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

[Et3rnalLegend64]

Ah, I remember that article. My first thread ^_^

I see his points, I agree that his points are entirely valid, and I also agree that he is a pretentious elitist jackass when people disagree with him (or just in general because of his incredibly condescending attitude towards newbies). Just read all the comments and in general see how many times he mentions "changing the face of gaming" or something to that effect, or totally shooting down any points that disagree with him in any way. So yeah. He can play, he can write (for the most part), but he's one of those people who are too full of themselves to debate with.

 

[RebelRising]

My opinion is this:

Whatever is built into the game is legitimate and should be exploited to any degree that the individual player wishes to exercise, even if it is underhanded or cowardly. Conversely, anything that built into the game can be legitimately used to counter said tactics to any degree that the individual player wishes to exercise, even if it is underhanded or cowardly.

That is to say, if you can't work around camping or bunnyhopping, don't blame the other player; his only job is to kill you. Be glad this isn't the real world, where, if you're killed by a sniper halfway across the battlefield, you can't even respawn.

 

[Callate]

I'm of mixed minds. I have a vivid memory of being accused of "pussyfooting around" after beating the unholy hell out of an opposing player in Archon for refusing to get close to a slower, melee-range opponent monster with my faster, fast-firing, fast-moving-missile monster. To me, this seems like completely obvious, ground-level tactics: why on earth would you play in a way that neutralizes your best advantages?

I also have much more recent memories of a petulant player of a Risk-style game threatening to boot me if I kept successfully attacking him (I finally left the game and told the idiot if he wanted to play someone who played like a computer, he should play the computer, because he clearly wasn't fit for human opposition.) And in the same game watching in baffled horror as players played countless turns "farming" territories, willingly letting people amass enormous territories on each others' borders until finally someone in essence decied to actually play the game.

It's also true that the blame for an unbalanced game ultimately has to go to the game's creator. But at the same time, there are a non-negligible number of games that I've come to realize that I don't enjoy even when I'm winning. That either it feels like skill plays little part in the process, or that I have to take advantage of opponents when they're in positions where they have no ability to respond effectively, or some combination of factors means I get an early lead that there is no realistic way of overcoming.

There probably should be a curtailing of the tendency to label tactics and people as "cheap". But I shrink from the idea that there's never a situation where it's entirely right and proper to have "gentlemens' rules" (so to speak, ladies) that people simply don't break because it would in fact make the game less fun for everyone. Even to the point of "kicking" people who don't abide by them. It would be a shame for a game that has one or two poorly-thought-out elements that could be fun played a certain way to be made into little more than the power fantasy of a smaller set of players who refuse to play that way. I've come to feel the mark of truly great competitive games is that you enjoy playing them even when you're losing; that you admire the players who are showing skill in defeating you on a level playing field, rather than cursing the bastard who initiates a five-minute-respawn cycle on you for every ten seconds of actual play you get to put in.

Ultimately, enjoying the game is the only real winning. If there's a way that more people can enjoy the game, it isn't entirely without merit to suggest that's the way it should be played.

 

[irishstormtrooper]

Personally, I'm fine with people who exploit the game as long as they don't use glitches or cheats to give them an advantage over someone who is playing by the developer's rules (or what should have been them), or if they don't give a person an opportunity to do anything before killing them (i.e. spawn campers). Then the bitching starts (internally, I don't have a headset).

 

[G-Force]

Ah, I remember that article. My first thread ^_^

I see his points, I agree that his points are entirely valid, and I also agree that he is a pretentious elitist jackass when people disagree with him (or just in general because of his incredibly condescending attitude towards newbies). Just read all the comments and in general see how many times he mentions "changing the face of gaming" or something to that effect, or totally shooting down any points that disagree with him in any way. So yeah. He can play, he can write (for the most part), but he's one of those people who are too full of themselves to debate with.

Add in "He can now work at Capcom cause they've hired him to balance and tweak their games"

Sirlin has worked on Street Fighter HD remixed and rebalanced Puzzle Fighter, both titles have been well received within the competitive community. I ask, does him being a jackass discredit any of his views? Obviously his mentality has gotten him far in fighting game tournaments as he's a national champion in Street Fighter, gotten him a job and gotten him a legion of supporters he's gotta be doing something right.

