Switch Theme:

Competitive 40K going off the rails - Why the hate?  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in us
Dominating Dominatrix






Southeastern PA, USA

I feel like GW has an interesting relationship with the competitive community right now.

On one hand, they're supporting 40K competitive play with more consistent FAQs, regular points adjustments, etc. On the other hand, they continue to add complexity, options and supplements that are obviously aimed at folks that lean toward open/narrative gaming. It's like 40K is both more *supported* than ever for competitive play and yet less *suited* than ever for competitive play. At least in certain aspects.

I still like 40K, but I don't do big tournaments anymore and my mindset is casual-competitive at most. It seems like a pretty good time for the casual-competitive crowd, since we're getting some rebalancing alongside plenty of new toys to play with. *shrug*

My World Eaters Showcase
View my Genestealer Cult! Article - Gallery - Blog
Best Appearance - GW Baltimore GT 2008, Colonial GT 2012

DQ:70+S++++G+M++++B++I+Pw40k90#+D++A+++/fWD66R++T(Ot)DM+++

 
   
Made in us
Pyro Pilot of a Triach Stalker





Somewhere over the rainbow, way up high

Two groups of people play 40k.

Casual Gamers

And

Competitive Gamers

They play for different reasons. The rules cannot easily accommodate both playstyles. The rules swing one way or another, and one group rants that the other group is being catered to, and is killing their hobby.

Bedouin Dynasty: 9000 pts
The Silver Lances: 4k pts
The Emperor's Finest 2k pts

MajorStoffer wrote:
...
Sternguard though, those guys are all about kicking ass. They'd chew bubble gum as well, but bubble gum is heretical. Only tau chew gum. 
   
Made in us
Stealthy Warhound Titan Princeps






 Sqorgar wrote:
Nurglitch wrote:
I've proposed using lists fixed by the organizers to make the game about skills on the table.
Not going to happen. That would reveal the actual skill of the players, rather than how well they can download netlists and follow flow charts, and the blow to their fragile egos would be too great...

...but I'd really like to see something like that. They've had sealed deck tournaments for CCGs forever, but they've never really had premade deck tournaments - probably because you can still avoid responsibility for the loss by blaming the randomness of the decks.


And you guys say tournament players are toxic, lol. Talking down about people who don't play the game in the same way as you is REALLY different from the tournament players who talk down to casuals....

Honestly, look at the winning lists for recent tournaments. There is quite a bit of variation. Even if a list has a similar "core", almost every player puts a different spin on their list over someone else's. It's incredibly rare for 2 players to play the same "netlist".

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/06/25 18:57:15


 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





 lord_blackfang wrote:
 Guardsmanwaffle wrote:
There’s a lot of baseless conjecture being thrown toward the competitive community. A balanced game is good for both casual and competitive players yet it’s the competitive community that is the driving force for balance. The competitive community is the reason 8th edition is probably the most balanced edition of Warhammer in recent history.


The competitive community has a very degenerate idea about what balance means and them driving GW's design is a major problem with this edition. Casual players are in no way benefitting from "balance" that boils down to minor points juggling to keep a dozen of the most ridiculous power lists roughly equal to one another, while everything else is garbage.


As opposed to one or two of the most ridiculous power lists that go unchecked until the community either has had enough and comes up with enough houserules to fix or or collectively decides to shun players until they lose an acceptable amount? These aren't exactly great solutions either.

Ultimately, I think everyone has the same hope of what balance means, but at least in my experience, the players who complain about "competitive players" (which is not the same as what I would call "casuals" but its apparently a two party system) seem to approach the discussion with an idea of balanced that's as impractical as it is degenerate for the players who put the ALL in WAAC.

Realistically, there are more viable codexes right now than 40k has ever seen. That's not the same thing as being able to throw whatever you want on the table and win a tournament. You may have to concede a few points to putting in a Guard battalion or have a squad of blue lootas providing some suppressive fire for your red bikes. There's very little in the game right now you can't include a unit or two of in the game and still have a shot of X-1 or better. That, to me, is a pretty huge benefit as someone who's pretty casual about the game.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





 Horst wrote:

And you guys say tournament players are toxic, lol. Talking down about people who don't play the game in the same way as you is REALLY different from the tournament players who talk down to casuals....
I don't care how they play (though I won't ever agree with it). But I don't like what competitive players do to the games. I don't generally use the word "toxic", but there's no getting around the fact that when competitive players become the dominant play style of a game, it is poisonous to the long term health of the game.

