The reason I hate when people say "play to win"

[MuraRengan]

I posted this in another thread, but I think it deserves its own discussion.

There's a certain aspect about the competitive meta that people never acknowledge, and it's that the even some of the most competitive players in the game don't actually "play to win". Playing to win means doing literally the strategy that most assures your victory. M2K played like that in Brawl, and that took the form of planking. Planking - literally the worst phenomenon to ever happen to competitive smash. But even still, there were competitive players that didn't plank, even though it was the best strategy. Do you know why? Because that **** isn't fun. Playing to win means always picking the top tier character, but do you know why people don't always do that? Because that **** isn't fun. Most people still want to have fun, even competitive players. Mango is the perfect example of this. He is the best, hands down. He has shown that he can play using the best characters and best strategies, but he prioritizes actually having fun over winning. That's why he beats people in Melee with ****ing Mario. The motivating force that makes people want to play this game is not a competitive urge to win, it is fun. That's why I hate when people use "play to win" as their ultimate retort to complaints about the meta. Of course people want to win, but people want to have fun even more. I quit Brawl because winning wasn't fun, and I will quit Smash 4 if winning isn't fun.

If you're going to ascribe the "play to win" mentality to the Smash 4 meta, it's beginning to look like we're going to be seeing more time outs. Timing out is the most economical strategy in any game where the defensive options are better than the offensive ones. I can see it already: a person gets a stock lead and then his strategy becomes to repel his opponent with safe, non laggy moves, tacking on enough % so that even if the other guy manages to kill him, he doesn't have to change his strat because he's already tacked on so much % that the guy will never catch up. That's what I think the "play to win" mentality will look like in this game. And if it does, I'm not going to play it.

 

[Thinkaman]

I played Jigglypuff in Brawl because I won the most with Jigglypuff; not because I was a masochistic special snowflake hipster who wanted to have fun and give myself a handicap.

Playing to win is how you play the game, playing to win is why. They are completely unrelated answers to perpendicular questions.

Finally, people who think defenses are "too good" in Smash 4 need to stop going rambo and learn to grab. But that's a topic for another time.

 

[MegaMissingno]

If the winning strategy ends up making the game unenjoyable, then you just have a bad game. But when playing to win ends up making the game even better, those are the games that stand the test of time. Complaining about people playing to win is just shooting the messenger, you should be instead complaining that the game isn't fun when played to win.

 

[Pyr]

You say that playing to win is not fun, but I have fun playing to win, but it's not fun, but I am having fun, but*explodes*

Anyway, Play to Win changes based on playstyles and characters. You're over-generalizing a very deep, very extensive topic.

 

[LancerStaff]

This whole "making the game unfun" thing is arbitrary. Little brats still call attacking people offstage "cheap," should we stop doing that? People call using the C-stick cheap, should we stop? "Fun" is arbitrarily defined, and I'll do whatever the heck I want to in a game. Don't like it? Don't play.

 

[Blazing Ambition]

I'm pretty sure people will always "play to win" when there's money on the line. Save the styling and the silly characters for friendlies.

 

[ParanoidDrone]

This is mostly a question for @ Thinkaman since I've seen you talk about this sort of thing before.

Consider a situation where there's an undisputed top tier, but he requires a very high degree of technical skill. (Melee Fox is actually a good example here.) Or alternately, it's just a particular move, strategy, AT, etc. that requires it. It doesn't really matter. For a player who, for whatever reason is physically incapable of reaching that required amount of technical skill, would their "play to win" strategy therefore be different from the norm?

 

[MuraRengan]

MegaMissingno seems to be the only response in the thread so far that seems to get the point. You really can't deny that having fun is the main impetus that drives the community. That's why Brawl ultimately failed to become the main attraction, and the Melee community grew instead. That's why people went out of their way to mod Brawl to make it better. That's also why MK was banned. If playing to win was the end all to the competitive motive, there would have been no reason to ban MK, because then answer to all MK complaints would have been to tell players to get better.

