East
Crappy Imitation
Link to original post: [drupal=1004]Teach Me Something: Playing to Win[/drupal]
So I played melee, I play brawl. Played them for as long as I can remember. It wasn't until about a year and a half ago that I found smashboards and almost a year ago that I made an account. So then I started to play competitively.
I've learned a great deal of helpful, useful information here that has in turn made me better in ways I couldn't have imagined had I not joined, for which I am very grateful to the competitive smash scene as a whole.
There is one thing that I still can't seem to grasp. Of all the ideologies, thought processes, strategies the one that gives me the most trouble is probably the one that comes most naturally to people, "Play to Win." I've thought long and hard on this, and I think I've heard the views [as so eloquently flamed by members to other people who don't know or are too naive in that subject] but there are just a few things that I can't seem to wrap my head around.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but Playing to Win means to do whatever in your power [as long as allowed by rules set forth in tournament, and laws set by the government] to win because frankly, winning is fun. Anything else aside, as long as I'm winning, I'm happy. There's my first problem. Is there ever a point to where Playing to Win "by any means necessary" is taking it a little too far. For example a while back I was looking on the R.O.B. boards and I came across a guide put together by Overswarm. I'm sure Overswarm is a great person, and by no means am I passing judgment on his character, personality, morals, or ethics as I continue, but rather using this as an example of the aforementioned mentality as a whole. Detailed in the guide is a section called "Soulcrushing". In a nutshell, it details all the psychological aspects of "destroying [an opponents] drive to play." Overswarm even says himself that "everything I've listed under this topic is wrong. However, it is also useful. And fun. Lots and lots of fun."
That's where I have to come to a halt and challenge my own morals. Playing to Win means to do anything in my power to defeat my opponent, but I can't go that far. I refuse to sacrifice the way I treat other people [because everyone deserves to be treated like a human being]in order to win. Is this the wrong kind of thinking for the smash boards community?
Moving on, I main Sheik. In case you don't know, Sheik is about as close to the top of the tier list as Mercury is to Uranus. I understand that I shouldn't get too hung up on the tier list because that list only has worth if assuming all other things equal, the two competitors facing each other are at equal levels of skill and play. I have noticed a trend that most if not all of the players of higher caliber use "Top Tier" characters when they play. Sure this doesn't seem like a problem when you have a swirling mass of people under them who do play other characters. From the big picture with so many people playing all of these different characters there is a great deal of diversity, however when you cut off the bottom of the iceberg that no one pays attention to, all you are left with are the elite players who all use 1 or 2 different characters, often those dubbed "top tier" Doesn't this crowding of 1 or 2 characters only serve to bring the continuation of the metagame to a screeching halt, stagnating it?
Also, please note that while reading this, I am not attempting to insight a "ban metaknight" idea, but rather force the reader to look up at the higher levels of play.
I digress, this overcentralization of a few characters only serves to increase their metagame exponentially, while the others fester in a pool of abandonment. With the other characters abandoned, doesn't it prevent the metagame from advancing as a whole. Sure a few characters have a metagame, but if no one is using the others doesn't that "close the book" for anything else about the others being discovered, thus advancing their metagame. This with many characters advances the metagame as a whole.
There is my second problem. Does playing to win mean forgoing unknown possibilities of the future for victory in the present?
This is getting pretty long, so I think I'll stop here. At this point I'm very interested in someone perhaps explaining the whole "playing to win" philosophy better to me. What I wrote above is not an attack on competition theology, but rather questioning it to understand and perhaps get a better grasp of it. There's always been this idea in my mind of the play to win mentality as something that is degenerate.
I've always thought that if a person's reason for playing was to purely to win, then they should perhaps play their younger cousins or maybe someone they knew they were better against. If they were intent on making money, then they should seek other, faster ways of doing so. [I'm fairly certain the stock market is such a way]. I understand that what was just said can be take as harsh sarcasm, but i'm being completely sincere. Again I am not trying to attack the playing to win philosophy, I simply want to get a better understanding of it so that I might one day accept it, instead of tolerate it.
