Switch Theme:

Nate French on competitive gamers: "'I Play to Win' Is a Lie"  [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
Longtime Dakkanaut





Fantasy Flight games just put up a new designer's journal by Nate French, designer on a bunch of LCGs like Arkham Horror LCG, Lord of the Rings LCG, and Legend of the 5 Rings LCG. I think he makes some good points relevant to competitive gaming and maybe it's worth having a discussion about? Here's a few choice quotes (but I recommend reading it fully, it's short):
Nate French wrote:The statement “I play to win” has been used to rationalize and justify a fair bit of behavior that runs the gamut from off-putting to questionable to unethical and downright evil.
Nate French wrote:The biggest self-defeating trap in the “play to win” mentality is this: winning is a result, and we don’t get better at games by following results-oriented thinking. ...(snip)...

What is results-oriented thinking? Basically, it’s judging the quality of your decisions (and your decision-making process) based on outcomes rather than judging the quality of those decisions on logic or objective analysis.

Why is this type of thinking a bad thing? Ultimately, it’s because competitors don’t truly have any control over the outcome—the only thing we competitors can control is the quality of our decisions, and the outcomes take care of themselves.
Nate French wrote:A more profound way of thinking about this is the realization that at the heart of all competitive gaming—in which we strive to control the sole thing we have any control over, by eliminating mistakes from our own play—we are only competing against ourselves.
   
Made in us
Clousseau




From someone raised on competitive sports, both as a fan and an athlete, as well as a former hardcore tournament player in the miniature wargaming world... I have a hard time really grasping what he is trying to convey.

Yes I play to Win is often used to justify some evil actions. It does bring out the worst in people I have found, thats one reason I took a backseat to tournament gaming over ten years ago.

Competitors do have some control over their outcome. It is simply by making the least number of mistakes at its root. In dice games like 40k its also minimizing the amount of variance in your game by listbuilding a mathematical outcome that has a low probability of failure in the dice rolling phase.

I don't think by eliminating our own mistakes we are competing against ourselves. We are competing against the other person who is also trying to make the least number of mistakes.

Thats the whole point of competition.

The same thing can be said of football players. If they make a mistake, their opponent can capitalize and take advantage and have a higher score.

They are competing against the other person or team.

So I'm at a loss for what he is trying to convey here other than competitive gaming can be taken to extremes and lead to some immoral or evil actions for the sake of winning, which I agree is a readily visible result of behavior when one places winning as the paramount goal.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





I can't speak for him, but I think that he is saying that you will lose games even if you play optimally, and win games even if you play sub-optimally. Therefore, the results are not necessarily indicative of how optimally you played and shouldn't be used as a justification for it nor as a measure of it. He specifically called out variance (randomness) and hidden information as the culprits for this.

I mean, in something like football, winning has wider ramifications than playing optimally. Losing a game could lead to social shaming, while winning could yield scholarships and money. But in a game we play for fun, where there is relatively little reward for winning and no punishment for losing, perhaps a results orientated approach isn't helpful towards our goals of being better players?

Personally, I think it is an argument about the ends justifying the means (if the ends aren't a direct result of the means, we should care more about the means than the result), or at least that the journey is its own reward (we're not improving our choices to win, but improving our choices to improve our playing)
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka





There are other version of this idea and I don't quite think this article gets to the core of the idea its trying to express. Ultimately, the point attempting to be made is that basing the evaluation of your play on the results of the game is a limiting mindset that holds players back. If you don't look back on your wins and evaluate your mistakes and how you could have done better, instead assuming you made the right decisions based on your success, you won't really grow. Likewise, losses aren't necessarily a sign of poor decisions; scrapping a list or deck or something after a loss can really limit your ability to innovate.

   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





I've never understood the competitive mindset of trying to win, but I do understand the concept of looking at your decisions and trying to improve. Even when I'm not trying to win, I'm still constantly evaluating and improving how I play (even if that goal might explicitly be to not win).

I see a lot of people say that competitive gaming gives them the drive and challenge they need to be better players, but it always rang hollow for me. If that was really their goal, their methods seem to be counterproductive.