 

[LancerStaff]

MegaMissingno seems to be the only response in the thread so far that seems to get the point. You really can't deny that having fun is the main impetus that drives the community. That's why Brawl ultimately failed to become the main attraction, and the Melee community grew instead. That's also why MK was banned. If playing to win was the end all to the competitive motive, there would have been no reason to ban MK, because then answer to all MK complaints would have been to tell players to get better.

The problem being that banning a single character and banning a tactic are two completely different things.

Let's say you wanted to ban camping in your average shooter. Camping is defined as staying in one spot, and likely racking up kills in this scenario.

You can't stand around getting kills, you have to keep moving because of this rule I made.

So we can't stand still at all? Fine, just walk in tiny circles.

Ban that then. How about only letting you stand around an area for, say, 20 seconds?

Then stand around for 19.9.

Banned. Then we'll...

Get the point? Either people will unintentionally break these strict rules, or the game will be choked by them. You'll have to play in this one predefined "not cheap" way, no exceptions.

 

[Thinkaman]

This is mostly a question for @ Thinkaman since I've seen you talk about this sort of thing before.

Consider a situation where there's an undisputed top tier, but he requires a very high degree of technical skill. (Melee Fox is actually a good example here.) Or alternately, it's just a particular move, strategy, AT, etc. that requires it. It doesn't really matter. For a player who, for whatever reason is physically incapable of reaching that required amount of technical skill, would their "play to win" strategy therefore be different from the norm?

I mean, sure. Normally characters are diverse enough mechanically that player preference outweighs relative imbalances; my Brawl Jigglypuff being better than my Brawl MK (despite practice) being an extreme example.

In a sense, everyone who doesn't main the single top-most character (regardless of how small the difference is) is a sub-optimal player merely coping with their personal limitations, physical or mental.

That's why Brawl ultimately failed to become the main attraction, and the Melee community grew instead.

This is simultaneously wrong and disrespectful.

That's also why MK was banned.

But MK wasn't banned, not in any de facto sense.

The URC withing the BBR was formed and voted to ban him. This was widely ignored, and the URC promptly disbanded.

 

[RESET Vao]

You should avoid communities that revolve around metagame advances and competitive play, if you hate people who play to win.

 

[Nyhte]

I don't like the attitude of "play to win" in some of the forms its used, it disagrees with other values that are important.

 

[MuraRengan]

This is simultaneously wrong and disrespectful.

Ok buddy, believe that if you want, but all evidence is to the contrary. Which game got back into MLG?

But MK wasn't banned, not in any de facto sense.
The URC withing the BBR was formed and voted to ban him. This was widely ignored, and the URC promptly disbanded.

My apologies, I don't really follow the ruleset anymore. But my point still stands. The very reason that MK banning was even a question is because his dominance was making the Meta become stale. But having a stale meta is not in itself a bad thing if you aren't considering fun. MK winning everything was becoming unfun, so people sought to ban him.

Or perhaps I can make this point a better way. In SF2, they banned Akuma because he was making the metagame stale. He was so unbalanced, that he made all the other characters irrelevant. But so what? Everybody can just play Akuma. Play to win, right? No, of course not. A metagame where only one character is viable is terrible because (here it comes) playing a game like that is not fun.

You should avoid communities that revolve around metagame advances and competitive play, if you hate people who play to win.

Oh I do. I stopped posting here about two years ago. Only reason I'm back is to see if there's some hope for the new game.

stuff

Once again you have missed the point. My problem is with the game, not the tactics. As you said, if you dont like it, don't play. And I already made it clear in the OP that that's exactly what I intend to do. You should maybe try reading that again.

 

[Big-Cat]

Playing to win and having fun are not mutually exclusive.Either approach or force an approach.

 

[SmashShadow]

"I play to win" -aMSa (Ironically plays Yoshi)

 

[Pyr]

Or perhaps I can make this point a better way. In SF2, they banned Akuma because he was making the metagame stale. He was so unbalanced, that he made all the other characters irrelevant. But so what? Everybody can just play Akuma. Play to win, right? No, of course not. A metagame where only one character is viable is terrible because (here it comes) playing a game like that is not fun.

