i had a 2 hour (in 3.0 too!!) push and pull battle were we lost after 2000 fades 1000 ono's and millions of jps ha and hmgs but still the funnest game i have had in a while.
<!--QuoteBegin-Firewater+May 28 2005, 11:31 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Firewater @ May 28 2005, 11:31 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I don't understand why one cannot play for both fun and victory. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> because winning sucks apparently.
I play for fun, but playing a goal orientated game is alot more fun than a random match where neither team looks to be giving any effort at all, and trying to win is as good of a goal as any.
That said it isnt my idea of fun for a team of aliens to win using OC spam, makes for a slow boring game which people just leave.
I play for fun as well. However, losing consecutively will cause boredom. There's an extra good feeling in winning, but whether you win or lose, it's still fun.
That guy you argued with, I'm guessing he/she is Chinese. Because looking at the typing, he/she added those speech expressions (typical Chinese stuff) at the end of the sentence, such as "leh" and "lah". And knowing them, they are usually extremely competitive, and that is probably why they like to win all the time.
Losing is rarely fun because in NS the games can be so extremely one-sided. As one team gets stronger the other almost always gets much, much weaker. When the game is close and there's constant action and heavy losses on both sides. it is fun.
edit: Who doesn't play for fun? People who play for victory play for fun... If they can't enjoy a loss in a good game, they just have less of it.
<!--QuoteBegin-Firewater+May 28 2005, 10:31 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Firewater @ May 28 2005, 10:31 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I don't understand why one cannot play for both fun and victory.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> You can. The question was badly phrased though..
Perhaps it should have been "Do you have fun playing NS even if you lose?"
Lets look at it this way- in order for it to be enjoyable for yourself and your team in most situations, you ought to play to TRY, at least. If you give it your all and lose, you can at least have had a good time trying with your teammates and doing everything within your ability to succeed. If you and your team are TRYING to see how many pit rushes you can do, or TRYING to knife that hive as you have no IPs/Commchair, or TRYING to weld that onos to death, then so long as you haven't given up and keep things in agreement with the other players in the server, then it's good. Playing for just the sake of greifing your team might be fun to yourself, but if your team is honestly working on getting that 2nd hive down and you're taking equipment in base and knife rushing a hive singing the macarana over your voice comm, well GG you and thanks for being a jerk. But at least it's fun?
that's why i play combat -P i'm sick of having to follow the d->m->s chamber "rules" that most servers have set up. sick of rushing for RT's without building defenses...hell. i remember back when a marine comm would make a <b>room</b> full of turrets (1.01, how i miss you...), and half the fun was trying to rush gorges in to bilebomb the place...not to mention the mines. and mass mine-related deaths on the marine team. hehehe...
<!--QuoteBegin-Nadagast+May 28 2005, 10:46 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Nadagast @ May 28 2005, 10:46 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin-Scylla+May 27 2005, 05:48 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Scylla @ May 27 2005, 05:48 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> As usual there are different opinions. I play for fun and experience. Some just play for winning (play to win). Play to win is the most boring style of play and quite ironic it’s so widespread in Natural Selection. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Playing to win is not fun <b>in your opinion</b>. That doesn't make it wrong.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Of course it’s not “wrong” in the meaning it should be forbidden. Everybody is free to play the way he wants to.
I only said that’s a quite boring and semi-optimal way to play a game. I see this style of play every day on my own server. Pure “play to win” leads to bad behaviour (commander sells the base after an unsuccessful 2nd hive rush with accusing the team) and avoiding of challenges (with team stacking for example).
A real competitive player should be more satisfied with a loosed game if he learned something than an easy won game. Or to say it with the good old spirit of the HLDM scene: “A close loss is worth more than an easy win”.
And many here in this topic stated they “play to win” because they have a simplified view on competitive play. Sure, it’s the goal to win in competitive play but the way to be able to win games is much more important.
<i>“The unlikely moral here is that playing to win is often counter-productive. Those who love the game and play to play will uncover the unusual nuances that might be important in a tournament. Those nuances might never be important, but the “play to play” player doesn’t care. It’s all for fun, and he’s happy to accumulate whatever knowledge he can. The “play to win” player might lock himself into perfecting certain tactics/strategies/character that will eventually be obsolete, as hard as that will be to believe at the moment. Meanwhile, the player who is able to take a step back and mess around will either discover new mountains to climb, or at least take a stab at climbing some other known mountains. The joke’s on you when his mountain turns out to be 10 times higher than yours.” </i>
Playing to win also involves adapting said strategies to win.
