The Dogmatic Philosophy of "Playing to Win".

[Beren Zaiga]

That's correct. I did call it dogmatic. Why? The why is easy to see on Smash Boards between the people who play casually and the people who play competitively. The dominate mindset of the extremists of this philosophy (or who take it too far) is:

"If you aren't playing to win: you're a scrub.

That about sums it up.

Frankly, the mindset is a poison to gaming, even if the point of competitive play is to win. They outcast people for simply playing a different way, they get mad when people deviate from the standards, and they are intolerant of the casual players, effectively placing them as socially inferior.

They also preach the words of Sirlin's book Playing to Win like they are the words of a deity, which despite it's pretty words is biased against the casual players. Sirlin later makes an article called Not Playing to Win which talks about the benefits of not always playing for the sake of winning. Yet in end, that article is often ignored in favor of the book that favors their philosophy, and often they flame, verbally maim, and outright just act like complete *******s to the casual players.

That is not to say that people of the casual community are mellow and carefree, not giving a care about the things done to them by the some of the people in the competitive community. There are plenty of idiots in the casual community, just as there are idiots in the competitive community that are as stubborn as some of the casual players, and both share common characteristics, as all extremists of philosophy.

• They will argue to aud naseum about how their respective philosophies being better than the other.

• They will continually talk down to, and treat others opposite of their respective philosophies like trash.

• Both are nauseously stubborn about their philosophies.

Before moving on, allow me to state this.

If it somehow got into your mind that the above points are a generalization of all players in both communities, flush it out of your mind now. This thread has no place for that.

When you step back and look at how these two communities clash constantly everywhere, you begin to see how senseless the constant arguments are, and see how the philosophy of playing to win causes such friction between these two (not excluding the philosophy of not playing to win). Both have two different objectives at their core, but when you broaden the perspective and generalize it, the objective of both philosophies comes to one simple thing: playing the game.

This is the reason most all people today started to play video games to begin with: to play the game. To get a quick thrill that challenges the senses, mind, and reflexes. Not to compete with one another. What a lot of members of both communities fail to realize is that neither philosophy is invalid, nor are they correct, or anything else. They are simply a way of playing the game, if that causes friction between people, it's their own fault that they reject the other philosophy so heatedly, not the other person.

It's as if one is saying the family dog killed a hen, when it was the fox that did the deed. It is not true, but neither party recognizes or realizes it, which is a big element of the proverbial chasm between the two philosophies.

There are some moderates in both groups, but they are few and far between, and the ones who are, are usually ignored by the others.

Back to the topic of the "Playing to Win" philosophy.

The dogmatism of some of the competitive communities' extreme members is atrocious, filthy, and as I said before, poisonous. It only creates strife, hate, and foolish feuds between members that last for pages of threads senselessly with no foreseeable end barring that one argues the other into a corner. How this vile behavior is not called out on by the more level-headed of their own community more often astounds me, what is more is that in some instances, it is even allowed to continue.

This behavior is unnecessary, even if the opposing person disagrees with the "playing to win" view, the fact remains that these arguments are pointless, and oft are started on the most idiotic of reasons, by both sides. If the given reason is because the person is a "casual scrub", it still does not validate the behavior, nor does any other excuses that both communities can come up with. This kind of behavior is against forum rules.

The acts of the extremists of both communities are against forum rules.

If neither one likes the philosophy, tough beans to both communities, it is their own faults for rejecting the other philosophy without much cause other than that it differentiates from their style of play.

TL;DR : Neither is to blame, neither is truly right, neither is truly wrong. The only true right or wrong comes in when either philosophy is put in the context of it's opposite. If you can't face that truth, tough luck.
---------------------------------------------

If you're going to flame this thread, leave now, any flames will be reported, and flagged as spam.


YOU'VE BEEN WARNED.

 

[FOcast]

"If you aren't playing to win: you're a scrub."

That is the definition of the term scrub that most people on these boards use. The crucial point, however, is this - "scrub" is not an insult. Being a scrub is NOT a bad thing. It simply means you enjoy a different mode of playing the game than other people do. This brings me to ask what exactly it is you're trying to accomplish with this post. For the most part, Smashboards is a competitive community, focused more on discussing what the most balanced stage is than on which hammers to turn on in 4 player FFA coin games. The distinction here is not one of which mode is "more fun" in any pure platonic sense, but rather of the demographic that this forum is designed for. If you want to talk casual gaming, I'm sure there are many other places available.

 

[Beren Zaiga]

"If you aren't playing to win: you're a scrub."

That is the definition of the term scrub that most people on these boards use. The crucial point, however, is this - "scrub" is not an insult. Being a scrub is NOT a bad thing. It simply means you enjoy a different mode of playing the game than other people do. This brings me to ask what exactly it is you're trying to accomplish with this post. For the most part, Smashboards is a competitive community, focused more on discussing what the most balanced stage is than on which hammers to turn on in 4 player FFA coin games. The distinction here is not one of which mode is "more fun" in any pure platonic sense, but rather of the demographic that this forum is designed for. If you want to talk casual gaming, I'm sure there are many other places available.

Your post proves you completely missed the point by country miles.

The point of this post, is putting out there or discussing the stupidity and senselessness of the debates that get started between casual players and competitive players.

This applies to any community, not just this one.

You are also, partially incorrect, in other gaming communities the word "scrub" is used as an insult, to describe someone when another player thinks thinks his opponent have no idea what he is doing, or if he is using a non-standard strategy. This is notable in Smogon's online community in their Shoddy Battle server.