Efficiency seems to be the primary competitive goal, but I would say that's only a (small) part of mastery. The ability to min-max is extremely unimportant, if not outright counter to playing the game better.
   
Made in us
Clousseau




Min max is attempting to set the game on easy mode. If the math can carry you to win because the probability of your defeat is minimized regardless of poor decisions, it will make you look like you are a great player.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





auticus wrote:
Min max is attempting to set the game on easy mode. If the math can carry you to win because the probability of your defeat is minimized regardless of poor decisions, it will make you look like you are a great player.
Min-maxing also applies to things like looking at a 45% chance to hit versus a 50% chance to hit and deciding that the 50% chance to hit is the better choice (though random variance is such that the difference between those two will only show once every couple dozen games, and matter only once in a couple hundred). I don't think it requires a lot of intellect to compare 45% to 50% and choose 50%, but maybe it does require some intellect to realize that functionally, they are identical and that whatever choices you made to get there is probably more important - coming up with a strategy that puts you in a better position regardless of winning the roll is a superior tactical choice to betting all success on it.

I wouldn't classify min maxing as easy mode though (despite it being easy). It is kind of the fundamental aspect of logistics, and most people would agree that logistics is an important part of strategy. I mean, wars are won on logistics. I just don't think miniature games (games in general) can support extreme minmaxing. Basically, balancing fails with extremism, unless you assume that only extremism exists. Min-maxing isn't easy mode. It's extremist mode.

For example, say you have three units that can be rock, paper, or scissors. In a balanced game, you'd want all three of them because you'd be going up against all three of them. But if you minmax, picking all of one type will generally be the better play. If you pick all rock and your opponent picks all three, you can reduce your opponent's army by a third without any danger or loss to yourself, then use superior numbers to overcome the disadvantage. After a few games of this, your opponent decides he's going all paper. Eventually the game is less about having a balanced army and more about highly specialized armies and avoiding certain match ups (then you get to have two armies at a tournament, and winning is about selecting the right one).

Min-maxing ultimately pushes game balance to extremism. However, if you don't min-max and assume values within a standard deviation of normalcy, you can have much closer and enjoyable games - arguably without the need to even seek balance (such as AoS without points). Seriously, you can grab a handful of basic models and have a game, and it'll be fine. Things at, or around, the expected power level generally do not upset the game balance against each other, but against a power gamer/min-maxing, they will lose in a most spectacular way - and that's what people were terrified of with AoS. What if someone brought 137 Bloodletters? Well, that would be an extreme case of min-maxing, and obviously so, and yup, game balance is destroyed by it.
   
Made in gb
Executing Exarch





 LunarSol wrote:
There are other version of this idea and I don't quite think this article gets to the core of the idea its trying to express. Ultimately, the point attempting to be made is that basing the evaluation of your play on the results of the game is a limiting mindset that holds players back. If you don't look back on your wins and evaluate your mistakes and how you could have done better, instead assuming you made the right decisions based on your success, you won't really grow. Likewise, losses aren't necessarily a sign of poor decisions; scrapping a list or deck or something after a loss can really limit your ability to innovate.



Pretty much, although there is a fine line between innovation and repeated getting kerb stomped from refusal to accept a unit/card/strat just isn't up to snuff

"AND YET YOU ACT AS IF THERE IS SOME IDEAL ORDER IN THE WORLD, AS IF THERE IS SOME...SOME RIGHTNESS IN THE UNIVERSE BY WHICH IT MAY BE JUDGED." 
   
Made in us
Clousseau




Min/maxing is attempting to put the game on easy mode provided your opponent is not as good as you are at it.

It is the attempt to win the game before the game starts.

The only time it is ineffective is when your opponent minmaxes equally or better than you do (in the wargames context).

In the RPG context it is absolutely playing on easy mode since you have the monster stats in front of you and you can build a PC that is just heads and shoulders better than anything the DM can throw at you without the DM resorting to artificially buffing the monsters to make up for the min/maxing.

Min-maxing ultimately pushes game balance to extremism.

Yes it absolutely does. I agree.

if you don't min-max and assume values within a standard deviation of normalcy, you can have much closer and enjoyable games - arguably without the need to even seek balance (such as AoS without points).

