|
Post by hanzrimer on Jul 18, 2009 21:08:21 GMT -5
I saw another thread... And have come upon the following conclusion. If you are mostly playing to win, then JC is a tactic that you think is fantastic. In fact, you go outta your way to find tactics that give you that small advantage. If you are playing for the fun of it, and also to win (like me). Winning comes second priority to the fun in playing the game. I'd rather lose without JCing than win with JCing. But that's just me. You have been insightful lately my boy. And I agree with you said 100%. Winning isn't everything. Have fun first, win second.
|
|
|
Post by Joppi on Jul 18, 2009 22:47:07 GMT -5
I saw another thread... And have come upon the following conclusion. If you are mostly playing to win, then JC is a tactic that you think is fantastic. In fact, you go outta your way to find tactics that give you that small advantage. If you are playing for the fun of it, and also to win (like me). Winning comes second priority to the fun in playing the game. I'd rather lose without JCing than win with JCing. But that's just me. You have been insightful lately my boy. And I agree with you said 100%. Winning isn't everything. Have fun first, win second. I think you guys aren't fully understanding the "Play to Win" mentality. The idea of "Play to Win" is not that winning is the only way to have fun and that you should do anything in your power to achieve victory, because that's the only way you're allowed to have fun. The idea is that playing to your fullest extent in competition with one another is a fun way to play, as opposed to the scrub who competes, but plays within his own invented "moral" structure, and usually loses, and instead of drawing something from the loss (like someone who has a Play to Win mentality would), he just complains that the other person was doing something "dishonorable" or "cheap". Someone who plays to win has fun regardless of whether he wins or loses, because he draws something from the match either way. If he wins, he gets the sense of victory, which for many is a fun thing to have, and if he loses he can draw experience and knowledge from the match, which contributes to further games. The scrub gains nothing either way. If he wins, he gets validation of his moral structure, which only sets him up for further disappointment, and if he loses, he just complains and learns nothing because he's still trapped in his self-imposed mental prison. The main difference between the two mentalities is that the person who plays to win will have fun as long as he's playing, and has the potential to win, which, for him, is doubly fun. The scrub has fun only when he and his opponent are playing exactly the way he thinks the game should be played. As soon as he meets players who play differently from him, he just shuts down and yells crap about the other player being cheap. I personally have much more fun playing to my fullest while trying to win than I do when I'm playing with a self-imposed barrier that ends my fun whenever people do something I don't like. So, playing to win is playing for fun to me. Also, before one of you posts saying, "I don't do any of those things" or something like that, I'm not claiming that any of you are scrubs, so don't respond as though I am.
|
|
|
Post by hanzrimer on Jul 19, 2009 11:42:22 GMT -5
You have been insightful lately my boy. And I agree with you said 100%. Winning isn't everything. Have fun first, win second. I think you guys aren't fully understanding the "Play to Win" mentality. The idea of "Play to Win" is not that winning is the only way to have fun and that you should do anything in your power to achieve victory, because that's the only way you're allowed to have fun. The idea is that playing to your fullest extent in competition with one another is a fun way to play, as opposed to the scrub who competes, but plays within his own invented "moral" structure, and usually loses, and instead of drawing something from the loss (like someone who has a Play to Win mentality would), he just complains that the other person was doing something "dishonorable" or "cheap". Someone who plays to win has fun regardless of whether he wins or loses, because he draws something from the match either way. If he wins, he gets the sense of victory, which for many is a fun thing to have, and if he loses he can draw experience and knowledge from the match, which contributes to further games. The scrub gains nothing either way. If he wins, he gets validation of his moral structure, which only sets him up for further disappointment, and if he loses, he just complains and learns nothing because he's still trapped in his self-imposed mental prison. The main difference between the two mentalities is that the person who plays to win will have fun as long as he's playing, and has the potential to win, which, for him, is doubly fun. The scrub has fun only when he and his opponent are playing exactly the way he thinks the game should be played. As soon as he meets players who play differently from him, he just shuts down and yells crap about the other player being cheap. I personally have much more fun playing to my fullest while trying to win than I do when I'm playing with a self-imposed barrier that ends my fun whenever people do something I don't like. So, playing to win is playing for fun to me. Also, before one of you posts saying, "I don't do any of those things" or something like that, I'm not claiming that any of you are scrubs, so don't respond as though I am. You can still learn from the loss and still not do certain things you find cheap. What if there was a glitch in the game where you can freeze someone and they couldn't move. You ask the person how to do it and they tell you. Do you this next time you play? I mean if you don't your a scrub right because your holding back doing something that will help you win.
