11 hours ago, GreenLantern1138 said:

I've never seen a post more smug or self-righteous than this one.

It's the same text as the scrub one, with some replaces...

OP:

The derogatory term “Fly Casual Nice Guy” means several different things. One definition is someone (especially a game player) who is not good at something (especially a game). By this definition, we all start out as Fly Casual Nice Guys, and there is certainly no shame in that. I mean the term differently, though. A Fly Casual Nice Guy is a player who is handicapped by self-imposed rules that the game knows nothing about. A Fly Casual Nice Guy does not play to win.

Now, everyone begins as a poor player—it takes time to learn a game to get to a point where you know what you’re doing. There is the mistaken notion, though, that by merely continuing to play or “learn” the game, one can become an Insufferable Screeching WAAC-Off. In reality, the “Fly Casual Nice Guy” has many more mental obstacles to overcome than anything actually going on during the game. The Fly Casual Nice Guy has lost the game even before it starts. He’s lost the game even before deciding which game to play. His problem? He does not play to win.

The Fly Casual Nice Guy would take great issue with this statement for he usually believes that he is playing to win, but he is bound up by an intricate construct of fictitious rules that prevents him from ever truly competing. These made-up rules vary from game to game, of course, but their character remains constant. Let’s take a fighting game off of which I’ve made my gaming career: X-Wing Miniatures.

In X-Wing Miniatures, the Fly Casual Nice Guy labels a wide variety of tactics and situations “cheap.” This “cheapness” is truly the mantra of the Fly Casual Nice Guy. Performing a turret on someone is often called cheap. A turret is a special kind of move that grabs an opponent and damages him, even when the opponent is defending against all other kinds of attacks. The entire purpose of the turret is to be able to damage an opponent who sits and arc-dodges and doesn’t attack. As far as the game is concerned, turreting is an integral part of the design—it’s meant to be there—yet the Fly Casual Nice Guy has constructed his own set of principles in his mind that state he should be totally impervious to all attacks while arc-dodgeing. The Fly Casual Nice Guy thinks of arc-dodgeing as a kind of magic shield that will protect him indefinitely. Why? Exploring the reasoning is futile since the notion is ridiculous from the start.

Sirlin article:

Introducing...the Scrub

The derogatory term “scrub” means several different things. One definition is someone (especially a game player) who is not good at something (especially a game). By this definition, we all start out as scrubs, and there is certainly no shame in that. I mean the term differently, though. A scrub is a player who is handicapped by self-imposed rules that the game knows nothing about. A scrub does not play to win.

Now, everyone begins as a poor player—it takes time to learn a game to get to a point where you know what you’re doing. There is the mistaken notion, though, that by merely continuing to play or “learn” the game, one can become a top player. In reality, the “scrub” has many more mental obstacles to overcome than anything actually going on during the game. The scrub has lost the game even before it starts. He’s lost the game even before deciding which game to play. His problem? He does not play to win.

The scrub would take great issue with this statement for he usually believes that he is playing to win, but he is bound up by an intricate construct of fictitious rules that prevents him from ever truly competing. These made-up rules vary from game to game, of course, but their character remains constant. Let’s take a fighting game off of which I’ve made my gaming career: Street Fighter.

In Street Fighter, the scrub labels a wide variety of tactics and situations “cheap.” This “cheapness” is truly the mantra of the scrub. Performing a throw on someone is often called cheap. A throw is a special kind of move that grabs an opponent and damages him, even when the opponent is defending against all other kinds of attacks. The entire purpose of the throw is to be able to damage an opponent who sits and blocks and doesn’t attack. As far as the game is concerned, throwing is an integral part of the design—it’s meant to be there—yet the scrub has constructed his own set of principles in his mind that state he should be totally impervious to all attacks while blocking. The scrub thinks of blocking as a kind of magic shield that will protect him indefinitely. Why? Exploring the reasoning is futile since the notion is ridiculous from the start.

----

So, just a troll.

I recognise some of the behaviour described by the OP across many different games.

I disagree completely with labelling this "Fly Casual Nice Guy".

If someone were to ask to me to find one x-wing player who was a "Fly Casual Nice Guy" I would say Craig Reed. He is the perfect example of Fly Casual and also the perfect example of a Nice Guy. And there is nothing in the OP post that describes Craig Reed.

So if you wish to label the described players as something you need a different term.

The David Sirlin article thats being thrown around these forums is being taken out of context and most certainly does not apply to everyone. The article in question "Introducing the scrub..." is but a chapter in his book "Playing to win". He starts the book off by explaining that its not for everyone and if it is not for you thats fine. Most people won't even get to the introducing the scrub chapter if they read the book from the start and will also as a result not be offended by it.