Which brings me to a few questions:

Why would you need to use a slang-like term to label a person who enjoy's a different mode of play? What's the point of that? Why not just call them a "CP" or a "Casual"?

-but that is not the main point of my post.

As I said, the main point is is putting out there or discussing the stupidity and senselessness of the debates that get started between casual players and competitive players. No more, or less.

 

[Zatchiel]

Lmfao, lrn teh difference between MM and friendly.

Spoiler

lol tl;dr.

 

[-Ran]

When it comes to a tournament match, I'm going to do anything that I can to win against my opponents as long as I maintain the thrill of competition. However, as a tournament organizer I'm well aware that there are tiers of skill that prevent the game from being any fun for others that are attempting to integrate into the scene. The 'play to win' philosophy is scene not just in how we play, but how we run our tournaments with our seeding procedures. If a new player shows up to a tournament, they are guaranteed a loss first around against the best player that is there.

After I thought about this for a long time, I decided that it was time to run Novice brackets at my events. At first, it started off based on the San Antonio Redemption bracket. As long as you paid for entering the tournament, but failed to play in the money, you were entered into a second bracket in an attempt to win the entry fee back. Unfortunately, I found that all this was doing after two tournaments was creating the same circumstances as any other tournament bracket. One good player would sneak into it due to a poor performance in the 'pro bracket' and then get their entry fee back easily.

I've now decided that the optimal way is just to run a Novice bracket prior to the tournament for a dollar. I pool all the money from the novices to make it affordable for one, two or three of them to get into the pro bracket if another people enter the Novice bracket. Due to this, you see a different brand of player begin to take interest in Smash. There are many players that aren't going to spend the level of determination to go beyond the fundamentals, or simply players that are so green in experience that they aren't able to play at an effective level.

I have talked to many new and competitive-casual players over the months about what would be necessary for them to compete, and that's where my current system has come from. Not everyone is hyper competitive, but that doesn't mean that people don't enjoy a chance to compete with each other and see personal growth. Unfortunately, this is a stark contrast to the goal of Smash for some individuals which is to win money. If you are taking the easier players out of the bracket and providing them with their own means of play, then money drops for the better players in a state. Luckily, all the top players in Louisiana are completely fine with taking a small money hit, if it means that we can have a larger, healthier Smash scene.

As a community, we should strive to embrace the competitive-casuals into our scene, and provide them with a means to compete with each other on a more even level of play. It simply isn't fun for them to attend tournaments and get curbed stomp, especially when they are faced with our mentality of 'play to win.' We should attempt to split out Smash priorities between playing competitive matches, and becoming advocates for a better Smash scene. Every single city, state, and nation would be better off if we get the competitive-casuals to play, even if it's only against themselves. It provides an incredibly level of leverage to host large one time events in your area to draw in out of state attendance. Beyond that, it provides fresh faces, and a chance to watch new players grow into the "pro bracket."

By and large, players know what their skill level is. A scrub knows that they are a scrub unless they are completely deluded, just as a good player knows their own level. It is not an insult to someone to explain to them the different skill tiers and most would agree where they belong with out much of a fight.

 

[kr3wman]

http://www.sirlin.net/ptw-book/beginners-guide.html

Read it.

 

[Beren Zaiga]

http://www.sirlin.net/ptw-book/beginners-guide.html

Read it.

No, you read this.

http://www.sirlin.net/articles/playing-to-win-part-3-not-playing-to-win.html

Enjoy your day, sir, and try to make a more constructive post next time.

@-Ran: You sir, are someone who understands. Though this isn't about those in the middle (the competitive-casual players), this is more about the feuds that go on between players that are on completely different sides of the fence, and aren't competitive-casual.

 

[Life]

Spoiler

I smell a stealth BPC flame

I thought it was fairly obvious that Sirlin's talking about competitive play in his writings and that the stuff he wrote doesn't apply to casual play. A "scrub", therefore, is someone who doesn't play to win in a competitive environment (although many casuals would be scrubs if they were placed in a competitive setting)

But you know, I obviously don't understand the point.

 

[Beren Zaiga]

Spoiler

I smell a stealth BPC flame

I thought it was fairly obvious that Sirlin's talking about competitive play in his writings and that the stuff he wrote doesn't apply to casual play. A "scrub", therefore, is someone who doesn't play to win in a competitive environment (although many casuals would be scrubs if they were placed in a competitive setting)

But you know, I obviously don't understand the point.

I honestly think you're feigning ignorance in that last sentence.

Though to get it across anyway.

"Neither philosophy is wrong or right, they are only wrong or right when they are placed in the context of the opposite philosophy. They both achieve the same goal: enjoying the game.

-and yet members on this forum from time to time still feud about it.

 

[PK-ow!]

I honestly think you're feigning ignorance in that last sentence.

Though to get it across anyway.

"Neither philosophy is wrong or right, they are only wrong or right when they are placed in the context of the opposite philosophy. They both achieve the same goal: enjoying the game.

-and yet members on this forum from time to time still feud about it.

Oh well.

If that's what you're saying I agree. Very much so.


I just don't think you're using the right words in the first post.

The scrub *is* a person who is in the wrong camp. A player is a scrub only when he is such a person, who is a casual player in the competitive environment. He is a person mistaken about what he's trying to do. That was David Sirlin's definition; Sirlin's definition + my identity-preserving inferences.
(Above, and below, 'casual' just means 'not competitive'; although I think casual should in time come to mean those players who play casually and know they do, so that they are separated entirely from the scrub, with whom no one deserves to be grouped.)

