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.

I was linked to this article from another site yesterday, and I agreed with most of it.  I thought it might stimulate some discussion. (personally I think it describes the average GW player perfectly, except there all using different 'rules' to define what is and what isn't 'fair')

http://www.sirlin.net/Features/feature_PlayToWinPart1.htm

Discuss.

Haha, I saw that a few years back. Excellent article. Every now and then I'd kindly put the link in a reply at warseer and hilarity ensues.

I think I first saw it when Mannahin posted it:

linky

It's good to be reminded that it exists, though.

heh, as an avid Brood War player, I find those comments funny.

Also, the professional starcraft community would probably not be amused. They are litterally paid to practice 12 hours a day. They find the game fun, and giving the cash amounts involved, I'd say they definately play to win.

He contradicts himself. He says that its ok to exploit bugs/oversights, but not the ones that are "broken." He is saying don't confine yourselves to rules in your head, unless everyone agrees with those rules in your head.

Granted, its an interesting article, I must be a scrub because I put both players having fun ahead of winning...

Ozymandias, King of Kings

Posted By Ozymandias on 05/03/2007 1:44 PM
He contradicts himself. He says that its ok to exploit bugs/oversights, but not the ones that are "broken." He is saying don't confine yourselves to rules in your head, unless everyone agrees with those rules in your head.

Granted, its an interesting article, I must be a scrub because I put both players having fun ahead of winning...

I don't think he contridicts himself, he just doesn't properly distinguish the two types of bugs.  I'm guessing he's saying that certain bugs either have no valid counter or destroy the game itself (the super character or freezing the game), and the community bans those moves.  In essence, the community adds a rule to the game that it enforces on everybody.  Like all rules, some bugs may or may not be subject to such sanction, but the body politic makes the call as it sees fit.  What he's saying is to only follow the rules that your opponent is following, and don't expect him to follow your own.

And hey, it's great that you want your opponent to have fun.  Unless there's money on the table (and more than simply a nominal amount), games are about fun.  The obvious retort is simply:  what do you do if your opponent has fun playing, win or lose, against a skilled determined opponent? 

Tabletop gaming, more so even that console gaming, involves a social contract between the players.  In my experience, the best people to have in a gaming club are guys that can bring the nasty when you want to play tough, but can also play down and bring a goofy list when you want to try something off the wall.  Gunners crushing Scrubs isn't fun for anybody, not even the Gunner.

It's all about about the social contract with tabletop games.
You have to know what the exprctations are before you play.
Tournament: Down and dirty.
Store: Run what you brung.
Basement: Yeah I'll let you proxy those... how many!?... yeah ok, go ahead.
There's no problem with playing to win. If it's your only goal every time... you're gonna run into a hassle or two.

I gotta agree that the guy at least contradicts himself. At worst he is a hypocrite. Why not use the other bugs? Isn't thE decision not to use them just as arbitrary as deciding not to use a CC?

All I get from his article is that people that play his way are "good players"... people that play some other way are "scrubs." Isn't that alot like the scrubs calling something "cheap?"

Sorry but this article is self-serving crap.

ender502

By the theories outlined in the article, the games that don't provide built-in balance will die out in favor of games that provide good balance and gameplay.

If we look at 40k, we see this point somewhat contradicted, but because of factors that a video-game article can't cover.

40k is not always well-balanced (I'm being generous), but because we enjoy the background and the modeling parts of the hobby, it persists. If those two dimensions did not exist, they'd be forced to make the rules better (and better written) in order to maintain the playerbase.

The dynamics of 40k, the vast differences in composition, etc, create a lot of room for arguing about "cheese" and imbalance. I have to admit, I'd usually rather just play-to-win rather than live by a set of arbitrary gentlemen's agreements to not be too powerful, not overuse a winning strategy, etc...

... and I never did understand how throws were cheap considering I could always counter folks who lived by throwing...

There's a difference between Street Fighter Friggin' 2 and 40k. A ruleset for pushing around your toy soldiers this may be, but chess it ain't.

And I play godzilla, for the record.

He makes some valid points about the arbitrariness of cheese, but as far as I can see the Street Fighter metaphor only applies to 40k in a few ways.  One parallel is definitely the repeated move = spam, min/max.   This makes sense, and is responsible for most of the killer tournament builds, but this is where 40K and Street Fighter diverge a bit.  Rather than a game of timing and awareness, building a good 40k army is a bit like trying to stack a deck in your favor, and in this situation spam/min-maxing can lead to stultified gameplay.   Sometimes it is fun to use sub-optimal units, and if the game is played only at 1850 gamma standard missions in a highly competitive environment, after a while it can reach a frustrating level where whoever gets the first turn can always alpha strike the other guy.  I enjoy that highly competitive level of play, but only in small doses.

Back in 2nd ed (when I was 14-15), the win at all costs was the only way we played. It was a lot of fun. As I got older, I realized that I had a lot more fun playing with more balanced lists on both sides. Sometimes playing sub-optimal lists forces both players to think a lot harder about how they play, rather than the point and shoot armies that I typically see glorified online. That is one of the reasons I started playing Dark Eldar, it made me think a lot harder about how I played.

I will agree that it is a social contract not to take the ultimate cheese-lists, and I wouldn't expect that at a store or a tournament, but I will contend that it is a lot more fun to play.

