopholes, to rise to a position of power, or to move to another area so that their behavior is tolerated"; in other words, "Tolerate me!!! Spamming throws is technically legal!")

No, it really doesn't display any of those things. Nor does it say that spamming throws (or whatever other overpowered thing) is something that everyone should passively accept regardless of whether they enjoy it. The whole point of the article is that the scrub isn't just a low-skill player or someone who enjoys a particular strategy, they're someone who makes up arbitrary rules for how to play the game and then criticizes other people for not following them while bragging about how they're the "real" winner. The scrub cares obsessively about winning, they just define "winning" in a way that makes sure that they always win and everyone else is always wrong. In short:

Playing a character you like and asking your opponent to pick a character/strategy that doesn't completely dominate your character = legitimate preference in game style.

Playing a character you like, losing the game, and whining endlessly about how your opponent was "cheap" and how you're the "real" winner = scrub.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Traditio wrote:
Let us move on with our day, thank you very much.

Why is your opponent TFG for continuing to spam throws instead of "moving on with our day", but you aren't TFG for continuing your strategy that is easily countered by spamming throws instead of "moving on with our day" by learning how to beat throw spam? And why does your definition of "fun to hang out with" include "allows me to win games without ever having to change my strategy"?

Peregrine wrote:Why is your opponent TFG for continuing to spam throws instead of "moving on with our day", but you aren't TFG for continuing your strategy that is easily countered by spamming throws instead of "moving on with our day" by learning how to beat throw spam? And why does your definition of "fun to hang out with" include "allows me to win games without ever having to change my strategy"?

False dichotomy. The dichotomy that you are presenting is:

1. Spam throws
2. Let me win.

Except, there's a middle ground. Attempt to beat me without resorting to spamming throws.

Traditio wrote:

Smacks wrote:If you aren't able to counter something as obvious and announced as the same move done over and over again, then I would say there is a very good chance you are bad at the game. So complaining that your opponent is "cheap" just because they beat you with one move sounds incredibly petty and unsportsmanlike.

Instead of moaning and being a sore-loser, why not learn to counter? Then they'll probably stop doing it.

If you're playing with the same people (a friend, let us assume), and you beat him by spamming throws the first time, that's fine. That's a laugh. Haha.

You (you in general, let us note) do it a second time, and that's pushing it. I think I got the message the first time. You can beat me by spamming throws. Very good. Let us move on with our day, thank you very much.

You do it a third time, and you're not worth playing against any more. Because at this point, you're just out to win. Not to have a fun time with your friend.

And if that's the case, you're not worth hanging out with. At least, I wouldn't want to hang out with you.

Well if you're a friend who is new at the game, and I'm supposed to be teaching you how to play, then yeah. Spamming throws might not be the most effective way to teach you.

However, if you play all the time then you shouldn't keep on expecting your friend to go easy on you (or else you call him cheap). At some point it becomes your responsibility to learn how to play properly and counter the throw.

If you decided to go play in a local tournament with prize money then people wouldn't hold back. So it would be for your own benefit ultimately.

Smacks wrote:Instead of moaning and being a sore-loser, why not learn to counter? Then they'll probably stop doing it.

One final point. As I read this post again, it really annoys me that you accuse the "scrub" of being a sore loser.

The "scrub" isn't sore about the fact that he lost. He's sore about how he lost. What annoys me isn't the fact that I lost, say, at a game of street fighter. What annoys me, say, is the fact that my opponent beat me by spamming throws.

Let us both perform a variety of moves, avoid spam and create a visual display, and I lose, then so what? It was exciting and fun both to play and to watch. I lost, but frankly, we both won out for having playedi t.

You spam throws? That's a different story entirely.

Traditio wrote:
Except, there's a middle ground. Attempt to beat me without resorting to spamming throws.

Why do I have the obligation to change my strategy when you have no matching obligation to change yours?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Traditio wrote:
As I read this post again, it really annoys me that you accuse the "scrub" of being a sore loser.