EDIT: And everywhere, I shouldn't need to say this but, 'competitive player' is just short for "Player who believes in Playing to Win, but not necessarily a card-carrying Sirlinist." As in, a player who at least agrees with the ideals formalized in Sirlin's Playing to Win, but may yet have philosophical disputes over whether the formula there is perfect. "Competitive player" does not here - and I don't think it should ever - mean "player of at least X skill."


Competitive players have every right to feud with scrubs, because scrubs are, by definition, mistaken, and almost always*, trash-talkers. A scrub is essentially a flawed person. If he recognized that he wasn't Playing to Win and didn't belong with competition, there would be no mistake, no mismatch, he wouldn't be a scrub, and there would be no problem.


You're making a different point, that competitive players shouldn't feud with casual players.
I submit to you that this doesn't happen as often as you think. Yes, there are "tourney ***s." They're also known as the "Stop Having Fun Guys." But when feuding happens in forums like this, it's generally because some scrub somewhere has found himself out of place, and, being mistaken about thinking himself a competitive player, has started trash talking or degrading competition. The competitive players have to answer that.

If a casual not-a-scrub player, honestly found his way out of place somewhere, there would be signs that he is not self-important the way a scrub is. SWF has a high jerkass content as much as the next cabin on the U.S.S. Internet, but it is possible that said casual would be kindly briefed that 'this place is not for you,' if not additionally lectured on the glory of Playing to Win. (Now, I don't think enough players are good at explaining Playing to Win, which would make a good many seem like a Stop Having Fun Guy, which is unfortunate.)



Summing up, yes, I agree 100%. The point is that the two groups simply don't belong together and SHOULD NOT MIX. It would make everyone happier.
What you should see is that Sirlin isn't biased against casuals any more than I can say that he was "writing for competitive players." He was specifically leaving casual play to the side. 'Casuals can do whatever they want,' is the message I remember. To take a game competitively is "harder", that was his point. There's a way you can - many ways you can, actually - fail at creating a competitive metagame. He was saying what you have to do to play competitively. If you're literally not interested, then you don't have to listen to him. But what you do have to do, and this isn't what he said, but rather just a consequence of common sense, is realize that you are not interested in playing competitively.

If you don't agree with Sirlin's system, then either you're arguing with him philosophically, or you're agreeing that you are not Playing to Win. If you're not Playing to Win, it's just sensible, it's just polite, it's just rational, to not go where the people are Playing to Win.


If everyone just had more self-knowledge, there would be no problem. There would be no scrubs. The worst phenomena would be trash-talking trolls (you're always going to have trolls).



*specifically, from the definition, it follows that, if the "casual player in the competitive environment," is ever discovered as being "not a competitive player" (in the competitive environment), it necessarily is because that player did something inconsistent with Playing to Win, the only thing of which is trash talking.

 

[Beren Zaiga]

Oh well.

If that's what you're saying I agree. Very much so.


I just don't think you're using the right words in the first post.

The scrub *is* a person who is in the wrong camp. A player is a scrub only when he is such a person, who is a casual player in the competitive environment. He is a person mistaken about what he's trying to do. That was David Sirlin's definition; Sirlin's definition + my identity-preserving inferences.
(Above, and below, 'casual' just means 'not competitive'; although I think casual should in time come to mean those players who play casually and know they do, so that they are separated entirely from the scrub, with whom no one deserves to be grouped.)

EDIT: And everywhere, I shouldn't need to say this but, 'competitive player' is just short for "Player who believes in Playing to Win, but not necessarily a card-carrying Sirlinist." As in, a player who at least agrees with the ideals formalized in Sirlin's Playing to Win, but may yet have philosophical disputes over whether the formula there is perfect. "Competitive player" does not here - and I don't think it should ever - mean "player of at least X skill."


Competitive players have every right to feud with scrubs, because scrubs are, by definition, mistaken, and almost always*, trash-talkers. A scrub is essentially a flawed person. If he recognized that he wasn't Playing to Win and didn't belong with competition, there would be no mistake, no mismatch, he wouldn't be a scrub, and there would be no problem.


You're making a different point, that competitive players shouldn't feud with casual players.
I submit to you that this doesn't happen as often as you think. Yes, there are "tourney ***s." They're also known as the "Stop Having Fun Guys." But when feuding happens in forums like this, it's generally because some scrub somewhere has found himself out of place, and, being mistaken about thinking himself a competitive player, has started trash talking or degrading competition. The competitive players have to answer that.

If a casual not-a-scrub player, honestly found his way out of place somewhere, there would be signs that he is not self-important the way a scrub is. SWF has a high jerkass content as much as the next cabin on the U.S.S. Internet, but it is possible that said casual would be kindly briefed that 'this place is not for you,' if not additionally lectured on the glory of Playing to Win. (Now, I don't think enough players are good at explaining Playing to Win, which would make a good many seem like a Stop Having Fun Guy, which is unfortunate.)



Summing up, yes, I agree 100%. The point is that the two groups simply don't belong together and SHOULD NOT MIX. It would make everyone happier.
What you should see is that Sirlin isn't biased against casuals any more than I can say that he was "writing for competitive players." He was specifically leaving casual play to the side. 'Casuals can do whatever they want,' is the message I remember. To take a game competitively is "harder", that was his point. There's a way you can - many ways you can, actually - fail at creating a competitive metagame. He was saying what you have to do to play competitively. If you're literally not interested, then you don't have to listen to him. But what you do have to do, and this isn't what he said, but rather just a consequence of common sense, is realize that you are not interested in playing competitively.