I can't tell you the number of people I've heard say that they quit playing games because of this attitude. Tom Vassel has a notorious example of one player - just one person - ruining Netrunner for him and Sam Healey within a few minutes, despite greatly enjoying the game and playing it. If one player can delete two players, is that healthy for the game? Is a single competitive player worth two casual players? And a single overly competitive player can ruin the game for more than just two people over his many years - I can't tell you how many Warmachine players I never saw a second time. I doubt I could ever have such a immediate and damaging affect on the game, regardless of what I did.

Honestly, look at the winning lists for recent tournaments. There is quite a bit of variation. Even if a list has a similar "core", almost every player puts a different spin on their list over someone else's. It's incredibly rare for 2 players to play the same "netlist".
If everybody is driving the same sports car, does it matter if they are painted slightly different shades of red?
   
Made in us
Horrific Hive Tyrant




Tampa, FL

 Horst wrote:
 Sqorgar wrote:
Nurglitch wrote:
I've proposed using lists fixed by the organizers to make the game about skills on the table.
Not going to happen. That would reveal the actual skill of the players, rather than how well they can download netlists and follow flow charts, and the blow to their fragile egos would be too great...

...but I'd really like to see something like that. They've had sealed deck tournaments for CCGs forever, but they've never really had premade deck tournaments - probably because you can still avoid responsibility for the loss by blaming the randomness of the decks.


And you guys say tournament players are toxic, lol. Talking down about people who don't play the game in the same way as you is REALLY different from the tournament players who talk down to casuals....

Honestly, look at the winning lists for recent tournaments. There is quite a bit of variation. Even if a list has a similar "core", almost every player puts a different spin on their list over someone else's. It's incredibly rare for 2 players to play the same "netlist".
It's not variation if you see 5 lists that are all some take on "Loyal 32 and extras". I'd argue the opposite, but it's enough to keep peddling the narrative that there's variety in the tournament. REAL variety would be actual different armies or different lists, not roughly the same thing with a few parts different. Instead you see this horsegak constantly being peddled that there's "variety" in the top lists, and you look and like half of them are still all some flavor of Imperial soup.

I honestly am not at all thrilled with the fact it seems the competitive crowd are "pushing" the changes on 40k. It's bad enough that ITC is essentially playing their own game due to their missions to have their own meta that you don't see at the official GTs and the like, but it's the fact that a lot of changes inadvertently affect all of matched play, tournament or not, based on them being abused by the tiny minority who are the cutthroat competitve players. Look at how Blood Angels got nerfed because Smash Captains and Guard were makng waves (it since got overturned partially), even though Blood Angels themselves were fine.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2019/06/25 19:29:56


- Wayne
Formerly WayneTheGame 
   
Made in us
Stealthy Warhound Titan Princeps






Wayniac wrote:
It's not variation if you see 5 lists that are all some take on "Loyal 32 and extras". I'd argue the opposite, but it's enough to keep peddling the narrative that there's variety in the tournament. REAL variety would be actual different armies or different lists, not roughly the same thing with a few parts different. Instead you see this horsegak constantly being peddled that there's "variety" in the top lists, and you look and like half of them are still all some flavor of Imperial soup.

I honestly am not at all thrilled with the fact it seems the competitive crowd are "pushing" the changes on 40k. It's bad enough that ITC is essentially playing their own game due to their missions to have their own meta that you don't see at the official GTs and the like, but it's the fact that a lot of changes inadvertently affect all of matched play, tournament or not, based on them being abused by the tiny minority who are the cutthroat competitve players. Look at how Blood Angels got nerfed because Smash Captains and Guard were makng waves (it since got overturned partially), even though Blood Angels themselves were fine.


Look at the winning lists for recent tournaments here - https://www.40kstats.com/top-4s

Go on and count the number of "Loyal 32 and Extras" you see in there... I see very few instances of Loyal 32 being used at all, at least not as the 180 point barebones variant that's used as a boogeyman.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





Wayniac wrote:
It's not variation if you see 5 lists that are all some take on "Loyal 32 and extras".