Why? That's exactly what they are. That's why the scrub has to go on and on about how they're the "real" winner. They can't accept the fact that they lost, and have to find some way to twist the situation into giving them a "win".

Smacks wrote:Well if you're a friend who is new at the game, and I'm supposed to be teaching you how to play, then yeah. Spamming throws might not be the most effective way to teach you.

However, if you play all the time then you shouldn't keep on expecting your friend to go easy on you (or else you call him cheap). At some point it becomes your responsibility to learn how to play properly and counter the throw.

If you decided to go play in a local tournament with prize money then people wouldn't hold back. So it would be for your own benefit ultimately.

I feel as though this last bit really betrays your mentality and general mindset.

With all due respect, I don't care about tournaments. It is not the case that every instance of every game is just tournament preparation. Sometimes, a game is just a game.

If more people realized this, the world would be better off.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Peregrine wrote:Why do I have the obligation to change my strategy when you have no matching obligation to change yours?

Depends upon why we're playing. Chances are, if we're playing a video game, it's in a casual social exchange. Part of that implies not acting in a way which is unduly offensive, unpleasant, etc.

There is nothing unduly offensive, unpleasant, etc. about the mode of play that I am describing (unless, of course, you are a power playing TFG).

About your mode of play, however (not yours in particular, but, rather, what you are describing)...that's a different story.

Why? That's exactly what they are. That's why the scrub has to go on and on about how they're the "real" winner. They can't accept the fact that they lost, and have to find some way to twist the situation into giving them a "win".

I've already addressed this. See my earlier comment. The simple fact is that you are thinking in WAAC categories and attempting to superimpose it onto "scrubs."

WAAC: winning and losing is all that counts. The scrub, when I beat him, insists that I played unfairly and didn't win in a proper/fair way. Therefore, all that he's concerned with is winning and losing, and he's really just a sore loser.

Again, no. That's just a WAAC superimposition onto the "scrub."

Traditio wrote:
Chances are, if we're playing a video game, it's in a casual social exchange.

Maybe for you. For other people playing in a competitive tournament is more common.

There is nothing unduly offensive, unpleasant, etc. about the mode of play that I am describing (unless, of course, you are a power playing TFG).

IN. YOUR. OPINION. Maybe I find your way of playing unduly offensive and unpleasant because your favorite character has really ugly animations and I don't enjoy having to carefully monitor my choice of moves to make sure that I'm not crossing your "cheese" threshold.

About your mode of play, however (not yours in particular, but, rather, what you are describing)...that's a different story.

Please, tell me exactly how spamming throws is "unduly offensive, unpleasant, etc" without any reference to subjective lists of what things you personally enjoy.

The simple fact is that you are thinking in WAAC categories and attempting to superimpose it onto "scrubs."

No, I'm just observing their behavior and stating the obvious. If someone spends a lot of time complaining about how they "really" won the game instead of just accepting the loss and moving on with life then it's a pretty clear statement that they're a sore loser. Someone who isn't a sore loser doesn't share the scrub's compulsive need to loudly tell everyone around them how they're the "real" winner.

Claims to not judge people. Says anyone that spends $200 on a hobby is a loser. Seems legit.
and then makes up rules for games and expects people to follow made up rules or claims they are sociopathic.
Okay.

Peregrine wrote:Maybe for you. For other people playing in a competitive tournament is more common.

What percent of people who play any given fighting game play in tournaments?

I'm willing to bet that tournament players are in the slim minority.

IN. YOUR. OPINION. Maybe I find your way of playing unduly offensive and unpleasant because your favorite character has really ugly animations and I don't enjoy having to carefully monitor my choice of moves to make sure that I'm not crossing your "cheese" threshold.

In this case, for "unduly offensive," I can appeal to general custom. In this case, all that requires is a general show of hands from the general player base. Given the fact that a guy needed to write an article to defend his uncouth manner of playing, and given the fact that you feel such a need to defend it...I'm reasonably sure about how such a show of hands would go.

Please, tell me exactly how spamming throws is "unduly offensive, unpleasant, etc" without any reference to subjective lists of what things you personally enjoy.