Competitive players look for new strategies all the time, and they usually get passed down the to casual players, not the other way around. Casual players are the reason the two hive lockdown still exists, and we all know how useful that is.
When one cares not for victory, they will be the ones on the smaller mountain so to speak, because if that anecdote was true, why do competitive players dominate pub players and not the other way around? Competitive players play to win.
I consider myself a compeditive player I mean after all I am the leader of a clan. However my clan has never recruited based on skill while ive been leader, it has always been about ppl we get on with and want to have a good time with. Yes my clan isnt the best but we hold our own and have a good time while doing it.
<!--QuoteBegin-Firewater+May 30 2005, 03:28 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Firewater @ May 30 2005, 03:28 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Playing to win also involves adapting said strategies to win.
Competitive players look for new strategies all the time, and they usually get passed down the to casual players, not the other way around. Casual players are the reason the two hive lockdown still exists, and we all know how useful that is. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Exploring the game and learning “secret lore” of the game is not needed for “play to win”. Natural Selection is a quite simple game comparing to other games. Most strategies are well known and they got probable not discovered by the competitive community but by casual players of version 1.0x. If there are any strategies discovered by competitive players then they are not the “play to win”-characters but player who love the game and explore it. They discovered a mountain and the competitive scene adept it.
<!--QuoteBegin-Firewater+May 30 2005, 03:28 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Firewater @ May 30 2005, 03:28 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> When one cares not for victory, they will be the ones on the smaller mountain so to speak, because if that anecdote was true, why do competitive players dominate pub players and not the other way around? Competitive players play to win.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Competitive player will dominate causal players in their fixed frame of standard game play – I never question than. “Play to win” and “play to play/play for fun” are not fixed on competitive or casual player. There are casual players who “play to win” and this type of player will probable also answer “I play for fun” because they don’t understand that winning is their major fun-factor in the game and they’re using the mainstream weapons/tactics to maximize their chances “win the game”. They play to win.
And there are also competitive players that “play to play”. They have the goal of win games but they understand that’s more important to discover and explore the game and learn “secret lore”, knowledge that may be critical in competitive play. This type of players are probable the most valuable.
But most competitive players are like German soccer players. They are quite good because of discipline and hard training but stuck in their frame of trained abilities. A competitive player who “plays to play/for fun” is more like Zinedine Zidane. Zinedine Zidane learned “secret lore” in soccer. While a German soccer player has very limited options if he is surrounded by 3 opponents Zinedine Zidane is able to get out of it with an advantage because he learned and explored (and trained) such unusual situations.
<i>Tournament play often creates critical moments of decision when you are exposed to a very strange situation in the game. In a tournament, the best players get to play each other, often with a clash of play-styles. They each have their own tricks and must find immediate answers to the tricks of their opponents. And it’s not just for fun anymore, it’s “real.” It matters. Under this pressure players find creative and unusual solutions to they tricky spots they get put into. When these strange situations come up, will you be familiar with them? Do you know the options and the risks involved? Knowledge of “secret lore” or unusual interactions in a game often means the difference between winning and losing. And how will you learn this secret lore? Perhaps you are preparing for a tournament, practicing, playing to win. What will you practice? You’ll practice the things you know you need to do the most in a match. You’ll practice against the things that you know you’ll face? Basically, you’ll do it all “by the book.” Consciously preparing for a tournament is pretty much the opposite of exploring “unusual situations.” In your practicing, will you seek out a player of a character you think sucks? Will you play characters you have no intention of playing in the tournament? Probably not. But what happens when a mysterious player out of nowhere shows up with that “sucky” character, and shows everyone how good that character really is? That other character you were messing around with might be just the thing you need…too bad you didn’t explore that. You were “playing to win.”</i>
And btw. I often see competitive player failing terrible if they are faced with unusual situations.
You “competitive players” have to be lucky that Natural Selection is really a simple game comparing to others (like soccer) and your skill in adapting the discoveries of others covers so much of the deficits of your “play to win”. (warning: last sentence contains irony <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> )
<!--QuoteBegin-evidence+May 30 2005, 07:46 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (evidence @ May 30 2005, 07:46 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I consider myself a compeditive player I mean after all I am the leader of a clan. However my clan has never recruited based on skill while ive been leader, it has always been about ppl we get on with and want to have a good time with. Yes my clan isnt the best but we hold our own and have a good time while doing it. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> If you don't recruit based on skill then you aren't competitive, and are not playing to win. If you were you would recruit the best possible players around you.
