9 minutes ago, Squark said:Err... you do realize the series you linked to does address the idea that something might be so centralizing it would need to be banned/errata'd, right?
" The scrub believes that any tactic or maneuver that beats him should be labeled “cheap” and consequently banned. In actuality, very little ever needs to be banned."
For completeness, here is a link so others can make up their own mind about what's being said, instead of this small excerpt.
1 hour ago, BlodVargarna said:“Blah blah blah, I’m butt hurt because I didn’t get to run NymMiranda, blah blah blah. People who play the game to enjoy it are ‘scrubs’ people who are WAAC jobs are ‘good players’ blah blah blah”
If these type of A wholes are going to label cool players ‘scrubs’ then I will proudly take on that label and wear a SCRUB t shirt to the next tournament I go to, with the back saying WAAC Jobs go home.
The author of that article has no idea what we scrubs value in gameplay.
Definite scrub here. I mainly play against my friend and brother. When we play, we try different combos and I try to not pick a list that is an obvious complete counter to his. My favorite matches are the ones that are close.
I went to my first tournament this summer and had a blast. People were nice and I played a variety of lists. I am hopefully going to the Michigan regional in March. My list is going to be a strong list that I have fun flying the way I want to play. I am a little nervous when about possible negative playing experiences but not really. At the tournament this summer, my worst game was against trip defenders who flew up and down the edge of the board. I got impatient to my approach and messed up and he ionized me to death. That game was still a million times better than my bye.
The article is correct. But I think it’s ok to be a scrub and enjoy playing the game knowing you are not going to be a top player. Obviously winning is great, but I like the close games even if I lose. People enjoy games for different reasons. I’m ok with that.
As someone who has played a number of video games competitively in his lifetime I can tell you this guy has never played X-Wing and he would never quantify X-Wing as an example game for this article. He's really only referring to games that are accepted by the community as very balanced. There are games where there are tons of strategies and counter strategies that require great skill and thinking to accomplish but there are also games where you really can win by just being cheesy as ****. I had played Madden competitively for a number of years and made it into the top 500 in the world for XBOX but the higher I got the more I felt like the people I played against had just figured out exploits in the game as opposed to actually improving at the hardest elements of the game, like reading coverages and such. A game like League of Legends or Starcraft, on the other hand, would fall into the first category but those games have a much bigger development staff and a much bigger budget than X-Wing. They are constantly tweaking and balancing it to ensure that nothing is ever too OP at once.
16 minutes ago, AceWing said:
Interesting. So in Xwing, we're not talking Akuma style "Literally impossible to beat someone who knows what they're doing" builds, but more like Old Sagat style "Its not the single best option in the game, but it singlehandedly makes half the game unplayable" options like Old PalpFenders, TorpScouts, and Aslam Wardens.
3 hours ago, AceWing said:The community would do well to read and take to heart what Sirlin wrote in this fantastic article, especially in light of all this Nym/Miranda witch-hunting bull.
This is the trashiest load of cr*p I have read in a long time. What the **** made you share this heap of steaming poop with the community?
This is definitely a divide I am in the middle of. On one hand, I do believe the "wait for counters" approach is the right way. We have many bright and creative members of this community. Give them time to see what they can come up with. It's less disruptive than an errata, which takes time, testing, and approval. The more we can handle this way, the better.
However, I also believe that at some point the discovered counters need to be evaluated to see if they are sufficient. If found lacking, the use of an errata might be called for.
When it comes to the current hot topic, I wouldn't mind it going away entirely in short order. But, just because I like that doesn't mean it is what's best for the game. Yes, we have some very interesting data about what the list has done so far and I am worried. But brighter minds than mine are looking at that data and coming up with solutions. Will they be enough? We won't know until they're implemented. And that takes time.
Now, as to the article the OP linked, it does have some good insight and knowledge to impart. Where it fails is tone. To my reading, it does not treat those labeled as "scrub" as legitimate part of the community. If someone has their own private codes that they adhere to and find satisfaction in, more power to them. It is when they try to enforce said private codes on others that they cross the line. To be perfectly honest, I've seen enough toxicity from both sides depicted in the article that I'd prefer to be unaffiliated with either side.