I agree. You will have much closer games if both players are not min/maxing. Points in AOS aren't even really representative of balance, they are there for structure.

The balance in AOS is easily wrecked or min/maxed upon,such that if you aren't following the pillars of listbuilding then you will get rolled pretty fast.

Its kind of ironic to me... that the community was up in arms when AOS had no points because they wanted their balance, but then when given points they go out of their way to wreck the balance with min/maxing.
   
Made in ca
Decrepit Dakkanaut





Having more formats like Magic: The Gathering would mean people could be competitive in different aspects of the game. Currently tournaments tend to be 'open' in that you can bring whatever you want (mostly, you're still subject to a host of restrictions like points, force organization, the rule of 3, etc). I think it would be neat to have a format whereby the army lists are provided by the organizers and players just bring their models.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





auticus wrote:
Min/maxing is attempting to put the game on easy mode provided your opponent is not as good as you are at it.

It is the attempt to win the game before the game starts.
Ah. I see what you are saying. It's not that the min-maxing itself is easy, but that the game is creates will be.

Its kind of ironic to me... that the community was up in arms when AOS had no points because they wanted their balance, but then when given points they go out of their way to wreck the balance with min/maxing.
Believe me, that irony is not lost on me. I don't think that complaint was ever truly about balance. I think they wanted "easy mode", simply because of a deep seeded anxiety that if they aren't playing on easy mode, then they are somebody else's easy mode.

I was thinking of ways to mitigate minmaxing, and then realized that a lot of games already do - which kind of led me to the realization that the points themselves don't create balance, but all the other limitations do instead.

For example, having battle line units that you have to take, or having limited unit availability. These things mean you can't take 137 Bloodthirsters, even if you have the points for them. Having less specialized units makes a difference too. In Infinity, most models can perform most actions (though not with the same success), and generally speaking, it is less important which models you take because of it (but then they got that whole specialist thing, which throws that out the window).

It could be that the change to 40k where you get more CP for using formations/detachments is a way to limit the extremes of minmaxing while army building. By offering an incentive to take sets of units not designed to exploit balance, they force minmaxers to choose between minmaxing CP or minmaxing unit power?

I think also that terrain makes a huge amount of difference. I've noticed that tournament players hate terrain. Warmachine basically doesn't have any, and the players will actually get upset if you try to use it. Likewise, Nova wanted to have a Kill Team rule that prevented people from climbing higher than 3". Terrain is a huge variable that you can't minmax, and it seems like most units with some sort of terrain specific movement ability (being able to move through water) is generally unpopular and considered overcosted.

Maybe if we look at what things tournaments try to limit, we'll find the best way to prevent minmaxing? This is based on the premise that the tournament scene is entirely minmax based and it is out of "fairness" (to the minmaxers) that they would limit the things that could "unbalance" the game.
   
Made in us
Clousseau




 Nurglitch wrote:
Having more formats like Magic: The Gathering would mean people could be competitive in different aspects of the game. Currently tournaments tend to be 'open' in that you can bring whatever you want (mostly, you're still subject to a host of restrictions like points, force organization, the rule of 3, etc). I think it would be neat to have a format whereby the army lists are provided by the organizers and players just bring their models.


I could be open to that for sure. An open format would be fine if there were other formats as well that were more restrictive (for people like me). I am hugely disappointed that the narrative event movement still fixates on optimized tournament armylists as the narrative format speaks to me more.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Believe me, that irony is not lost on me. I don't think that complaint was ever truly about balance. I think they wanted "easy mode", simply because of a deep seeded anxiety that if they aren't playing on easy mode, then they are somebody else's easy mode.

I was thinking of ways to mitigate minmaxing, and then realized that a lot of games already do - which kind of led me to the realization that the points themselves don't create balance, but all the other limitations do instead.


Yeah - to me points aren't about balance at all. They are simply a structure to min/max within.

I think also that terrain makes a huge amount of difference. I've noticed that tournament players hate terrain.


For sure. When I run campaign days and lay the tables out with a lot of terrain I usually get stink eye from one or two players who think that "screws them over". Largely because terrain is one aspect that the player has no control over. You can't buy terrain with points or make a flat table with points... you are at the whim of the organizer at events, and the tournament-standard is very little terrain.

Maybe if we look at what things tournaments try to limit, we'll find the best way to prevent minmaxing?


Opportunity costs. Min/maxing is usually great benefits at little to no costs.

What has worked great for the narrative events I have run this year is introducing the sudden death victory condition.

If you summon more than 20% of your army or do more than 20 mortal wounds in a turn, you give your opponent a sudden death condition.

This doesn't say "thou shalt never do tthis"... but instead it takes two of the easiest things to abuse and puts a cost on it that can lose you the game.

The end result has been more even armies and for the most part closer games which have been more enjoyable for my players.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/10/01 13:10:35


 
   
Made in ca
Decrepit Dakkanaut





auticus wrote:
For sure. When I run campaign days and lay the tables out with a lot of terrain I usually get stink eye from one or two players who think that "screws them over". Largely because terrain is one aspect that the player has no control over. You can't buy terrain with points or make a flat table with points... you are at the whim of the organizer at events, and the tournament-standard is very little terrain.

Something I was expecting for 8th edition of 40k was that players would pay for terrain out of their own points. In retrospect I can see how that wouldn't have worked, given all the issues fitting people's home-made terrain into the commercial structure of terrain as a part of the product line. But it seems like we're part-way there with fortifications, and I feel like it would be neat to see players play with the battlefield as well as their armies.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





 Nurglitch wrote:
Something I was expecting for 8th edition of 40k was that players would pay for terrain out of their own points. In retrospect I can see how that wouldn't have worked, given all the issues fitting people's home-made terrain into the commercial structure of terrain as a part of the product line. But it seems like we're part-way there with fortifications, and I feel like it would be neat to see players play with the battlefield as well as their armies.
Runewars does this. Basically, you have cards for each terrain piece and randomly draw them from your collection at the start of the match (you are limited to a certain amount, but you decide the card pool). Then players take turns placing the terrain (which is all cardboard cutouts) on the board. Then, depending on the scenario, more terrain or objective tokens are then placed by the players. Similarly, Warhammer Underworlds has players choosing their boards and placing the objective hexes down.

It's more difficult with 3D terrain. Star Wars Legion has a similar scenario system to Runewars, but because of the expectation of 3D terrain, the battlefield is not built directly by the players. I mean, it's already a pain in the ass dragging around a ton of models, but to drag around the terrain too. The only way it would work is if you have a club room with all the terrain already there to be used. If you have to bring terrain anywhere, fuggitaboutit.
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka





I've played a few games of Legion where people insist on setting up the terrain competitively and all I can thing is... can we... not?
   
Made in gb
Dispassionate Imperial Judge






HATE Club, East London

 Sqorgar wrote:
 Nurglitch wrote:
Something I was expecting for 8th edition of 40k was that players would pay for terrain out of their own points. In retrospect I can see how that wouldn't have worked, given all the issues fitting people's home-made terrain into the commercial structure of terrain as a part of the product line. But it seems like we're part-way there with fortifications, and I feel like it would be neat to see players play with the battlefield as well as their armies.
Runewars does this. Basically, you have cards for each terrain piece and randomly draw them from your collection at the start of the match (you are limited to a certain amount, but you decide the card pool). Then players take turns placing the terrain (which is all cardboard cutouts) on the board. Then, depending on the scenario, more terrain or objective tokens are then placed by the players. Similarly, Warhammer Underworlds has players choosing their boards and placing the objective hexes down.

It's more difficult with 3D terrain. Star Wars Legion has a similar scenario system to Runewars, but because of the expectation of 3D terrain, the battlefield is not built directly by the players. I mean, it's already a pain in the ass dragging around a ton of models, but to drag around the terrain too. The only way it would work is if you have a club room with all the terrain already there to be used. If you have to bring terrain anywhere, fuggitaboutit.


To be fair, 7ed 40k had this system too, where players divide terrain into 'large', 'small' and 'groups' and then take turns to place. But nobody ever used it!

   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





 LunarSol wrote:
I've played a few games of Legion where people insist on setting up the terrain competitively and all I can thing is... can we... not?
I've only played a few games of Legion, so I didn't think there was a competitive terrain system, but holy crap, there is. Buried in a tiny side bar on page 9 of the digital-only rules reference. Though I'm not sure what's competitive about it. Players just take turns placing terrain.

