Poll: To everyone who has ever been mad at a camper, rusher, bunnyhopper, turtler, or something similar...

[sgtshock]

I have to say I disagree with the article. Who are the bigger assholes, the scrubs who cry foul when they get overrun by better tactics, or the "pros" who slaughter the players who have not put nearly as much time and effort into the game as they have. Maybe they aren't on the same level as you, but that doesn't mean they should be deprived of a good time.

If I can tell that a player is new or struggling in TF2 (a game I'm fairly decent at) I'll go easy on him. I'll aim for his teammates first, run away, or maybe charge him with my melee weapon. He has fun because he's not dead, and I have fun because I just did something stupid and crazy. The point of a game is to have fun with other people, not beat them.

My problem that this article skips is the exploitive tactics that have NO counter. For example, "pre-game Grenade Launchering" in the beginning of a map in MW2. You have no way to move before your hit, but according to this article, that's an OK move because you are playing to win. Not playing to win with honor, not playing because you want to have fun, but playing because another W for yourself is all that matters.

That's why people "whine" against these tactics (the cheap ones and the exploitive ones), because the "Play to Win" guy is ruining the fun, something I imagine is the reason that most people video games.

If there really is an unbeatable tactic in the game, there are two questions you need to ask yourself: "Why am I not using this tactic?" and "Why am I playing a game that allows such a tactic?" I imagine your answers will be something like "Because I think it's no fun." and "Because there are other aspects to the game that make it fun despite this 'cheap' tactic."

In reply to that, I can only refer you to the last paragraph of my first post:
I'm also not going to tell you to stop getting pissed off at 'cheap' tactics. If anything, I'd encourage you to write lots of angry emails to the developers of games in which such tactics are 'ruining the experience'. If an otherwise good game really is ruined by one cheap tactic, then you deserve to be angry about that. I too would very much prefer games that are well-balanced. But direct your anger at the people who made the poorly balanced game in the first place, and for the love of God people, stop whining at players who beat you because they use tactics you think are cheap.

Let's assume I'm playing a game that I think is really fun, but in the last patch they accidentally included a glitch that let you win the entire match with the press of a button. (Yes, it's a hell of a glitch, but this is hypothetical.) By your logic, I should either take full advantage of this and do it every round, making all games last about 2 seconds, or I should stop playing. Because if people just had fun with the game without abusing the glitch then they would be whining losers.

 

[tippy2k2]

My problem that this article skips is the exploitive tactics that have NO counter. For example, "pre-game Grenade Launchering" in the beginning of a map in MW2. You have no way to move before your hit, but according to this article, that's an OK move because you are playing to win. Not playing to win with honor, not playing because you want to have fun, but playing because another W for yourself is all that matters.

That's why people "whine" against these tactics (the cheap ones and the exploitive ones), because the "Play to Win" guy is ruining the fun, something I imagine is the reason that most people video games.

If there really is an unbeatable tactic in the game, there are two questions you need to ask yourself: "Why am I not using this tactic?" and "Why am I playing a game that allows such a tactic?" I imagine your answers will be something like "Because I think it's no fun." and "Because there are other aspects to the game that make it fun despite this 'cheap' tactic."

In reply to that, I can only refer you to the last paragraph of my first post:
I'm also not going to tell you to stop getting pissed off at 'cheap' tactics. If anything, I'd encourage you to write lots of angry emails to the developers of games in which such tactics are 'ruining the experience'. If an otherwise good game really is ruined by one cheap tactic, then you deserve to be angry about that. I too would very much prefer games that are well-balanced. But direct your anger at the people who made the poorly balanced game in the first place, and for the love of God people, stop whining at players who beat you because they use tactics you think are cheap.

"Why am I not using this tactic?" If I'm going to win, I'm going to win the game with honor. I'd call winning using the bs tactics a hollow victory. Sure, you won and your scorecard looks a bit better, but is it really enjoyable to not get to play the game the way it's supposed to be played? Is firing enough Grenade Launchers that you could call it an artillery strike fun (probably the first time but the 100th)?