Furthermore this article out of context is pretty rough on most people as it is not the full picture. He later on has a a chapter on sportsmanship and he gives advice on how to practice. Anyone who has read the whole book and agrees with it will be a great sport when you play against them. They will also not bring a broken list to casual game night and prey on unprepared people with a different mindset. Thats just wrong and nowhere near anything David Sirlin advocates. The introducing the scrub article should definitely not be used to try and change people's view on the game.

In my opinion the game needs players of all kinds to exist. I think the only blanket rule you can apply to everyone is don't be a ****.

13 hours ago, Rexler Brath said:

>In X-Wing Miniatures, the Fly Casual Nice Guy labels a wide variety of tactics and situations “cheap."

Traj + Genius is cheap and over powered. We had a tournament this past weekend and NO-ONE took Traj + Genius? Why? Because WE ALL KNOW it was OP and broken as. People who abuse the game are the problem with x-wing. Sane people who know that something is OP and needs to be nerfed are the ones keeping this game afloat. Not the Try Hard Tournament Wanna be's who abuse the game system.

Have you tried bringing an arc dodger to a tournament, dodging out of arc every turn, finishing off your opponent with 0 damage taken , then be labelled as "cheap" because the other person was clearly outplayed? That's what OP is talking about - players who refuse to point fingers at their inadequacy to improve their flying. Every game must be a joust and every move must be made in the heat of the moment, not considering the consequences of an action / flight path and what it will account for in the next 2-3 turns.

12 hours ago, LordBlades said:

All of that breaks when the FCNG starts to berate the WAAC guy for his choice of how to play the game and to imply that it's less valid than the FCNG's choice of how to play the game.

2 hours ago, LordBlades said:

I was trying to go with the OP definition of FCNG which, by my understanding was somewhat ironic. What I was referring to is what I'd call the 'militant casual': he embraces what he understands Fly Casual to be, he tries to stay away from stuff he perceives as 'cheap', 'OP' or 'not fun' but if somebody beats him with any of the tactics, ships and attitudes he disapproves of, then he's a terrible no skill WAAC person.

The kind of guy who allows you a missed opportunity in round 1 and then tries to guilt/shame you into allowing 10+ missed opportunities and sloppy bumps a game because 'just Fly Casual, man!'

Exactly.

It's not so much errors in logic here as 'squirreling the debate' - if you define a "Fly Casual Nice Guy" as:

• Someone who doesn't understand how metagame lists work and makes no attempt to learn.
• Complains all the time when they lose to a squad/technique they don't use themselves, even if others have no problem with it.
• Crows about it when they win after guilting you into not using the techniques which would let you beat them easily.
• Considers there is a 'right way' and 'wrong way' to play the game and will be strident about this belief.

Then yes. This person is not really a healthy component to a gaming community.

But, I don't believe that's a fair definition of Fly Casual, any more than "WAAC Jerk" is a fair definition of every competitive player.

Things some on both sides of the debate need to learn:

• There is no right way to play. The other lot are having fun too. Saying a technique is 'cheap' is just as bad as dismissing someone who doesn't want to use a technique as a 'scrub'.
• Your favourite technique is a crutch. I don't care whether this is turrets to give you a 360' arc of fire (TLTs) , or arc-dodging at PS11 (Poe), or stress control mechanics (Wookies), or even superior numbers of the same basically equivalent chassis (heavy swarm). Unless you're basically flying with 4 Rookie Pilots, it's a match of your crutch/cheat/exploit/whatever against theirs. Arc-dodgers often find turrets un-fun. Jousters often find the better arc-dodgers un-fun. But none of these are invalid mechanics at a basic level.
  • Personally, I dislike mines and bombs. But that's personal taste. A weapons which requires you to manoeuvre correctly and predict your opponent's moves is one that requires a level of skill to make it work, and therefore it's fair enough that it be in the game.
• Note that just because a given technique is fair enough in the abstract, doesn't mean that a specific example is balanced. Arc Dodging is fine, for example, but the 'Quantum Phantom' basically destroyed half the squads in the game. Bombs are fine, but Bomblet/Trajectory Simulator/Genius on a high PS ship is not, because you're essentially removing the prediction element.
• Assuming that just because people don't choose to use what they see as 'cheap' (or whatever perjurative label you want to use) they don't understand them is flawed.
• You can go to a competitive event with a 'themed' or 'fun' squad. And you should, at least a few times, even if you see yourself as a 'competitive' player. Because yes, the games will be harder to win, and you may lose some of them you might otherwise have won. But along the way, you may learn something about tactics, positioning, etc; it's surprising how much better a player people become after having to play a few games without their favourite crutch (whatever it is). See Slingpaint Gaming's Berto and the Baby Blues for a well-documented example of this.
• You can have winning as your primary goal and not be a jerk. I can't speak for the US but some of the best players I've played against in the UK are genuinely nice people and fun to fly against even if I feel like I'm on the wrong end of a seal clubbing party. It is possible to lose 100-0 and still enjoy a game. It is also possible and perfectly justifiable to refuse to allow missed opportunities in a competitive environment without being a jerk about it.
• Just because your squad is at a disadvantage going into a game (and where there are 3 factions with dozens of ships there will always be an element of scissors-paper-stone) isn't an excuse to give up.
  • Within the confines of a given game, you should be trying your damnedest to win within the confines of whatever rules you want to set for the engagement.
  • Never assume that there is 'nothing you can do' - even if a given game goes wrong, try something different - but try different deployment, approach and tactics as well as just going on the internet to either complain something is broken or find a 'hard counter' list.
  • Learning to play the same squad in different ways against varying opponents is key to being good at the game, because you can change how you play a squad mid-tournament but can't change your squad itself mid-tournament.
  • Believing 'there is nothing you could have done' in a match is as toxic to your long-term competence as a player as 'blaming the dice' for a defeat.
• The objective of the game is "to have fun". Because it's a game that you're playing for enjoyment. Yes, there may be some prize support, but since said prize support is generally "moar X-wing stuff" that's a circular argument. Even winning Worlds doesn't really change anything outside the sphere of 'playing X-wing'.

  • It's fine to understand that you have fun by winning. That's perfectly logical; to 99% of people, winning is generally more fun than losing, and looking down on that is wrong.

  • It's also important to understand that winning easily isn't fun for some people. If the game was reduced to 'monkey pull level, monkey get banana' you wouldn't find it as engaging as you do.

Is there a competition to write a post that makes you come off as the biggest scumbag possible, or something?

If so, this is definitely a strong contender.

9 minutes ago, Stay On The Leader said:

Is there a competition to write a post that makes you come off as the biggest scumbag possible, or something?

If so, this is definitely a strong contender.

Man, I can hardly resist that setup. But all stupid jokes sound just a tad too mean spirited for written form, and I don‘t want to actually insult you

45 minutes ago, Stay On The Leader said:

Is there a competition to write a post that makes you come off as the biggest scumbag possible, or something?

If so, this is definitely a strong contender.

If there is mine's going to be called "introducing the non imperial player"

I probably am one of these, I've never really played a tabletop game 'to win' and I do dislike things that seem too 'easy', like TLT or unavoidable combos of cards that create a negative experience for an opponent. And it is something that I have had to work hard on in X-Wing, since this particular game has such an adversarial and competitive element. After playing for about a year I am starting to realise what I need to do to be competitive, there's not much fun in being obliterated while trying to play an entirely different game to you opponent.

I haven't read the whole OP but there's some truth in the persona - I'm not sure whether it's supposed to be a criticism though. I don't personally think those things I've described are negatives, they're just the consequence of a thematic/fun gamer coming into contact with a game that is more competitive than it initially seems. As time goes on, either you have to adapt to the game, quit, or find purely casual/fun opponents.

I'm not sure why you felt the need to repost the same article from the other topic with a word swapped out.

I'm fairly sure everyone on this forum is bright enough to understand the old topic's comparison without a Ctrl-H repost.

I refer to myself as a “filthy casual” because I’m not as good as the high end competitive players. I just don’t have the time in my life to commit to everything that is required to be good. I’ve made peace with that.

However, when I go to a tournament, I try to do my actual best and I am not beneath flying anything that’s legal - my tournament lists have been Attani variations and then double jumps. I’m currently on a Dash/Poe kick. For 100/6 match ups, you bet I’m flying the best stuff I understand how to operate.

However, my xwing doesn’t stop there. I enjoy flying epic or HotAC and when those opportunities arise I’ll fly those too. So, where does that leave me? A moderately competent player who adapts his list to what he’s trying to accomplish. No crying about what’s cheap or too good or whatever, just someone who doesn’t have the time to truly be great and is OK with it for now.

Please allow me to explain myself:

When I posted the link to the original thread, which contains a link to the article I copied, replaced key words, and pasted, I intended to make it blindingly obvious that this was posted in a not-entirely-serious way, with tongue firmly in cheek. The intent was that I'd post, one of my fellow forumites would expose the ruse, and we'd all have a laugh.

Boy, was I wrong.