It seems weird to consider freeform player-made terrain as individually placeable pieces of terrain - it works for trees or barricades, but what about that giant AT-AT and shuttle landing pad? Is that really equivalent to a single barricade?
   
Made in ca
Sagitarius with a Big F'in Gun





I think the author has missed a few relevant points in the article.

High level competitive play is primarily based around gaming the system. Only pick optimal units that are under-costed or overpowered. Reducing mistakes and making the right moves is important - but when it comes down to it, those factors are considered a given and a broken combo can help smooth over errors vs an opponent using sub-optimal units.

Look at the results of every single big tournament. Before the Dark Reaper nerf, Eldar placed at the top. Last tournament, smash captain lists were at the top.

And people can whine all they want about it's GW's fault, but when it comes down to it - a game with this many models and so many choices is impossible to balance completely. It is not possible to enumerate the value of all the model stats and abilities. That's why they make changes after big tournaments. They let players find the imbalances, then nerf it. The problem with this approach is that units that are crap will always remain crap. To GW, if they aren't winning disproportionately, they aren't broken.

The common argument against this is that at the highest competitive level, it is about skill. Maybe - but that disregards a good 99% of people who play the game - which is everyone who isn't willing to ebay their army when a nerf hits it.
   
Made in us
Clousseau




On terrain,, older school warhammer from the 90s and 2000s had a random chart you rolled on.

Each quadrant of the table had D3 pieces.

Then you rolled on a 2d6 chart alternating between players.

The only downside was that players tended to always place terrain in the corners so that it was out of the way which defeats the purpose of terrain in the first place.
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




Halandri

For fantasy there even used to be a rule that you couldn't place terrain in the centre bubble of the table. In fairness this stopped things like placing a huge swamp in the centre of table to deploy your fun line behind.

Typo unintentional but kept intentionally. Gun line.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





SirWeeble wrote:
High level competitive play is primarily based around gaming the system.

It is, and I agree completely, but I wonder where the line is? I mean, obviously, whatever limitations you have on army building is meant to hinder you in some way, and successfully compensating for that hindrance is just playing good. And obviously, running 14 of the same special unit as a way to exploit the game system and prevent your opponent from being able to mount even the barest of defenses is playing bad.

Somewhere in between, it goes from being good to being bad, and I'm wondering if maybe there isn't specific, objective point where this happens?

And people can whine all they want about it's GW's fault, but when it comes down to it - a game with this many models and so many choices is impossible to balance completely. It is not possible to enumerate the value of all the model stats and abilities. That's why they make changes after big tournaments. They let players find the imbalances, then nerf it. The problem with this approach is that units that are crap will always remain crap. To GW, if they aren't winning disproportionately, they aren't broken.
Well, arguably, "balance" is less important to non-tournament players in that small groups of people who know each other can compensate for imbalances directly, while tournament players are all strangers trying to one up each other in any way possible. Donkey Caves need hard boundaries. Friends generally can provide their own.

Also, like I said earlier in this thread, when you aren't gaming the system, the balance in these games is generally good enough. That is, pick a few units to go against a few other units and the outcome will generally be as expected. This means that for the average gamer, the balance is good enough for the vast majority of their games - especially since most non-tournament gamers won't buy multiples of each unit. But at extremist levels of minmaxing, units tend to do things that they couldn't do before, or do it better, or become overwhelming. One of unit X is strong, five of unit X is unbeatable. I think the balance changes are not for the general player, but hard boundaries for the extremist minmaxers.

The common argument against this is that at the highest competitive level, it is about skill.
That's what competitive gamers want the rest of us to believe, but I don't think anybody actually believes it.
   
Made in hr
Dakka Veteran





Croatia

People like competing, and they like winning. This an inescapeable fact, and not a bad one I might add. Now, I don't know anything about this game designer or the games he worked on, but to me this just kinda sounds like he's excusing bad game design on behalf of all game designer and shifting the blame on the players for taking the game systems to their natural conclusions.