"Why am I playing a game that allows the tactic?" You (and the article) answered the question already, when people play the game the way it should be played, it can be fun. I don't have a problem with losing, it's when I lose to people who just exploit the game that sucks. That's why you whine at those players. If there is enough of a backlash and stigma put against these players, they may stop it when they realize that no one wants to play with them again. I hate the player because while it is the game's fault for allowing the exploit, there is still responsibility for the players actions. It's the "the teacher left us alone during a test, so it's their fault we all cheated" argument, and I gotta call bullshit on that.

I do agree though that if you are to whine to someone, whine to the developer. You've got a game that's a blast to play that gets ruined when these players exploit something they found, tell the developers how you feel (To stay with my MW2 complaint, I'm surprised you don't have the "ten second" timer with Tubes the way you have with kill streak rewards).

I do agree with the article and with most of what is being said, the problem I have is that it says you shouldn't voice your opinions about bullshit and takes the "IF YOU DON'T LIKE IT, YOU CAN GEEEET OOOUT (say this like they say in "South Park" for maximum effect)" stance on people who voice their opinion.

I don't think anyone's going to argue that some of these tactics are garbage and if enough people voice how they feel about it, hopefully someone will accidentally listen.


That took me a bit of time to write, so I hope I covered all my bases with our discussion.

 

[Katana314]

"Why am I not using this tactic?" If I'm going to win, I'm going to win the game with honor. I'd call winning using the bs tactics a hollow victory. Sure, you won and your scorecard looks a bit better, but is it really enjoyable to not get to play the game the way it's supposed to be played?

Yup. Often mainly from the screaming complaints I get. (OMG YOU F****T PUT DOWN THE NOOB TUBE! I BET YOU HAVE NO LIFE!) Also getting kills against human players that consider themselves skilled is always fun.

"Why am I playing a game that allows the tactic?" You (and the article) answered the question already, when people play the game the way it should be played, it can be fun. I don't have a problem with losing, it's when I lose to people who just exploit the game that sucks. That's why you whine at those players. If there is enough of a backlash and stigma put against these players, they may stop it when they realize that no one wants to play with them again. I hate the player because while it is the game's fault for allowing the exploit, there is still responsibility for the players actions. It's the "the teacher left us alone during a test, so it's their fault we all cheated" argument, and I gotta call bullshit on that.

So far I haven't seen backlash do anything but breed extreme hate. Case in point being the TF2 forums. The halo hats, the imbalanced weaponry like the sandman, does nothing but split sides and even some servers to put together weird rules like this is some "war". I'ma go back to killing you with that insta-win button someone mentioned.

Your last point is essentially the most correct one, and perhaps the cornerstone reason I keep doing this; to get developers to get their rears in gear. The ideal I'm going for is to use every imbalanced tactic as much as I possibly can so much that the rising din of frustrated and ragequitting players is enough to make developers of even UPCOMING games be sure they actually think about balancing for more than just one month. Because as you can see with some games, the end result actually does look good; it makes sure everything fits, nothing is "overpowered", and it's enjoyable for everyone. No griefing possible, no exploiting possible, and no player-mentality-changing required for the game to be fun on its own.

 

[Deleted]

The one thing 'hardcore players' (in that sense) don't do is try to make a fun environment for everyone. If someone uses the strongest gun that will make each round a cake walk, well that isn't really fun on both ends, there's no justifying it.

It was a good read though, and I'm not saying you're wrong, thats just the one flaw I've found.

Someone link the article with the 4 types of gamers. I think it went by names, and worked with cards. Ahh I forget now but TVtropes had a good article on it.

 

[Katana314]

The one thing 'hardcore players' (in that sense) don't do is try to make a fun environment for everyone. If someone uses the strongest gun that will make each round a cake walk, well that isn't really fun on both ends, there's no justifying it.

It was a good read though, and I'm not saying you're wrong, thats just the one flaw I've found.

I see your point, but the idea is that in the long run, they do; the point is sort of to try and change the way we make games so the rate of return for a good player is more marginal (but still evidently there). I saw this most with TF2: Anyone can pick up and play the game as long as they have a rudimentary FPS knowledge. They'll be killed on their first life, but it won't take them nearly as long to get the hang of things, and they don't need any intimate cultural understanding. TF2 has no BFG hidden in the 5th corner of that one map, and it has no 10-kill rain-hell-on-the-enemy-team reward. Being really good will, in itself, net you some rewards, but it won't do everything. You can't just plow through a 12-man team to get the objective no matter how good you are.