No. Akuma was legitimately broken. 8-2 matchups against everyone but the Akuma mirror. He didn't make SF2's meta stale. He WAS the meta. But that's not why he was banned. In a time before widespread internet, he was soft banned (banned by principal) for a long time before the official ban.

I've a feeling you don't really grasp the concept of what playing to win is. You certainly don't know what it is in Smash 4 if your OP is anything to go off of. Hell, I don't think anyone can know what the optimal strategy/character/etc is for S4 yet. I can tell, however, that playing to win will be a hell of a lot deeper then "do this at this time, then this at this time, with this character." Someone with an (obvious) viewpoint, who is (obviously) not going to welcome a different viewpoint for anything like a simple consideration, is not a person to which a discussion like that can be had.

You saw ONE strategy (which exists in nearly every fighter in one way or another by the way) and deemed it the one which should always be used in a Play to Win scenario. If that's all you can see in Smash, then, bluntly, you lack the experience to really fully discuss a way to win the game.

 

[Thinkaman]

Ok buddy, believe that if you want, but all evidence is to the contrary. Which game got back into MLG?

Melee's renaissance does not invalidate Brawl or marginalize the success of those who won its events.

Similarly, neither Brawl nor Smash 4 has (or ever will) invalidated Melee.

Or perhaps I can make this point a better way. In SF2, they banned Akuma because he was making the metagame stale.

No, he was never legal. Many players didn't even know you could select him.

It would be like banning Master Hand from Melee tourneys. Which they did.

As you said, if you dont like it, don't play. And I already made it clear in the OP that that's exactly what I intend to do.

Then why are you here?

 

[dguy6789]

Brawl wasn't fun which is why people quit playing it so rapidly in huge numbers. But you better believe people play Melee, PM, and 4 to win. The fun comes from the successful application of hard earned skill not from doing whatever lets your opponent have a good casual time.

 

[ParanoidDrone]

It would be like banning Master Hand from Melee tourneys. Which they did.

Now that sounds like an interesting story.

 

[Thinkaman]

Now that sounds like an interesting story.

http://www.ssbwiki.com/Master_Hand_glitch

Master Hand sucks at high level play, except that he cannot be KO'd. Essentially, all Master Hand games (if legal) would end in timeout by necessity.

 

[ChillySundance]

Play to learn, not to win. Winning will come naturally as a result of learning.

 

[FimPhym]

Hi @ Pyr just a friendly correction, you are correct that akuma was broken, but he did not have 8-2s against the cast. It is more like 10-0 unless you want to round up to 9-1 for once a century miracles. I agree with the thrust of your point though.

It instantly strips people of credibility when they try to excuse their desire for bans around akuma in super turbo. You have Google, please do your homework to at least have the illusion of knowledge of other fighting games.

 

[Pyr]

Hi @ Pyr just a friendly correction, you are correct that akuma was broken, but he did not have 8-2s against the cast. It is more like 10-0 unless you want to round up to 9-1 for once a century miracles. I agree with the thrust of your point though.

It instantly strips people of credibility when they try to excuse their desire for bans around akuma in super turbo. You have Google, please do your homework to at least have the illusion of knowledge of other fighting games.

Edit: There was more here. No there is not. =D Thank you, though. I was being optimistic. =p

 

[FimPhym]

No not at all! The second half was to those that think banning akuma is like banning any old top tier character. Sorry for the lack of clarity.

I am still laughing at the phrase "akuma made the metagame stale", it is like a child posing as an adult in their parents clothing.

 

[emoinua123]

I played Jigglypuff in Brawl because I won the most with Jigglypuff; not because I was a masochistic special snowflake hipster who wanted to have fun and give myself a handicap.

Playing to win is how you play the game, playing to win is why. They are completely unrelated answers to perpendicular questions.

