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 used to be very good with 1st person shooters.
Played a tiered competition and won with like minded players I knew at work.
I kept playing and progressively handicapped myself by disallowing higher level weapon use.
Most exciting moment for me was beating the guy with the rocket launcher with a hand weapon.
I have met much better players since then who could kill with a toothpick if it was programmed in.

I guess it is how do you play a "weaker" player and set a handicap for yourself and not buy into the scrub mentality?
Not wanting to change goals of the OP but maybe getting it closer to a solution of getting challenge but may get into bad habits.

 Talizvar wrote:
I used to be very good with 1st person shooters.
Played a tiered competition and won with like minded players I knew at work.
I kept playing and progressively handicapped myself by disallowing higher level weapon use.
Most exciting moment for me was beating the guy with the rocket launcher with a hand weapon.
I have met much better players since then who could kill with a toothpick if it was programmed in.

I guess it is how do you play a "weaker" player and set a handicap for yourself and not buy into the scrub mentality?
Not wanting to change goals of the OP but maybe getting it closer to a solution of getting challenge but may get into bad habits.

I can tell you what I do in WM/H.

I am playing in a Journeyman league right now with 6 brand new players and 2 others that are not new but not great. I bring strong lists with good synergy and I go over them with my opponents. I let them read the cards and have them ask me questions. I try to get them to come up with a strategy on how they can beat me. We talk about things like target priority, objectives they need to focus on, threat ranges etc. During the turns when they are going I let them know what will happen if they do x,y, or z, and let them choose what they want to do. I show them what I am doing during my turn and why I am doing it. I TEACH them to be better players. That way win or lose we both have a good time, and I am sewing the seeds for better games down the road.

 Talizvar wrote:
I guess it is how do you play a "weaker" player and set a handicap for yourself and not buy into the scrub mentality?

The easiest way to not buy into the "scrub" mentality is to understand the difference between "I'm going to impose rule X on myself to make the game more challenging/because I enjoy playing that way/etc" and "I'm going to impose rule X on myself, and you're a bad person if you don't do the same". The key part of the "scrub" is that they judge other people for not playing the game according to their personal rules, remove that and you don't have a "scrub" anymore.

Also, it probably helps to ask yourself why you're playing the game against this weaker person. Are you helping them learn the game? Are you friends with them and playing against them because of a social obligation? Are you bored that weekend and attending a "fluff" tournament where you know the lists will be weak? Etc.

Peregrine wrote:And there you go again with your bizarre assumption that the game begins when dice start rolling instead of the actual beginning of the game, when you write your army list/build your deck/etc. You might as well argue that the game starts on turn 3, so at the end of the first two turns the player with fewer points surviving gets to add models to their army to make up the difference and the objective scores for both players are reset to zero.

With all due respect, Peregrine, we have a fundamental disagreement about this. To an extent, you are entirely correct. List-building matters. If I run a magic the gathering deck with no lands or any other mana sources, that's my fault. Your reasoning, however, only goes so far. I'm simply not convinced by what you are saying.

Oh, so now you're going to resort to insulting anyone who doesn't play games the way you do. I guess you don't think that following forum rules is necessary?

I'm not insulting you, the person to whom I'm responding or anyone else. I was not talking about you or anyone else in particular. I am making a general claim: if you (you in general, let us note) spend all of your time and money on games, then you are a loser. You are failing at life. Period.

If I ask you what your whole life is about and you start talking about games and how good you are at them and how much time and money you invest in them, then you are a failure as a human being. Period.

Again, I have no idea what your personal circumstances or anyone else's are. This point is not directed to you or anyone else in particular. I am just stating a general fact.

And note, I am not saying this to flame anyone. I am saying this as my "professional" judgment as a person who knows a thing or two about ethical philosophy and rational anthropology.

I don't think I am making a generally controversial point here. If I were a wagering kind of person, I would bet that most respectable people historically would agree with me.

Not really. Games with $20 decks can still be completely "uncompetitive" by your definition because deckbuilding is still a skill. A well-built $20 deck will absolutely crush a poorly-built one, by almost as much of a margin as the $200 deck will.

Sure. There's always going to be that guy who is going to search through whatever card pool he has trying to try to find the most broken combos available (because he has no life and absolutely nothing better to do with his time). I have a friend who is that guy, and it annoys me to no end.

Oh, you picked a pilot in x-wing and this particular wargear, and this gives you...oh up to 4 focus counters per turn on that one guy alone, they don't go away at the end of the turn, and you can put them on whoever you want?

Oh. Brilliant. Excellent fething combo.

But my life doesn't revolve around x-wing. I was just playing a game to kill time, and frankly, I have no desire to spend that much time trying to optimize a load out. I just want to get to the part where we start moving and shooting.

Seriously, why the need to stack the dice before the game even starts? Just play the fething game.

Or maybe you could finally understand that people enjoy things that you don't, and that includes being willing to spend lots of money on a hobby they enjoy.

No, no. I fully understand that there are such people. I also fully understand that they are losers and failures at life, since you and I both know that "lots of" means "unreasonable and disproportionate quantities."

IMHO it comes from the balance issues in 40K, the balance has always been wonky, but in the past my impression was that my middle of the road list could hold its own, now there are so many loopholes in the game that would make a lawyer envious.

I have been crushed in Warmahordes several times but there it is more like waow never saw that feat used with that ability before.

Traditio wrote:
With all due respect, Peregrine, we have a fundamental disagreement about this. To an extent, you are entirely correct. List-building matters. If I run a magic the gathering deck with no lands or any other mana sources, that's my fault. Your reasoning, however, only goes so far. I'm simply not convinced by what you are saying.

I know you aren't convinced, because that would mean conceding that you are wrong. That's the problem with trying to present your personal preferences about gaming as universal truth backed by moral philosophy, if you concede that you're wrong you have to admit that your entire system of morality was wrong.

I am making a general claim: if you (you in general, let us note) spend all of your time and money on games, then you are a loser. You are failing at life. Period.

No, you don't get to be dishonest and pretend you said something else. Your words are right there for anyone to see (and if you go back and edit your post they're still in my quote), you said that spending $200 on a deck of cards makes you a loser. Don't try to change "spending $200" to "spending all of your time and money".

Sure. There's always going to be that guy who is going to search through whatever card pool he has trying to try to find the most broken combos available (because he has no life and absolutely nothing better to do with his time). I have a friend who is that guy, and it annoys me to no end.

You don't even have to look for the most broken combos, you just have to have basic deckbuilding strategy. But, as we've already established, you don't know anything about how MTG works.

Oh, you picked a pilot in x-wing and this particular wargear, and this gives you...oh up to 4 focus counters per turn on that one guy alone, they don't go away at the end of the turn, and you can put them on whoever you want?

Oh. Brilliant. Excellent fething combo.

Well, thanks for conceding that you also don't know anything about how X-Wing works. The Kyle + Moldy Crow "combo" isn't very strong, and the fact that you're using that as an example of something "broken" just proves that you're the kind of person described in the "scrub" article. You rush to call something "cheese" without bothering to understand how it works or learn how to counter it, while everyone else figures out how it works and beats it.

Seriously, why the need to stack the dice before the game even starts? Just play the fething game.

They ARE playing the game. They just aren't complying with your arbitrary rules about how to play X-Wing, which seem to consist of "never take named pilots or use upgrades".

No, no. I fully understand that there are such people. I also fully understand that they are losers and failures at life, since you and I both know that "lots of" means "unreasonable and disproportionate quantities."

And once again you have to insult anyone who doesn't like the things you like. Spending $200 on a MTG deck does not make you a loser and a failure at life. The only thing I don't understand here is how you keep insulting people and blatantly violating forum rules without getting banned.

Traditio wrote:

Peregrine wrote:And there you go again with your bizarre assumption that the game begins when dice start rolling instead of the actual beginning of the game, when you write your army list/build your deck/etc. You might as well argue that the game starts on turn 3, so at the end of the first two turns the player with fewer points surviving gets to add models to their army to make up the difference and the objective scores for both players are reset to zero.

With all due respect, Peregrine, we have a fundamental disagreement about this. To an extent, you are entirely correct. List-building matters. If I run a magic the gathering deck with no lands or any other mana sources, that's my fault. Your reasoning, however, only goes so far. I'm simply not convinced by what you are saying.

Oh, so now you're going to resort to insulting anyone who doesn't play games the way you do. I guess you don't think that following forum rules is necessary?

I'm not insulting you, the person to whom I'm responding or anyone else. I was not talking about you or anyone else in particular. I am making a general claim: if you (you in general, let us note) spend all of your time and money on games, then you are a loser. You are failing at life. Period.

If I ask you what your whole life is about and you start talking about games and how good you are at them and how much time and money you invest in them, then you are a failure as a human being. Period.

Again, I have no idea what your personal circumstances or anyone else's are. This point is not directed to you or anyone else in particular. I am just stating a general fact.

And note, I am not saying this to flame anyone. I am saying this as my "professional" judgment as a person who knows a thing or two about ethical philosophy and rational anthropology.

I don't think I am making a generally controversial point here. If I were a wagering kind of person, I would bet that most respectable people historically would agree with me.

Not really. Games with $20 decks can still be completely "uncompetitive" by your definition because deckbuilding is still a skill. A well-built $20 deck will absolutely crush a poorly-built one, by almost as much of a margin as the $200 deck will.

Sure. There's always going to be that guy who is going to search through whatever card pool he has trying to try to find the most broken combos available (because he has no life and absolutely nothing better to do with his time). I have a friend who is that guy, and it annoys me to no end.

Oh, you picked a pilot in x-wing and this particular wargear, and this gives you...oh up to 4 focus counters per turn on that one guy alone, they don't go away at the end of the turn, and you can put them on whoever you want?

Oh. Brilliant. Excellent fething combo.

But my life doesn't revolve around x-wing. I was just playing a game to kill time, and frankly, I have no desire to spend that much time trying to optimize a load out. I just want to get to the part where we start moving and shooting.

Seriously, why the need to stack the dice before the game even starts? Just play the fething game.

Or maybe you could finally understand that people enjoy things that you don't, and that includes being willing to spend lots of money on a hobby they enjoy.

No, no. I fully understand that there are such people. I also fully understand that they are losers and failures at life, since you and I both know that "lots of" means "unreasonable and disproportionate quantities."

I don't want to be insulting... but you're espousing the 'scrub mentality' talked about in the OP. You've set what you personally think are reasonable rules (don't worry about list building, define a 'reasonable' amount of time and money to spend on the game) and you're deriding and insulting people who play the game without conforming to your rules.

Peregrine wrote:I know you aren't convinced, because that would mean conceding that you are wrong. That's the problem with trying to present your personal preferences about gaming as universal truth backed by moral philosophy, if you concede that you're wrong you have to admit that your entire system of morality was wrong.

I make no pretensions to asserting that my idea of "when" a game begins is somehow established on any moral philosophy.

No, you don't get to be dishonest and pretend you said something else. Your words are right there for anyone to see (and if you go back and edit your post they're still in my quote), you said that spending $200 on a deck of cards makes you a loser. Don't try to change "spending $200" to "spending all of your time and money".

If you spend $200 on a deck of cards, you are probably a loser. If cards mean that much to you, then you seriously need to re-evaluate your priorities. Again, of course, not you in particular. The "you" is general.

You don't even have to look for the most broken combos, you just have to have basic deckbuilding strategy. But, as we've already established, you don't know anything about how MTG works.

Because, of course, this is not an insult or even an implied insult? And totally consistent with the first rule of the forums, yes? And I'm pretty sure that your "you" was particular, not general.

Well, thanks for conceding that you also don't know anything about how X-Wing works. The Kyle + Moldy Crow "combo" isn't very strong, and the fact that you're using that as an example of something "broken" just proves that you're the kind of person described in the "scrub" article. You rush to call something "cheese" without bothering to understand how it works or learn how to counter it, while everyone else figures out how it works and beats it.

I'm using that as an example of what a power gamer comes up with. The fact that someone even comes up with that combo is just ridiculous.

They ARE playing the game. They just aren't complying with your arbitrary rules about how to play X-Wing, which seem to consist of "never take named pilots or use upgrades".

You know, it's times like these that I more appreciate the chess clock. There should be an equivalent in on-the-spot list constructions and player-turns.

And once again you have to insult anyone who doesn't like the things you like. Spending $200 on a MTG deck does not make you a loser and a failure at life.

I'm inclined to think that only a failure at life and a loser would pay $200 on a MTG deck. Why? Because only a loser and a failure at life would value a deck of magic cards that much.

You disagree with me? Then please. Explain to me how a magic the gathering deck could be worth $200 to someone who isn't a loser and a failure at life.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Trasvi wrote:I don't want to be insulting... but you're espousing the 'scrub mentality' talked about in the OP. You've set what you personally think are reasonable rules (don't worry about list building, define a 'reasonable' amount of time and money to spend on the game) and you're deriding and insulting people who play the game without conforming to your rules.

You say "scrub." I say "normal, reasonable human being who does not have borderline sociopathy, megalomania, obessive compulsive disorder and/or a napolean complex...or, in a word, anyone who isn't either mentally disturbed or a complete and utter loser who is compensating for the fact that he has absolutely nothing else going on in his life" [Note, of course, that I am not saying these things about any posters in this thread; if any of my readers should feel as though these comments apply to him or her in particular, then do not take offense; I'm not talking about you in particular; you should, however, seriously reconsider whether or not you have your life in order and re-evaluate your life priorities.]

I think attitude means everything: there is a subtle but important difference between playing to win because you love games, and needing to win because you hate losing.

I love Sirlin's "play to win" article, and I think everything he says is absolutely spot on. However, there is an equally important quote (often attributed to game designer Reiner Knizia) which goes something like: "The objective of the game is to win; the point of the game is to have fun". These two 'philosophies' often find themselves at odds when the "playing to win" debate crops up, but I don't think they are at odds at all. In fact, I think they aught to go hand-in-hand, because they essentially approach the same idea from different angles... enjoying games for what they are, and being a good sport about it.

There are people out there who are just sore-losers. They hang too much ego and emotion on "needing to win", until they become so preoccupied with the outcome of games, they aren't really able to enjoy a game itself for what it is (a fun game). These kind of people are obviously more prone to cheating because their focus is not on the game, but on the ego validation they get from winning (WAAC). Sometimes they will play fair, but start swearing and throwing a tantrum when they lose (TFG). And sometimes... they will cry "cheap" and "unfair" when their opponent beats them using a perfectly good and legal strategy (The Scrub). While some of these people are perhaps more extreme than others, what they all have in common is a bad attitude.

Sirlin, above all else, is an advocate of playing "fair". He has even written pieces on "playing to win, and cheating" where he flatly condemns cheating. In fact, his entire play to win article could be described as an explanation of what "playing fair" really truly means. It's a call to arms, empowering people not to be guilt-tripped and suckered into whatever a scrub's notion of "fair" happens to be. In many ways, a scrub adding his own rules, isn't all that different from a cheat breaking the rules. Both are attempting to alter the rules in order to win on their own terms.

Personally, I consider myself someone who does indeed "play to win". In every game I play, I play seriously, and I derive great pleasure from trying to figure out the best strategy, and "solve" the game like it were a puzzle. However, I really hate when people call me "competitive", because even though I do play to win, I don't need to win for my ego. In fact, I don't really enjoy seeing other people lose. Nothing makes me happier than seeing my friends all smug and gloating because they beat me at something. Especially if I've been trash talking and winding them up (which I tend to do a lot). I always try to be a generous loser and congratulate people where they played well, and just have fun enjoying the game. That attitude is really important, and I don't think anyone considers me TFG, or someone who "isn't fun" to play games with, just because I try to play well.

With regards to 40k... Sirlin does say that some games just aren't good. Oftentimes a game being bad and you being a scrub can look very similar, but if the game is truly broken then the only winning move is not to play. I think 40k is such a game, and I'm not really interested in playing it anymore. There are so many other good games out there that are deserving of your time, why waste it trying to "fix" a game that isn't.

Traditio wrote:
If you spend $200 on a deck of cards, you are probably a loser. If cards mean that much to you, then you seriously need to re-evaluate your priorities. Again, of course, not you in particular. The "you" is general.

And there you go again, breaking forum rules by insulting anyone who doesn't play games the way you do. Why do you insist on doing this?

Because, of course, this is not an insult or even an implied insult?

It's not an insult, it's just simple fact. You don't know anything about how MTG works, and you've demonstrated that over and over again. That's only insulting if you feel that knowing how MTG works is somehow an essential part of being a good person. On the other hand, most reasonable people understand that not knowing how a particular game works isn't really anything to feel bad about. There are many games that I don't know anything about, and I'll openly admit it.

I'm using that as an example of what a power gamer comes up with. The fact that someone even comes up with that combo is just ridiculous.

And the point is that it's a terrible example. It isn't something a "power gamer" comes up with because it isn't a very good combo. Nor is it ridiculous that someone came up with it because the HWK expansion pack (which both cards come in) pretty much says "play these two cards together", and FFG (the game publisher, in case you don't know) even suggested using it in their preview article about the ship.

I'm inclined to think that only a failure at life and a loser would pay $200 on a MTG deck. Why? Because only a loser and a failure at life would value a deck of magic cards that much.

Yep, another (entirely predictable) insult.

You disagree with me? Then please. Explain to me how a magic the gathering deck could be worth $200 to someone who isn't a loser and a failure at life.

For the same reason that ANY hobby can be worth that much. Why is a toy soldier army worth $200 when you can get a bag of toy soldiers from your local Walmart for $1? Why is a piece of art worth $200 when you can print a copy from the internet for less than $1?

Also, $200 really isn't that much money for a hobby. In fact, one of the conventional standards for succeeding at life is having a high-paying job. And if you're a successful doctor/engineer/lawyer/etc the answer to "why spend $200 on a deck of cards" is nothing more than "because it's a rounding error in my budget".

You say "scrub." I say "normal, reasonable human being who does not have borderline sociopathy, megalomania, obessive compulsive disorder and/or a napolean complex...or, in a word, anyone who isn't either mentally disturbed or a complete and utter loser who is compensating for the fact that he has absolutely nothing else going on in his life" [Note, of course, that I am not saying these things about any posters in this thread.]

And of course, more insults. It's amazing how many assumptions you're willing to make about a person's morality and mental health based on nothing more than an example of what kind of lists/decks/etc they use in a game.

Traditio wrote:
I'm inclined to think that only a failure at life and a loser would pay $200 on a MTG deck. Why? Because only a loser and a failure at life would value a deck of magic cards that much.

You disagree with me? Then please. Explain to me how a magic the gathering deck could be worth $200 to someone who isn't a loser and a failure at life.

Because they get more value from $200 worth of Magic Cards than anything else that is on Traditio's list of Approved Fun Products For Winners At Life?
$200 for a hobby isn't much money. Considering you're in this thread talking about 40k and wargaming... $200 is less than any wargame will cost you, and Magic provides roughly the same category of fun to the people participating. It costs $200 in rulebooks alone to play any 40k army and another $500+ of miniatures on top of that: Magic looks like an absolute bargain in comparison. A 50pt Warmachine army of any variety will cost you $200 easily. 100pts of X-Wing at even a vague level of competitiveness is getting close to $200.

People like to spend their money in different ways than you. People like to have fun in different ways than you - even if you're playing the same game. Claiming that you have spent the One True Amount on your army and know the One True Level Of Cheese, and everyone else who spends differently or uses different tactics is a complete loser at life... thats the scrub mentality.

slowthar wrote:The flip side, though, is that there's also nothing wrong with playing a game with a goal of self-improvement.

If you want to improve yourself, playing magic the gathering, video games or warhammer (or any of its varieties or equivalents) isn't what I would recommend.

That's where Traditio's mentality offends me, because he seems to think that anyone who wants to be better the second time the play a game than they were the first is TFG.

Do you seriously not see the difference between:

1. Figuring out how the game works and playing "the best you can" based on the general structuring of the game

and

2. Taking little bits and pieces of the game and trying to "break" the game.

The "scrub" who figured out all of the combo moves was doing the former.

The loser/megalomaniac was doing the latter. He was spamming throws.

That's just not how you play the game (but it's legal, but it's within the confines of the rules, but that's how you win...and bla...bla...bla).

The fact is, I simply agree with the old maxim: "It's not whether you win or lose that counts: it's all about how you play the game."

Your friend is spending time optimizing his gear because he wants to make sure he's as good at slicing up orcs as he can be

At the expense of actually slicing up orcs.

If he doesn't stop every 5 minutes to scroll through his items, will he suddenly just start dying left and right?

If he switches out the second wraithknight for an avatar of khaine, will he suddently be gauranteed a loss instead of a victory or a tie?

Traditio wrote:
Do you seriously not see the difference between:

1. Figuring out how the game works and playing "the best you can" based on the general structuring of the game

and

2. Taking little bits and pieces of the game and trying to "break" the game.

The point here is that you're taking pieces of #1 and moving them into category #2 because you don't like those elements of the game. And in most of your examples you're doing it without ever really understanding how the game works. Kyle + Moldy Crow and MTG counterspells are both clearly elements of #1. The only reason you've put them into category #2 is because you encountered them once, decided that they were "cheese" instead of trying to understand them, and made your arbitrary rule that Good People don't use those things. IOW, exactly what the "scrub" article describes.

The "scrub" who figured out all of the combo moves was doing the former.

The loser/megalomaniac was doing the latter. He was spamming throws.

Only because you've invented this completely arbitrary definition of the "true nature of the game" that includes combos but doesn't include throws. This definition is not found anywhere outside of your personal preferences, no matter how many times you try to pretend otherwise.

At the expense of actually slicing up orcs.

If he doesn't stop every 5 minutes to scroll through his items, will he suddenly just start dying left and right?

And, again, who cares? Your friend has fun doing what they're doing. Why is it so important for you to present that as somehow being the Wrong Kind Of Fun and insist that they change how they play the game?

Peregrine wrote:The point here is that you're taking pieces of #1 and moving them into category #2 because you don't like those elements of the game. And in most of your examples you're doing it without ever really understanding how the game works. Kyle + Moldy Crow and MTG counterspells are both clearly elements of #1. The only reason you've put them into category #2 is because you encountered them once, decided that they were "cheese" instead of trying to understand them, and made your arbitrary rule that Good People don't use those things. IOW, exactly what the "scrub" article describes.

Read the back of any video game box you want. I'll quote the back of Judge Dredd: Dredd vs. Death:

"You are the Law! Welcome to Mega-city one, a city of over 400 million people - every one of them a potential criminal. It is the third decade of the 22nd century, and unemployment is widespread, bordedom is universal and only the judges can prevent total anarchy. Take on the role of the most feared and respected of all the Judges, Judge Dredd, as he attempts to overcome the sudden outbreak of vampires in the city - could this be the work of the malevolent Dark Judges?"

Read any video game box you want. Please. Read me the one that says anything about spamming throws.

Traditio wrote:
If you spend $200 on a deck of cards, you are probably a loser. If cards mean that much to you, then you seriously need to re-evaluate your priorities. Again, of course, not you in particular. The "you" is general.

Why are you here? Other than trying to purposely rile people up, because personally I refuse to believe anyone could seriously possess the mindset that you do and willingly come here to engage in discussion thinking that it's actually going to go anywhere.

I think it's cute that you think continuously pointing out that your "you's" are "general" and that you're not singling anyone out in particular means a god-damned thing. You're on a forum where the vast majority of members have spent many hundreds, thousands even, on this hobby (or others). I wouldn't hesitate to say that you're probably the only one here who hasn't, assuming this isn't just an elaborate troll, anyway (I would honestly be stunned). You are basically insulting the entire forum, calling all of us "losers", "failures at life", or otherwise insinuating that we have no moral code simply because we're spending money on non-essential items, and thinking you can get away with it because you didn't name any names. Bullgak. You know full well where you are and what we do here, and no one is so stupid as to think that your insults aren't being directed at them.

I'm awful curious though, what isn't considered a waste of time and/or money in your world, anyway? What's on the aforementioned "Traditio's List of Approved Fun Products For Winners At Life"? And based on your comments in other threads I certainly hope that list is actually empty, that the vast majority of your income goes to charity, and that you live in a shack without decoration and only the absolute barest necessities for living, otherwise you're a monster just like the rest of us. The fact alone that you have a computer is an outrage, since the money you spent on that, plus the internet bill, and the time you're wasting to call all of us trash could have been better used assisting the homeless population in your hometown.

Traditio wrote:
Read any video game box you want. Please. Read me the one that says anything about spamming throws.

Why do I care about a one-paragraph summary on the back of a box? That's not even close to being the entire game.

PS: I don't have the box to any of my HWK-290s anymore, but the preview article for the ship (a pretty clear statement of the designer's intent for the game) explicitly suggests the Kyle + recon specialist + Moldy Crow combo you labeled "TFG cheese" that only a "failure at life" would ever use.

Peregrine 647866 wrote:Why do I care about a one-paragraph summary on the back of a box? That's not even close to being the entire game.

It's a brief summary of the entire game: what it is, what it is about and what the game designers intended.

So, again: show me one that says anything about spamming throws. I'll be waiting.

Traditio wrote:
It's a brief summary of the entire game: what it is, what it is about and what the game designers intended.

What part of "brief" is so confusing? A back-of-box summary never covers the entire concept of a game because it's a brief summary. And most of the time it is written by the marketing department, not the game designers.

PS: I don't have the box to any of my HWK-290s anymore, but the preview article for the ship (a pretty clear statement of the designer's intent for the game) explicitly suggests the Kyle + recon specialist + Moldy Crow combo you labeled "TFG cheese" that only a "failure at life" would ever use.

Traditio wrote:
... what the game designers intended.

So, again: show me one that says anything about spamming throws. I'll be waiting.

Are you saying the designers didn't intend to add throws?

Peregrine wrote:PS: I don't have the box to any of my HWK-290s anymore, but the preview article for the ship (a pretty clear statement of the designer's intent for the game) explicitly suggests the Kyle + recon specialist + Moldy Crow combo you labeled "TFG cheese" that only a "failure at life" would ever use.

The article in the OP was about street fighter. I specifically asked about video games.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Smacks wrote:Are you saying the designers didn't intend to add throws?

No. See my previous comments.

Traditio wrote:
The article in the OP was about street fighter. I specifically asked about video games.

I know you're trying to avoid admitting that you were wrong about X-Wing. But I'm not going to let you do it. The X-Wing example is exactly the same as the Street Fighter example.

Peregrine wrote:What part of "brief" is so confusing? A back-of-box summary never covers the entire concept of a game because it's a brief summary. And most of the time it is written by the marketing department, not the game designers.

In other words: you can't meet my challenge.

Traditio wrote:
In other words: you can't meet my challenge.

No, because it's a stupid challenge that has nothing to do with game design. It's like if I were to ask you to find me a copy of a game box saying "Peregrine is awesome", and if you fail to provide one you have to concede that I'm right about the Eldar codex being perfectly balanced.

PS: you still haven't admitted that you were wrong about X-Wing. Could you please admit defeat so I can stop reminding you?

Peregrine wrote:I know you're trying to avoid admitting that you were wrong about X-Wing. But I'm not going to let you do it. The X-Wing example is exactly the same as the Street Fighter example.

Disanalogous. In one case, the designers are saying: "Hey, this stuff is meant to be used together." I may very well have been wrong about x-wing.

But disanalogous to streetfighter. Did the game designers put, in the rulebook, "spam throws"?

Traditio wrote:
I may very well have been wrong about x-wing.

No, you were indisputably wrong about X-Wing. And you were wrong in a way that clearly demonstrates the kind of thinking described in the "scrub" article. You encountered something in a game, immediately labeled it "TFG cheese", and declared that anyone who uses it must be a Bad Person. And you were indisputably wrong.

Did the game designers put, in the rulebook, "spam throws"?

Who cares? Is the only valid strategy in a game the one the designers explicitly tell you to use? Do you really need someone to hold your hand and tell you everything about how to play the game?

Traditio wrote:
No. See my previous comments.

I have seen your previous comments, but you aren't making much sense. The designers "intention" was that there should be throws in the game. They went to a lot of trouble animating throws and everything. That was clearly what was intended.

Some characters like Zangief have a whole array of different throws "intentionally". Why would you then assume that doing lots of throws wasn't an intentional part of the game?

 Smacks wrote:

Traditio wrote:
No. See my previous comments.

I have seen your previous comments, but you aren't making much sense. The designers "intention" was that there should be throws in the game. They went to a lot of trouble animating throws and everything. That was clearly what was intended.

Some characters like Zangief have a whole array of different throws "intentionally". Why would you then assume that doing lots of throws wasn't and intentional part of the game?

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

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

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

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

It's just annoying to be involved in it.

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

Traditio wrote:
Spamming one move is unsportsmanlike conduct.

Only because you've invented a bizarre rule where playing the game the "right way" involves using lots of different moves. This is exactly what is described in the "scrub" article, you've invented a rule, insisted that people follow it, and labeled anyone who doesn't a Bad Person.

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

Why do you keep having so much trouble understanding that other people enjoy doing things that you don't think are fun? For them it is fun to play against and to watch.

Traditio wrote:

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

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

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

It's just annoying to be involved in it.

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

Yeah, that one button takes a lot to figure out. Try learning the game before you start to call stuff broken.