And that's what I want the game to aim for. This ultimately makes games more fun.

 

[Hurr Durr Derp]

Let's assume I'm playing a game that I think is really fun, but in the last patch they accidentally included a glitch that let you win the entire match with the press of a button. (Yes, it's a hell of a glitch, but this is hypothetical.) By your logic, I should either take full advantage of this and do it every round, making all games last about 2 seconds, or I should stop playing. Because if people just had fun with the game without abusing the glitch then they would be whining losers.

Now you're just putting words in my mouth. Let's say there was such a glitch, and let's say lots of people used that glitch to win. There are two things that can happen: Either the devs scramble to fix such a huge and obvious issue and maybe even roll back the scores or whatever of everyone who used the glitch, or they don't.

If they do, there's no problem. Sure, the game sucked for a moment, but in the end all is well. This is why I said what I said about contacting the developers: They're the ones with the power to make the obvious imbalance go away.

If they do, there is a problem. A big one. The game is essentially ruined forever. If you don't think pressing a single button to win is fun (and I don't see why anyone would), you either have to quit playing the game, or play in such a way that you know people won't abuse that glitch. This is part of why private servers are such a huge deal. Your server, your rules. But that makes the rules enforceable. On public servers these rules don't exist anywhere but in your head, and they aren't enforcable by anyone but the devs (who, in this scenario, apparently don't give a shit). Yes, the game is ruined. No, that doesn't give you the right to whine at other players about it.

"Why am I not using this tactic?" If I'm going to win, I'm going to win the game with honor. I'd call winning using the bs tactics a hollow victory. Sure, you won and your scorecard looks a bit better, but is it really enjoyable to not get to play the game the way it's supposed to be played? Is firing enough Grenade Launchers that you could call it an artillery strike fun (probably the first time but the 100th)?

For this, I'm just going to quote another part of the site I linked to, because it comments on that exact sentiment:
"At least I have my Code of Honor," a.k.a. "You are cheap!"

This is by far the most common call of the scrub, and I've already described it in detail. The loser usually takes the imagined moral high ground by sticking to his Code of Honor, a made-up set of personal rules that tells him which moves he can and cannot do. Of course, the rules of the game itself dictate which moves a player can and cannot make, so the Code of Honor is superfluous and counterproductive toward winning. This can also take the form of the loser complaining that you have broken his Code of Honor. He will almost always assume the entire world agrees on his Code and that only the most vile social outcasts would ever break his rules. It can be difficult to even reason with the kind of religious fervor some players have toward their Code. This type of player is trying desperately to remain a "winner" any way possible. If you catch him amidst a sea of losses, you?ll notice that his Code will undergo strange contortions so that he may still define himself, somehow, as a "winner."

"Why am I playing a game that allows the tactic?" You (and the article) answered the question already, when people play the game the way it should be played, it can be fun. I don't have a problem with losing, it's when I lose to people who just exploit the game that sucks. That's why you whine at those players. If there is enough of a backlash and stigma put against these players, they may stop it when they realize that no one wants to play with them again. I hate the player because while it is the game's fault for allowing the exploit, there is still responsibility for the players actions. It's the "the teacher left us alone during a test, so it's their fault we all cheated" argument, and I gotta call bullshit on that.

I do agree though that if you are to whine to someone, whine to the developer. You've got a game that's a blast to play that gets ruined when these players exploit something they found, tell the developers how you feel (To stay with my MW2 complaint, I'm surprised you don't have the "ten second" timer with Tubes the way you have with kill streak rewards).

I do agree with the article and with most of what is being said, the problem I have is that it says you shouldn't voice your opinions about bullshit and takes the "IF YOU DON'T LIKE IT, YOU CAN GEEEET OOOUT (say this like they say in "South Park" for maximum effect)" stance on people who voice their opinion.

I don't think anyone's going to argue that some of these tactics are garbage and if enough people voice how they feel about it, hopefully someone will accidentally listen.


That took me a bit of time to write, so I hope I covered all my bases with our discussion.

I appreciate that you've taken the time to formulate your opinion, I really do. I'd rather wait all day for a well-written post than see a hundred "OMG UR SO WRONG UR STOOPID" equivalents. Just wanted to say that.