If you don't agree with Sirlin's system, then either you're arguing with him philosophically, or you're agreeing that you are not Playing to Win. If you're not Playing to Win, it's just sensible, it's just polite, it's just rational, to not go where the people are Playing to Win.


If everyone just had more self-knowledge, there would be no problem. There would be no scrubs. The worst phenomena would be trash-talking trolls (you're always going to have trolls).



*specifically, from the definition, it follows that, if the "casual player in the competitive environment," is ever discovered as being "not a competitive player" (in the competitive environment), it necessarily is because that player did something inconsistent with Playing to Win, the only thing of which is trash talking.

That is not the point at all. I feel your twisting my point in places.

The point is this.

"Neither philosophy is invalid, neither is correct, and both are only wrong when in the context of the other philosophy, and both only strive to the same goal: enjoying the game. So why feud?"

-and I said, members still fight about it from time to time.

I don't exactly disagree with Sirlin's view of "Playing to Win", what I disagree with is the dogmatic attitude it has produced within some members of the competitive community. It's nice to win, but I am not obsessed with it like some members are.

You want to play to win, that's just fine, I'm okay with it. I don't however, always play purely for the sake of winning, sometimes I would rather play without winning in mind, and just take what comes my way in stride.

It allows me to relax and not take the game too seriously all the time, and I feel I have more fun than when I am purely focused on nothing but winning. Doing that only will make me frustrated when I lose.

It's just when I see people feuding over the two philosophies that I shake my head in disgust. You both play the same game, and your philosophies achieve the same base goal, so why fight about it to begin with?

It's senseless, even if you think they need to be educated about playing to win, did it not ever occur to you that perhaps that having fun with the game is more important to them than winning all the time? That's what makes them casual players, but it doesn't mean they don't like winning, it means they like to play with a more relaxed vibe than the extreme competitive players in the competitive community.

 

[Hive]

I agree that there needs to be more tolerance towards casual players and new players in the community, current brawl environments haven't generally been inviting towards them in the past, although the community still needs to revolve around making a competitive environment. Given the small amount of consistently viable characters in the scene too it can be argued that a large portion of the community is casual in the sense that players will go into tournaments fully expecting to have no chance at success. Although rulesets should try to bring out a competitive and not casual environment I still think that tournament entry fees need to be more of a casual mindset. We need to allow the capacity for competition while still allowing the games to be fun for everyone.

The main issue I think with the "play to win" mindset is that it also can be anticompetitive. Characters sometimes have a tendency to revolve around single abusable tactics more, people intentionally pick characters with massive advantages before the game starts in order to win, etc... these limit the amount of depth and skill that are involved in the match by 1) skewing the matchup largely in favor of 1 character, and/or 2) reducing the complexity of gameplay, and while it may be smart from a play to win standpoint, it ruins how much is proved by the match and the amount of mental skill that is utilized. Being in an even matchup can be uncomfortable and tense, there is risk in even matchups, and there is the possibility of loss, yet this is the ideal of a competitive environment. Success should be defined by skill, and yet when given the option individual players won't gravitate towards gameplay that matches this ideal in match, they will sometimes try to utilize tactics that make gameplay dumb in order to win, and especially out of desperation. The self interests of individual players are often destructive to community interests. Obviously this is one of the largest focuses of why we make rules- trying to make a gameplay structure that drives the self interests of players towards community ideals the best it can.

That's not to say I'm against a play to win mentality, I think of it as the same way as self interest motivates a market economy. I think rules should expect a play to win mentality, it is the driving source behind the scene, it just needs to take into account how to set boundaries to have it push towards community interests.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

That's correct. I did call it dogmatic. Why? The why is easy to see on Smash Boards between the people who play casually and the people who play competitively. The dominate mindset of the extremists of this philosophy (or who take it too far) is:

"If you aren't playing to win: you're a scrub."

That about sums it up.

Newsflash: that is the literal definition of the word. If you are not playing to win, you are a scrub because that is literally what the word means.

Frankly, the mindset is a poison to gaming, even if the point of competitive play is to win. They outcast people for simply playing a different way, they get mad when people deviate from the standards, and they are intolerant of the casual players, effectively placing them as socially inferior.

If you are not playing to win, please get out of the competitive community. I'm not going to say that casuals are worse. I will say that most competitives will win against them 99/100 times, which is what matters to us.

They also preach the words of Sirlin's book Playing to Win like they are the words of a deity, which despite it's pretty words is biased against the casual players. Sirlin later makes an article called Not Playing to Win which talks about the benefits of not always playing for the sake of winning. Yet in end, that article is often ignored in favor of the book that favors their philosophy, and often they flame, verbally maim, and outright just act like complete *******s to the casual players.

Err... Reread the article or stop strawmanning. It's not about not playing to win, it's about straying away from what you know works in order to try different things and advance your game knowledge. Then going back to playing to win.

That is not to say that people of the casual community are mellow and carefree, not giving a care about the things done to them by the some of the people in the competitive community. There are plenty of idiots in the casual community, just as there are idiots in the competitive community that are as stubborn as some of the casual players, and both share common characteristics, as all extremists of philosophy.

Yes, except we are right within our own framework; if you don't like it, kindly leave said framework (smashboards).