Custom has the force of law. See above.

No, I'm just observing their behavior and stating the obvious. If someone spends a lot of time complaining about how they "really" won the game instead of just accepting the loss and moving on with life then it's a pretty clear statement that they're a sore loser. Someone who isn't a sore loser doesn't share the scrub's compulsive need to loudly tell everyone around them how they're the "real" winner.

Then why are you accusing me of being a scrub? I'm not claiming that I won the match against the $200 dollar deck. When I say that he's probably a loser, I mean that he's probably a loser as a human being, not in terms of the game that we actually played.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 MWHistorian wrote:
Claims to not judge people. Says anyone that spends $200 on a hobby is a loser.

"Anyone who commits capital murder, presupposing no mitigating circumstances, deserves capital punishment."

Am I making a claim about this or that defendent when I say this?

Edit: Also, get the facts straight. I didn't say "on a hobby." I said "on a MTG deck."

Traditio wrote:
What percent of people who play any given fighting game play in tournaments?

I'm willing to bet that tournament players are in the slim minority.

I don't know, and I don't care. Unlike you I don't need to judge the motivations of everyone I meet.

Given the fact that a guy needed to write an article to defend his uncouth manner of playing

You completely missed the point of the article. It isn't about defending a way of playing, it's about pointing out bad behavior from people who whine endlessly about how they "really won" every time they lose a game.

Custom has the force of law. See above.

No it doesn't.

Then why are you accusing me of being a scrub?

Because you do exactly what the article describes. Look at your own complaints about the Kyle + Moldy Crow combo in X-Wing, or counterspells in MTG. You encountered something that beat you, you immediately labeled it "cheese" without really understanding it, you created your own rule that "good people" don't use those things, and you accused everyone who doesn't obey your rule of being WAAC TFGs/failures at life/sociopaths/etc.

I'm not claiming that I won the match against the $200 dollar deck. When I say that he's probably a loser, I mean that he's probably a loser as a human being, not in terms of the game that we actually played.

Yes, and that's textbook "scrub" behavior. You lost the game, but you're the "real" winner because your opponent is probably a "failure at life" or a "sociopath" or whatever. You've redefined "winning" to mean something that has nothing to do with the outcome of the game so that you can be the "winner".

 Talizvar wrote:


BUT

I want a challenge.
I want to look at rules and find the optimum way to select and play the game in front of me.
I expect to get thumped as I learn, the experts and the weaker players all have something to teach me (again see Sirlin link).
People confuse real life behavior with games, I maintain it is not the same.
Life has a lot of grey area, laws, ethics, social norms we need to get along and there is no clearly defined means of "winning" so you balance it all as best you can.
Games have rules, defined winning criteria, subterfuge, misleading, keeping them guessing is the very nature of most games.

Other than a good frank discussion with your potential opponent of the expectation of how the game will be played: how can you play to your very best and try to mitigate the risk of hurting someone's feelings over a game?

At it's most simple, take an indubitably weak, even supremely weak list. If you do...

- you have your challenge.
- you will need to play the rules and games in an optimum way to win.
- you will have a satisfyingly steep and long learning curve.
- nobody will ever accuse you of being in for the smugness of "winning" as opposed to the challenge.

On the other hand, if you take a strong (possibly overpowered) list from a strong codex...

- you will not be challenged.
- you will win even when playing suboptimally
- you will have no learning experience/curve.
- most peoples assumption (probably correctly) will be that you'e there for the smug feeling of "winning", not the competitive challenge of earning a victory with skills instead of exploiting GWs sub-par rules (which every 5-year-old can do).

Traditio wrote:
"Anyone who commits capital murder, presupposing no mitigating circumstances, deserves capital punishment."

Am I making a claim about this or that defendent when I say this?

Oh FFS, are you serious? The only reason you're not making that claim about a specific person is because a particular defendant isn't necessarily guilty of murder, and you can speak in general terms about it on this forum without it applying to anyone since there probably aren't any murderers here. However, there are people here who have spent $200 on MTG decks. I've done it, and I seriously doubt I'm the only one. So when you say "anyone has spent $200 on a MTG deck is a failure at life" what you're also saying is "Peregrine, you're a failure at life".