Even if I think you're wrong.

I never said people shouldn't voice their opinion. I'm not sure where you're getting that idea, but if anything I said came across as such, I hereby take it back. I think you should voice your opinion, because your opinion matters. It's a game, so it's meant to be fun. If you're a player and there's one clearly identifiable element of the game that is ruining your fun, you should be heard. This of course doesn't mean that the game should be altered at your whim, but even if everyone else disagrees with you, it's perfectly ok to want your opinion to be heard.

My point is just that you shouldn't be yelling your opinion at your opponents, especially not if that involves criticising them or even insulting them just for having fun in their own way. If beating you by using dual shotguns is their idea of fun, by all means, let them. The people you should be talking to are the devs who basically told that guy "Go ahead and use akimbo shotguns, we've put it in the game just for you." You can't blame 'that guy' for using whatever means that are available, but you can blame the devs for making something that is (in your opinion at least) ruining the game available to everyone.

The example with the teacher doesn't really apply here. In class, there's a rule that you should behave in a certain way, or shouldn't behave in certain other ways. If you break that rule, even without supervision so you can't be punished for it, you're doing something that's wrong. In real life there are no artificial boundaries like in games, so we need to set 'soft' rules to keep people in check. Those soft rules can be broken, but aren't meant to be broken. That's why we have crime, because real-world rules are soft. The only 'hard' rules we have are things like the laws of physics.

In a game, there's a similar situation, but with one very significant difference. The hard rules are defined by the people who made the game. If they don't want you to do something, they simply won't let you. And if you find something that lets you do it anyway, they can patch it out if they care enough about it. It'd be like in stead of making illegal in real life, someone found a way of making murder impossible. That's a significant difference. In videogames, the only soft rules (barring specific tournament rules, but the same things apply there that apply to private servers: your tournament/server, your rules) are the rules that exist solely in your own head. Soft rules in open-server games are pointless, because there's no way to enforce them, and if the devs really cared about it and thought it was wrong, they'd put a stop to it. Simple as that.

 

[Hurr Durr Derp]

The one thing 'hardcore players' (in that sense) don't do is try to make a fun environment for everyone. If someone uses the strongest gun that will make each round a cake walk, well that isn't really fun on both ends, there's no justifying it.

It was a good read though, and I'm not saying you're wrong, thats just the one flaw I've found.

Someone link the article with the 4 types of gamers. I think it went by names, and worked with cards. Ahh I forget now but TVtropes had a good article on it.

I've heard this one before, and to be blunt it's bullshit.

The 'hardcore players' as you call them aren't being considerate to the scrubs? Should they be? And if you think they should, doesn't that mean that the scrubs should be just as considerate to the hardcore players? Because you think that good players shouldn't be mean to bad players, but seem to imply that bad players have every right to whine about good players.

I wouldn't be having fun if I'm deliberately playing my B-game just to help some scrub. Someone else might enjoy that, but I'm not someone else. Just as I think your opinion matters, I think my opinion matters as well, and I'm not about to ruin my own fun just to help some whining scrub. In fact, my idea of fun (at least in games I'm good at, which is only a small number) doesn't involve scrubs at all, which is why I don't play on public servers for games like that. For the sake of conversation, let's say you and me are on the same server for a game I suck at, while you're very good at it. We don't know eachother, there are no special rules we agreed upon before the match, it's just a random one-on-one match. Let's also assume for a moment that you, like me, don't like to handicap yourself just to make the other guy feel good about himself. It wouldn't be fair of me to expect you to facilitate my inexperience by dumbing down your play style. We play our match, I get my ass kicked, and if I don't like it I'll leave the server and go find a match that's more suited to my level of skill. I certainly wouldn't whinge about how cheap you are, and I certainly wouldn't expect you to put my fun before your own fun.

Anyway, if you're able to find that article you refer to, feel free to send me the link.

 

[Wicky_42]

Hah, initially I thought the passage was sounding horrendously elitist and pro-exploits, but then it got it's message on track and I couldn't agree more. That whole mental shift is what REALLY separates a casual gamer from a hardcore gamer, and I havn't got many games where I've had the dedication or opportunity to make that shift - though those times in competitive games like Halo and beat em ups against skilled friends have sometimes given me a glimpse of the feeling of taking the game to the next level.