Ozymandias, King of Kings

Especially in 40k, and also in some pc games, you use the race or the character which you like the most. May it be the Protoss, Eldar or freakin Sub-zero...the point is that there are often irrational points what we use and how we play. I know that it would be "better" if I used 3 falcons in my Eldar army, but I won't leave home without my Dark Reapers, I tell you. That is what makes my army truly mine. Not some generic "good list".

Greets
Schepp himself

That guy is an A-hole.

Considering that before I got involved in wargamming my biggest hobby was playing 2D fighting games competitively, I've seen this years ago.

Scrubs will always *female dog*, despite what game you're playing.

But you're playing it wrong and not subscribing to an arbitrary set of rules they made up! HOW DARE YOU!1!11

I believe the warhammer equivalent of banning certain characters/combos in those games is banning certain armies from GW tournaments. We all know how broken Feral Orks were, right guys? I'd include fixing glitches being analogous to errata, but then that would mean GW issues errata in the first place.

The guy is a jerk. Played alot of Mechwarrior4 in online leagues over the years(since netMech). The leagues were filled with guys like this and thats fine. The result generally was the complete domination of 3 weapons out of more then 50 and a single tactic being used. There were some exceptional players who had the skill to exploit many more weapons but it was not the norm. It was and is great community but you did have to make the choice if you wanted to be competitive... Fortunately I played with good folks who enjoyed all the RPG aspects of the BT universe. Rituals, Duels, Grand Melees, Bloodnames... Everyone loves to win but fair play, honor in the execution of the rules and community are what make or break the gaming experience.

Which three weapons? Just curious.

Let me guess- ER-PPC, Heavy Gauss Rifle, and ClanAC20?

[Edit]: scratch the AC20.  Thunderbolt missle.

Posted By fellblade on 05/04/2007 9:29 AM

Which three weapons? Just curious.

Let me guess- ER-PPC, Heavy Gauss Rifle, and ClanAC20?

[Edit]: scratch the AC20.  Thunderbolt missle.

Mostly ERlarge laser...  people would boat 7 on a novacat and abuse faulty heat code, never overheat and rack up the 2 shot kills. 

PPCs suffered from something called the "no damage bug" NDB  and was a little unreliable.  MS tried to fix the PPC and wound up making it UBER from PR1 to PR2.  About this time people also figured out how to remove fog...  I abused this on the open servers but never in a drop... some did.

Heavy gauss was a pretty balanced weapon with only a 600m it took a skilled pilot to beat the 800m range of the erLL.

TBs could only really be abused on wide open maps.   but...  were loads of fun when used in teams.

the Netbattletech league is still around and they have completely rebalanced all the weapons, heat and slot system..  Also they have modeled and imported some 30 more mechs.   MS even game them the OK to use the mechpacks for free...

Still a great game and a great community.  I know of at least a few clans that are still heavy into RPGing with Mechwarrior.

www.netbattletech.com

Check out the modeling pages on the HPG.  some amazing stuff.

The 'historical examples' are way out too.

Chamberlains mistake was seen with hindsight as Germany was in a poor position for war in 38. However Germany was rearming rapidly at the time while the UK was not. 'Peace in our time' was just buying time, between Munich and the opening of WW2 the British rearmed majorly, particularly in the RAF.

The Redcoats won most of the battles they fought in the American revolution.

No comment on Janeway though.


Tip: Don't listen to advice from monkeys.

When it comes to Battletech you have to take a role play attitude for the game to work. The basic rules mean that some weapons are clearly superior to others. Let us take the original stats dfor the game 3025 rules.
A PPC does 10 damage for 10 heat, an AC10 does 10 damage for 3 heat, but weighs much more. If you added enough heat sinks to the PPC to reduce its heat to 3 you would still usde less tonnage on the mech than if you had the naked AC/10. The PPC hads a minimum range, but has better range overall needed no ammo (which tends to blow up) and is cheaper to build in in game money.

Now in GW games most players take the better weapons options, some might take the odd different weapon.

In Battletech the trend is reversed (outside of internet playerz). If you are playing Marik forces 3025 you tend to use a lot of autocannon, because its what they had. The whole gaming attitude is different. Mostly because a points system for Battletech is a reletively recent thing, old school Battltech didnt bother to match points, you did the best you could with the forces available.

What's a bloodname?

Jervis Johnson got it right when he wrote "The only objective in a wargame is to make sure that your opponent has as good a time a possible." (or something to that effect) This obsession that some people have with winning games and insulting lesser players in the process is rather silly.

The object of a game is to have a good time, but the object of a competitive game is also to win. Sirlin's article is a pretty good one, though the parallels to tabletop wargaming are not direct, as tabletop wargaming is more of a collaborative/cooperative endeavor.

The article uses inflammatory and insulting language to try and make a point. He does moderate it a bit in the sequels.

The basic point that you need to be responsible for your own enjoyment and development as a player and competitor, and not project your own desires and preferences onto other people, is quite valid.

Malfred: What's a bloodname?

You spheroid freebirth!

Listen surat, a Bloodname is the clan equivalent to a surname for trueborn (genetically engineered) warriors. You are not born with a bloodname, it can only be earned in battle. And not just any battle but bloodname duels against other contestants. While not mandatory you can bid a battle as to the death.

So like, before I play a Warmachine game I can say "To the death! And I shall be known
as Tanisha Lakwanda!" and when I survive the battle, that becomes my bloodname?

It's a battletech thing, malfred. part of the battletech fluff.

You just don't want to wind up a Desgra, Solahma like me...

spot on Orlanth!

@Malfred, No I think you might get that particular name if you lose a duel.

Darrian

Exactly!