You're grossly homogenizing things by declaring over 90% of the list "extras".
   
Made in it
Longtime Dakkanaut




Here, results from the last 94 player event of 2 weeks ago:

https://downunderpairings.com/Tournament.php?TournamentID=656

1st place: DE with CW airwing
2nd place: Tau
3rd place: Leviathan and GSC
4th: Chaos undivided
5th: Sisters and knights with loyal 32
6th: Harlequins and CWE
7th: Space wolves and Knights
8th: Thousand sons, Alpha legion and some daemons
9th: Mono DE
10th: Mono DE

If this isn't an healthy state of balance, i don't know what it is.
   
Made in gb
Regular Dakkanaut




I don't visit said Facebook group, but I do frequent tournaments and see nobody "going off the rails" but rather a friendly community who just likes to play to win. I'm not sure what the fuss is about.
   
Made in us
Ancient Chaos Terminator





Eye of Terror

A post on Facebook isn't representative of the community at large.

Some of the best players I know don't go to tournaments. Some of the nicest, most polite people I know are competitive players.

Social media encourages people to say things that are controversial to get attention. Don't confuse that for real life.

   
Made in gb
Fully-charged Electropriest




UK

I think the issue here may actually be Facebook. A lot of people seem to turn in to trumped up ass holes as soon as they log into social media. The amount of abuse posted on those platforms is astonishing, makes Dakka look like everyone here are BFF’s.

You see the same thing in video game collecting where there shouldn’t even be competition. There’s always some judgemental ass hole gate keeping saying that someone’s collection is garbage for some Top Trumps reason.

People are just going to be mean to each other, especially when the chances of retribution are slim to none.

Imperial Soup
2200pts/1750 painted
2800pts/1200 painted
2200pts/650 painted
217pts/151 painted 
   
Made in gb
Dakka Veteran





I don't play tournaments and ignore any of the comments that stem from it so my opinion is somewhat worthless. However, something that sticks out to me is the requirements for becoming a competitive player are not based around hard work, skill or determination at least for the most part. It is essentially playing a list which is as highly in your favour as possible (this is the whole point of tabletop I know) and only really requires you to have an understanding of the rules of the game to succeed. This often means spending £400 as often as FAQs are released. I find the game is rarely about "skill" which is why it has brought me so many laughs over the years, chance does that.

My point being, many of the people you are referring to did not have to have learn be humble, hard working and often sociable. Their "skill" comes from a great understanding of the.. power of retail! Therefore there attitudes are often cheap.

I am not bashing competitive players on a whole, the vast, vast majority stick with Armies through numerous losses and misery to learn nuanced ways to use the army they enjoy. I am talking about the individuals who bring unpainted knights to a 1000pts game

2700
1500 
   
Made in us
Stealthy Warhound Titan Princeps






 Alphabet wrote:
I don't play tournaments and ignore any of the comments that stem from it so my opinion is somewhat worthless. However, something that sticks out to me is the requirements for becoming a competitive player are not based around hard work, skill or determination at least for the most part. It is essentially playing a list which is as highly in your favour as possible (this is the whole point of tabletop I know) and only really requires you to have an understanding of the rules of the game to succeed. This often means spending £400 as often as FAQs are released. I find the game is rarely about "skill" which is why it has brought me so many laughs over the years, chance does that.

My point being, many of the people you are referring to did not have to have learn be humble, hard working and often sociable. Their "skill" comes from a great understanding of the.. power of retail! Therefore there attitudes are often cheap.

I am not bashing competitive players on a whole, the vast, vast majority stick with Armies through numerous losses and misery to learn nuanced ways to use the army they enjoy. I am talking about the individuals who bring unpainted knights to a 1000pts game


The most competitive 40k environment is ITC at the moment, which requires fully painted armies. Every large GT I've been to has required fully painted and based armies, or has heavily penalized you (-2 to your roll for first turn) if you have a single unpainted model in your army. I've never actually seen an unpainted army (though I have seen a few models with only 3 colors).

Nobody is going out and spending $400 the second an FAQ is released... the players who are winning games are using similar lists for long periods of time, with multiple tweaks over time to change things. The skill of a competitive player comes from two places really... planning your army to have an answer to other common meta armies, and to know how to execute your strategy against other common meta armies. That's not a trivial task, given that there are a lot of good armies out there right now.