|
|
|
Post by BURNZILLA47 on Jul 19, 2009 12:40:06 GMT -5
They main argument in favor of JC is that it works. Those who do it will most likely get more kills than those who don't with a few notable exceptions. Like the JC, scout roll is a similar exploitation by using controls to override set animations. It is most certainly the best way for a scout to succeed in CTR. Do you feel this is cheap? We may be inclined to give the scout a little break on this one because mages are so monstrously overpowered compared to them and don't need any more perks. But I guess the question for you guys is where do you draw the line between using the tools to you have to their full potential, and being cheap? It's worth noting that it seems most mages JC at this point, or at least the really good ones tend to use that tactic. The more people who adopt this tactic, the less cheap it would seem because it's a tactic that is available to all and withheld from none. So if I'm a mage (very rarely) up against mabedi, or E-2010 or REDSKIN or some freak like that, those guys are hopping like like a good brew so I find that I last longer and kill more by doing what they do.
|
|
|
Post by Joppi on Jul 19, 2009 13:40:50 GMT -5
I think you guys aren't fully understanding the "Play to Win" mentality. The idea of "Play to Win" is not that winning is the only way to have fun and that you should do anything in your power to achieve victory, because that's the only way you're allowed to have fun. The idea is that playing to your fullest extent in competition with one another is a fun way to play, as opposed to the scrub who competes, but plays within his own invented "moral" structure, and usually loses, and instead of drawing something from the loss (like someone who has a Play to Win mentality would), he just complains that the other person was doing something "dishonorable" or "cheap". Someone who plays to win has fun regardless of whether he wins or loses, because he draws something from the match either way. If he wins, he gets the sense of victory, which for many is a fun thing to have, and if he loses he can draw experience and knowledge from the match, which contributes to further games. The scrub gains nothing either way. If he wins, he gets validation of his moral structure, which only sets him up for further disappointment, and if he loses, he just complains and learns nothing because he's still trapped in his self-imposed mental prison. The main difference between the two mentalities is that the person who plays to win will have fun as long as he's playing, and has the potential to win, which, for him, is doubly fun. The scrub has fun only when he and his opponent are playing exactly the way he thinks the game should be played. As soon as he meets players who play differently from him, he just shuts down and yells crap about the other player being cheap. I personally have much more fun playing to my fullest while trying to win than I do when I'm playing with a self-imposed barrier that ends my fun whenever people do something I don't like. So, playing to win is playing for fun to me. Also, before one of you posts saying, "I don't do any of those things" or something like that, I'm not claiming that any of you are scrubs, so don't respond as though I am. You can still learn from the loss and still not do certain things you find cheap. What if there was a glitch in the game where you can freeze someone and they couldn't move. You ask the person how to do it and they tell you. Do you this next time you play? I mean if you don't your a scrub right because your holding back doing something that will help you win. If you actually read the article, it covers things like what you're saying. Anyway, I probably didn't say it as well as I should have. By playing to win, it doesn't mean you're going absolutely cut-throat, no bars, unplug their controlled while they're not looking. The idea is that people should be able to play openly with as few restrictions as possible. There's a huge difference between techniques like jump-canceling and a technique that completely ends the game for the other person. Things that are overtly broken like that are, of course, unfair and no fun for anyone. Jump-canceling is nowhere near a broken technique, it's just a pretty good advantage for the mage. It pumps out lightning 1.5x faster and keeps the mage mobile, that's it. It's not a huge advantage, I mean, you've said yourself that you do fine without it. I don't know how accurate that actually is, but it doesn't matter much.
|
|
|
Post by Joppi on Jul 19, 2009 13:42:11 GMT -5
Like the JC, scout roll is a similar exploitation by using controls to override set animations. wat How is repeatedly rolling as a scout even close to exploit?
|
|
|
Post by BulgarianMenace on Jul 19, 2009 14:36:51 GMT -5
well, I guess you could say that while you have the ring your speed is supposed to be reduced, but rolling allows you to bypass that since the ring has no effect on the speed of your roll.
|
|
|
Post by Joppi on Jul 19, 2009 14:44:57 GMT -5
well, I guess you could say that while you have the ring your speed is supposed to be reduced, but rolling allows you to bypass that since the ring has no effect on the speed of your roll. You could say that, but it'd still be stupid.
|
|
|
Post by BURNZILLA47 on Jul 19, 2009 14:47:08 GMT -5
Like the JC, scout roll is a similar exploitation by using controls to override set animations. wat How is repeatedly rolling as a scout even close to exploit? It really isn't. I just choose my words poorly.
|
|
|
Post by E-2010/xxMrElitexx on Jul 19, 2009 18:48:24 GMT -5
Eh Burn what do ya mean by hopping E-2010 don't hop
|
|
|
Post by BURNZILLA47 on Jul 19, 2009 19:42:04 GMT -5
Don't you use jump canceling with lightning? If you don't sorry if I got confused. All you mages kind of look alike.
|
|