One thing though - not always can an unbalance in the game be 'countered' - sometimes there are bugs and glitches, broken weapons or dodgy map geometry, the exploitation of which I don't think has anything to do with this theory, 'playing to win' or not. Take BF2 - glitching into building and map geometry allowed you to shoot out without ever being killed. Is that an honestly viable tactic promoting a development of players' skill, or an exploit of the game design that developers are too lazy to patch?

IMO, if the game is fundamentally unbroken then this sentiment is very true, and even in moderately unbalanced games (for example, Super Smash Bros Brawl) player skill and metagame hold huge sway over the play (in SSBB, the 'best character' list changes completely at different theoretical skill levels).

 

[Hurr Durr Derp]

One thing though - not always can an unbalance in the game be 'countered' - sometimes there are bugs and glitches, broken weapons or dodgy map geometry, the exploitation of which I don't think has anything to do with this theory, 'playing to win' or not. Take BF2 - glitching into building and map geometry allowed you to shoot out without ever being killed. Is that an honestly viable tactic promoting a development of players' skill, or an exploit of the game design that developers are too lazy to patch?

If you want my opinion: both. I played Team Fortress 2 for some time, and am well familiar with tomfoolery like Engineers building turrets underneath the map to be invincible while racking up the kills without actually doing anything.

The fact that these glitches exist without cheating (I will stress again and again: no matter what your opinion on them is, "exploiting glitches" and "cheating" are two completely different things), combined with the fact that there were no official, enforceable rules stating that you couldn't use them, meant that those tactics were open to everyone on a public server. It was obviously not meant to be part of the game, and people who didn't know how to use the glitch stood no chance whatsoever against people who used the glitch (at least when it came to pure killcounts). Something like that is a serious issue, and something that would never be allowed on an official tournament. But in an open, unpoliced environment, there's nothing stopping you from using that tactic.

Because it's such a big issue, it's all the more important that the devs get on the ball and fix it, effectively introducing a hard rule that such tactics couldn't be used anymore. This is why I keep saying it's so important to let the right people know about the exploits. Balanced games are for most people more enjoyable than unbalanced games, after all. I don't know if that particular glitch has been fixed by now because I haven't played the game in a very long time, but I hope it has been fixed. That doesn't mean I ever called another player cheap just because he used that tactic (in fact, I laughed my ass off the first time it happened to me).

 

[Pendragon9]

Thank you! I believe that when a legitimate yet breakable defense of camping is used, I think people should stop whining.

Heck, Starcraft's Terrans are primarily campers. And they're so underpowered. So screw the haters who don't like terran camping. you're all just jealous they do it so well.

 

[MortisLegio]

My problem with "cheap tactics" is they are way to overused making the game unfair to not only new players but veterans as well

for example a player sits in the other teams spawn. A player spawns and before they can even move BAM dead waiting to respawn in the same spot.

If a person is has no chance of defending themselves in anyway than these tactics are cheap.

 

[Hurr Durr Derp]

My problem with "cheap tactics" is they are way to overused making the game unfair to not only new players but veterans as well

for example a player sits in the other teams spawn. A player spawns and before they can even move BAM dead waiting to respawn in the same spot.

If a person is has no chance of defending themselves in anyway than these tactics are cheap.

I'm not saying that's a good thing. I'm saying that's bad game design, and you should take it up with the devs, not the players.


Anyway, since like half of this thread's posts have been my own, I'm gonna lay off for a while and watch my prediction of this thread being ignored come true.

 

[TheGreatCoolEnergy]

I have read that before. And honnestly, I still hold the same opion now as when I read it in the first place: the guy who wrote it seems far too considered about winning. He likes to win at all costs. No guts, no glory, no 'honour', just a win. He seems like the kind of guy who would SLG if he got the chance, or kill his teamates for their weapons if he feels they are scrubs undeserving of "wasting" that gun.