<!--QuoteBegin-Scylla+May 31 2005, 04:30 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Scylla @ May 31 2005, 04:30 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Firewater+May 30 2005, 03:28 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Firewater @ May 30 2005, 03:28 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Playing to win also involves adapting said strategies to win.
Competitive players look for new strategies all the time, and they usually get passed down the to casual players, not the other way around. Casual players are the reason the two hive lockdown still exists, and we all know how useful that is. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Exploring the game and learning “secret lore” of the game is not needed for “play to win”. Natural Selection is a quite simple game comparing to other games. Most strategies are well known and they got probable not discovered by the competitive community but by casual players of version 1.0x. If there are any strategies discovered by competitive players then they are not the “play to win”-characters but player who love the game and explore it. They discovered a mountain and the competitive scene adept it.
<!--QuoteBegin-Firewater+May 30 2005, 03:28 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Firewater @ May 30 2005, 03:28 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> When one cares not for victory, they will be the ones on the smaller mountain so to speak, because if that anecdote was true, why do competitive players dominate pub players and not the other way around? Competitive players play to win.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Competitive player will dominate causal players in their fixed frame of standard game play – I never question than. “Play to win” and “play to play/play for fun” are not fixed on competitive or casual player. There are casual players who “play to win” and this type of player will probable also answer “I play for fun” because they don’t understand that winning is their major fun-factor in the game and they’re using the mainstream weapons/tactics to maximize their chances “win the game”. They play to win.
And there are also competitive players that “play to play”. They have the goal of win games but they understand that’s more important to discover and explore the game and learn “secret lore”, knowledge that may be critical in competitive play. This type of players are probable the most valuable.
But most competitive players are like German soccer players. They are quite good because of discipline and hard training but stuck in their frame of trained abilities. A competitive player who “plays to play/for fun” is more like Zinedine Zidane. Zinedine Zidane learned “secret lore” in soccer. While a German soccer player has very limited options if he is surrounded by 3 opponents Zinedine Zidane is able to get out of it with an advantage because he learned and explored (and trained) such unusual situations.
<i>Tournament play often creates critical moments of decision when you are exposed to a very strange situation in the game. In a tournament, the best players get to play each other, often with a clash of play-styles. They each have their own tricks and must find immediate answers to the tricks of their opponents. And it’s not just for fun anymore, it’s “real.” It matters. Under this pressure players find creative and unusual solutions to they tricky spots they get put into. When these strange situations come up, will you be familiar with them? Do you know the options and the risks involved? Knowledge of “secret lore” or unusual interactions in a game often means the difference between winning and losing. And how will you learn this secret lore? Perhaps you are preparing for a tournament, practicing, playing to win. What will you practice? You’ll practice the things you know you need to do the most in a match. You’ll practice against the things that you know you’ll face? Basically, you’ll do it all “by the book.” Consciously preparing for a tournament is pretty much the opposite of exploring “unusual situations.” In your practicing, will you seek out a player of a character you think sucks? Will you play characters you have no intention of playing in the tournament? Probably not. But what happens when a mysterious player out of nowhere shows up with that “sucky” character, and shows everyone how good that character really is? That other character you were messing around with might be just the thing you need…too bad you didn’t explore that. You were “playing to win.”</i>
And btw. I often see competitive player failing terrible if they are faced with unusual situations.
You “competitive players” have to be lucky that Natural Selection is really a simple game comparing to others (like soccer) and your skill in adapting the discoveries of others covers so much of the deficits of your “play to win”. (warning: last sentence contains irony <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> )
"Who thinks he is good, stopped to be better." <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> What other group of players can beat competitive players? I want to see this group who clearly explores and has more talent than the players in the competitive scene.
I want to see this group that explores the game. Competitive players do explore the game, thats how the strategies are developed. They get locked in because there are only certain things that work, and certain things that clearly won't .
<!--QuoteBegin-Scylla+May 31 2005, 04:30 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Scylla @ May 31 2005, 04:30 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> And btw. I often see competitive player failing terrible if they are faced with unusual situations. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-Firewater+May 31 2005, 11:43 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Firewater @ May 31 2005, 11:43 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->What other group of players can beat competitive players? I want to see this group who clearly explores and has more talent than the players in the competitive scene. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don’t write about competitive gamers vs. casual gamers but about “play to win” and “play to play/play for fun”.
<!--QuoteBegin-Firewater+May 31 2005, 11:43 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Firewater @ May 31 2005, 11:43 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I want to see this group that explores the game. Competitive players do explore the game, thats how the strategies are developed. They get locked in because there are only certain things that work, and certain things that clearly won't .<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You don’t explore, you don’t develop new strategies. Why should you bothering yourself trying out tactics or procedures which will probable lead to a loss? You “play to win”. You’re only adapting.
<!--QuoteBegin-Firewater+May 31 2005, 11:40 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Firewater @ May 31 2005, 11:40 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> If you don't recruit based on skill then you aren't competitive, and are not playing to win. If you were you would recruit the best possible players around you.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Skill is secondary to form a successful team. As many soccer teams fail terrible to get onto the top by buyout other teams it’s the same with German NS clans. A well I understand … you use the easiest way and most mainstream way to form a team <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->But most competitive players are like German soccer players. They are quite good because of discipline and hard training but stuck in their frame of trained abilities.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
how many competetive players have you worked with closely? is any of them other than german?
<!--QuoteBegin-Scylla+Jun 1 2005, 04:31 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Scylla @ Jun 1 2005, 04:31 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Skill is secondary to form a successful team. As many soccer teams fail terrible to get onto the top by buyout other teams it’s the same with German NS clans. A well I understand … you use the easiest way and most mainstream way to form a team <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> obviously in order for a player to be recruited into an established clan, he has to fit in the team & fill a role.
edit:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->You don’t explore, you don’t develop new strategies. Why should you bothering yourself trying out tactics or procedures which will probable lead to a loss? You “play to win”. You’re only adapting.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
do you know what a practice clan war is? it's something where you practice an existing strategy, or a one you've just made up.
I think what Scylla is trying to get at is the idea of being skilled in known strategies vs being good at finding new strategies to practice.
The arguement goes, that because less competitive players aren't as skilled at a given strategy they are more likely to be in situations that they can't deal with by using that strategy and so are more likely to experiment with other strategies, than to keep trying the same strategy in an attempt to hone their skill in it. Or possibly that people good at looking for new strategies exist within clans and possibly by different methods than just blindly blundering into them, work out new strategies for clan matches. However not all clans are good at this, resulting in clans that are really good until they run into something they haven't practiced against, such as a sensory first strategy during the dc first era. The psychological factor being more useful than pure numbers alone.
I would say that Pub games are percieved as more fun because there is more leeway to make mistakes and try another solution to win the game.
I play for fun. If I/my team loses, we lose, who cares.
But, if there is a scrim going on, then of course I play to win. But, since I'm clanless, I just play for fun, not for stats. <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin-Scylla+Jun 1 2005, 04:31 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Scylla @ Jun 1 2005, 04:31 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Firewater+May 31 2005, 11:43 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Firewater @ May 31 2005, 11:43 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->What other group of players can beat competitive players? I want to see this group who clearly explores and has more talent than the players in the competitive scene. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don’t write about competitive gamers vs. casual gamers but about “play to win” and “play to play/play for fun”.
<!--QuoteBegin-Firewater+May 31 2005, 11:43 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Firewater @ May 31 2005, 11:43 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I want to see this group that explores the game. Competitive players do explore the game, thats how the strategies are developed. They get locked in because there are only certain things that work, and certain things that clearly won't .<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You don’t explore, you don’t develop new strategies. Why should you bothering yourself trying out tactics or procedures which will probable lead to a loss? You “play to win”. You’re only adapting.
<!--QuoteBegin-Firewater+May 31 2005, 11:40 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Firewater @ May 31 2005, 11:40 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> If you don't recruit based on skill then you aren't competitive, and are not playing to win. If you were you would recruit the best possible players around you.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Skill is secondary to form a successful team. As many soccer teams fail terrible to get onto the top by buyout other teams it’s the same with German NS clans. A well I understand … you use the easiest way and most mainstream way to form a team <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Ok, what should teams recruit based on?
The 3 #1 teams I played for recruited based on skill, how have your teams faired with your alternative method?
Comments
because winning sucks apparently.
That said it isnt my idea of fun for a team of aliens to win using OC spam, makes for a slow boring game which people just leave.
However, losing consecutively will cause boredom. There's an extra good feeling in winning, but whether you win or lose, it's still fun.
That guy you argued with, I'm guessing he/she is Chinese. Because looking at the typing, he/she added those speech expressions (typical Chinese stuff) at the end of the sentence, such as "leh" and "lah". And knowing them, they are usually extremely competitive, and that is probably why they like to win all the time.
edit: Who doesn't play for fun? People who play for victory play for fun... If they can't enjoy a loss in a good game, they just have less of it.
You can. The question was badly phrased though..
Perhaps it should have been "Do you have fun playing NS even if you lose?"
Playing to win is not fun <b>in your opinion</b>. That doesn't make it wrong.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Of course it’s not “wrong” in the meaning it should be forbidden. Everybody is free to play the way he wants to.
I only said that’s a quite boring and semi-optimal way to play a game. I see this style of play every day on my own server. Pure “play to win” leads to bad behaviour (commander sells the base after an unsuccessful 2nd hive rush with accusing the team) and avoiding of challenges (with team stacking for example).
A real competitive player should be more satisfied with a loosed game if he learned something than an easy won game. Or to say it with the good old spirit of the HLDM scene: “A close loss is worth more than an easy win”.
And many here in this topic stated they “play to win” because they have a simplified view on competitive play. Sure, it’s the goal to win in competitive play but the way to be able to win games is much more important.
<i>“The unlikely moral here is that playing to win is often counter-productive. Those who love the game and play to play will uncover the unusual nuances that might be important in a tournament. Those nuances might never be important, but the “play to play” player doesn’t care. It’s all for fun, and he’s happy to accumulate whatever knowledge he can. The “play to win” player might lock himself into perfecting certain tactics/strategies/character that will eventually be obsolete, as hard as that will be to believe at the moment. Meanwhile, the player who is able to take a step back and mess around will either discover new mountains to climb, or at least take a stab at climbing some other known mountains. The joke’s on you when his mountain turns out to be 10 times higher than yours.” </i>
Competitive players look for new strategies all the time, and they usually get passed down the to casual players, not the other way around. Casual players are the reason the two hive lockdown still exists, and we all know how useful that is.
When one cares not for victory, they will be the ones on the smaller mountain so to speak, because if that anecdote was true, why do competitive players dominate pub players and not the other way around? Competitive players play to win.
Competitive quitters play to quit.
Competitive quitters play to quit. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
rofl
I play to win most of the time, but being defeated can be fun if its a close game
Competitive players look for new strategies all the time, and they usually get passed down the to casual players, not the other way around. Casual players are the reason the two hive lockdown still exists, and we all know how useful that is. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Exploring the game and learning “secret lore” of the game is not needed for “play to win”. Natural Selection is a quite simple game comparing to other games. Most strategies are well known and they got probable not discovered by the competitive community but by casual players of version 1.0x.
If there are any strategies discovered by competitive players then they are not the “play to win”-characters but player who love the game and explore it. They discovered a mountain and the competitive scene adept it.
<!--QuoteBegin-Firewater+May 30 2005, 03:28 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Firewater @ May 30 2005, 03:28 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
When one cares not for victory, they will be the ones on the smaller mountain so to speak, because if that anecdote was true, why do competitive players dominate pub players and not the other way around? Competitive players play to win.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Competitive player will dominate causal players in their fixed frame of standard game play – I never question than. “Play to win” and “play to play/play for fun” are not fixed on competitive or casual player. There are casual players who “play to win” and this type of player will probable also answer “I play for fun” because they don’t understand that winning is their major fun-factor in the game and they’re using the mainstream weapons/tactics to maximize their chances “win the game”. They play to win.
And there are also competitive players that “play to play”. They have the goal of win games but they understand that’s more important to discover and explore the game and learn “secret lore”, knowledge that may be critical in competitive play. This type of players are probable the most valuable.
But most competitive players are like German soccer players. They are quite good because of discipline and hard training but stuck in their frame of trained abilities.
A competitive player who “plays to play/for fun” is more like Zinedine Zidane. Zinedine Zidane learned “secret lore” in soccer. While a German soccer player has very limited options if he is surrounded by 3 opponents Zinedine Zidane is able to get out of it with an advantage because he learned and explored (and trained) such unusual situations.
<i>Tournament play often creates critical moments of decision when you are exposed to a very strange situation in the game. In a tournament, the best players get to play each other, often with a clash of play-styles. They each have their own tricks and must find immediate answers to the tricks of their opponents. And it’s not just for fun anymore, it’s “real.” It matters. Under this pressure players find creative and unusual solutions to they tricky spots they get put into.
When these strange situations come up, will you be familiar with them? Do you know the options and the risks involved? Knowledge of “secret lore” or unusual interactions in a game often means the difference between winning and losing.
And how will you learn this secret lore? Perhaps you are preparing for a tournament, practicing, playing to win. What will you practice? You’ll practice the things you know you need to do the most in a match. You’ll practice against the things that you know you’ll face? Basically, you’ll do it all “by the book.” Consciously preparing for a tournament is pretty much the opposite of exploring “unusual situations.” In your practicing, will you seek out a player of a character you think sucks? Will you play characters you have no intention of playing in the tournament? Probably not. But what happens when a mysterious player out of nowhere shows up with that “sucky” character, and shows everyone how good that character really is? That other character you were messing around with might be just the thing you need…too bad you didn’t explore that. You were “playing to win.”</i>
And btw. I often see competitive player failing terrible if they are faced with unusual situations.
You “competitive players” have to be lucky that Natural Selection is really a simple game comparing to others (like soccer) and your skill in adapting the discoveries of others covers so much of the deficits of your “play to win”. (warning: last sentence contains irony <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> )
"Who thinks he is good, stopped to be better."
If you don't recruit based on skill then you aren't competitive, and are not playing to win. If you were you would recruit the best possible players around you.
Competitive players look for new strategies all the time, and they usually get passed down the to casual players, not the other way around. Casual players are the reason the two hive lockdown still exists, and we all know how useful that is. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Exploring the game and learning “secret lore” of the game is not needed for “play to win”. Natural Selection is a quite simple game comparing to other games. Most strategies are well known and they got probable not discovered by the competitive community but by casual players of version 1.0x.
If there are any strategies discovered by competitive players then they are not the “play to win”-characters but player who love the game and explore it. They discovered a mountain and the competitive scene adept it.
<!--QuoteBegin-Firewater+May 30 2005, 03:28 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Firewater @ May 30 2005, 03:28 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
When one cares not for victory, they will be the ones on the smaller mountain so to speak, because if that anecdote was true, why do competitive players dominate pub players and not the other way around? Competitive players play to win.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Competitive player will dominate causal players in their fixed frame of standard game play – I never question than. “Play to win” and “play to play/play for fun” are not fixed on competitive or casual player. There are casual players who “play to win” and this type of player will probable also answer “I play for fun” because they don’t understand that winning is their major fun-factor in the game and they’re using the mainstream weapons/tactics to maximize their chances “win the game”. They play to win.
And there are also competitive players that “play to play”. They have the goal of win games but they understand that’s more important to discover and explore the game and learn “secret lore”, knowledge that may be critical in competitive play. This type of players are probable the most valuable.
But most competitive players are like German soccer players. They are quite good because of discipline and hard training but stuck in their frame of trained abilities.
A competitive player who “plays to play/for fun” is more like Zinedine Zidane. Zinedine Zidane learned “secret lore” in soccer. While a German soccer player has very limited options if he is surrounded by 3 opponents Zinedine Zidane is able to get out of it with an advantage because he learned and explored (and trained) such unusual situations.
<i>Tournament play often creates critical moments of decision when you are exposed to a very strange situation in the game. In a tournament, the best players get to play each other, often with a clash of play-styles. They each have their own tricks and must find immediate answers to the tricks of their opponents. And it’s not just for fun anymore, it’s “real.” It matters. Under this pressure players find creative and unusual solutions to they tricky spots they get put into.
When these strange situations come up, will you be familiar with them? Do you know the options and the risks involved? Knowledge of “secret lore” or unusual interactions in a game often means the difference between winning and losing.
And how will you learn this secret lore? Perhaps you are preparing for a tournament, practicing, playing to win. What will you practice? You’ll practice the things you know you need to do the most in a match. You’ll practice against the things that you know you’ll face? Basically, you’ll do it all “by the book.” Consciously preparing for a tournament is pretty much the opposite of exploring “unusual situations.” In your practicing, will you seek out a player of a character you think sucks? Will you play characters you have no intention of playing in the tournament? Probably not. But what happens when a mysterious player out of nowhere shows up with that “sucky” character, and shows everyone how good that character really is? That other character you were messing around with might be just the thing you need…too bad you didn’t explore that. You were “playing to win.”</i>
And btw. I often see competitive player failing terrible if they are faced with unusual situations.
You “competitive players” have to be lucky that Natural Selection is really a simple game comparing to others (like soccer) and your skill in adapting the discoveries of others covers so much of the deficits of your “play to win”. (warning: last sentence contains irony <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> )
"Who thinks he is good, stopped to be better." <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
What other group of players can beat competitive players? I want to see this group who clearly explores and has more talent than the players in the competitive scene.
I want to see this group that explores the game. Competitive players do explore the game, thats how the strategies are developed. They get locked in because there are only certain things that work, and certain things that clearly won't .
And btw. I often see competitive player failing terrible if they are faced with unusual situations.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
They aren't perfect?
I don’t write about competitive gamers vs. casual gamers but about “play to win” and “play to play/play for fun”.
<!--QuoteBegin-Firewater+May 31 2005, 11:43 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Firewater @ May 31 2005, 11:43 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I want to see this group that explores the game. Competitive players do explore the game, thats how the strategies are developed. They get locked in because there are only certain things that work, and certain things that clearly won't .<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You don’t explore, you don’t develop new strategies. Why should you bothering yourself trying out tactics or procedures which will probable lead to a loss? You “play to win”. You’re only adapting.
<!--QuoteBegin-Firewater+May 31 2005, 11:40 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Firewater @ May 31 2005, 11:40 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> If you don't recruit based on skill then you aren't competitive, and are not playing to win. If you were you would recruit the best possible players around you.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Skill is secondary to form a successful team. As many soccer teams fail terrible to get onto the top by buyout other teams it’s the same with German NS clans. A well I understand … you use the easiest way and most mainstream way to form a team <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
how many competetive players have you worked with closely? is any of them other than german?
Skill is secondary to form a successful team. As many soccer teams fail terrible to get onto the top by buyout other teams it’s the same with German NS clans. A well I understand … you use the easiest way and most mainstream way to form a team <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
obviously in order for a player to be recruited into an established clan, he has to fit in the team & fill a role.
edit:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->You don’t explore, you don’t develop new strategies. Why should you bothering yourself trying out tactics or procedures which will probable lead to a loss? You “play to win”. You’re only adapting.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
do you know what a practice clan war is? it's something where you practice an existing strategy, or a one you've just made up.
The arguement goes, that because less competitive players aren't as skilled at a given strategy they are more likely to be in situations that they can't deal with by using that strategy and so are more likely to experiment with other strategies, than to keep trying the same strategy in an attempt to hone their skill in it.
Or possibly that people good at looking for new strategies exist within clans and possibly by different methods than just blindly blundering into them, work out new strategies for clan matches. However not all clans are good at this, resulting in clans that are really good until they run into something they haven't practiced against, such as a sensory first strategy during the dc first era. The psychological factor being more useful than pure numbers alone.
I would say that Pub games are percieved as more fun because there is more leeway to make mistakes and try another solution to win the game.
But, if there is a scrim going on, then of course I play to win. But, since I'm clanless, I just play for fun, not for stats. <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Competitive quitters play to quit. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
quoting for lmao
I don’t write about competitive gamers vs. casual gamers but about “play to win” and “play to play/play for fun”.
<!--QuoteBegin-Firewater+May 31 2005, 11:43 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Firewater @ May 31 2005, 11:43 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I want to see this group that explores the game. Competitive players do explore the game, thats how the strategies are developed. They get locked in because there are only certain things that work, and certain things that clearly won't .<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You don’t explore, you don’t develop new strategies. Why should you bothering yourself trying out tactics or procedures which will probable lead to a loss? You “play to win”. You’re only adapting.
<!--QuoteBegin-Firewater+May 31 2005, 11:40 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Firewater @ May 31 2005, 11:40 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> If you don't recruit based on skill then you aren't competitive, and are not playing to win. If you were you would recruit the best possible players around you.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Skill is secondary to form a successful team. As many soccer teams fail terrible to get onto the top by buyout other teams it’s the same with German NS clans. A well I understand … you use the easiest way and most mainstream way to form a team <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ok, what should teams recruit based on?
The 3 #1 teams I played for recruited based on skill, how have your teams faired with your alternative method?