A wall of text post is a pretty obnoxious thing to confront, true, especially if you dismiss it offhand when you are rubbed the wrong way by the first paragraph or two. It took till @Malasombra on page 2 to (correctly) call that its just a copy/paste with the use of a replace all function. Theres a paragraph in there about joystick inputs...

Long story short, it was meant as a satire, and went off like a lead derrigible. Any joke you have to explain isn't a good joke, but here we are.

Don't hate me because I'm cheeky.

There are multiple definitions for the words "Game", and "Play"; the post this content was derived from paints a definitive picture of which versions the original contents author(s) subscribe to in the context of "playing" the "game" of X-wing.

9 hours ago, Magnus Grendel said:

Believing 'there is nothing you could have done' in a match is as toxic to your long-term competence as a player as 'blaming the dice' for a defeat.

I agree in general that some randomness is to be expected, so blaming the dice for a roll or two is rather silly.

However, I have personally played a game wherein the opponent clearly had a much better list and was a much better pilot. I ended up winning the game only because four or five attacks in a row, I rolled all hits and my opponent all blanks, while when defending I evaded every attack, despite several buffs and added dice on his part. My opponent was understandably frustrated at the end of the game (though he handled it rather well), because it wasn't just that one or two things didn't go well; the dice repeatedly worked against him the entire game, with absolutely nothing that could have been done, and no lessons to be learned.

I think this is why it's important not to lump everything together too much into generalities. Sometimes someone is lashing out unfairly and could use a little smack of reality, but other times the person may be venting a legitimate annoyance, and just dismissing it with, "you just need to get better," is just going to make the aggravation worse.

Last game I played my mate never rolled less than three damage and usually rolled a crit as Well, while it wasn't one sided I was soundly beat, we both had a laugh about it though, then I kicked his *** at necromunda because those dice favoured me.

100% the dice can screw you even if you make zero mistakes that's just how games go sometimes, thing is to just laugh at it instead of being a *****.

12 hours ago, E Chu Ta said:

Please allow me to explain myself:

When I posted the link to the original thread, which contains a link to the article I copied, replaced key words, and pasted, I intended to make it blindingly obvious that this was posted in a not-entirely-serious way, with tongue firmly in cheek. The intent was that I'd post, one of my fellow forumites would expose the ruse, and we'd all have a laugh.

Boy, was I wrong.

A wall of text post is a pretty obnoxious thing to confront, true, especially if you dismiss it offhand when you are rubbed the wrong way by the first paragraph or two. It took till @Malasombra on page 2 to (correctly) call that its just a copy/paste with the use of a replace all function. Theres a paragraph in there about joystick inputs...

Long story short, it was meant as a satire, and went off like a lead derrigible. Any joke you have to explain isn't a good joke, but here we are.

Don't hate me because I'm cheeky.

Even more... As I was reading it on the recent OP, it sounded very familiar.

If I don't remember wrong, I think Sirlin article was used a while ago in this forum, in another similar thread, generating quite a heated discussion. But i wasn't able to find the thread.

I'm certain it will appear again in the future.

12 hours ago, E Chu Ta said:

Please allow me to explain myself:

When I posted the link to the original thread, which contains a link to the article I copied, replaced key words, and pasted, I intended to make it blindingly obvious that this was posted in a not-entirely-serious way, with tongue firmly in cheek. The intent was that I'd post, one of my fellow forumites would expose the ruse, and we'd all have a laugh.

Boy, was I wrong.

A wall of text post is a pretty obnoxious thing to confront, true, especially if you dismiss it offhand when you are rubbed the wrong way by the first paragraph or two. It took till @Malasombra on page 2 to (correctly) call that its just a copy/paste with the use of a replace all function. Theres a paragraph in there about joystick inputs...

Long story short, it was meant as a satire, and went off like a lead derrigible. Any joke you have to explain isn't a good joke, but here we are.

Don't hate me because I'm cheeky.

Don’t worry, you’re not the first person to roll all blanks , spend a target lock to re-roll those blanks and roll blanks again and you won’t be the last. (Introducing the ok player that has horrible luck)

I have said this before, sorry for repeating myself: Every game of a major size needs to support different formats. Formats with ban/restriction lists, set rotation formats, theme formats, ... and they all need to have support from the suppliers.

Any major size Company not supporting such things are making a big mistake. I argue that the major reason that Magic still thrives after 25+ years is this (and MtgOnline), that there are multitudes of formats supported with prices. Almost everyone can find (or host) a tournament that they like and get support from the supplier.

Then the FCNG and the WAAC can meet in balanced competition and discussions like these will simply go away.