   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran




 Power Elephant wrote:
People like competing, and they like winning. This an inescapeable fact, and not a bad one I might add. Now, I don't know anything about this game designer or the games he worked on, but to me this just kinda sounds like he's excusing bad game design on behalf of all game designer and shifting the blame on the players for taking the game systems to their natural conclusions.


It does sound that way somewhat, but it isn't very clear what his meaning really is.

People do like competing. People like winning. It is possible for a person to actually enjoy playing a hard-fought game with something at stake. This distinction people have between "fun" and "competitive" is utterly arbitrary and based solely on what a given individual enjoys.

If someone has a list that is OP/broken and it is within the rules, it is the fault of the people who wrote the rules and allowed these things to happen. It is not the player's fault. If a certain unit, strategy, or combo is something an individual doesn't personally enjoy playing with/against, so what? So long as it's reasonably balanced, let people enjoy what they enjoy. It is impossible for everyone to like all the same things.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/10/01 18:43:31


 
   
Made in us
Legendary Master of the Chapter






I get that he hates that sort of break the game attitude, and certainly playing or watching people like that gets old really quickly

but thats no excuse for enabling players to do that through poor rules.




 Unit1126PLL wrote:
 Scott-S6 wrote:
And yet another thread is hijacked for Unit to ask for the same advice, receive the same answers and make the same excuses.

Oh my god I'm becoming martel.
Send help!

 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





 Power Elephant wrote:
People like competing, and they like winning. This an inescapeable fact, and not a bad one I might add. Now, I don't know anything about this game designer or the games he worked on, but to me this just kinda sounds like he's excusing bad game design on behalf of all game designer and shifting the blame on the players for taking the game systems to their natural conclusions.
As I mentioned in the OP, he is a card game designer for FFG who designed Arkham Horror LCG (seriously amazing game, ranked #17 on BGG) and Lord of the Rings LCG, but also did stuff for their other LCGs, like Warhammer 40k Conquest, Game of Thrones LCG, Call of Cthulhu LCG, and Legend of the Five Rings LCG - any one of those would be enough to listen to his opinion on game design.
   
Made in gb
Ridin' on a Snotling Pump Wagon






I disagree on the latter part.

My take on ‘I play to win’ interprets it, based on my own experience*, ‘I’m only here to win. Your relative enjoyment of the game is not of concern at all’.

That’s very different to someone who’s simply vested in the outcome.

Under my own take, someone who gives not a fig for the others involved in the gaming experience will do anything to get that win. Possibly cheating. Maybe just hassling their opponent to speed up their own turn. Netlisting, getting their army pro-painted to win that’s trophy as well.

As I’ve mentioned in other threads, my local club likes its tournaments. Yet the vast, vast majority are good opponents. Happy to chat the breeze during a game, bit of genuinely friendly banter. Only one states a ‘play to win’ attitude. And for me, they’re someone I’ve never enjoyed playing against. Boorish attitude, always talking themselves up, always playing ‘the best’ army. If you beat them, it’s never your skill. You apparently ‘diced’ them.

And that for me is the litmus. If someone enters a game to win it, that’s absolutely dandy. We all do to some degree. But when that goal is put above the game actually being enjoyable? They’ve taken it too far.

By contrast? Very good friend of mine is a damned fine hobbyist. Fully, and beautifully, painted armies. Regularly places well in Tournaments. Has won a great many ‘favourite opponent’ awards at said Tournaments. In short, despite being a hard man to beat, he’s never been anything other than a joy to play. He wants to win, but doesn’t let that get in the way of the game.

*my experience is not representative. Or especially wide ranging,

   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





Well, the article has a much narrower purpose than to condemn all competitive gamers. It's mostly just saying that the ends don't explain the means. Winning and losing often happen through no fault of your own, so one should consider one's improvement against yourself rather than against your opponent.

I think it goes one step further and suggests that your opponent isn't the enemy, but instead a companion on the path to self improvement, and that maybe if you see them that way, you won't behave like such a honking turd biscuit (I'm paraphrasing).

I think we can extend that line of reasoning to the balance issues we were talking about above. If you are really only playing against yourself, then game breaking minmaxing may give you a win, but robs you of a chance to truly test your skill.
   