Finally, people who think defenses are "too good" in Smash 4 need to stop going rambo and learn to grab. But that's a topic for another time.

I learned the hard way back in melee where almost all of my cousins constantly killed me in the game by the grabs.
Now I know how to go technical in all smashs by using accurate and precise button presses to give a percent damage to instantly destroy the player.

 

[emoinua123]

I posted this in another thread, but I think it deserves its own discussion.

There's a certain aspect about the competitive meta that people never acknowledge, and it's that the even some of the most competitive players in the game don't actually "play to win". Playing to win means doing literally the strategy that most assures your victory. M2K played like that in Brawl, and that took the form of planking. Planking - literally the worst phenomenon to ever happen to competitive smash. But even still, there were competitive players that didn't plank, even though it was the best strategy. Do you know why? Because that **** isn't fun. Playing to win means always picking the top tier character, but do you know why people don't always do that? Because that **** isn't fun. Most people still want to have fun, even competitive players. Mango is the perfect example of this. He is the best, hands down. He has shown that he can play using the best characters and best strategies, but he prioritizes actually having fun over winning. That's why he beats people in Melee with ****ing Mario. The motivating force that makes people want to play this game is not a competitive urge to win, it is fun. That's why I hate when people use "play to win" as their ultimate retort to complaints about the meta. Of course people want to win, but people want to have fun even more. I quit Brawl because winning wasn't fun, and I will quit Smash 4 if winning isn't fun.

If you're going to ascribe the "play to win" mentality to the Smash 4 meta, it's beginning to look like we're going to be seeing more time outs. Timing out is the most economical strategy in any game where the defensive options are better than the offensive ones. I can see it already: a person gets a stock lead and then his strategy becomes to repel his opponent with safe, non laggy moves, tacking on enough % so that even if the other guy manages to kill him, he doesn't have to change his strat because he's already tacked on so much % that the guy will never catch up. That's what I think the "play to win" mentality will look like in this game. And if it does, I'm not going to play it.

Dont hate the game for being unfair especially when people play to win. Personally I play smash 4 just for fun because oh how the game was made internally. I understand why you would say that I save How M2K uses Diddy Kong because of how good this smash attacks are. Also , this game is very young and the meta is still trying to be formed. eventually this smash will change with ( updates, custommoves) that will balance smash 4. Diddy Kong or even Rosalina and Luma will eventually lose their sparks. This game will evolve.

 

[Conda]

I get it guys. We're worried if Smash 4's meta is a 'boring' one, then it will fail and not live as long as we'd like it to. It is a legitimate worry for those who work in this scene and depend on the health of Smash 4 to revitalise competitive Smash Bros.

But it's out of our hands. Play the best you can and expect your enemy to as well - and hope that the matches that come out of this mindset aren't degenerative and boring. I don't think they are.

I think Smash 4 is exciting and worthy of being up there with Starcraft 2 and LoL in spectator-friendly pro-games. As a commentator I have to try and bring the audience to the recorded matches and streams. But we - the streamers and commentators - NEED the support of the players. We need to all be confident and show people how exciting Smash can be.

If you want to stop worrying about the meta becoming boring and unfun, then advertise the game to your friends and fellow interneteers and show them how great playing Smash competitively can be.

 

[hey_there]

Playing to win [...] isn't fun.

I've never understood this complaint, but I've heard/seen it many, many times before.

The only reason I'm motivated to play Smash is because it's really fun. And I have more fun when I win. I play to win as a consequence of playing for fun. Winning is fun. Do you not like winning o_O?

I think what you mean is that winning strategies are not fun to play against. If you're brain is not tickled trying to figure out the puzzle of the why your opponent is winning, then move on and find something that does tickle your brain.

 

[KACHOW!!!]