So, now I'm going to suggest something truly controversial. Drop the labels and try actual understanding and communicating with each other. Expand your horizons and admit yours is not the only way to enjoy the game.
There are multiple hats to wear. There is the competition hat, under which as the article describes any artificial limitation will only handicap you. There is the game design hat, under which your goal is no longer winning, but engineering enjoyable experiences. Under this hat, you are creating an artificial limitation for yourself if you're not willing to endorse bans, errata, and rules modifications.
Wear the one when you're prepping for a tournament. Wear the other when you're considering how to improve the game. Actually, they're stackable -- wear both! Just be sure not to let your desire for change in the game influence your choices in preparing for the tournament (if your goal is to win), and don't let your desire to take on the challenge of the tournament meta affect your judgement in matters of balance and fun.
3 hours ago, ficklegreendice said:the article is not written for the hypothetical scenario that a game mechanic is so overwhelming that it does, in fact, require re-balancing because the list of counters is so narrow that it runs the risk of stagnating the overall game
because that obviously never happens or has happened , not in any other game in existence and especially not this game
and while it may be the goal of an individual to win, that is merely the goal of a very small subset of players even in the competitive environment. This group will only shrink if there is too much of a clear, optimal strategy and not enough versatility to hold interests in various playstyles. Plus, there is a number of spectators to consider, especially since they're generally present in greater numbers than the competitors. A lot of esports competitions are large, broadcasted affairs that rely on community interest to sustain which is why ANY game that wishes to be taken competitively has to pay attention and tweak their ****. In x-wing's specific case it is to a far lesser degree, but interest in a competitive environment must still be maintained if FFG is to bother with it.
now regardless of whether or not Captain Doni falls into that category of "actual bull", I can't really say. What I can say is that no one seems to be in a hurry to rush to the defense of Trajectory + genius interaction. "playing to win" (even in the implied case of deeper tactics of things commonly labeled "cheap", though again the actuality of this differs from game to game) doesn't seem like it will change anyone's mind
sorry, sometimes "scrub" or "git gud" non-arguments just won't cut it
This a million times over.
Ah yes, the "you are all beneath me" method of conversation. I'm sure it will get you far.
"
When players think they have found a game-breaking tactic, I advise them to go win some tournaments with it. If they can prove that the game really is reduced to just that tactic, then perhaps a ban is warranted. It’s extremely rare that a player is ever able to prove this though. In fact, I don’t even have any examples of it."
- And this happened in Armada. =)
39 minutes ago, SabineKey said:Now , as to the article the OP linked, it does have some good insight and knowledge to impart. Where it fails is tone. To my reading, it does not treat those labeled as "scrub" as legitimate part of the community. If someone has their own private codes that they adhere to and find satisfaction in, more power to them. It is when they try to enforce said private codes on others that they cross the line. To be perfectly honest, I've seen enough toxicity from both sides depicted in the article that I'd prefer to be unaffiliated with either side.
I appreciate this sentiment. He doesn't equate scrub with bad. He explicitly says he played a scrub who was a good player but what made him a scrub was his approach to winning, not how skilled he was. I knew it would be taken the wrong way, though. I'm just frustrated with the incessant whining. You're right in saying we shouldn't be so vitriolic to each other.
1 hour ago, blairbunke said:As someone who has played a number of video games competitively in his lifetime I can tell you this guy has never played X-Wing and he would never quantify X-Wing as an example game for this article.
He actually says it applies to any game where you see the same players repeatedly winning. He even mentions Magic: the Gathering as an example.
5 hours ago, AceWing said:
There is an elitist tone in the article. Players in many games, and at all levels of competition are guilty of either conveying or submitting to elitism. Sirlin says, “...the experts are having a great deal of this “fun” on a higher level than the scrub can even imagine.” There it is, elitism laid bare. The attitude that one worldview is so superior that those who do not subscribe to it are inferior beings. This attitude undermines the credibility of the author. The article is loaded with great points about competitive play. In short, if you want to be competitive, don’t be a scrub. It’s a valid message. However, it is possible to be elite without being elitist. It’s called humility, and as a value in competitive events, it is grossly undersold.
Edited by jmswoodCall me a scrub, but I don't find bombs fun. Unavoidable damage is not my cup of tea. For that same reason I don't like autoblaster cannons or turrets. I'm not out to ban things, but if there is a combo/move/trick so strong that it results in mirror matches more often than not, then I think the issue is not with the scrub, but with the abused mechanic.
That being said, I play the game to have fun. I play weird and unconventional lists instead of Meta-breakers. No, I don't win many games.
Every time this article is reposted, millions injure their eyes due to excessive rolling. And that is coming from someone who can both build the (still terrible) best possible Punisher list and still do the Dengar to push for wins in the VASSAL league.
The Scrub- in X-wing, if we take the article in the OP as our standard definition, this term applies to MOST of the casual players, Epic players, and many competitive players who value flying an interesting squad rather than simply one optimized for victory.
Put simply, my interest in this game is twofold- I like tabletop miniatures games, and I like Star Wars. If this game system was marketed with generic space fighters, I most likely would have skipped it. So, the Star Wars theme was the clincher for me. That said, naturally, I choose to fly TIE fighters, Interceptors, etc., because these ships REINFORCE that I'm playing a Star Wars game. They may not be the best for winning every single match, and in fact I lose more often than I win, but that is fine with me. I still enjoy the games I play. So do my opponents, whom I recruited to play against me by offering them a chance to play a Star Wars game.
If you ask me, it is ridiculous to assume that the game and its community can be so cleanly divided between scrubs and winners. There should be some consideration for varying priorities and objectives for different players. Even at a tournament, I'm playing because I love X-wing and I enjoy a chance to get in several games in a day and face a variety of opponents/squad builds. I'll play to win, within the limits of what I bring to play with, but if I lose, so be it. Winning is only the secondary objective which comes up as the excuse for the primary objective, which is simply to play.
I'll submit a suggestion for a modified "scrub" definition, as follows- let's define "scrubs" as those who prioritize winning over all else, but lack the will, knowledge or skill to achieve that goal; in many cases, they become the "Nerf Herder" sub-class, which for lack of changing their own approach, instead seek to change the rules to favor their pre-chosen methods.
I'll defer to those with more competitive experience than I have as to what, if anything, truly needed bans, nerfs and errata. I tend to simply operate on the assumption that, if I haven't managed to beat something, its not the fault of the game or the list I keep losing to, but rather its the fault of my own (to date) failing strategy. When I first started, for example, I had a **** of a time dealing with TIE swarms. Those swarms were never nerfed or errata'd, but I eventually learned how to take them out.
tl:dr- Let's have enough class to avoid trying to sling insults or slap labels on those who simply play with a different style than ourselves, and reserve our ire for those who want to force us to play in a way that favors them and their priorities while disregarding our own. This game, like any other, is only fun if there are still people willing to sit down on both sides of the table and play.
10 minutes ago, MarekMandalore said:The Scrub- in X-wing, if we take the article in the OP as our standard definition, this term applies to MOST of the casual players, Epic players, and many competitive players who value flying an interesting squad rather than simply one optimized for victory.
Put simply, my interest in this game is twofold- I like tabletop miniatures games, and I like Star Wars. If this game system was marketed with generic space fighters, I most likely would have skipped it. So, the Star Wars theme was the clincher for me. That said, naturally, I choose to fly TIE fighters, Interceptors, etc., because these ships REINFORCE that I'm playing a Star Wars game. They may not be the best for winning every single match, and in fact I lose more often than I win, but that is fine with me. I still enjoy the games I play. So do my opponents, whom I recruited to play against me by offering them a chance to play a Star Wars game.
If you ask me, it is ridiculous to assume that the game and its community can be so cleanly divided between scrubs and winners. There should be some consideration for varying priorities and objectives for different players. Even at a tournament, I'm playing because I love X-wing and I enjoy a chance to get in several games in a day and face a variety of opponents/squad builds. I'll play to win, within the limits of what I bring to play with, but if I lose, so be it. Winning is only the secondary objective which comes up as the excuse for the primary objective, which is simply to play.
I'll submit a suggestion for a modified "scrub" definition, as follows- let's define "scrubs" as those who prioritize winning over all else, but lack the will, knowledge or skill to achieve that goal; in many cases, they become the "Nerf Herder" sub-class, which for lack of changing their own approach, instead seek to change the rules to favor their pre-chosen methods.
I'll defer to those with more competitive experience than I have as to what, if anything, truly needed bans, nerfs and errata. I tend to simply operate on the assumption that, if I haven't managed to beat something, its not the fault of the game or the list I keep losing to, but rather its the fault of my own (to date) failing strategy. When I first started, for example, I had a **** of a time dealing with TIE swarms. Those swarms were never nerfed or errata'd, but I eventually learned how to take them out.
tl:dr- Let's have enough class to avoid trying to sling insults or slap labels on those who simply play with a different style than ourselves, and reserve our ire for those who want to force us to play in a way that favors them and their priorities while disregarding our own. This game, like any other, is only fun if there are still people willing to sit down on both sides of the table and play.
Well said
10 minutes ago, MarekMandalore said:Put simply, my interest in this game is twofold- I like tabletop miniatures games, and I like Star Wars. If this game system was marketed with generic space fighters, I most likely would have skipped it. So, the Star Wars theme was the clincher for me. That said, naturally, I choose to fly TIE fighters, Interceptors, etc., because these ships REINFORCE that I'm playing a Star Wars game. They may not be the best for winning every single match, and in fact I lose more often than I win, but that is fine with me. I still enjoy the games I play. So do my opponents, whom I recruited to play against me by offering them a chance to play a Star Wars game.
I am much more of a Star Trek fan than I am a Star Wars fan. The reason I skipped Star Trek Attack Wing is simple: Scale. None of the ships are remotely of the appropriate scale to one another. It was too much suspension of disbelief for me; my immersion in a tabletop space war-game with make-believe spaceships could not handle the fact that the ships were not correctly sized to one another.
And then I found out the game is a mess.
55 minutes ago, AceWing said:I appreciate this sentiment. He doesn't equate scrub with bad. He explicitly says he played a scrub who was a good player but what made him a scrub was his approach to winning, not how skilled he was. I knew it would be taken the wrong way, though. I'm just frustrated with the incessant whining. You're right in saying we shouldn't be so vitriolic to each other.
My objections have nothing to do with the Author's depiction of player skill, but rather the depiction of player goals. If you look in the article's last paragraph, you see the author saying that the goal of playing is winning. And while that is a perfectly valid goal, it is not the only goal to have. Whether you agree with it or not, someone playing with the goal "just to have fun" is not playing the game wrong. They are playing as they wish to. As long as they are doing this politely and without projecting, then there is no reason to demean their goal. Same goes with more competitively minded players. Keep it polite, don't project, and work towards your goal. Believe me, I've seen bad players with competitive minds and good players who land in the article's definition of "scrub". Scrubs do win. But just because that wasn't their only or primary goal doesn't mean they're playing wrong.
I can understand being frustrated with the whining, but it is hardly one sided. Heck, there are people on this forum who complain about the complainers who are just as bitter and poisonous as those they oppose. And they frankly annoy me more. And thus the complaining about complaining about complaining is perpetuated. It's a vicious cycle that's solved by understanding and not preaching.
I understand what you were trying to do with the article and there are good points in there to understanding both sides of the equation. But the author's bias is clear and I found it detracting. I will admit, that's based on my understanding of what I read and others can see it differently. But, looking at some of the replies to this thread, it seems I am not the only one.
I know it's hard to try to see both sides of something and Heavens know there are times I need to practice what I preach. But we gotta keep trying.
3 minutes ago, SabineKey said:My objections have nothing to do with the Author's depiction of player skill, but rather the depiction of player goals. If you look in the article's last paragraph, you see the author saying that the goal of playing is winning. And while that is a perfectly valid goal, it is not the only goal to have. Whether you agree with it or not, someone playing with the goal "just to have fun" is not playing the game wrong. They are playing as they wish to. As long as they are doing this politely and without projecting, then there is no reason to demean their goal. Same goes with more competitively minded players. Keep it polite, don't project, and work towards your goal. Believe me, I've seen bad players with competitive minds and good players who land in the article's definition of "scrub". Scrubs do win. But just because that wasn't their only or primary goal doesn't mean they're playing wrong.
I can understand being frustrated with the whining, but it is hardly one sided. Heck, there are people on this forum who complain about the complainers who are just as bitter and poisonous as those they oppose. And they frankly annoy me more. And thus the complaining about complaining about complaining is perpetuated. It's a vicious cycle that's solved by understanding and not preaching.
I understand what you were trying to do with the article and there are good points in there to understanding both sides of the equation. But the author's bias is clear and I found it detracting. I will admit, that's based on my understanding of what I read and others can see it differently. But, looking at some of the replies to this thread, it seems I am not the only one.
I know it's hard to try to see both sides of something and Heavens know there are times I need to practice what I preach. But we gotta keep trying.
Just to be clear, I was saying I appreciate your sentiment.
Well here is another article and again it refers to Street Fighter.
Also why I don't consider perfect balance the most important thing (let alone something attainable) in X-wing meta.
2 minutes ago, AceWing said:Just to be clear, I was saying I appreciate your sentiment.
My apologies. I was trying to clarify something and went overboard.
I don't like the attitude of the article but I agree with part of its point: players that aren't playing to win are playing for something else and shaming others into playing towards your goals is a bad thing.
If you treat these rules as true a lot of the behaviour makes sense.
Remember, optimal play here is defined as play that generates the most enjoyable game experience possible. If that player's criteria for enjoyment is merely winning then optimal play is the most effective list and tactics they know.
However, it's rarely just winning. If a player's criteria for enjoyment is winning with a list they made a netlist, no matter how good, is suboptimal. If someone plays the game for an OT nostalgia trip a list of obscure EU frankenships is suboptimal no matter how good it is. If upsetting their opponent reduces a player's enjoyment then tactics and ships that upset their opponent are suboptimal.
Now, let's apply these rules:
Everyone enjoyed the game at the start. As a new player plays the game more they learn more strategies. Many of these are bound to be more optimal (see the special definition of optimal) than others. Eventually the player reaches a situation where the game experience is no longer fun. Because the player used to enjoy the game they know it can be fun so they want that fun back.
There are only three ways to change the experience of game and you can't always do all of them.
Option 4 is how I understand the scrub described in the article, the player who deals with tactics they don't like by attempting to shame others into not using them. Make them feel bad about how they play so they play in a manner acceptable to you.
And, in a gloriously ironic twist I didn't notice until I finished writing this,
the writer of the article
himself
is a scrub by that definition.
Think about it. By creating the caricature of the scrub and labeling those who that play fighting games with house rules he dislikes as scrubs he's doing exactly the same thing his example scrub does: shame others into playing the game the way you want it to be played.
5 hours ago, AceWing said:" The scrub believes that any tactic or maneuver that beats him should be labeled “cheap” and consequently banned. In actuality, very little ever needs to be banned."
For completeness, here is a link so others can make up their own mind about what's being said, instead of this small excerpt.
QuoteThe “constant patching” approach by developers also often leads to laziness on the part of the players; there’s less reward for trying as hard as you can within the given rules, because if you are successful, your tactic will just be patched into obsolescence anyway.
This guy is full of it. He clearly has never watched Dota 2 Pro Scene. After every major patch, the pros go off, hunker down, and try to innovate based on the changes. It might take a few weeks or so for a new meta to emerge. Certainly, OP things get nerfed, but players that find them are greatly rewarded. Thanks to the awesome drafting system in Dota 2, good teams can strategize to eliminate OP broken combos. The best dota 2 teams are the ones that are the most flexible in the players ability to play multiple heroes. Anyways, why do you read this rubbish of an article when the author clearly has no clue what he is talking about?