But yea, I've not seen a person be able to simply go out, buy an army, slap it together, and play it at a tournament unpainted. That's just not how competitive 40k works. Without months or years of experience playing that army, you will not know exactly what to do when you fight specific opponents, and will often lose because of it. Every competitive army right now has bad matchups, that unless you have a good plan for how to deal with, you're going to just lose.

Also, about competitive players bringing Knights to a 1000 point game. Competitive players do not play 1000 point games. You're describing a jerk, not a competitive player. There's a difference.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2019/06/26 14:00:32


 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





Spoletta wrote:
Here, results from the last 94 player event of 2 weeks ago:

https://downunderpairings.com/Tournament.php?TournamentID=656

1st place: DE with CW airwing
2nd place: Tau
3rd place: Leviathan and GSC
4th: Chaos undivided
5th: Sisters and knights with loyal 32
6th: Harlequins and CWE
7th: Space wolves and Knights
8th: Thousand sons, Alpha legion and some daemons
9th: Mono DE
10th: Mono DE

If this isn't an healthy state of balance, i don't know what it is.


A lot of people won't consider a game balanced unless they can spam a full army of whatever niche unit they love and win most of their games with it.
   
Made in us
Dominating Dominatrix






Southeastern PA, USA

 LunarSol wrote:
Spoletta wrote:
Here, results from the last 94 player event of 2 weeks ago:

https://downunderpairings.com/Tournament.php?TournamentID=656

1st place: DE with CW airwing
2nd place: Tau
3rd place: Leviathan and GSC
4th: Chaos undivided
5th: Sisters and knights with loyal 32
6th: Harlequins and CWE
7th: Space wolves and Knights
8th: Thousand sons, Alpha legion and some daemons
9th: Mono DE
10th: Mono DE

If this isn't an healthy state of balance, i don't know what it is.


A lot of people won't consider a game balanced unless they can spam a full army of whatever niche unit they love and win most of their games with it.


Perhaps. But then was the old Tyranid codex 'balanced' or a good one because it had Tyrantspam as a highly competitive build, even if most of the rest of it was poor? The Warhams pro athlete might say yes, but a casual-competitive player might have a wildly different opinion.

The list there doesn't give us enough information. You can have headline diversity in the results, but if each codex is only showing a single competitive build, it doesn't suggest well-balanced codices and gaming to folks outside the most competitive circles.

I'm not saying that's what happened at that event or that it's the state of 8th edition right now. Again, I think it's a pretty good time for those folks toward the middle of the continuum. I'm just pointing out that 'healthy balance' legitimately depends on your perspective, and that top-level competitive play is a very distorted place.

My World Eaters Showcase
View my Genestealer Cult! Article - Gallery - Blog
Best Appearance - GW Baltimore GT 2008, Colonial GT 2012

DQ:70+S++++G+M++++B++I+Pw40k90#+D++A+++/fWD66R++T(Ot)DM+++

 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




 LunarSol wrote:
Wayniac wrote:
It's not variation if you see 5 lists that are all some take on "Loyal 32 and extras".


You're grossly homogenizing things by declaring over 90% of the list "extras".

While you both have a point it would be nice if GW would address th3 elephant in the room of adding cheap CP battalions and sinking all that CP into something else.

Try getting advise on how to improve a mono anything imperial list and 90% of the suggestions will be the 32 douches or the 17.

While it's far better than it has been in previous editions thats no reason to allow GW to half ass it. But by the same token just taking random units and throwing them together with no plan shouldn't be a viable way to win a GT either.

Some of these corner stones of list design do still need addressing but I also think the community is still seeing some of the backlash to the increased amount of people who arnt 100% commited to either the WAAC or CAAC camps.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





phillv85 wrote:I think the issue here may actually be Facebook. A lot of people seem to turn in to trumped up ass holes as soon as they log into social media. The amount of abuse posted on those platforms is astonishing, makes Dakka look like everyone here are BFF’s.
I think the general level of cruelty on display is something unique to social media, but I've seen the competitive mindset drive players from games - even when the competitive players were otherwise amiable people. They can be great guys, but then curb stomp a newbie while overloading them with tons of information about what they did wrong, what they need to buy next, how to play better, and so on.