This idea rides a fine line between personal preference. Some people have fun by basking in the glory of winning and will probably do all thats necessary to accomplish that, like picking a competitive character and using the best strategy they know of, others enjoy doing well with their favorite character but still try their absolute hardest to win with that character (thats probably the vein I'm in), while others still don't care about winning, but are still good enough at the game to compete and have fun. All are acceptable options, as long as you're polite and don't disparage people for making their choice.

 

[RanserSSF4]

i totally get your point and i agree about Brawl, but there's one aspect in smash 4 that makes it more fun to watch that i think you and many others seem to forget: CUSTOM MOVES! (equipment doesn't count). Remember the last few Smash 3ds tournaments that occured before Wii U version came out? They allowed custom moves, and man, they are fun because it changes the way most characters usually play and makes MUs more entertaining. The best example is the Youmacon 2014 crew battle tournament:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vI2qH7Jjilg

Regular 1v1 in smash 4 is more entertaining than Brawl, but no where close to Melee. However, custom moves makes matches more fun to watch. Some timeouts that happened, are heavily MU based, whereas in Brawl, even aggressive characters like MK, IC, or Falco can camp an entire game and cause timeouts. TBH, timeouts in Smash 4 barely happen, and like i said, when they do happen, it's MU based.

 

[Johnknight1]

Playing to win has nothing to do with fun. Competition to many and competing is fun. The very purpose of competition is to win, and honestly, the reason why people consistently do it is it is rewarding, invigorating, and mentally and physically stimulating, aka FUN!!!

What you have fun doing and what I have fun doing can be different things. Some people have fun camping, stalling, and shielding. Some people have fun spamming smash attacks, having rules where you can't grab the edge, and never defending. And that's okay, because it's what they enjoy and it isn't hurting them or anyone else, and it is no one else's place to tell them they are wrong for enjoying the game that way.

However, that kind of talk has no place here in the competitive discussion (with some exception I may cover later). This place is what makes the game more competitive, which includes rules, options, and other items that make the game more competitively interesting for players, live viewers, stream viewers, TO's, and streamers.

For example, the OP brought up planking. Planking was banned because it has loads of upside for the user but no real downside. It was competitively unfair, and the thing about competitive play is that it should be done fairly to where both players have realistic options and chances to win in a fair environment. That means minimized random elements, no options that have no weaknesses, few options that have only a few weaknesses, and outside of character tier lists and some character match ups, no real huge disadvantages in playing the game competitively. Sure, nothing will be even, but aside from characters, it shouldn't be too far off, and skill should be the ultimate deciding factor.

There's nothing wrong with criticizing the game for being too defensive. However, please, if you're posting the "Smash 4 Competitive Discussion" sub-forums, keep it competitively based. For instance, in my opinion (and this is my real opinion), the limited offensive options make the multiple defensive options to strong, which makes the game less interesting. I also think that could be with just a few minor tweaks, as well as further meta-game development (about half-and-half actually). I think that is currently hurting interest in the game. Additionally, if defensive play is further polarized, I think it can and will seriously hurt the game's national competitive scene longevity.

However, I say that, and it's all competitively based (in this topic specifically for the betterment of competitive play). Everything I said was with the intent purpose of making competitive play more "fair", deeper, and better for most parties involved. When you the OP said it, it sounded "fun" based, and was ultimately just about what the OP and maybe a few of his friends wanted.

If you are going to post this in the competitive section, please, keep such discussions as this to be about the betterment of competitive play, not (and I'm paraphrasing what the OP reads), "make the game more like I want it regardless of this "Play to win bullcrap mentality".

 

[KiteSC]

The only problem with the term "play to win" is that it takes the connotation that people are foregoing every aspect of playing a game only to win. To a degree where practicing combos in training mode is consider "play to win" and "try hard" to some.

On the other hand, it is weird to think that any player isn't playing to win. The pichu player sitting next to you is trying his best to win. No matter how hard it is to win with pichu.

On the other hand, playing top tier doesn't automatically make the game not fun. If anything, its usually other way around where most players get terribly frustrated when playing using a low tier/under developed character.

 

[Eji1700]

1. Most people play to have fun.

2. The point of competitions is winning.

3. People playing in competitions often, but not always, have a lot or the most fun winning.

If winning is not fun IT IS NOT THE PLAYERS FAULT. It is first and foremost a failure of the developer, and then maybe second if you want to get technical a failure of the community.

The developer is the one who made the game, and they're the ones that put **** in that winds up busted. Sometimes this happens even despite their best attempts, but looking at brawl I have a VERY hard time saying that was an acceptable effort. At this point developers can patch the game, and if they choose not to, it's in the hands of the community.

If they community won't handle it(arugably MK, but lets not get into that again) or can't handle it(it's very hard to enforce good rules on something like planking or other broken junk), then generally the best option is to just play something else or only play with friends. There will always be people who aren't bothered by the previous, and that doesn't make them bad people, or even make them assholes.

They like the game as is, they like playing to the best of their ability, and it's not their fault the game is built in such a way that doing so is a miserable experience for others. It's simply a sign of a poorly designed game, and you can either try to make archaic rules to fix it(which there's really not any good ones for timeouts) or just accept that the game didn't live up to standards and not play it, or only do so with friends.

 

[RanserSSF4]

Playing to win has nothing to do with fun. Competition to many and competing is fun. The very purpose of competition is to win, and honestly, the reason why people consistently do it is it is rewarding, invigorating, and mentally and physically stimulating, aka FUN!!!

What you have fun doing and what I have fun doing can be different things. Some people have fun camping, stalling, and shielding. Some people have fun spamming smash attacks, having rules where you can't grab the edge, and never defending. And that's okay, because it's what they enjoy and it isn't hurting them or anyone else, and it is no one else's place to tell them they are wrong for enjoying the game that way.

However, that kind of talk has no place here in the competitive discussion (with some exception I may cover later). This place is what makes the game more competitive, which includes rules, options, and other items that make the game more competitively interesting for players, live viewers, stream viewers, TO's, and streamers.

For example, the OP brought up planking. Planking was banned because it has loads of upside for the user but no real downside. It was competitively unfair, and the thing about competitive play is that it should be done fairly to where both players have realistic options and chances to win in a fair environment. That means minimized random elements, no options that have no weaknesses, few options that have only a few weaknesses, and outside of character tier lists and some character match ups, no real huge disadvantages in playing the game competitively. Sure, nothing will be even, but aside from characters, it shouldn't be too far off, and skill should be the ultimate deciding factor.

There's nothing wrong with criticizing the game for being too defensive. However, please, if you're posting the "Smash 4 Competitive Discussion" sub-forums, keep it competitively based. For instance, in my opinion (and this is my real opinion), the limited offensive options make the multiple defensive options to strong, which makes the game less interesting. I also think that could be with just a few minor tweaks, as well as further meta-game development (about half-and-half actually). I think that is currently hurting interest in the game. Additionally, if defensive play is further polarized, I think it can and will seriously hurt the game's national competitive scene longevity.

However, I say that, and it's all competitively based (in this topic specifically for the betterment of competitive play). Everything I said was with the intent purpose of making competitive play more "fair", deeper, and better for most parties involved. When you the OP said it, it sounded "fun" based, and was ultimately just about what the OP and maybe a few of his friends wanted.

If you are going to post this in the competitive section, please, keep such discussions as this to be about the betterment of competitive play, not (and I'm paraphrasing what the OP reads), "make the game more like I want it regardless of this "Play to win bullcrap mentality".

As much as i like smash 4 more than brawl, i do agree that smash 4 needs a few tweaks to make it better. Aggressive play is definitly there in smash 4, but due to low shieldstun, combined with hard to punish rolls (I've adapted to it, but it's still hard), it becomes very hard to play aggressive, and only a couple characters take advantage of that. However, by simply adding more shieldstun (20% more shieldstun) and adding ending lag to rolls, aggressive play, even with lack of movement options, would get a huge buff and become as reliable as defensive options.

 

[MuraRengan]

Debating details doesn't invalidate the Akuma example. Point is, he was a character significantly better than every other character and they banned him. Banning characters is always done in the interest of promoting a healthy meta. And promoting a healthy meta is all about making the competition fresh and fun. The SF2 community could have kept Akuma viable, and the meta would have progressed with him as the only viable character. If playing to win was the only value that players cared about, nobody would care if Akuma was the only viable character, so long as they can win with him. But they did ban him because playing a game that only has one good character is not fun. It's a not a difficult concept, and I don't get how people keep missing it.

I've never understood this complaint, but I've heard/seen it many, many times before.

The only reason I'm motivated to play Smash is because it's really fun. And I have more fun when I win. I play to win as a consequence of playing for fun. Winning is fun. Do you not like winning o_O?

I think what you mean is that winning strategies are not fun to play against. If you're brain is not tickled trying to figure out the puzzle of the why your opponent is winning, then move on and find something that does tickle your brain.

No, you kinda missed the point. Winning is not fun of its own right. If that was true, I feel just as rewarded playing checkers or RPS. I have played all the smash games competitively. But playing to win has only ever been fun for me in 64 and Melee, and I find that has been because I found the metagame, fostered by the game mechanics, to be fun. When Brawl came around I could still win if I tried hard enough, but the game mechanics were so boring that the reward of winning wasn't worth trodding through the terrible game design. And I'm getting the same feeling about the new one so far. The mechanics seem so simple and boring that it's not worth my time to learn it when I can just play Melee or P:M. The game has to have potential for fun competitive play before I decide to take winning in it seriously.

Playing to win has nothing to do with fun. Competition to many and competing is fun. The very purpose of competition is to win, and honestly, the reason why people consistently do it is it is rewarding, invigorating, and mentally and physically stimulating, aka FUN!!!

So you started by saying that playing to win has nothing to do with fun, then proceded to explain how playing to win has everything to do with fun. Nothing here I really need to do.

What you have fun doing and what I have fun doing can be different things. Some people have fun camping, stalling, and shielding. Some people have fun spamming smash attacks, having rules where you can't grab the edge, and never defending. And that's okay, because it's what they enjoy and it isn't hurting them or anyone else, and it is no one else's place to tell them they are wrong for enjoying the game that way.

I understand this and never insinuated that there was something wrong with the way some people have fun.

For example, the OP brought up planking. Planking was banned because it has loads of upside for the user but no real downside. It was competitively unfair, and the thing about competitive play is that it should be done fairly to where both players have realistic options and chances to win in a fair environment. That means minimized random elements, no options that have no weaknesses, few options that have only a few weaknesses, and outside of character tier lists and some character match ups, no real huge disadvantages in playing the game competitively. Sure, nothing will be even, but aside from characters, it shouldn't be too far off, and skill should be the ultimate deciding factor.

From a purely competitive standpoint, there's nothing wrong with planking. It could be argued that a player having been put into a position where he could be planked was because of his own faults as a player. You could just as easily say that he got outplayed by allowing himself to be put in a position of disadvantage (which in this case would mean getting hit at all) and thus deserved the loss, and that his opponent was the better player by winning the neutral game and then assuring his own victory. The reason why they banned planking was to protect the healthy development of the metagame, which I have already pointed out is about making gameplay variable and fun. Planking was about fairness, but it was also about fostering a particular idea about the development of the metagame, and that idea was one with a variety of playable characters, and the viability multiple playstyles. It was about protecting diversity, which is another value rooted more in fun than in pure competition.

As for defending the topicality of this thread, I'd say it is relevant to competitive discussion because it is an introspection into competitive theory. Whether you agree with my introspection or not, discussing the theory of competitive smash is still relevant to competition itself. Nonetheless, I am discussing the betterment of competitive play by trying to enlighten people about what drives competition.


I'm not gonna bother replying to some of the other posts since they mostly consist of people failing to understand the principles that I'm arguing or debating semantics.

 

[Johnknight1]

As much as i like smash 4 more than brawl, i do agree that smash 4 needs a few tweaks to make it better. Aggressive play is definitly there in smash 4, but due to low shieldstun, combined with hard to punish rolls (I've adapted to it, but it's still hard), it becomes very hard to play aggressive, and only a couple characters take advantage of that. However, by simply adding more shieldstun (20% more shieldstun) and adding ending lag to rolls, aggressive play, even with lack of movement options, would get a huge buff and become as reliable as defensive options.

I don't mean to come off as rude, but that was just me making an aside to make a point to compare the purpose of me expressing said opinion (as an example) compared to the OP's.

I don't want to make it the topic of this thread please, lol.

 

[RanserSSF4]

I don't mean to come off as rude, but that was just me making an aside to make a point to compare the purpose of me expressing said opinion (as an example) compared to the OP's.

I don't want to make it the topic of this thread please, lol.

i know, but i was agreeing with your opinion regarding the problems smash 4 has so far lol.

My apologies

 

[|RK|]

"Playing to win" and "playing to have fun" aren't mutually exclusive concepts. Your example with Mango illustrates this pretty well. It's like... in competition, when people say "relax and have fun," they don't mean "winning isn't important." Many people play to win but still have fun at the same time, simply because they enjoy the game.

I get what you're complaining about, but you're taking the phrase a little bit to the extreme.

 

[MuraRengan]

I get what you're complaining about, but you're taking the phrase a little bit to the extreme.

Well, my original post is concerned with how people misuse the phrase. People around here have this conception that "play to win" is the primary force in the development of a metagame, and that's simply not true. You're right, my examples are extreme, but that is done to show just how ridiculous it would be if "play to win" actually WAS the primary force in the development of the meta.

 

[KiteSC]

Well, my original post is concerned with how people misuse the phrase. People around here have this conception that "play to win" is the primary force in the development of a metagame, and that's simply not true. You're right, my examples are extreme, but that is done to show just how ridiculous it would be if "play to win" actually WAS the primary force in the development of the meta.

Everyone plays to win. Unless collusion and sandbagging but thats another matter. And that is what drives people to play better. And think of better tricks. But the fun factor is what bring people to put in the effort and get good to win. It is a mixture. Like how you were trying to say. But what each component of this mixture does is different.

Having fun is what keeps you playing the game. And keeps you motivated and makes you spend more hours in the game. Without it, people would not get good because they would not spend time with the game. This is true. However, this is not the main factor that gets a person good and pushes the game. People always play different sports with their friends because its fun. But they do not try to get good. They might suck terribly. But they do it because its fun. They will never actually get good unless they have a competitive drive. A desire to win. Have you ever played "volleyball" with bunch of non-volleyball players? Go to any church retreat and its always the same. Its literally 12-men hot potato. Every year. Every saturday meeting. Is it because we aren't having fun? No. We have a lot of fun. But that doesn't drive people to learn the game and get good.

A person's drive to win, however makes you put in the strange sets of effort. Like going to training mode to learn combos. Or sitting there by yourself trying to learn tech. These aren't fun. Do you think its fun learning to serve or properly receiving spikes? The act itself sucks. But you do it because volleyball as a whole is fun. And you want to win and get good. And you find THAT fun. So you go face a wall for an hour and practice that serve. And you strain yourself learning different attack patterns. So you can win. What drives the metagame forward IS the desire to win.

Now we did have some examples where the optimal method of winning was bad for the meta. And that is a sign of bad game design. And often communities will try to weed out aspects of the game that is bad for the metagame. StarCraft: BroodWar had this problem. They managed by some early patches and good mapmaking. But at the end of the day, this information would not have been readily available and made easier to deal with if it wasn't for the people's desire to win spamming the **** out of and showing how cancerous certain aspect of the game is.

tl;dr - Fun is what keeps bringing you back to play a game. Desire to win is what pushes the game. A game that allows fun while trying your best to win will have good community.