It's like if a rich asshole CEO donated three million dollars to a hospital for a tax break. You know for damn sure he doesn't really care about the people inside but that doesn't erase the fact that now the organization has three million extra dollars to spend and improve their facilities.

 

[slipknot4]

I don't play to win, Hell. I am running around with a silenced uzi and knifing people in Cod4 just because of the satisfaction of killing a sniper in meele.
Same thing aplies with the throwing knifes in Cod6 and single fire weapons in any other game.

 

[Et3rnalLegend64]

Ah, I remember that article. My first thread ^_^

I see his points, I agree that his points are entirely valid, and I also agree that he is a pretentious elitist jackass when people disagree with him (or just in general because of his incredibly condescending attitude towards newbies). Just read all the comments and in general see how many times he mentions "changing the face of gaming" or something to that effect, or totally shooting down any points that disagree with him in any way. So yeah. He can play, he can write (for the most part), but he's one of those people who are too full of themselves to debate with.

Add in "He can now work at Capcom cause they've hired him to balance and tweak their games"

Sirlin has worked on Street Fighter HD remixed and rebalanced Puzzle Fighter, both titles have been well received within the competitive community. I ask, does him being a jackass discredit any of his views? Obviously his mentality has gotten him far in fighting game tournaments as he's a national champion in Street Fighter, gotten him a job and gotten him a legion of supporters he's gotta be doing something right.

It's like if a rich asshole CEO donated three million dollars to a hospital for a tax break. You know for damn sure he doesn't really care about the people inside but that doesn't erase the fact that now the organization has three million extra dollars to spend and improve their facilities.

I completely forgot to add that part. I'm not denying his credibility or contributions, but that doesn't deny me the right to call him an ass. Helpful asshole: never thought those two words could be used in conjunction until I read his article.

 

[Hurr Durr Derp]

Allrighty then, time to post some more replies. Let's start with this absolute gem:

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.

Yes, he likes to win at all costs. He likes to be the very best. That's his idea of having fun. Are you saying he can't have fun? Is your fun that much more important than his fun? Judging by the next paragraph that's not what you're saying. So I wonder what you are trying to say here, since your message isn't really coming across clearly.

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.

You see, that's where you're wrong. You're displaying that mix of extreme ignorance and arrogance that is so prevalent in the kind of self-righteous scrubs that this thread is directed at. I'm not expecting to change your mind about this, because scrubs will be scrubs. I'll only try to explain something that fits neatly in your own self-imposed blind spot. Do with this information what you will.

You're ignorant because you cannot imagine that people have fun pushing the game to its limits. If you ever want to be good, you need to play against people like him, or you're stuck at being just one faceless guy in the mediocre masses. There's nothing wrong with that, but there are people who want more than that. Let's take for example one of the only two multiplayer games I've ever been really good at: Capcom vs SNK 2. If I just played random guys all the time from the start, I might've become good at the game, but not really good. It wasn't until I started playing people who really pushed the game to its limits that I started to learn how to get better. I wanted people to use those 'cheap' tricks against me, because to me a match like that was far more enjoyable than a match against a random scrub who could barely find the throw button. You're ignorant because you can't imagine someone having a good time on a level that's higher than you'll ever reach, and you have no other for imagining so than that you're too arrogant to simply accept that you will never be able to reach that level without surrendering your scrubby comfort zone.

You're arrogant because you expect everyone to facilitate your idea of what is fun. Your idea of what is fun is to play by your personal set of "honor rules". For that, I will once again quote this piece of text:

"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."

Your honor is completely arbitrary, and is in no way any part of the game except in your own head. You suck too much to win, but at least you can comfort yourself with the thought that you were the "moral victor". It's extremely arrogant to expect anyone else to play by a set of rules that only exists in your own head, and of which the only purpose is to make you feel better about yourself. And it's extremely pathetic if you whine about it like a kid who got his candy taken away, or to accuse others of being 'cheap' just because they're better than you and don't follow any set of imaginary rules.

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.