When you step back and look at how these two communities clash constantly everywhere, you begin to see how senseless the constant arguments are, and see how the philosophy of playing to win causes such friction between these two (not excluding the philosophy of not playing to win). Both have two different objectives at their core, but when you broaden the perspective and generalize it, the objective of both philosophies comes to one simple thing: playing the game.

Err... Casuals want to have fun, we want to win. Biiig difference. And I don't see much clashing. Do you? I mean, other than the thousands of "competitive" scrubs coming here and demanding to be able to play their favorite character without dealing with his bad matchups, or that their favorite character should get buffed for no real reason. HINT HINT GUYS

The dogmatism of some of the competitive communities' extreme members is atrocious, filthy, and as I said before, poisonous. It only creates strife, hate, and foolish feuds between members that last for pages of threads senselessly with no foreseeable end barring that one argues the other into a corner. How this vile behavior is not called out on by the more level-headed of their own community more often astounds me, what is more is that in some instances, it is even allowed to continue.

I'm going to be perfectly frank. If you aren't of the Play To Win mentality, you have no place here on smashboards. Go to some casual board. We are the players who play to win; we do this because it's fun for us. It seems like here you're calling the competitive mentality out. Of course it leads to discussion about the right way to play-after all, a player's performance is very different in different rulesets! If Brinstar is banned, I just lost my favorite counterpick in almost every matchup, and if FD and SV are banned, ICs mains are ****ed up the ***.

This behavior is unnecessary, even if the opposing person disagrees with the "playing to win" view, the fact remains that these arguments are pointless, and oft are started on the most idiotic of reasons, by both sides. If the given reason is because the person is a "casual scrub", it still does not validate the behavior, nor does any other excuses that both communities can come up with. This kind of behavior is against forum rules.

If a person disagrees with playing to win, then he has no place here, and no place in the competitive community. It's like going to a tournament and being disappointed when your opponents, if they let you choose temple, pick fox and circle camp you. We play to win; our domain is high-level tournaments, smashboards, and occasionally (very rarely) AiB!

TL;DR : Neither is to blame, neither is truly right, neither is truly wrong. The only true right or wrong comes in when either philosophy is put in the context of it's opposite. If you can't face that truth, tough luck.

We choose to play this way, and we don't welcome people who don't to the party. Sorry.

 

[AMKalmar]

Newsflash: that is the literal definition of the word. If you are not playing to win, you are a scrub because that is literally what the word means.

Found this on some wiki. "Scrub - one who is no longer new to a game but still exhibits novice tendencies." You'll probably argue that not playing to win is a novice, but choosing to play a specific way doesn't make you a novice. I read once that the term originated from arcade style fighters - it refers to players that are so bad that it appears as if they are scrubbing the buttons with their hand. Originally scrubber, the term was shortened to scrub.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Hmm, I'm using the straight-up sirlin definition, which AFAIK is more common... w/e though.

 

[Djent]

There's nothing wrong with playing casually in a broad objective sense, but within the confines of a competitive community it's pointless. It's not that you can't still do it, it's just...why would you? There are plenty of other players out there who'd rather just have fun, why not hook up with some of them? Within the competitive community, the assumption is that you want to play competitively.

On top of that, let's face it: while there's nothing wrong with the casual philosophy, it breeds tension within the competitive community. No philosophy exists in a vacuum; they all have ramifications. That's why so-called "scrubs" are not well recieved; their differing opinions end up affecting the way WE play the game. And since the focus of the community is US (competitive players), we take offense.

 

[Blissard]

Ok I'll put flat-out what I analyzed this debate to be. Because...this should have been in the debate thread; and if you took precautions to flamers...you must have known that this thread would be flamed. I'll take neither side of the argument because at the pace this thread is moving, it seems like everyone will start attacking each other (in Brawl...of course...)...

First, as you guys should know, everyone has their own opinions. Neither is necessarily "correct" for anyone to judge, and in a debate, it's up to the debaters to prove that their own points are more correct than the other's is. I think that everyone here missed that the argument Beren Zaiga utilized was NOT the definition of a scrub, but of the mindset that most players take on with playing to win in both competitive and casual gaming. Next, quit the "get out of SWF" stuff. Who is a user to tell someone else to quit a community because they are not of the same mindset as another?

Lastly, I'll go on and talk from the perspectives of both sides. Zaiga's opening post, I'll be perfectly honest, lacked on supporting details, but the point was made clear, and everyone understood how he felt. Everyone else started defining what scrubs were, and while that's a legit argument, it's not exactly clear. But as a matter of fact, the "playing to win" philosophy isn't exactly clear either. I think everyone in their right mind, has the wanting to win somewhere. Because else, you wouldn't be playing these competitive games. Even if you know you're going to lose, you want to learn to get better so that you can win. And even still, while the score indicates that you have no chance of winning, you still want to win (somewhere in your mind)!

So, the "GTFO if you don't want to win" thing is utterly blunt and really changes depending on the perspective it's viewed with. While it's really not in our power to decide who should quit Brawl or who's a scrub because of how they think, please be nice to each other.

~End of rant~

 

[JOE!]

Err... Casuals want to have fun, we want to win. Biiig difference.

We are the players who play to win; we do this because it's fun for us.

I found this funny

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

I found this funny

So? Yeah, we play to win because it's what we enjoy. They play "just for fun" and then demand that random **** gets banned because they don't like it. In the competitive community.

I don't even get the OP's reasoning behind this. We are the competitive crowd, and if casuals want to permutate the competitive game we play by being scrubs, that's just not okay. It doesn't work for us. It's like a bear coming into a bee's nest with nothing but good intentions and being surprised when he gets stung.