There’s always some judgemental ass hole gate keeping
Gatekeeping gets a bad rap. In video games, if we were a bit more deliberate in who's opinions we listened to, people like Anita Sarkeesian wouldn't have ruined a generation of games.

Alphabet wrote:I find the game is rarely about "skill" which is why it has brought me so many laughs over the years, chance does that.
Seems like this would be a very easy thing to test (play two armies multiple times, then switch an play the opponent's armies multiple times - in a game of skill, the better player would have more wins, rather than the better army). However, because of the significant amount of randomness inherent in something like 40k, you'd have to play a significant number of games to reach a conclusion (law of really big numbers says that the more data points you have, the closer the data will approach a true average value). But the only way to control for actual skill would be to use the same armies and same terrain every game.

Their "skill" comes from a great understanding of the.. power of retail! Therefore there attitudes are often cheap.
When it comes to GW games, attitudes are the only thing that can be cheap.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/06/26 14:50:45


 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





Ice_can wrote:
 LunarSol wrote:
Wayniac wrote:
It's not variation if you see 5 lists that are all some take on "Loyal 32 and extras".


You're grossly homogenizing things by declaring over 90% of the list "extras".

While you both have a point it would be nice if GW would address th3 elephant in the room of adding cheap CP battalions and sinking all that CP into something else.

Try getting advise on how to improve a mono anything imperial list and 90% of the suggestions will be the 32 douches or the 17.

While it's far better than it has been in previous editions thats no reason to allow GW to half ass it. But by the same token just taking random units and throwing them together with no plan shouldn't be a viable way to win a GT either.

Some of these corner stones of list design do still need addressing but I also think the community is still seeing some of the backlash to the increased amount of people who arnt 100% commited to either the WAAC or CAAC camps.


This is a perspective thing, but I see it more of a patch on the way GW has historically kept taking small chunks of the setting and declaring them an entire army to get people to buy a half dozen kits over and over. To me, Guard are the cheap, base line unit that's always in the setting for every one of the factions that ally them in. The problem in my mind is just that GW kept making things "their own army". It'd be like if GW released 3 Ork codexes and only one of them allowed Boyz and another was just Stompas, with GW treating them as separate "factions". Is it an exploit for Orks to spend CP they earned from Boyz on Lootas? 8th from the beginning has felt like GW has seen the need to consolidate their factions but then again I've mostly been a fan of the setting from other media, where the Imperium is rarely depicted as 15 completely unrelated factions.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/06/26 15:38:37


 
   
Made in us
Douglas Bader






 Sqorgar wrote:
I think the general level of cruelty on display is something unique to social media, but I've seen the competitive mindset drive players from games - even when the competitive players were otherwise amiable people. They can be great guys, but then curb stomp a newbie while overloading them with tons of information about what they did wrong, what they need to buy next, how to play better, and so on.


And I've seen the casual mindset drive people from games with endless unwritten rules about what is "cheese", poor knowledge of the rules, condescending attitudes towards new players who are interested in tournaments, etc.

In video games, if we were a bit more deliberate in who's opinions we listened to, people like Anita Sarkeesian wouldn't have ruined a generation of games.


Lolwut? This is a joke, right? Tell me you don't seriously believe that gamergate nonsense...

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/06/26 16:08:32


There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices. 
   
Made in us
Stealthy Warhound Titan Princeps






 Peregrine wrote:


And I've seen the casual mindset drive people from games with endless unwritten rules about what is "cheese", poor knowledge of the rules, condescending attitudes towards new players who are interested in tournaments, etc.



I had a guy come up to me while playing a game (who wasn't my opponent), calling me out for being abusive of the rules, when I was rolling to get CP back for stratagems I played during deployment (pre FAQ when they changed this). Some people who declare themselves "casual" players just cannot accept that they are wrong about things sometimes, and will butt into other games to loudly proclaim that their interpretation of the rules is the "one true interpretation" even if they're demonstrably wrong. I haven't seen a tournament player do this yet....
   
Made in ca
God-like Imperator Titan Commander




Halifax

 Peregrine wrote:
 Sqorgar wrote:
I think the general level of cruelty on display is something unique to social media, but I've seen the competitive mindset drive players from games - even when the competitive players were otherwise amiable people. They can be great guys, but then curb stomp a newbie while overloading them with tons of information about what they did wrong, what they need to buy next, how to play better, and so on.