Good for you. If you think this is in any way a counterargument to anything I've ever said, I suggest you learn to read. I want you to have fun. In the end we're just talking about games here, and games are meant to be fun. I do not want you to ruin other people's fun just because it doesn't facilitate your own fun. If you fail to understand that, then we have nothing to talk about. If you do understand that, then there is nothing we have to disagree about.

 

[Hurr Durr Derp]

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.

The term scrub is mostly used in this way in the fighting game scene. I think FPS people would use the term noob, but that has such a heavy negative connotation that I'd rather not use it.

Also, I liked that part about cheating. You wouldn't mind if I stole it and put it in the first post, right?

 

[Hurr Durr Derp]

Ah, I remember that article. My first thread ^_^

I see his points, I agree that his points are entirely valid, and I also agree that he is a pretentious elitist jackass when people disagree with him (or just in general because of his incredibly condescending attitude towards newbies). Just read all the comments and in general see how many times he mentions "changing the face of gaming" or something to that effect, or totally shooting down any points that disagree with him in any way. So yeah. He can play, he can write (for the most part), but he's one of those people who are too full of themselves to debate with.

...but if a jackass makes valid points, do they stop being valid points? His personality is, for the sake of this discussion, entirely irrelevant.

There probably should be a curtailing of the tendency to label tactics and people as "cheap". But I shrink from the idea that there's never a situation where it's entirely right and proper to have "gentlemens' rules" (so to speak, ladies) that people simply don't break because it would in fact make the game less fun for everyone. Even to the point of "kicking" people who don't abide by them. It would be a shame for a game that has one or two poorly-thought-out elements that could be fun played a certain way to be made into little more than the power fantasy of a smaller set of players who refuse to play that way. I've come to feel the mark of truly great competitive games is that you enjoy playing them even when you're losing; that you admire the players who are showing skill in defeating you on a level playing field, rather than cursing the bastard who initiates a five-minute-respawn cycle on you for every ten seconds of actual play you get to put in.

Ultimately, enjoying the game is the only real winning. If there's a way that more people can enjoy the game, it isn't entirely without merit to suggest that's the way it should be played.

I agree with you. I know it doesn't always sound like I do, but I really do. This is why I keep hammering on the fact that private servers are such a big deal. If you make a private server where, for example, it's illegal to use certain weapons, you have every right to kick people who use those weapons, or even simply disable those weapons entirely if the game allows such options to be set. The same thing for tactics. If you're hosting a private server or organising a tournament, you have the right to set your own rules.

However, on a public server, you do not have that right. A public server is not the responsibility of any individual player or group of players, and the only rules that count on a public server are the ones that are enforced by the game itself.

Personally, I'm fine with people who exploit the game as long as they don't use glitches or cheats to give them an advantage over someone who is playing by the developer's rules (or what should have been them), or if they don't give a person an opportunity to do anything before killing them (i.e. spawn campers). Then the bitching starts (internally, I don't have a headset).

I completely agree with you on cheating and hacking, but when spawncampers are invincible because they kill you before you get the chance to do anything, that's bad game design. Hate the game, not the player.

Although I don't agree with the "winning at all costs" mentality. Although it is correct any blame for glitches or imbalance should be placed on the developer, players should be able to think for themselves, recognize when a tactic is complete and utter bullshit that shouldn't have been placed in the game and out of a sense of sportsmanship not unleash wave after wave of bullshit upon their enemy.

While I agree with the spirit of what you're saying, I don't agree witht he way you're saying it. The problem here is that "sportsmanship" and "bullshit", just like "honor" and "cheapness", are things that only exist in the player's mind. Your idea of bullshit is not the same as everyone else's idea of bullshit. Your idea of sportsmanship might be "not camping the spawn zone", while someone else's idea of sportmanship is "not insulting other players". One player might think it's cheap to rush everyone and knife them to death, while another might think it's a perfectly valid strategy.