Now if thats his idea of "fun", I won't contradict him. But the problem with "winning at all costs" is that people who play that way soon run out of friends to play with. Nobody likes that guy who always abuses glitches, always spawn kills, ect. He willl soon find that he is quite unbeatable, yet he is un-challenged; nobody wants to waste their time playing him. He victory has come at the price of his opponents; soon all he will have left to fight are the scrubs he hates so much on public servers.

I, on the other hand, play for fun. Winning comes second. Sure it's important, but if I hate myself at the end of the day, nad all my friends have left me, I wasted my time.

A good example of my "play for fun" mindset is MW2. On estate and wasteland, I always take a sniper rifle, find some tall grass, and just hide in it. Sure I only get like 2 kills a game, but I find nothing more satisfiing than killing somebody who walked right by me. Do I lose? All the time? Do I care and/or try to improve my tactic? No. Does this make me a scrub? Apparantly. But I could care less, because it fun.

 

[crepesack]

I used to be a scrub. Now i'm good. And after playing to win...you get bored. I play for fun. And i enjoy and am good at it.

 

[kalakashi]

Playing MW2 I generally come toppish or certainly towards that end of the scoreboard, and I did eventually get bored and began scrubbing (can I say that?), and started to use just the melee attack. I was very fortunate to find that this has boosted my K/D ratio beyond anything I thought it would. I think I've found a strange combination of scrubbing and playing to win; I use melee only most of the time, because I just want to have fun, but I'm also abusing the Care Package grenade "glitch", so I'm not really sure where I stand on the scale. I think I'd say scrub, as I initially started meleeing just for fun.

But I could care less, because it fun.

Couldn't

Sorry, that's just one of my massive pet hates. Same as "could of" as opposed to "could've".

 

[LiftYourSkinnyFists]

I was like this in COD4:2 but I simply have a thumper, grenade launcher attachment and dip duck jump dive and dodge all I want or sit on the same enemy tact insert just for that glory moment when they spawn and get their head blown off :- )

 

[NoNameMcgee]

http://www.lyrics007.com/TLC%20Lyrics/No%20Scrubs%20Lyrics.html

I agree with what you said and I dislike these people too. Never heard the term 'scrub' used in gaming though, perhaps because I haven't played many games Multiplayer.

Personally I do 'play to win' in the sense that I'll get in a game and do whatever I can to try and win, simply because y'know, that's usually the whole point. But I'm not a very competitive person and as long as I'm enjoying myself the end score on the leader-board doesn't interest me a lot. If I even do enjoy a game's multiplayer, which is a very rare occurrence, I won't play it long enough to really become 'great' before getting bored of the game and move on to something else.

I think the key is just to play games for fun, however that fun is achieved for you, as long as you're not actually using an aim-bot in the background (which is a TRUE unfair advantage and you really are spoiling the game for other people in that case) I only get pissed when people are obviously using hacks and I will call people out on that if I notice it. Though I won't assume people are cheating unless I have evidence otherwise. Some people are just really really good at certain games.

What made me laugh this week was a game of MW2, doing a third person duel with some random guy. I kept hiding, sneaking, peeking around corners and just generally using tactics while playing. This guy just kept sprinting around without any regard to these things. I usually wait in a spot, listen carefully for footsteps using my headphones so I have virtual surround sound and can tell which direction he's coming from. When I know where he's coming I adjust my position accordingly, kill with a quick shot to the head before he knows what the fuck, then quickly move off to a different position nearby and repeat the process. He kept said into his mic "the objective of the game isn't for ME to find YOU. Play it properly" of course I just kept doing what I was doing because I personally think this the most fun and useful way of playing the duels. I was about to beat him 20 - 0 but he ragequit before I had the chance.

 

[pelopelopelo]

Far as I can recall, an ambush is a well accepted technique of warfare. If you're playing a game that even vaguely attempts a simulation of these circumstances, you're an idiot if you get angry over it.

 

[kalakashi]

That being said, I don't mind seeing a hack occassionally if it's hilarious.
I was playing GTAIV multiplayer, on GTA Race at the airport, and none of us were managing to get past a certain corner because one guy just kept killing us time and time again, it was like a strange game of British Bulldog. Me and my friend eventually did get past him and finish the race at which point we spectated the killer only to find that he had an UZI THAT FIRED ROCKETS!! No wonder he'd been destroying us. It was brilliant.

I still don't understand how you can do things like that on the 360.