So without further ado, "Teach Me Something."
So I played melee, I play brawl. Played them for as long as I can remember. It wasn't until about a year and a half ago that I found smashboards and almost a year ago that I made an account. So then I started to play competitively.
I've learned a great deal of helpful, useful information here that has in turn made me better in ways I couldn't have imagined had I not joined, for which I am very grateful to the competitive smash scene as a whole.
There is one thing that I still can't seem to grasp. Of all the ideologies, thought processes, strategies the one that gives me the most trouble is probably the one that comes most naturally to people, "Play to Win." I've thought long and hard on this, and I think I've heard the views [as so eloquently flamed by members to other people who don't know or are too naive in that subject] but there are just a few things that I can't seem to wrap my head around.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but Playing to Win means to do whatever in your power [as long as allowed by rules set forth in tournament, and laws set by the government] to win because frankly, winning is fun. Anything else aside, as long as I'm winning, I'm happy. There's my first problem. Is there ever a point to where Playing to Win "by any means necessary" is taking it a little too far. For example a while back I was looking on the R.O.B. boards and I came across a guide put together by Overswarm. I'm sure Overswarm is a great person, and by no means am I passing judgment on his character, personality, morals, or ethics as I continue, but rather using this as an example of the aforementioned mentality as a whole. Detailed in the guide is a section called "Soulcrushing". In a nutshell, it details all the psychological aspects of "destroying [an opponents] drive to play." Overswarm even says himself that "everything I've listed under this topic is wrong. However, it is also useful. And fun. Lots and lots of fun."
That's where I have to come to a halt and challenge my own morals. Playing to Win means to do anything in my power to defeat my opponent, but I can't go that far. I refuse to sacrifice the way I treat other people [because everyone deserves to be treated like a human being]in order to win. Is this the wrong kind of thinking for the smash boards community?
Moving on, I main Sheik. In case you don't know, Sheik is about as close to the top of the tier list as Mercury is to Uranus. I understand that I shouldn't get too hung up on the tier list because that list only has worth if assuming all other things equal, the two competitors facing each other are at equal levels of skill and play. I have noticed a trend that most if not all of the players of higher caliber use "Top Tier" characters when they play. Sure this doesn't seem like a problem when you have a swirling mass of people under them who do play other characters. From the big picture with so many people playing all of these different characters there is a great deal of diversity, however when you cut off the bottom of the iceberg that no one pays attention to, all you are left with are the elite players who all use 1 or 2 different characters, often those dubbed "top tier" Doesn't this crowding of 1 or 2 characters only serve to bring the continuation of the metagame to a screeching halt, stagnating it?
Also, please note that while reading this, I am not attempting to insight a "ban metaknight" idea, but rather force the reader to look up at the higher levels of play.
I digress, this overcentralization of a few characters only serves to increase their metagame exponentially, while the others fester in a pool of abandonment. With the other characters abandoned, doesn't it prevent the metagame from advancing as a whole. Sure a few characters have a metagame, but if no one is using the others doesn't that "close the book" for anything else about the others being discovered, thus advancing their metagame. This with many characters advances the metagame as a whole.
There is my second problem. Does playing to win mean forgoing unknown possibilities of the future for victory in the present?
This is getting pretty long, so I think I'll stop here. At this point I'm very interested in someone perhaps explaining the whole "playing to win" philosophy better to me. What I wrote above is not an attack on competition theology, but rather questioning it to understand and perhaps get a better grasp of it. There's always been this idea in my mind of the play to win mentality as something that is degenerate.
I've always thought that if a person's reason for playing was to purely to win, then they should perhaps play their younger cousins or maybe someone they knew they were better against. If they were intent on making money, then they should seek other, faster ways of doing so. [I'm fairly certain the stock market is such a way]. I understand that what was just said can be take as harsh sarcasm, but i'm being completely sincere. Again I am not trying to attack the playing to win philosophy, I simply want to get a better understanding of it so that I might one day accept it, instead of tolerate it.
So without further ado, "Teach Me Something."