Made in us
Clousseau




Remember though that the golden trophies and internet fame that come from winning are often way more valuable to someone than testing their skill.
   
Made in au
Dakka Veteran





Sydney, Australia

My 2 cents, I definitely consider myself somewhat more of a "tournament player" and regularly attend when possible, but the blanket statements being made in this thread just aren't true. Yes, a very significant portion of tournament goers are gakbags, that's undeniable. Yes, a lot of these people claim "playing to win" as meaning "I have no reason not to be as blatant of a gakbag as possible" and that is a bad thing. To me, "playing to win" means simply playing to your strengths, and not doing risky plays unless absolutely necessary. In a friendly game, I will absolutely throw a model into an unfavourable combat it has little chance of winning, because if it does end up coming out through some sheer luck it makes for a great story, and its hilarious for all involved. In a tournament, however, I will only ever do that if it would deny an opponent some amount of VP, or benefit me. Mind you, I only now play skirmish games, and at these tournaments a 1-2 point swing can mean the difference between 3rd and 5th (this was the case for me over the weekend, if I had gained 2VP less I would've placed far lower in a 10 person tournament).

Regardless of actually winning or losing, a tournament to me is above all else an opportunity to play 3 definite games over the course of a day (or 5-6 in a 2 day tournament), play against opponents I usually wouldn't, and see models and crews on the table I usually wouldn't. For me its all about the games and the competition rather than the result, and if I can have a close game against a new opponent, I don't particularly care if they beat me. My favourite games I've ever played are all nail biters, where every model and every point counts, instead of complete blowouts where one side just crushes the other. I usually end up in mid tables because of this mindset, but it doesn't mean much if I've enjoyed the games themselves. Winning is nice, this year I've placed 2nd in a 15 player tournament and 3rd in a 10 player tournament, but the small moments in the games are what will stick with me. Not the win first round of a Batman tournament, but Flash defying all odds and holding Catman away for 5 turns, and the highly unlikely knocking him out. Not the blowout I did achieve on the weekend's Malifaux tournament, which left me feeling guilty, but the second game carnage where we both lost half our crews turn 2 and the first game that was a dead draw until I lost last turn. I may be in the minority here, but in all the tournaments I have attended for most non-GW games, this has been the overwhelming sentiment. From my own experience, it seems that only the Warhammers, Guild Ball and Warmahordes attract the most powergaming, because they have the biggest communities in the case of GW (and thus higher chance people will be gakholes) or because they are known for being "tournament games". This has somewhat seeped into Malifaux as well, but the community in general have a disdain for it (as do the company) and these people have been all but ostracised from the game at large. Obviously we are discussing on a largely GW forum, but the smaller games are much more comfortable in terms of playerbase, because people won't put up with gak.

A little bit of a related story, the 40k community in my city is a pretty friendly bunch. I no longer play with them, having moved on to non-GW games, but as a group they are great guys to hang around with. However, there is one minority group centred around one person, who is pretty much the stereotypical 40k tournament goer. He has lied, cheated and gamed his way through event after event, except over the last year he has been banned from more and more events, now not being able to attend almost anything in the state. Because of this conduct, he has dragged down the name of the local tournament group (who now also kicked him out) and many local stores and gamers by association. This is pretty much the most extreme example possible, but its still something that is very real. I am of the opinion that the banning wasn't soon enough, and that anyone who behaves like this worldwide should be treated the same way.

DC:90S++G+++MB+IPvsf17#++D++A+++/mWD409R+++T(Ot)DM+

I mainly play 30k, but am still fairly active with 40k. I play Warcry, Arena Rex, Middle-Earth, Blood Bowl, Batman, Star Wars Legion as well

My plog- https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/787134.page
My blog- https://fistfulofminiatures.blogspot.com/
My gaming Instagram- https://www.instagram.com/fistfulofminis/ 
   
Made in au
Owns Whole Set of Skullz Techpriests






Versteckt in den Schatten deines Geistes.

No one plays to lose.

No one plays to draw.

Industrial Insanity - My Terrain Blog
"GW really needs to understand 'Less is more' when it comes to AoS." - Wha-Mu-077

 
   
 
Forum Index » Dakka Discussions
Go to: