posted 07-29-2002 03:05 PM               

for counterstrike, one could argue that having a "ghost" is much like having a spy, used tactically it can let your team set an ambush and was meant to do so by the game designers and is also used to give the team that is losing more of a fighting chance since they will have less gunners but more spies.

it seems to me that unless the developer steps in and sets rules before anyone plays it, anyone can decide what to consider intended.

also, what about cheat codes? I mean if cheat codes are put into a game they were obviously intended but they are, afterall, cheating.

on another note, this is the problem that occurs. People disagree on what should, and should not be allowed. BUt there will always be people that will exploit things no matter what, and people will develop counters etc and the process will continue.

But for all we know had EVERYONE agreed not to do some cheap move the entire game might have been changed and people would have eacher higher levels but those higher levels would have gone in a completely different direction, and may for all we know be a lot more fun. We will never know since people are always eagre to exploit every cheap tactic they can find to win.

The one thing I agree on is you shouldn't call someone cheap if they beat you, no matter what they do. A set of rules needs to be decided on first before playing though or these kind of arguments are going to happen. The worst kind of player imo, is someone that enters game of starcraft or something against someone that says, I want to play a game with no rushing as I find it to be more fun, and then the person rushes them anyway. Unless of course this is in a tournament or something

posted 07-29-2002 04:20 PM               

quote:

---

Also, the big mistake a lot of people seem to make is thinking that the fun is in winning for everyone. This is only true for very competitive people. When I play Tennis, either with friends or in a tournament... I don't really care if I win and get no enjoyment out of doing well in a tournament. I get enjoyment out of playing the game. I DON'T have more fun by getting better at a game. I have more fun by playing people of my skill level be they crap or pros. I use house rules to keep a game from going in a direction I don't want and get better and better at MY version of the game as do my friends so we are reaching higher and higher levels just not in the same direciton as pros at the game are since they allow anything.[/B]

---

posted 07-29-2002 04:35 PM               

Seriously tho, calm the fuck down. It's a game (s). It's not, like, poontang or anything.

dave

p.s. viscant said the newsgroup defined what an infinite is. It is in no way absolute, just in the same way the winner of B79 is the absolute best. It all comes down to motivation and pride, as far as the best goes. If I owned (I only minorly own, at best), I'd probably be too lazy to find a competition, being from NJ and all. The definition of an infinite to me is something which kills you which obviously repeats. Anything else which kills you is a 100% combo.

You can't tell me I'm wrong! It's my opinion, har har har.

Final Note: Colossus Rules!

p.s. again: Yes yes, he "sux0rs", or even better, "but no, he really doesn't", whatever. Well, he's FUN, which is the reason I play this game. Also the reason I play my DC against the computer with random teams, bc it's fun.

And he rules. Nyah nyah nyah.

posted 07-29-2002 04:49 PM            

Almost any tactic is stoppable, if you bother to take the time to learn how.

For the record, no one race is better than any other in StarCraft. People just play one race better than another. I play Protoss, and I'm pretty damn good at it, but I've beaten and been beaten by every race on different occasions. I have a favorite strategy, carrier fleets. I've won and lost before using this strat. Zergling rushes are effective against Toss, I haven't lost to a rush since the 3rd month after the game came out.

I think things like this are true in any game. There are strategies/moves you can do that are better than others, but if it's a good game, no one strategy will always win. Learn to be adaptable. Don't be a scrub.

posted 07-29-2002 07:17 PM               

Cheap Tactics
I've seen 'scrub' defined and redefined, along with 'fun', 'game' and no doubt nurmerous other things. But 'cheap tactics' doesn't seem to have been pulled apart beyond 'those gay things you can do to win'.

To me, and most of the people I know, a cheap tactic is that which allows someone with little to no skill to play at a master level.

Lets put it in real life context. Suppose you were a trained soldier and well, just plain better than me in every way.
Now suppose I was me, I'm not particularrly atheletic and in a general fisticuff you should by all rights sweep the floor with me.

Okay now suppose we were thrown in a hall way that was only barely wide enough to stand in, no room to jump duck or dodge. Give me a machine gun and I could be assured victory in (I won't say every because hell it IS possible I might get struck by a lightening bolt) nearly all matchs. Is this because of my skill? No. Is this because of my years of practice? No. Its cause I have a 'cheap tactic'.

Okay now same deal, only this time we both have machineguns. Sadly you still only have about a 50/50 chance of winning (perhaps it would be fairer to put it about 58/42 in your favour given your large amount of skill that may somehow assist you).

Now the machine gun tactic isn't 'unbeatable' the game isn't 'broken' (you can still win, we're playing on a 'high level' here). It's just I've discovered a cheap tactic that lets me beat all your skill and training by pulling a little trigger.

Now all parties can agree that's a rampant over simplification and in most games it doesn't work quite like that but to take Marvel vs Capcom (I think that was the example I saw in the original artical).

One thing to realise is its not always the 'scrubs' calling tactics cheap, sometimes its the masters themselves. A combo, as I understand it from the way the game plays, would require a good deal of screwing around to succeed. On the other hand I hear that Magneto has some moves which, while not possible to perfect everytime, are far simpler than your average combo and assure victory from the first hit. This means that I, who have never played the game could hypothetically pic up a controller and use that move against the person who plays at exceptional level and have just as much chance of winning as he does. Essentially the move takes no skill to do and no amount of skill and protect you from it.

I'm not saying said 'cheap' tactics should be outlawed, indeed there seems to be a culture out there that defines any tactic that beats them personally as cheap.

Variance
I remember playing 'starlancer' a while ago, now I must confess a little scrubdom here. I was playing a match with my brother and two friends and my bro switched craft to take a Shroud (which as we all know is the fastest fighter in the game, complete with cloaking device, blind fire and drink holders). Basically he started making mincemeat out of us because he could reverse thrust faster than we could fly forwards and he could dodge before out beams got to him, making our hitting him a matter of luck. It wasn't long before another player chose the same craft as well. Makes sense, that's how one plays at a high level ne.

Which left two supposed 'high level' players along with me and my other buddy down in scrubdom. I grant to you that I could've taken a Shroud and quite likely have beaten him (or at least been on par) but there is a certain amount of fun to 'variance' and to having a 'trademark fighter' which I personally felt outweighed my desire to be a 'high class' player. If we had all hopped in shrouds, sure the game would've been more equal but it would've been pretty dodgey. We could've renamed the game 'Shroudlancer' and gone for cake and biscuits. MMMmmm... cake and biscuits. Ahem... *cough*

Right now you're probably thinking 'sure maybe variance is fun but 'high level' playing is bettter'. But suppose everyone you knew ALWAYS took the shroud when you played Starlancer and everyone took a shroud. Suppose everytime you played Starcraft you ALL played a Zergling rush. Suppose everytime you played MvC you ALL played magnito and had a race to preform the infinite combo. Granted it might take a while for some but soon things would become tedious. There's no skill in that, just luck.

Play thy game as you would play life
For there to be 'high level' players there has to be scrubs.

Scrubs enjoy the game in their own way, the way we play games tells something about ourselves. If you'd rather reduce someone to tears in order to win than join your opponent as you piss yourselves laughing because you just managed to kill yourself with your own grenade then that's just you and I've no problem with that (well okay you really SHOULD try not to make your opponents cry :P)

I guess what I'm really trying to say is being a scrub doesn't make you a worse player, it just makes you a different player.

Playing at a 'high level' by repeting a few good tactics doesn't mean that a half decent scrub can't beat you. I proved this a while ago by winning three rounds in a row of Mechwarrior 4 (free for all) using a Loki (I'll confess it had a couple of minor customisations I can't remember what though) against five people who were using Dashi's and Madcatt IIs(the mechs of choice for most players). To be honest when I chose that Loki I had no devious plan, it was just my thing. I probably could've won that game as a Dashi or Madcat II pilot but that wasn't 'me'. Three of the people I beat went on to play at QGL and win the M3 competition there (though I hear the competition was pretty crap).

If you choose to play high level then you choose to play by rules the game designers made. If you choose to play scrub you make your own rules.

posted 07-29-2002 09:26 PM               

Second, a confession.
I'm pretty sure I'm a scrub. Though certainly not scrub-o-rific in all the ways you describe, I am a bit of a scrub. I can't stand when my friends use the same tactics over and over. I suffer silently, but I let out the occasional "...that was kinda cheap". However, I know when I am beaten, and I know when I am simply not as skilled as my friends. I mostly refer to my experience with Bloody Roar 3 and DBZ: Hyper Dimension. I don't play those games constantly, but they are the fighters I am most familiar with.

Third, my actual point.
Playing a fighter (for me at least) is not about winning. The way you describe "playing to win" is not appealing to me. I'd much rather try to beat my opponent by using difficult moves than tried and true methods. If I find that I cannot win by using my new techniques, I'll abandon them and go back to discovering new moves/combos. Sure, in a tournament situation, I'll do what I can to win. But with my buds, I don't try to kick their asses over and over again. I try to have fun. For instance (I'll use BR3), I find that my best characters are Bakuryu and Kohryu (very similar moves/combos, but different in some ways). When playing the game, I tell myself not to use them too much, because for me, beating my friends is not the purpose of the game. It's to see if I can beat them with other characters. I like a challenge! I don't like playing the same characters and using the same moves so I can win easily. When playing fighting games, you'll see me with my thumb on the 'random' button before the character screen is even up.

Fourth, a defense of the Play To Win theory.
There are times when playing to win is necessary. A certain one of my friends plays to win very often in DBZ:HD. The only way to win is to play to win as well. Countering counters of special techniques is fun, too. We are at our most competitive when playing this game, and I think I've risen beyond scrubocity with this game. However, I still use the 'random' selector, and I'll still use the difficult-to-pull-off Desparation moves at the end of the match, even if it gets me spanked. There's scrub in me yet.

Fifth, a shame-on-you to many of the responders of this article.
Many of you go beyond using certain games as examples, and base your responses on MvC or Starcraft. Who the hell cares about certain moves or races? That's not what the article was about... you really missed the point. If you can't get further than one character's techniques in one game, then you should expand your goddamn horizons. I used those games as examples because I know their ins and outs, but to dwell on certain moves in one game is dumb. This article applies to ALL GAMES (where competition matters. I'll play to win every time in FF7. there's just no point in using discretion against the computer, they'll never ever accuse you of being cheap), not only a few.

posted 07-30-2002 11:18 AM               

As for scrubs, it's interesting to watch the player learning cycle. After all, what separates a good player from a beginner? From personal experience, the beginner starts be learning basics and perhaps one or two powerful techniques. It's difficult to progress to mid-level because you tend to lose a lot. That's because mid-level gaming involves trying to learn nuances and variations in technique. It's the process of understanding why certain techniques don't work, and trying to understand the principles behind the good techniques. Mastery gameplay looks very similar to beginner gameplay, in that the player will tend to favor certain tactics. However, the difference is that the master player understand why he/she is using that technique. More importantly, the player understands how to capitalize on an opponent's mistakes.

Doesn't Sirlin have an article about that somewhere here?

posted 07-30-2002 01:21 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by slayn777:
Zmalloc, about your idea of doing what the game intends, who desides what was intended?

it seems to me that unless the developer steps in and sets rules before anyone plays it, anyone can decide what to consider intended.

---

Ugh, i had this really nice well-written reply, and sirlin forums thwarted me.. Oh well, here's the truncated version.

You raise some interesting points, but it can really be distilled down to 2 factors.

1. They've got these things that come packaged with games called manuals, and they contain valuable information on controls, object of the game, system requirements, storyline, and what is expected of you in order to win. Generally I'd say these are a pretty good reference for what is intended. Personally, when i see the CS manual claim that "Stealth is vitally important in counterstrike", i take it to mean that if you're performing an out-of-game action (such as looking at someone's screen and reporting the details to your team) which makes stealth useless, you are a filthy cheat.

2. to what extent are outside objects permitted in the game? Obviously you must use your hands to touch the controls, and you must not dump hydrochloric acid on your opponent's hands during the match. However, you cannot simply say foreign objects are banned, since for example pressing panels with an umbrella in DDR is just fine, and would be welcome in a tournament routine. i know this is not entirely accurate, but you can follow two good rules of thumb together. a: were the controls designed to be used in that way? and b: if they were not, is the action you are performing outside of the game interfering with someone else's in-game play? Some tournaments ban verbal taunting on this basis.

posted 07-30-2002 02:05 PM               

You're only a "scrub" in a game that is fair and is deep enough to invite deep play. Many people have suggested a hypothetical game in which, for example, two men with machine guns stand inches apart in a narrow hallway (some people would call this Quake, but that's not the point).

You can't be a "scrub" or a "master" in this game, you're just a "guy who pulls the trigger". If a game sucks so much that using a particular move or combination allows you to play at a master level regardless of your actual experience, then the only winning move is not to play. Sure the game may be fun for a bit, but it is not worthy for serious competition.

When you go into Starcraft, if you've never played the game before, being told to "Zergling rush" will NOT let you win the game. You can Zergling rush over and over and STILL lose very badly. There is no tactic in Starcraft that will allow you to always win, or even usually win, if you have no experience with the game. I'm not so dumb as that crap guy to think that simply by using some tactic over and over that I could play MvC2 at a championship level.

Again, this brings in the two driving forces behind game design. It must be fun to play in and of itself, which means it should have a relatively clean, interesting, and intuitive interface, good graphics and sound, and so forth. And it must be fun to BEAT SOMEONE ELSE using the game. To make it fun to beat someone else, you have to make it so that to beat someone takes skills, not simply button-mashing.

posted 07-30-2002 07:27 PM            

I can't tell if the article says abusing exploits is good, but I have to agree that it's the only way to go if you want to play to win against other people abusing the same bugs and flaws.

Luckily, I have a life and do not play to win. I play to have fun, and win along the way. People who play to win are the folks who value gaming more than they should, and minor success in a game makes up for what they lack in real life or in an arena of more importance.

If you play to win, you have to learn the allowed exploits. If you play to have fun, all the power to you. You are a better person, and clearly understand that honor is more important than getting a higher score.

Afterall, what's more important?

Beating some guy whom you'll never know, and don't care about... or proving you're skilled without lowering yourself to using exploits to some person you'll never know?

I know what's more important to me, so you can look at it this way:

You can win your Street Fighter tournaments. I'll go out with friends and make some money, and have some fun with video games.

posted 07-30-2002 08:27 PM            

Gay and faggot are never intelligent responses to an intelligent question or statement.

I know I'm a scrub.. in so much that I don't understand what it's like to play competitively. Then again, I completely understand that I don't understand many of the strategies and skills in many of the games I play that allow the other players to so swiftly ream me. I don't hold it against someone for having a greater skill and knowledge in the game, and beating me because of it. It's always nice to keep playing hard in a game until I'm capable of beating them. Now that's not so easy to do with arcade's, because I don't exactly have a never-ending supply of quarters. Though perhaps my acceptance, and effort to improve doesn't fit the definition of scrub completely. Bitching because such and such a player uses such a skill against you, instead of finding a way to defeat that is really defeating the point. There must always be winners and losers. Someone has to lose for there to be a winner, but playing the game is supposed to be fun. I have fun even when a little kid kicks my ass at a game.

Being a good player is more than just being good at the game though, it's in your attitude. If you beat the hell out of someone of lesser skill than you and berate them, then you're defeating the point. A hard match is worth bragging rights.. just don't go overboard.

Overall though, beyond poor sportsmanship, the one thing that bothers me is exploiting bugs. Now I don't mean because a certain technique is stronger than something else, or anything like that. If it's built into the game, and it's obvious it's meant to be there, don't bitch about it, learn to beat it. But honest to god cheating. Such as aimbots, you know, screwing with the game, hacking. Things like that.. I know some of you know that's the only way to win. But honestly.. you're going in and purposefully messing with the game. This isn't something that was simply included in the game.. you aren't intended to walk through walls, or aim perfectly on every shot, unless of course you're a skill shot. You should be winning off of your skills with the game, not a purposeful manipulation of the game. Sure people will use these, and I know that sometimes the only way to fight fire, is with fire. But I don't use them.. because I want to become a good gamer, based on my own skills and hard work. I want to win, because I've learned just the right way to take the map, or the right spot to snipe you from, and not because I'm messing with the game. You can win without these things.. and godamnit, you'll be a better player for it. Hacking, and messing with the game to give yourself an unfair advantage that should not exist in the game, is cheating. You may not think it is.. but if you can't win without it. Then maybe you're not that good in the first place.

As to the last comment before this.. well I don't really know what to say. How many of us to you think spend all of ours days sitting around playing games? We have lives too, jobs, girlfriends/boyfriends, some of us are more than probably married. Gaming doesn't have to be your life, it's a passtime. But then again, there is a certain amount of fun in mastering a game. That doesn't mean you have to play it all the time.. life doesn't work that way anyways. Don't start being overly smug, and looking down upon people. Any ways, isn't this sites emphasis on game design? Those games you play for a few hours, how do you think they're made? There's people out there who have to spend their time developing and designing these games. And making money to do it, probably better money than a lot of people make anyways. Though that's just an assumption.. I don't really know well enough to make that statement.

Either way, I don't really want to rag on you, so I'll call this to a close now. This thread though on some part felt a waste of my time (enough so that I've lost my taste for swearing at all now thank you very much), contained a lot of well thought, and intelligent arguments. It's about time someone put into words my dislike of the player who constantly calls "cheat" the second they come up against someone who's better than them.

posted 07-30-2002 08:32 PM               

If anyone can correct me on that then please do so on the basis of something other than just 'well you play on a big map and you can build stuff before they get to you'. That's the very luck issue I pulled it up for in the first place.

The Grey Area
The more I think about this topic the more interesting it becomes. Taking the counter strike example. Suppose I were to use an aimbot that allowed me to headshot every shot so long as the target was on the same server as me (I don't have to be facing him and hell lets make it interesting, its smart enough to shoot through walls). Most would agree that was unfair. When you think about it though wouldn't this be the ultimate end of 'playing to win'. Finding a cheat that makes you unbeatable seems like a pretty good way of assuring yourself victory. Of course it leaves open for another 'high level player' to come and write a better cheat.

But that asside. Take the reload bug, halve your reload time. When I first read it the first thing that popped into my head was 'that's gay' but it occurred to me a second later that I actually have a bad habit of doing it (especially when I don't forget to :P). It's not a cheat persay its a 'bug exploitation'.

Take hiding in the dark corner. Really no one would argue its wrong, its just a thing that you do. But where is the difference between hiding in the corner and using the reload bug. What's the difference between using a reload bug and using an aimbot. This is exactly what CaptFallout was saying.

I suppose the reload bug was unintentional in the design of the game but no more so than the aimbot was unintentional.

The Fellowship of the Game
I guess what it all comes down to is to pick your rules. When you're in a friendly game you'll probably have a lot more 'cheap tactics' that you aren't supposed to use because hey, you want to see everyone try different things and try and equalise it ectera. So maybe in a friendly game all three of the CS things I mentioned up there would be outlawed (though I can't imagine any group ruling out hiding in the corner but humour me for a moment).

In a tournament you would probably (humour me again :P) be able to use the gun reload bug and certainly hide in the corner all you want but you most likely wouldn't be allowed to use the aimbot.

The problem is online there's no one there to adjudicate. No one to go 'hey lets have a friendly game, or a tournament game' and I think this is what frustrates so many people... or scrubs as I believe they're called. People can only play the one game if they had a similar idea of the rules. Some people would assume that its no holds barred because there's no one there to stop them. Others would consider being 'polite' and not use their aimbot because hell, its a cheat and generally advertised as such. The 'definitive scrub' would probably not use the reload bug or the aimbot, not because he can't or doesn't know how but because he wants a game that plays as the designers intended (I'll admit that some people may not know about these but wouldn't that make him a newbie instead of a scrub. He's not choosing to restrain himself, he just hasn't learned yet). The problem is our player who believes in 'free for all' has just won the match and his 'skill' has very little to do with it unless one counts running a Google search for 'CS headshot bots' as a skill. If everyone rushes off and gets the same bot then it just becomes a clicking race.

Playing to Live?
Imagine if you applied your playing to win tactics to life. You know that cutting down travel time is more effective so you use a 'high level skill' you've learned and slip across the park in your 4WD, hell you killed a few pedestrians but what the hey. Cut a few seconds on your transit time. You get to work and you realise the new intern may well get your job by the end of the day so while no ones around you discretely drag him into a closet and strangle him with some piano wire.

Sounds friendly ne? Of course if 'everyone' was playing to win you could imagine the anarchy.

I do however maintain my present stance. High level players aren't necessarily better than scrubs, they're just different. A whiny scrub is irritating but no more so than someone who uses a speed hack at CS cause that's how he 'plays to win'. Just thought this would be some food for thought. I don't think it is fair to say that playing scrub is 'less fun' than playing to win, nor do I say it operates the other way around. It just depends what you enjoy personally. Where the issue comes in is when the two styles conflict.

posted 07-30-2002 08:36 PM            

<rehash>
There are people who play games to win. For lack of a better term, I'll call them "competitors." These people, through a combination of attitude and skills, can reach a level of tactics and counter tactics that others do not. The others are called "scrubs."

Scrubs play to have fun. Though they enjoy winning, it's not the main point to them. The main point to them is to have a blast with some friends.

When some scrubs are beaten by a move they consider "cheap" they whine about it. When a competitor is beaten by a "cheap" move (not that they'd consider it cheap, they would merely consider it "the move that beat me") they try to find a way to defeat that move.

While not all scrubs whine, they do carry around baggage in the form of play constraints that limit them in their selection of tactics/counter tactics which have little to do with their skill level and more to do with how they feel about competition.
</rehash>

Is that it? Is there something that I'm not getting about the article that suggested more?

posted 07-30-2002 08:52 PM               

If I get beaten by a tactic I consider 'cheap' but don't complain. I then learn how to beat it but I still don't PERSONALLY use that particular tactic because I still think its a little unfair, am I still a scrub?

If I'm a high level player who whines about moves AND learns to counter them (perhaps by getting them outlawed through whining :P) am I still a high level player.