Now, the only question here is whether you're going to admit that you insulted me and apologize, or find some way to dishonestly claim that you didn't really say that anyone who spends $200 on a MTG deck is a loser despite the fact that you clearly did.

How has thid image not been posted yet?

(Sorry about the quality)



People complain about the words "play like you've got a pair" a lot but it's entirely out of context, reading the whole thing it is, imo, the best advice you can give for a game if you want it to be competitive. It actively discourages highly competitive players from picking on people just looking to throw some dice, as well as telling people they can't expect anyone to self nerf to play on their level.

Peregrine wrote:I don't know, and I don't care. Unlike you I don't need to judge the motivations of everyone I meet.

Do you realize how ridiculous these exchanges are?

"It's socially unacceptable, at least, in casual social exchanges."

"Not among tournament players."

"Er...who said anything about tournament players? How many people are tournament players?"

"Don't know! Don't care...I don't need the judge the motivations of everyone I meet."

Really?

You completely missed the point of the article. It isn't about defending a way of playing, it's about pointing out bad behavior from people who whine endlessly about how they "really won" every time they lose a game.

This paragraph says it all, to my mind, and hammers in my point about the author sounding like a sociopath:

"I once played a scrub who was actually quite good. That is, he knew the rules of the game well, he knew the character matchups well, and he knew what to do in most situations. But his web of mental rules kept him from truly playing to win. He cried cheap as I beat him with 'no skill moves' while he performed many difficult dragon punches. He cried cheap when I threw him five times in a row asking, 'Is that all you know how to do? Throw?' I gave him the best advice he could ever hear. I told him, 'Play to win, not to do ‘difficult moves.’' This was a big moment in that scrub’s life. He could either ignore his losses and continue living in his mental prison or analyze why he lost, shed his rules, and reach the next level of play."

For someone who accuses me of holding to "The One True Way of Having Fun," you don't seem to notice that the author does the exact same thing. He literally holds to the WAAC mentality.

No it doesn't.

When figuring out what constitutes unduly unpleasant, socially unacceptable, etc., you look at custom. A show of hands, I am pretty sure, would agree with me that the author is is a fething jerk...or, if he isn't...at least writes like one.

Because you do exactly what the article describes. Look at your own complaints about the Kyle + Moldy Crow combo in X-Wing, or counterspells in MTG. You encountered something that beat you, you immediately labeled it "cheese" without really understanding it, you created your own rule that "good people" don't use those things, and you accused everyone who doesn't obey your rule of being WAAC TFGs/failures at life/sociopaths/etc.

I'm saying that the author writes like a sociopath. Have you read the article? Reread it.

Yes, and that's textbook "scrub" behavior. You lost the game, but you're the "real" winner because your opponent is probably a "failure at life" or a "sociopath" or whatever. You've redefined "winning" to mean something that has nothing to do with the outcome of the game so that you can be the "winner".

You're speaking through stereotypical WAAC lenses. "The only winning that counts is in the game that I play competitively and wish to win at. There is no other standard."

Still going eh?
If you want to play competitively against other competitive players, fill your boots. Improve your game to your hearts content.
If you want to play Fluffy, casual games, play other fluffy casual gamers.
These players can swap over as they fell like BTW, there's no rule in any book that says anyone has to stay exactly the same all the time.
I play both types of game quite happily. I am training myself up for a small tournament at the end of the year, so am optimising my faction to the best of my ability, also learning some sneaky "best practice" tactics. But I also play lots of casual, fluffy, non-competitive games, where I don't actually give a monkey's if I win or not.
However, If you do inadvertently cross over, and find yourself with your fluffy list and inbuilt aversion to spam, going up against captain competitive, or alternatively, you stroll into a store on a Saturday afternoon with your tournament tuned 1850 point destroyer list, try not to be too upset when your opponent thinks you're a bell-end.

Gonna close this now, seems beyond the point of ridiculousness.