And I've seen the casual mindset drive people from games with endless unwritten rules about what is "cheese", poor knowledge of the rules, condescending attitudes towards new players who are interested in tournaments, etc.

I think it's worth pointing out that the individual personal relationships players have with each other is often more important than some vague dichotomy like 'casual vs competitive.' That tends to get left out for some reason.

Peregrine wrote:
sqorgar wrote:In video games, if we were a bit more deliberate in who's opinions we listened to, people like Anita Sarkeesian wouldn't have ruined a generation of games.


Lolwut? This is a joke, right? Tell me you don't seriously believe that gamergate nonsense...

Yeah, this threw me for a loop. My impression of Anita Sarkeesian is that she'd like it if women were treated like people rather than aliens. Yet somehow there's people that believe she's determined to ruin gaming for...reasons.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2019/06/26 16:40:17


 
   
Made in us
Douglas Bader






Nurglitch wrote:
Yeah, this threw me for a loop. My impression of Anita Sarkeesian is that she'd like it if women were treated like people rather than aliens. Yet somehow there's people that believe she's determined to ruin gaming for...reasons.


Clearly it is the fact that there might be fewer straight white male protagonists that is ruining gaming, not loot boxes, day 1 DLC, and endless milking the cash cow of Call of Battlefield 15 or SportsBall 2019 over and over and over again instead of making something innovative and worth buying.

There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices. 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





 Peregrine wrote:

And I've seen the casual mindset drive people from games with endless unwritten rules about what is "cheese", poor knowledge of the rules, condescending attitudes towards new players who are interested in tournaments, etc.
No, you haven't. You are absolutely full of gak.

Also, isn't it a bit hypocritical to criticize behavior you gleefully engage in? You've been the most condescending poster in this forum for years.

Lolwut? This is a joke, right? Tell me you don't seriously believe that gamergate nonsense...
It would be a thread derail to discuss this at any length, but I think if game companies listened to actual gamers about what they wanted rather than a charlatan with no actual investment or interest in the field, we'd have less predatory business practices, better games, and a healthier industry. The best thing that can be said about Anita Sarkeesian is that she kinda understood SOME of the discredited feminist theories she lazily applied to games she's never played - she's like if Jack Thompson and Jack Chick had a stupid baby.
   
Made in gb
Screaming Shining Spear






Nurglitch wrote:
 Peregrine wrote:
 Sqorgar wrote:
I think the general level of cruelty on display is something unique to social media, but I've seen the competitive mindset drive players from games - even when the competitive players were otherwise amiable people. They can be great guys, but then curb stomp a newbie while overloading them with tons of information about what they did wrong, what they need to buy next, how to play better, and so on.


And I've seen the casual mindset drive people from games with endless unwritten rules about what is "cheese", poor knowledge of the rules, condescending attitudes towards new players who are interested in tournaments, etc.

I think it's worth pointing out that the individual personal relationships players have with each other is often more important than some vague dichotomy like 'casual vs competitive.' That tends to get left out for some reason.

Peregrine wrote:
sqorgar wrote:In video games, if we were a bit more deliberate in who's opinions we listened to, people like Anita Sarkeesian wouldn't have ruined a generation of games.


Lolwut? This is a joke, right? Tell me you don't seriously believe that gamergate nonsense...

Yeah, this threw me for a loop. My impression of Anita Sarkeesian is that she'd like it if women were treated like people rather than aliens. Yet somehow there's people that believe she's determine to ruin gaming for...reasons.


Wasnt aware who that is. I just watched her youtube video which was first one featuring her that popped up.... "Ms Male in gaming". Well, arent I glad I got educated...
In the current climate I can totaly see big name dev bosses bending over backwards and stifling creativity and forcing change on people because "PR social media Gakstorm = less $$"

But how is this anything to do with 40k competative???