 

[X-FACTOR]

Interesting read.

 

[Beren Zaiga]

So? Yeah, we play to win because it's what we enjoy. They play "just for fun" and then demand that random **** gets banned because they don't like it. In the competitive community.

I don't even get the OP's reasoning behind this. We are the competitive crowd, and if casuals want to permutate the competitive game we play by being scrubs, that's just not okay. It doesn't work for us. It's like a bear coming into a bee's nest with nothing but good intentions and being surprised when he gets stung.

Do yourself a favor and read Blissard's post.

Thank you.

 

[PK-ow!]

That is not the point at all. I feel your twisting my point in places.

The point is this.

"Neither philosophy is invalid, neither is correct, and both are only wrong when in the context of the other philosophy, and both only strive to the same goal: enjoying the game. So why feud?"

And that's what I agreed with, and what I said I thought you meant.
I went on to say some other things to provide context to my beliefs, which may or may not be things you believed, and definitely aren't what you said. But I don't think anywhere I said that those things are what you said, and I'm quite sure it would be a mistake for any person to figure that what I had been saying was what I believed you were saying.


You're saying the casual player is different from the competitive player. That's fine. That's true. The casual player is someone who plays it a certain way. Or, someone who plays for certain goals or reasons, which may affect how they play, but might not (it might not be distinguishable from a non-casual player, I mean). The competitive player is another sort. He or she is someone who, at minimum, wants to prove something. He or she plays for a certain goal or for a kind of reason, and this affects how they play.

When the groups are interested in different things, the question is if those can overlap.

Now here I need to make I think a crucial terminological point. For just this post at least, "casual player" will mean a player who is playing 'casually', referring to just one occasion. So, we're talking about the occasions of playing, and how people play, moreso than the player. My intent is to avoid the sense that "Casual player" is some unchanging property of a given person. Likewise, "competitive player" will mean a player playing competitively, on one occasion. They're bringing that mindset, whatever that mindset it.

I'm not defining 'competitive' itself to try to make my point more general; and I'm not defining 'casual' because I... don't understand what casual gamers want and couldn't begin to define it.


What I think what we find is that they do not overlap. You're saying "each view is wrong only in the context of the other." Absolutely right. A competitive player coming into some casual session, and playing to defeat his opponents, is going to tend to achieve two things:

1. Be dissatisfied with the level of challenge from his opponents.

2. Offend the other players or take away their enjoyment.

Neither of these will necessarily happen, but let's look at why they'd tend to happen. The first would tend to happen because not playing competitively will mean you won't tend toward being good, and certainly it means you won't tend toward trying to win this particular game. It's possible to find a good casual gamer, or to find a player playing casually who also will be looking for a win. The second would tend to happen because what makes a player win sometimes "is gay" to keep this brief, though I'm usually careful to avoid calling things 'gay'. You don't have to be a scrub to find some paths to victory boring or unfun. Now, again, not all casual players would find something "gay" about anything. It's conceivable that there is a casual player who considers everything legit... but they just don't play competitively. Perfectly conceivable. But if this casual group finds "ledgehogging" unfun, and the competitive player shows up in their environment and takes away their fun, that's just bad. That's "a shame."


A casual player coming into a competitive group is going to have troubles. They're also going to be more definite, I think, but less troubling. Because you see, an arbitrary casual player is indistinguishable from an arbitrary competitive player, provided neither ever talks, because the skill level can freely vary within the "arbitrary" part.
A casual player is going to find himself

1. Losing often

2. Facing the full gamut of strategies and techniques.


The first may not happen, as surely as there can be good casual players. The second one may not bother him, if he thinks of everything as legit. But even if something in the second group bothered him, there's nothing wrong here until the player makes the following choice:

A. The people here aren't playing how I want to play. I should not play here.

B. The people here aren't playing how I want to play. I should make them play the way I want.

(There's a third path, C, that I'll cover in a bit)


If he goes down the A path, all is well. If he goes down the B path, he is NOT YET a scrub.
Taking the B path just means he needs to air his opinions. This player deserves to have explained to him what it is that the established group of players with their rules is trying to accomplish. And how it won't change. And if the player agrees with it. Then he can still leave peaceably.
But if it has been explained and he just keeps trying to make other people change, then he's missing the point. Whether from stubbornness or insolubility, or lack of intelligence, he's one of those people who aren't listening. And maybe we can't pass any judgment on his character. But we don't have to put up with it. Someone showing up and screwing with the way you and others want to do things is not your problem, it's theirs. I'd say just the same if I came to a casual setting, started CG beasting people all over the place, and got frowns. I'd be taken aback, but I'd simply unplug and occupy myself elsewhere. To force my way on them is rude. The player above, foreign in the competitive setting, is being rude.


And that player is the scrub. And that's what I meant in the other post by why he *does* deserve some measure of harsh treatment. Contained in the definition of scrub is the fact that the player has 'trespassed first'.



But hopefully the above explains the system within which 'casual' and 'competitive' exist and how they relate, and how casuals don't need to "feud" with competitive players, to use your word. We can have all the arguments right here, and conclude pretty quickly that the two just don't mix.

I wanted to cover a third path. The third path is "C. These players are roughing me up. I'll just keep my head down, play along, and smile nicely."

This is what I meant by how a casual player is indistinguishable from a competitive player. If the casual player never makes the choice of B., then he is just waiting on leaving. If he never says "this isn't legit" and never tells other people who win how to play, or trash talks or that kind of thing, he's indistinguishable from a competitive player who is just ... at whatever skill level he represented in his matches. So he won't upset anyone! Except perhaps himself, since he may not be enjoying himself there.