Who's right and who's wrong? That doesn't matter. After all, it's not the players who make the rules. The players might make imaginary rules of honor and sportsmanship, but the only real rules are those that are enforced by the game you're playing. In the end, those are the only rules everyone has to obey, and to try and force people to do otherwise is just poor behavior

 

[Et3rnalLegend64]

Ah, I remember that article. My first thread ^_^

I see his points, I agree that his points are entirely valid, and I also agree that he is a pretentious elitist jackass when people disagree with him (or just in general because of his incredibly condescending attitude towards newbies). Just read all the comments and in general see how many times he mentions "changing the face of gaming" or something to that effect, or totally shooting down any points that disagree with him in any way. So yeah. He can play, he can write (for the most part), but he's one of those people who are too full of themselves to debate with.

...but if a jackass makes valid points, do they stop being valid points? His personality is, for the sake of this discussion, entirely irrelevant.

Read response to G-force.

 

[Hurr Durr Derp]

Ah, I remember that article. My first thread ^_^

I see his points, I agree that his points are entirely valid, and I also agree that he is a pretentious elitist jackass when people disagree with him (or just in general because of his incredibly condescending attitude towards newbies). Just read all the comments and in general see how many times he mentions "changing the face of gaming" or something to that effect, or totally shooting down any points that disagree with him in any way. So yeah. He can play, he can write (for the most part), but he's one of those people who are too full of themselves to debate with.

...but if a jackass makes valid points, do they stop being valid points? His personality is, for the sake of this discussion, entirely irrelevant.

Read response to G-force.

I did. I just wanted to stress the complete irrelevance of your posts.

 

[The Rogue Wolf]

I like to condense this sort of argument down to two sentences that really describe how too many people view online gaming.

"Cheap is what you use to beat me. Strategy is what I use to beat you."

"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)?

Ah, here's the fun part. Define "honor". Now define "BS tactics". Put 50 gamers in a room, ask them to define those terms, and you'll very likely get 50 definitions. (Possibly 51; the guy in the Halo hoodie looks a little "off" to me....)

I hated it in Counter-Strike when people would bunnyhop and score headshots on me while all my shots hit their knees. Since the game sold itself as a semi-tactical shooter, I thought that jumping around like a crazed pogo-stick-weilding jackrabbit should turn your accuracy to crap. But then I adapted- instead of ducking for accuracy (as was my usual tactic) I'd simply strafe around them and peg them in the chest. A lot of times they'd come down from their jump and take the third shot of a three-round burst in the jaw. Do I still think bunnyhopping sucks? Sure. But I didn't just keep doing the same thing over and over and whine about the other guys not changing their gamestyle to suit me.

 

[Et3rnalLegend64]

Ah, I remember that article. My first thread ^_^

I see his points, I agree that his points are entirely valid, and I also agree that he is a pretentious elitist jackass when people disagree with him (or just in general because of his incredibly condescending attitude towards newbies). Just read all the comments and in general see how many times he mentions "changing the face of gaming" or something to that effect, or totally shooting down any points that disagree with him in any way. So yeah. He can play, he can write (for the most part), but he's one of those people who are too full of themselves to debate with.

...but if a jackass makes valid points, do they stop being valid points? His personality is, for the sake of this discussion, entirely irrelevant.

Read response to G-force.

I did. I just wanted to stress the complete irrelevance of your posts.

Point made.

 

[Doctor Glocktor]

Camping is part of the Sniper class. Bunnyhopping and all else needs to fuck off.

 

[superspartan004]

I get mad at modern warfare 2 for slightly different reasons

1. I just hit you in the upper body with a .50 calibur round, impossible to survive a hit like that.

2. how are you dual-wielding shotguns? there's no way anyone could possibly pull that off.

3. with a predator missile if you get hit you die, if you dont get hit you live, there's a fine line, there's no way someone could survive a predator impact.

4. I heard my gun go off before I died, did the bullets dissappear in mid-air?

5. I was around the corner before you shot, this isn't wanted, you can't curve the bullets.

6. I let go of the bumper before I died, the grenade should have been thrown.

7. All I can see is the top of your scalp, if I can't see the end of your barrel, how are you shooting me without shooting through whatever's in front of you?

 

[G-Force]

I am never usually angered by campers and the other examples that have been given, I am only frustrated when someone is using a glitch or hacking in a MP game. I quit at that point.

I do agree hacking the game just kills all enjoyment out of it.

Glitches on the other hand are a case-to-case basis.

http://www.sirlin.net/ptw-book/what-should-be-banned.html