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2019/06/26 17:18:05


https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/772746.page#10378083 - My progress/failblog painting blog thingy

AngryAngel80 wrote:
I don't know, when I see awesome rules, I'm like " Baby, your rules looking so fine. Maybe I gotta add you to my first strike battalion eh ? "
 
   
Made in ca
God-like Imperator Titan Commander




Halifax

 Argive wrote:
Nurglitch wrote:
 Peregrine wrote:
 Sqorgar wrote:
I think the general level of cruelty on display is something unique to social media, but I've seen the competitive mindset drive players from games - even when the competitive players were otherwise amiable people. They can be great guys, but then curb stomp a newbie while overloading them with tons of information about what they did wrong, what they need to buy next, how to play better, and so on.


And I've seen the casual mindset drive people from games with endless unwritten rules about what is "cheese", poor knowledge of the rules, condescending attitudes towards new players who are interested in tournaments, etc.

I think it's worth pointing out that the individual personal relationships players have with each other is often more important than some vague dichotomy like 'casual vs competitive.' That tends to get left out for some reason.

Peregrine wrote:
sqorgar wrote:In video games, if we were a bit more deliberate in who's opinions we listened to, people like Anita Sarkeesian wouldn't have ruined a generation of games.


Lolwut? This is a joke, right? Tell me you don't seriously believe that gamergate nonsense...

Yeah, this threw me for a loop. My impression of Anita Sarkeesian is that she'd like it if women were treated like people rather than aliens. Yet somehow there's people that believe she's determine to ruin gaming for...reasons.


Wasnt aware who that is. I just watched her youtube video which was first one featuring her that popped up.... "Ms Male in gaming". Well, arent I glad I got educated...
In the current climate I can totaly see big name dev bosses bending over backwards and stifling creativity and forcing change on people because "PR social media Gakstorm = less $$"

But how is this anything to do with 40k competative???

I think it might be that what you describe as a "PR social media Gakstorm" is generally being more sensitive to people's sensitivities and foibles; 'knowing your audience' in the jargon of my trade. Generally competitive 40k seems to go off the rails when people start posturing and lecturing when they should be humble and mentor up-and-comers. Ditto 'casual' when it's played out in public, or even in private between two or more people with little else in common except a desire to play the game they imagine 40k to be.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/06/26 17:15:27


 
   
Made in us
Douglas Bader






 Sqorgar wrote:
It would be a thread derail to discuss this at any length, but I think if game companies listened to actual gamers about what they wanted rather than a charlatan with no actual investment or interest in the field, we'd have less predatory business practices, better games, and a healthier industry. The best thing that can be said about Anita Sarkeesian is that she kinda understood SOME of the discredited feminist theories she lazily applied to games she's never played - she's like if Jack Thompson and Jack Chick had a stupid baby.


That's odd. I recall her lobbying for increased representation of minorities, against sexist stereotypes, etc. I don't recall her saying anything in favor of adding loot boxes and day one DLC and assorted other pay-to-win business practices.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Sqorgar wrote:
No, you haven't. You are absolutely full of gak.


Oh really? You know my experience better than I do? Do you have any evidence to back up your claim, or are you just assuming that I must be lying because it would be really convenient for your argument?

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/06/26 17:16:27


There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices. 
   
Made in us
Stoic Grail Knight




Nurglitch wrote:
 Peregrine wrote:
 Sqorgar wrote:
I think the general level of cruelty on display is something unique to social media, but I've seen the competitive mindset drive players from games - even when the competitive players were otherwise amiable people. They can be great guys, but then curb stomp a newbie while overloading them with tons of information about what they did wrong, what they need to buy next, how to play better, and so on.


And I've seen the casual mindset drive people from games with endless unwritten rules about what is "cheese", poor knowledge of the rules, condescending attitudes towards new players who are interested in tournaments, etc.

I think it's worth pointing out that the individual personal relationships players have with each other is often more important than some vague dichotomy like 'casual vs competitive.' That tends to get left out for some reason.

Peregrine wrote:
sqorgar wrote:In video games, if we were a bit more deliberate in who's opinions we listened to, people like Anita Sarkeesian wouldn't have ruined a generation of games.


Lolwut? This is a joke, right? Tell me you don't seriously believe that gamergate nonsense...

Yeah, this threw me for a loop. My impression of Anita Sarkeesian is that she'd like it if women were treated like people rather than aliens. Yet somehow there's people that believe she's determined to ruin gaming for...reasons.


I believe it boils down to:

1. She seemingly lies about her history to suit her commercial advantage (recorded videos of her stating she did not begin gaming until 2010 Vs. writing in the New York Times that she begged for a GameBoy in the 1990's).