It's just a minor point but I wanted to make it.


No argument needs to happen. What's important at the end of the day is knowing what you want from the game and realizing that it is exclusive from what other people want from the game. If all players who weren't competitive could just accept what competitive players want, and realize they require certain conduct from those in their number, and not try to mix with them OR AT LEAST follow that code of conduct if for some reason they did, then there would never be any scrubs.

I don't exactly disagree with Sirlin's view of "Playing to Win", what I disagree with is the dogmatic attitude it has produced within some members of the competitive community. It's nice to win, but I am not obsessed with it like some members are.

You want to play to win, that's just fine, I'm okay with it. I don't however, always play purely for the sake of winning, sometimes I would rather play without winning in mind, and just take what comes my way in stride.

It allows me to relax and not take the game too seriously all the time, and I feel I have more fun than when I am purely focused on nothing but winning. Doing that only will make me frustrated when I lose.

This is why I liked to cut the terms along the lines of "playing casually on an occasion" and "playing competitively on an occasion."

There's only one game I play where I can mix the two, and it's Magic. I play Limited competitively, but I play other formats (Constructed) casually.

I remain happy because I don't go into Constructed games blind to my opponent's deck and goals. When I meet up with The Group, there's a half of us that play seriously, and half there for lulz. When you want lulz, you come talk to the lulz guys. When you play seriously, you listen to when they're setting up a game, or you just ask around for "practice." Everybody is happy, because we know what we want, and we know they're different.

It's senseless, even if you think they need to be educated about playing to win, did it not ever occur to you that perhaps that having fun with the game is more important to them than winning all the time? That's what makes them casual players, but it doesn't mean they don't like winning, it means they like to play with a more relaxed vibe than the extreme competitive players in the competitive community.

This confuses me.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

First, as you guys should know, everyone has their own opinions. Neither is necessarily "correct" for anyone to judge, and in a debate, it's up to the debaters to prove that their own points are more correct than the other's is. I think that everyone here missed that the argument Beren Zaiga utilized was NOT the definition of a scrub, but of the mindset that most players take on with playing to win in both competitive and casual gaming. Next, quit the "get out of SWF" stuff. Who is a user to tell someone else to quit a community because they are not of the same mindset as another?

Because this is the competitive community. It's that simple. If you want to be a casual player, fine. But don't:
-Bring casual ideas outside of general-no seriously, casual ideals are not welcome in tactical. Or, for that matter, almost anywhere else on smashboards beyond general-"here be ptw-infested waters" or whatnot.
-Demand that we adapt to your casual play in any manner; expect us to insult you for *****ing about things like Ike or Edgehogging. You came into the hornet's nest, and you aren't wearing your orange dress coat.

Do yourself a favor and read Blissard's post.

Thank you.

Didn't help me much. Also PK-Ow just won the thread; it's all right, everyone can go home now.

 

[Shadic]

Is it just me, or does the OP really not have a point?

It seems to go like this:
"A) Playing to win is dogmatic, blah blah blah. If you think people who think otherwise are scrubs, (the common definition of a scrub is "doesn't play to win) then you're a big meaniehead."

"B)A lot of competitive people are jerks to casuals and I don't like that!And I guess some casuals are stupid too. And uh, if you're intolerant towards people who think differently than you, you're a jerk."

"C) See A."

The entire first post of this topic could be summarized as "Duh." And is hardly conducive to much conversation. And you claim the point of the thread is:

..Is putting out there or discussing the stupidity and senselessness of the debates that get started between casual players and competitive players.

Except we don't need that at all. You want stupidity? Look in an SWF thread. Or a thread on any message board talking about Smash. People are stupid. We know. Get over it. There is always going to be strife between idiots who can't comprehend somebody else's world view. Welcome to life.

Casual players are often jeered by the overly "stick-up-the-bum" stop having fun guys. And at the same time, anybody who cares enough about the competitive aspect of the game to start counting frames and discussing a stage ban is going to be the subject of scorn to people who just want to beat coins out of people for thirty minutes while waggling a Wiimote around.

Again, welcome to life. 90% of us know its stupid, but a vocal minority likes to be dumb and annoy everybody else. It's like arguing that some people take sports too seriously. We already know.

 

[Blissard]

-Demand that we adapt to your casual play in any manner; expect us to insult you for *****ing about things like Ike or Edgehogging. You came into the hornet's nest, and you aren't wearing your orange dress coat.

Ummm...this doesn't have anything to do with anything at all. And also, the definition of casual play changes from person to person. Like the description above is neither an example of casual play nor a scrub; but rather a noob.

But this post doesn't have any significance either. Carry on friends~

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Ummm...this doesn't have anything to do with anything at all. And also, the definition of casual play changes from person to person. Like the description above is neither an example of casual play nor a scrub; but rather a noob.

But this post doesn't have any significance either. Carry on friends~

Kinda does; only a scrub would say things like that. Even if they weren't total noobs.

 

[Vyse]

*Problematising Play to win from a social perspective*

I do agree. It makes people incredibly frustrated that others won't adhere to or accept any other view point of their own.

However, I mostly just agree with this post:

Is it just me, or does the OP really not have a point?

It seems to go like this:
"A) Playing to win is dogmatic, blah blah blah. If you think people who think otherwise are scrubs, (the common definition of a scrub is "doesn't play to win) then you're a big meaniehead."

"B)A lot of competitive people are jerks to casuals and I don't like that!And I guess some casuals are stupid too. And uh, if you're intolerant towards people who think differently than you, you're a jerk."

"C) See A."

The entire first post of this topic could be summarized as "Duh." And is hardly conducive to much conversation. And you claim the point of the thread is:

..Is putting out there or discussing the stupidity and senselessness of the debates that get started between casual players and competitive players.

Except we don't need that at all. You want stupidity? Look in an SWF thread. Or a thread on any message board talking about Smash. People are stupid. We know. Get over it. There is always going to be strife between idiots who can't comprehend somebody else's world view. Welcome to life.

Casual players are often jeered by the overly "stick-up-the-bum" stop having fun guys. And at the same time, anybody who cares enough about the competitive aspect of the game to start counting frames and discussing a stage ban is going to be the subject of scorn to people who just want to beat coins out of people for thirty minutes while waggling a Wiimote around.

Again, welcome to life. 90% of us know its stupid, but a vocal minority likes to be dumb and annoy everybody else. It's like arguing that some people take sports too seriously. We already know.

Also, it's not that Sirlin is a pioneer as such. But a symbol that quickly conveys the message you want to get across.

 

[Kitamerby]

Why would you need to use a slang-like term to label a person who enjoy's a different mode of play? What's the point of that? Why not just call them a "CP" or a "Casual"?

Totally worth it

 

[Nik21]

^^^that sig = win

I think everyone has their own philosophy or reason for playing. Some play for fun, some play strictly to win, others play to win and have fun by doing so, among many others.

As for me, I just wanna play the ****ing game. I enjoy the thrill of competing and trying to win. Even though I'll doi whatever it takes to win during the match, I still don't let the current metagame or tier list choose my mains for me. I like to compete whether I'm using Diddy or Ganondorf.

I choose not to adopt the play strictly to win philosophy because I know that it won't get me anywhere, because by adopting it, I'd be accepting nothing short of being the best player in the world, which will not happen. But that's just me.

One thing that I absolutely hate and cannot stand is playing for money. I hate the idea, because it would ruin the experience for me and it makes people lose sight of why they started playing in the first place. There's a reason why people say that "money is the root of all evil." I think so because money corrupts.

In the long run I think players should only be labeled casual or competitive based on their reasons for playing, not their skill level or the way they act.
And I always thought as scrubs as casuals who think they're good but in reality are uneducated or ignorant of the existence of a competitive scene and metagame. Or they may know about the competitive scene but still think that they're the ****. Either way, when you call someone a scrub, they will more than likely take as an insult, so I think people should refrain from calling someone a scrub unless the "scrub" is being an *******.

And I agree that the competitve scene needs to be nicer and more inviting to casuals who are interested in becoming competitive. If that were to happen more, the scene would surely grow, which would benefit us all.
And most importantly, players should accept those that play the game differently.

Great thread and great point. I think I may actually start a group on AiB about this. Well unless the isea is already taken there >_>

 

[LuLLo]

I will not go into detail with the whole OP, since everything has been handled by PK-ow! and others quite well, but I think you don't fully understand the ''message'' you're trying to deliver Beren Zaiga. And by that I mean your whole OP is VERY contradictional in contrast with the thread title and some minor sentences in the OP, saying how ''nobody is right and wrong'' and why we should stay on our side of the fence, while on the other hand you say ''Playing to Win is dogmatic''.
You're saying we should all respect each others' ''beliefs of playing games'' and leave the ones with different beliefs alone, yet you insult us before we can even read the content of this thread. Which makes me THINK you're a casual player whose heart got broken by some big bad ''Sirlin-Followers'', hence why your view of these things is so limited imo, but I could be wrong.

 

[Seikishidan Soru]

This wouldn't happen if both groups just avoided interaction with each other.

 

[Smooth Criminal]

Is it just me, or does the OP really not have a point?

It seems to go like this:
"A) Playing to win is dogmatic, blah blah blah. If you think people who think otherwise are scrubs, (the common definition of a scrub is "doesn't play to win) then you're a big meaniehead."

"B)A lot of competitive people are jerks to casuals and I don't like that!And I guess some casuals are stupid too. And uh, if you're intolerant towards people who think differently than you, you're a jerk."

"C) See A."

The entire first post of this topic could be summarized as "Duh." And is hardly conducive to much conversation. And you claim the point of the thread is:


Except we don't need that at all. You want stupidity? Look in an SWF thread. Or a thread on any message board talking about Smash. People are stupid. We know. Get over it. There is always going to be strife between idiots who can't comprehend somebody else's world view. Welcome to life.

Casual players are often jeered by the overly "stick-up-the-bum" stop having fun guys. And at the same time, anybody who cares enough about the competitive aspect of the game to start counting frames and discussing a stage ban is going to be the subject of scorn to people who just want to beat coins out of people for thirty minutes while waggling a Wiimote around.

Again, welcome to life. 90% of us know its stupid, but a vocal minority likes to be dumb and annoy everybody else. It's like arguing that some people take sports too seriously. We already know.

Ding, ding, ding. Shadic wins.

Can't have your cake and eat it too, Zeiga. Unless you live somewhere sequestered enough to promote a lack of differing opinions and mores (i.e. under a rock with nobody else except for yourself), then one can't really ask for complete cohesion in anything. There's always gonna be somebody out there who disagrees with something, and there's always going to be two (or more) sides to an issue.

And stuff.

Totally worth re-quoting.

Smooth Criminal