2. Her claims of feminism ring hollow when she used to be the 'Seminar Manager/Coordinator' of Bart Baggett and helped him organize seminars on 'hand-writing analysis', including as a way to improve love lives. Mr. Bagget, of course, also published books to teach men how to get women to sleep with them, including by use of Neuro Linguistic Programming (junk pseudo-sicience in my opinion). It strikes as a bit of odd company for an ardent feminist. I believe Mr. Bagget claims he was just being funny.

3. She's been accused of ripping off the work of others for her own benefit and/or cherry picks data heavily without consulting the Let's Play/Long Players she is actually taking data from.

4. There's still a ton of controversy around her Kickstarter. It was funded on June 16, 2012. To this day, only videos 1, 5 and 8 are complete (of supposedly 12). This Kickstarter received $160,000. There are also claims that the videos that were made are using copyrighted artwork and other intellectual property without license or permission as well.

5. This dovetails with Femnist Frequency, her non-profit and the organization behind her kick starter, not actually receiving non-profit status until 2014, 2 years after she got the money.

Obviously, she's addressed these at one point or another and the flame wars rage on, but for people who dislike her that's what it boils down to: the belief that she is a fake who just makes controversies to rake in money before moving on to the next.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/06/26 17:26:44


 
   
Made in gb
Screaming Shining Spear






Nurglitch wrote:
 Argive wrote:
Nurglitch wrote:
 Peregrine wrote:
 Sqorgar wrote:
I think the general level of cruelty on display is something unique to social media, but I've seen the competitive mindset drive players from games - even when the competitive players were otherwise amiable people. They can be great guys, but then curb stomp a newbie while overloading them with tons of information about what they did wrong, what they need to buy next, how to play better, and so on.


And I've seen the casual mindset drive people from games with endless unwritten rules about what is "cheese", poor knowledge of the rules, condescending attitudes towards new players who are interested in tournaments, etc.

I think it's worth pointing out that the individual personal relationships players have with each other is often more important than some vague dichotomy like 'casual vs competitive.' That tends to get left out for some reason.

Peregrine wrote:
sqorgar wrote:In video games, if we were a bit more deliberate in who's opinions we listened to, people like Anita Sarkeesian wouldn't have ruined a generation of games.


Lolwut? This is a joke, right? Tell me you don't seriously believe that gamergate nonsense...

Yeah, this threw me for a loop. My impression of Anita Sarkeesian is that she'd like it if women were treated like people rather than aliens. Yet somehow there's people that believe she's determine to ruin gaming for...reasons.


Wasnt aware who that is. I just watched her youtube video which was first one featuring her that popped up.... "Ms Male in gaming". Well, arent I glad I got educated...
In the current climate I can totaly see big name dev bosses bending over backwards and stifling creativity and forcing change on people because "PR social media Gakstorm = less $$"

But how is this anything to do with 40k competative???

I think it might be that what you describe as a "PR social media Gakstorm" is generally being more sensitive to people's sensitivities and foibles; 'knowing your audience' in the jargon of my trade. Generally competitive 40k seems to go off the rails when people start posturing and lecturing when they should be humble and mentor up-and-comers. Ditto 'casual' when it's played out in public, or even in private between two or more people with little else in common except a desire to play the game they imagine 40k to be.


Thanks for answering my question but Im afraid I dont follow.

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/772746.page#10378083 - My progress/failblog painting blog thingy

AngryAngel80 wrote:
I don't know, when I see awesome rules, I'm like " Baby, your rules looking so fine. Maybe I gotta add you to my first strike battalion eh ? "
 
   
Made in gb
Fully-charged Electropriest




UK

Wow, seems the topic has changed. When I mentioned gaming earlier as an example where people are also snarky, I meant in game collecting circles. Where Dude A who has 4000 games, gaks on Dude B because his collection, while being 4500 games, doesn't have that Little Samson cart or some other reason Dude B isn't a true collector. It was meant as an example of the snideness that goes on on social media platforms (including forums).

Imperial Soup
2200pts/1750 painted
2800pts/1200 painted
2200pts/650 painted
217pts/151 painted 
   
 
Forum Index » Tournament Discussions
Go to: