-
Welcome to Smashboards, the world's largest Super Smash Brothers community! Over 250,000 Smash Bros. fans from around the world have come to discuss these great games in over 19 million posts!
You are currently viewing our boards as a visitor. Click here to sign up right now and start on your path in the Smash community!
Overcoming scrubness to play competitively.
- Thread starter masterspeaks
- Start date
The importance is not how competitively viable Brawl is, the importance is that if you're to play Brawl competitively, you have to adhere to the rules and standards of competitive play (among which is "Don't be a scrub").
Reaver197
Smash Lord
- Joined
- Sep 30, 2006
- Messages
- 1,287
I guess that is true. It does help to bring those attitudes to any game you play.
It just struck me as odd and somewhat discordant to try and apply Sirlin to Brawl, but I guess it was the spirit of it, rather than the actual application of his writings was what they wanted.
It just struck me as odd and somewhat discordant to try and apply Sirlin to Brawl, but I guess it was the spirit of it, rather than the actual application of his writings was what they wanted.
Devil7
Smash Journeyman
i know this feeling i play competetivly but all my friends who play can't seem to get past the cheap part. Although i do admit i sometimes feel a twinge of guilt for spamming a move.... then i spam it again and win and the guilt magically goes away
Crevelyan
Smash Cadet
Cheat to win, don't get caught.
claviatikaTresOjos
Smash Rookie
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2008
- Messages
- 1
People keep getting hung up on this, and i just hope to clarify:
The writer of this article is not condoning "cheapness"
The writer of this article is questioning what "cheapness" is
We have player A, and player B. Player A uses any moves at his disposal and in his character's arsenal, not censuring himself from ambiguously "cheap" moves.
One of two things can happen.
Either player B can name the tactics he has trouble with "cheap"
OR
Player B can accept that he is losing to them and work around them.
If player B learns how to get around the "cheap" tactic, then he has found a flaw, which HE can now exploit to his advantage. Because he persevered and found a way to win, he has grown as a player. Now, the cheap tactic isnt so cheap. What he percieved as cheap before was due to his blindness to its flaw, and now that player A cant rely on his old tactics to win any more, both players are forced into an endless cycle of IMPROVEMENT. One player finds a way to win. He wins for a time. The other player adapts. Now the other player wins. It goes on and on.
If player B just claims a move is cheap, it all ends right there. He will ***** and moan about it until either player A stops because B's crying has ruined the fun of the game, or B stops playing altogether. Neither person has benefited from this, and their skill's growth has been effectively stunted.
There IS an exception to this: If a move is honestly and truly unbeatable, AND requires no skill. This is a judgement call, as it is dificult to find something that overwhelmingly good, but if there is such a move - like the notorious example of a single button press for a victory - then the victory does not reflect anyone's skill, and thus is no longer competetive. If a tactic is honestly and intrinsically unfair to this degree, then the move will either a) be recognized by the entire community of competetive members as an illigetimate and illegal tactic, b) the character capable of it banned, or c) the game simply doesnt have the depth required to be a competetive game.
it all boils down to this: He isnt telling the player "Be cheap if it wins", he is telling the player victim to the cheapness to take that oportunity to find a flaw to exploit, and imporve your own skill instead of crying about it.
The writer of this article is not condoning "cheapness"
The writer of this article is questioning what "cheapness" is
We have player A, and player B. Player A uses any moves at his disposal and in his character's arsenal, not censuring himself from ambiguously "cheap" moves.
One of two things can happen.
Either player B can name the tactics he has trouble with "cheap"
OR
Player B can accept that he is losing to them and work around them.
If player B learns how to get around the "cheap" tactic, then he has found a flaw, which HE can now exploit to his advantage. Because he persevered and found a way to win, he has grown as a player. Now, the cheap tactic isnt so cheap. What he percieved as cheap before was due to his blindness to its flaw, and now that player A cant rely on his old tactics to win any more, both players are forced into an endless cycle of IMPROVEMENT. One player finds a way to win. He wins for a time. The other player adapts. Now the other player wins. It goes on and on.
If player B just claims a move is cheap, it all ends right there. He will ***** and moan about it until either player A stops because B's crying has ruined the fun of the game, or B stops playing altogether. Neither person has benefited from this, and their skill's growth has been effectively stunted.
There IS an exception to this: If a move is honestly and truly unbeatable, AND requires no skill. This is a judgement call, as it is dificult to find something that overwhelmingly good, but if there is such a move - like the notorious example of a single button press for a victory - then the victory does not reflect anyone's skill, and thus is no longer competetive. If a tactic is honestly and intrinsically unfair to this degree, then the move will either a) be recognized by the entire community of competetive members as an illigetimate and illegal tactic, b) the character capable of it banned, or c) the game simply doesnt have the depth required to be a competetive game.
it all boils down to this: He isnt telling the player "Be cheap if it wins", he is telling the player victim to the cheapness to take that oportunity to find a flaw to exploit, and imporve your own skill instead of crying about it.
Twin Dreams
Smash Ace
If a move were truly unbeatable to the extent you suggest...
1. Everyone would use it
2. It will eventually dominate a tournament
3. It will be banned
Onichi
Smash Apprentice
Eh, when it comes to competative, cheap moves are usually found in the upper echealon of teirs, Waveshine anyone?
I dont recall any cheap tactics being banned in competative play, just stages where they becme abusive stall tactics.
I dont recall any cheap tactics being banned in competative play, just stages where they becme abusive stall tactics.
Twin Dreams
Smash Ace
Saying anything is cheap just shows are scrubby you are.
Do I need to link Sirlin's criteria to constitute a ban?
Chrono Centaur
Smash Apprentice
- Joined
- Feb 18, 2008
- Messages
- 137
And now I can, finally, see the true level of Smashboard's scrubness.
D:
Do not pass Go. Head right to jail.
Depressed Man
Smash Apprentice
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2008
- Messages
- 127
Reminds me of that Naruto episode where they had to pass this written test to become a ninja. The objective was to cheat, but not get caught. (testing your ninja skills of obtaining info secretly)
I want a test like that.
Revolutionary1804
Smash Apprentice
stop complaining, if you keep losing............NEWS FLASH: THAT MEANS YOU SUCK! there has never been a unbeatable character in any game without the use of a glitch so, try and try again, when you win then maybe you won't be called a scrub
(anyone who feels offended by this it wasen't directed towards you unless your a scrub)
(anyone who feels offended by this it wasen't directed towards you unless your a scrub)
xandeR-
Smash Apprentice
This post gives me mixed feelings.
In Smash, I play more or less competitively. Thus, I work to develop the best tactics and figure out how to counter each character's best moves.
Some moves I feel are "lame" or "overpowered", namely things like Zelda's aerial kicks (ouchies). But I will not complain to the point that I blame my loss on those moves. They are legitimate moves; I just feel like they're a bit ridiculous. It is my fault in the long run for being hit by said moves and the other player is free to use them as much as they want. I should know how to counter said move and be able to apply that tactic.
In a non-competitive atmosphere, this entire situation goes upside-down. I find myself doing many of the things this article talks about. I play Call of Duty 4 on 360 rather often and I complain about two specific things: the grenade launcher attachment and the .50 Cal. However, my complaints are focused on those players that depend on said weapons. As in, they are rarely found doing anything else. This applies to nearly any game and I really feel like people that play as such lower the amount of fun to be had in the game.
It's really hard for me to explain this in words however. It's really something that needs to be experienced. Does anyone else know what I mean?
In Smash, I play more or less competitively. Thus, I work to develop the best tactics and figure out how to counter each character's best moves.
Some moves I feel are "lame" or "overpowered", namely things like Zelda's aerial kicks (ouchies). But I will not complain to the point that I blame my loss on those moves. They are legitimate moves; I just feel like they're a bit ridiculous. It is my fault in the long run for being hit by said moves and the other player is free to use them as much as they want. I should know how to counter said move and be able to apply that tactic.
In a non-competitive atmosphere, this entire situation goes upside-down. I find myself doing many of the things this article talks about. I play Call of Duty 4 on 360 rather often and I complain about two specific things: the grenade launcher attachment and the .50 Cal. However, my complaints are focused on those players that depend on said weapons. As in, they are rarely found doing anything else. This applies to nearly any game and I really feel like people that play as such lower the amount of fun to be had in the game.
It's really hard for me to explain this in words however. It's really something that needs to be experienced. Does anyone else know what I mean?
orintemple
Smash Lord
Reminds me of that new episode of South Park where Cartman teaches that inner city class how to cheat on the SATs and they all get 100%Reminds me of that Naruto episode where they had to pass this written test to become a ninja. The objective was to cheat, but not get caught. (testing your ninja skills of obtaining info secretly)
I want a test like that.
I know a guy who refuses to chaingrab because he thinks its "cheap". He refuses to do anything "cheap" at all. He is a generally skilled player but his thoughts of "cheapness" hold him back. Someday after he loses a tourney for money because he didn't want to be "cheap" maybe he will learn that winning is what matters in competitive play. Sure when your screwing off winning may not be your objective, but when push comes to shove it is the main goal.
Unless your me, cause I hate when people who are clearly less skilled think they are better than me, so I try to win at all costs.
Dream Chaser
Smash Journeyman
I found this thread very impressive.
Helped me see more clearly through the haze allowed tactics.
However, there are many people on this forum who would be considered scrubs according to thisreasoning. For example, people who say Marth's sword (in Melee) is too long and hes too cheap.
Helped me see more clearly through the haze allowed tactics.
However, there are many people on this forum who would be considered scrubs according to thisreasoning. For example, people who say Marth's sword (in Melee) is too long and hes too cheap.
Fat Otaku
Smash Apprentice
IMO. A scrub is a person who says these things.
1. You got lucky.
2. Cheap move.
3. You only won because of items.
4. You only won because of that Final Smash.
1. You got lucky.
2. Cheap move.
3. You only won because of items.
4. You only won because of that Final Smash.
orintemple
Smash Lord
If you are playing a match in which one would feel the need to make excuses for their loss (a serious match) with items you are already a scrub anyway.
gamadaya
Smash Rookie
I'll give you this. This is an interesting look at the psyche of a scrub, but it is not how to overcome scrubness (scrubdome?). The sometimes frusturating truth is scrubdome sometimes can't be overcome (scrubdome in the sense of skill, not whining about cheapness. Whining about cheapness is easy to overcome). I've been playing MKDS since it's launch. When I played by myself, I never snaked. I mastered the basic mechanics of the game, but I never snaked, because I thought it would take away from the fun. As soon as I got online, I found out snaking was absolutly necessary, so I started doing it, and did it well do to my understanding off drift mechanics. I knew that if I wanted to win, I would have to snake. And I did snake. And I did win. In fact, I won nearly 100% of my races. Now days, I'm beaten approximatly once or twice per month, and not by much. The thing is, I still don't consider myself a pro I play to win, I know all of the most difficult manuvers and shortcuts, but I'm still not a pro. I also know that even if I spent 10 times more time on MKDS than I do now, I would still probably be an amature, and I spend enough time on it now to place in the 100 - 300 range of competitive time trials (Was 98 on F8C in the non PRB circuit for a while). But the thing is, there are people out there who are just better. Hands down. I have all of their knowledge, and my drift lines are the same, but they are just faster. And I mean a lot faster. The best time on F8C right now beats my time by over 7 seconds. So, compared to those people, I am an amature, and I will always be one. But, I don't think this is bad. As long as amatures never whine about cheapness, and get to a level where they can at least play competitivly, I don't think they need to overcome anything. What I'm trying to say is, I don't think people who don't have the skill of the best players should be labeled as scrubs. People who complain about how skilled people are cheap should be. I guess MKDS is a little different than Smash though. The top 30 guys in MKDS can absolutly obliterate those in the 50 - 100 range, and the increase in skill as you go up the list can even seem exponential. Still, I think a lot of amatures who just don't have the time to dedicate to the game are often labeled prematurely as scrubs.
Twin Dreams
Smash Ace
http://www.sirlin.net/ptw/intermediates-guide/introducing-the-scrub/
There you go. Read that and learn what a scrub is. No need for conjecture or discussion.
There you go. Read that and learn what a scrub is. No need for conjecture or discussion.
gamadaya
Smash Rookie
So is that the ultimate and indisputable definition for scrub? I think I have a shorter one. It's not as encompassing or specific, but I think everybody would agree on it. A scrub is a whiny little punk. Not a noob, not a casual player, but just a whiny little punk.
Twin Dreams
Smash Ace
Actually, yes. He defines a scrub as accepted by the (fighting) community.
Your definition, however, is horrible. Considering that "whiny" and "little" are both relative adjectives, it's up to the describer to decide whether someone is a scrub. If you are suggesting that the term scrub is relative, then what's the point in arguing of it's definition! This would also suggest that someone could be more of a scrub than someone else! However, a scrub is something that you can either be, or not be. Either you are limiting yourself, or you are not.
Onichi
Smash Apprentice
I love how posters saw the word 'cheap' in my post and didnt read in context. >.>
I was merely refering to the tactics that tier characters have that the tournament rulesets developed here on smashboards ban the stages over banning the tactic. Smash Directors, BRoomers and Pro Smashers already agreed openly or subconciously with Dave Sirlin's idea's before they knew about them and implemented them into the Smash competivitive scene, so the arguements of validity of concepts are mute.
The refered Waveshining will always be an argueable subject even after the fact, so i used it as a tool to get the point across. It is a viable tactic and many oppose its use, inadvertantly setting up the mental block of that ruleset.
I was merely refering to the tactics that tier characters have that the tournament rulesets developed here on smashboards ban the stages over banning the tactic. Smash Directors, BRoomers and Pro Smashers already agreed openly or subconciously with Dave Sirlin's idea's before they knew about them and implemented them into the Smash competivitive scene, so the arguements of validity of concepts are mute.
The refered Waveshining will always be an argueable subject even after the fact, so i used it as a tool to get the point across. It is a viable tactic and many oppose its use, inadvertantly setting up the mental block of that ruleset.
i don't see what's wrong with banning stages. to me it's preferable to banning tactics.
the thing with banning tactics is that it's hard to distinguish things and it's counter intuitive to competition.
if you were to ban waveshining, how many shines would you make people stop at? you can't convince me either that it's an overpowering tactic any more than a number of other tactics. if we banned them, we'd just be killing competition by essentially saying "you have to play worse". saying "certain characters are completely broken on this particular stage" is pretty different.
one great thing about melee and some other games as well is that when you get called cheap for stuff, most of the time you can still destroy the scrub without using it, until eventually everything you do is cheap. whether you decide to humor them or not is up to you, but some of my favorite scrub moments involve using repetitive tactics for an entire stock then switching to the next repetitive "cheap" tactic.
fun times.
the thing with banning tactics is that it's hard to distinguish things and it's counter intuitive to competition.
if you were to ban waveshining, how many shines would you make people stop at? you can't convince me either that it's an overpowering tactic any more than a number of other tactics. if we banned them, we'd just be killing competition by essentially saying "you have to play worse". saying "certain characters are completely broken on this particular stage" is pretty different.
one great thing about melee and some other games as well is that when you get called cheap for stuff, most of the time you can still destroy the scrub without using it, until eventually everything you do is cheap. whether you decide to humor them or not is up to you, but some of my favorite scrub moments involve using repetitive tactics for an entire stock then switching to the next repetitive "cheap" tactic.
fun times.
overcoming being a scrub is easy. Just get beaten by someone way better than you over and over. You quickly either learn to get better and win or quit playing the game. Either way it's one less scrub in the world and we all appreciate it. So scrubs should do us all a favour and get destroyed in some tournaments.
MasMos
Smash Rookie
I guess i was a scrub until i read this very thread. I was searching for a higher level of play. A means of overcoming my limitations. I knew it was necessary to do so and that i had limitations holding me back but i didnt understand what they were. It was harder to place for me because i prided myself on beating players without using so called "cheap" tactics while they did use such. I think having insight into the mind of "top" players will make me a better player overall.
Honestly, when i really think about it, it was that "scrub" mindset that led me to win the matches and tournament that I have won. You see, it was my "set of rules" that never allowed me to spam attacks which ultimately forced my mind games and technical skills to get much better in order to compensate for my lack of relying on spamming attacks like my competitors. So in essence, I learned the tactics to counter and get around spamming attacks while, technically and mentally, keeping myself on a level above my competitors; Which helped in my tourney play. If what Masterspeaks says is purely true, then a "set of rules" can be a way to reach that higher level of play. You have to know what "rule" or tactic to follow in order to avoid and counter tactics that are difficult to avoid and counter. For instance, say you are playing at a top level, with a top level player. You are so reliant on spamming a good technique against other players but the player you are playing knows ways around it such that he can punish you for doing it. It would be a force of habit for you to fall back to that comfort of using that normally effective technique but sadly you would get punished for it every time and probably lose the match. SO WHEN YOU WERE PLAYING TO WIN AGAINST YOUR CREW OR WHOEVER, WINNING, YOU WERE SETTING YOURSELF UP TO FAIL FOR LACK OF DEPTH IN PLAY AGAINST FORMIDABLE PLAYERS. Masterspeak basically said in one of his post that being the best player does not guarantee a win at a tournament because a person who wasn't exposed to the tactics tournament players widely use would not be prepared for them. Well if that true then what that really is saying is that the "best" player would not have developed the tactics or "rules" need to overcome those types of opponents play styles so they would need to develop the rules to follow in order to win. Ideally there would be a point where two player that were equal in technical skill and timing and who knew all the possible rules to follow against their respective characters would have to rely solely on mind games and mental play to win the match.
I do not have a wii or a copy of brawl and i play maybe four times a week. My friends who are regular tournament attendees and good placers consider me the best because of my level of play. There are still many things that I would like to learn about the game but i personally don't think just because a person has a "scrub" mindset that AUTOMATICALLY means said person is not able to reach that top level of play to which Masterspeaks was referring in his post. Because, in the end, being able to not and/or force not to spam attacks is the essence of top level play.
Honestly, when i really think about it, it was that "scrub" mindset that led me to win the matches and tournament that I have won. You see, it was my "set of rules" that never allowed me to spam attacks which ultimately forced my mind games and technical skills to get much better in order to compensate for my lack of relying on spamming attacks like my competitors. So in essence, I learned the tactics to counter and get around spamming attacks while, technically and mentally, keeping myself on a level above my competitors; Which helped in my tourney play. If what Masterspeaks says is purely true, then a "set of rules" can be a way to reach that higher level of play. You have to know what "rule" or tactic to follow in order to avoid and counter tactics that are difficult to avoid and counter. For instance, say you are playing at a top level, with a top level player. You are so reliant on spamming a good technique against other players but the player you are playing knows ways around it such that he can punish you for doing it. It would be a force of habit for you to fall back to that comfort of using that normally effective technique but sadly you would get punished for it every time and probably lose the match. SO WHEN YOU WERE PLAYING TO WIN AGAINST YOUR CREW OR WHOEVER, WINNING, YOU WERE SETTING YOURSELF UP TO FAIL FOR LACK OF DEPTH IN PLAY AGAINST FORMIDABLE PLAYERS. Masterspeak basically said in one of his post that being the best player does not guarantee a win at a tournament because a person who wasn't exposed to the tactics tournament players widely use would not be prepared for them. Well if that true then what that really is saying is that the "best" player would not have developed the tactics or "rules" need to overcome those types of opponents play styles so they would need to develop the rules to follow in order to win. Ideally there would be a point where two player that were equal in technical skill and timing and who knew all the possible rules to follow against their respective characters would have to rely solely on mind games and mental play to win the match.
I do not have a wii or a copy of brawl and i play maybe four times a week. My friends who are regular tournament attendees and good placers consider me the best because of my level of play. There are still many things that I would like to learn about the game but i personally don't think just because a person has a "scrub" mindset that AUTOMATICALLY means said person is not able to reach that top level of play to which Masterspeaks was referring in his post. Because, in the end, being able to not and/or force not to spam attacks is the essence of top level play.
Omega Deman
Smash Apprentice
Great read. Whether we have overcome general scrubiness or not, the inner scrub surfaces in us all from time to time.
ShadowLink84
Smash Hero
mooseproduce
Smash Ace
Broken characters aren't fun because often, even if it's possible to beat them, it means restricting yourself to certain moves/tactics that work. The game's more fun if you can use everything you've got and be creative.
Sometimes there's very good characters who can still be beaten with pure skill, but then they're not really broken.
Sometimes there's very good characters who can still be beaten with pure skill, but then they're not really broken.
SketchHurricane
Smash Ace
Yet another person misunderstanding "playing to win". It's true that habits can get you into trouble, but part of being a top player is adaptability (I've had to say this 3 or 4 times now
). Once you start to get punished, that's it - you switch tactics. If you don't, you fail. Playing to win is doing what works, not doing one thing. Too many times, I've had my main tactic shut down and it was GGPO, until I learned to start thinking critically about my gameplay.Your exactly right, even someone with a scrub mindset can be a good player. But the fact (read: FACT) remains that shedding the scrub mentality will only open up their game. As long as they keep that mindset, they will never do as well as they personally could.
In closing, alloy me to rephrase your last sentence. "In the end, adaptability (!) is the essence of top level play."
This kinda ties in with my above response. Once you establish that you can shut them down with your "anit-whatever" tactics, they will either lose, or stop using "whatever". Now you are back to square one - be creative
Of course, there's a whole push and pull where they will revert back to broken-ness, but in this case, you already know what to do...
MasMos
Smash Rookie
Yet another person misunderstanding "playing to win". It's true that habits can get you into trouble, but part of being a top player is adaptability (I've had to say this 3 or 4 times now ). Once you start to get punished, that's it - you switch tactics. If you don't, you fail. Playing to win is doing what works, not doing one thing. Too many times, I've had my main tactic shut down and it was GGPO, until I learned to start thinking critically about my gameplay.
I love how you just completely ignored my whole paragraph before that led to statement.
First off the post had nothing about adaptability in mid-play. If i remember right, he said that he got beat and had to think about why he lost and find a counter to it AFTER THE GAME WAS OVER. So your point is moot. I think you missed the total point i was trying to make which was if a player is so reliant of one thing its hard to let go of it SOO don't be a one dimension player by spamming attacks. I dont care if spamming attacks gets you the win or not it make you a one dimensional player. So im saying i dont advocate that even if it works against some people because its makes you a what( ). I assume most would be able to get the jist of my meaning. Guess not... You guys here seem to be focused on the short term honestly. This is what i hear "DO WHAT IT TAKES TO WIN AND SPAM ATTACKS". Ok that all fine and good but how about i explore my character more for some useful depth so not only can i spam but i can do other things as well that are effective. You seem to be agreeing and disagree with me at the same time. The only other point i was trying to make is simplest terms is DOING WHAT WORKS AGAINST SOME PLAYERS MAY GIVE YOU A FALSE SENSE OF SECURITY AGAINST OTHER WHO ARE PREPARED. Obviously you need not know this for you have you mental plateau established for competitive play but many do not. And tell "scrubs" on here to spam attacks IF it works is not a good way to get them better.
Your exactly right, even someone with a scrub mindset can be a good player. But the fact (read: FACT) remains that shedding the scrub mentality will only open up their game. As long as they keep that mindset, they will never do as well as they personally could.
I dont know i think i got a total different definition from the post than the meaning you are applying here.
In closing, alloy me to rephrase your last sentence. "In the end, adaptability (!) is the essence of top level play."
ok
). Once you start to get punished, that's it - you switch tactics. If you don't, you fail. Playing to win is doing what works, not doing one thing. Too many times, I've had my main tactic shut down and it was GGPO, until I learned to start thinking critically about my gameplay.I love how you just completely ignored my whole paragraph before that led to statement.
First off the post had nothing about adaptability in mid-play. If i remember right, he said that he got beat and had to think about why he lost and find a counter to it AFTER THE GAME WAS OVER. So your point is moot. I think you missed the total point i was trying to make which was if a player is so reliant of one thing its hard to let go of it SOO don't be a one dimension player by spamming attacks. I dont care if spamming attacks gets you the win or not it make you a one dimensional player. So im saying i dont advocate that even if it works against some people because its makes you a what( ). I assume most would be able to get the jist of my meaning. Guess not... You guys here seem to be focused on the short term honestly. This is what i hear "DO WHAT IT TAKES TO WIN AND SPAM ATTACKS". Ok that all fine and good but how about i explore my character more for some useful depth so not only can i spam but i can do other things as well that are effective. You seem to be agreeing and disagree with me at the same time. The only other point i was trying to make is simplest terms is DOING WHAT WORKS AGAINST SOME PLAYERS MAY GIVE YOU A FALSE SENSE OF SECURITY AGAINST OTHER WHO ARE PREPARED. Obviously you need not know this for you have you mental plateau established for competitive play but many do not. And tell "scrubs" on here to spam attacks IF it works is not a good way to get them better.
Your exactly right, even someone with a scrub mindset can be a good player. But the fact (read: FACT) remains that shedding the scrub mentality will only open up their game. As long as they keep that mindset, they will never do as well as they personally could.
I dont know i think i got a total different definition from the post than the meaning you are applying here.
In closing, alloy me to rephrase your last sentence. "In the end, adaptability (!) is the essence of top level play."
ok
SketchHurricane
Smash Ace
That's because I generally agree with what your getting at, but I think your seeing the "play to win" mentality in it's negative extreme, which actually does pigeon-hole your tactics. I did not ignore your other paragraphs, and I did get your point - I was simply refuting it.
I'm sure a lot of people are indeed ironically stunting themselves by the "play to win" mentality. But those who truly understand know about balance. Practice is the place for expansion and experimentation, but in the heat of battle, you find the swift path to victory and you take it - simple, really.
Reminds me of the general message in "The Book of Five Rings", anyone interested in the art of conflict should definitely read that.
masterspeaks
Smash Apprentice
Your logic truly stuck out to me when reading all these posts. What exactly would you equate as skill? I think that "restricting yourself to certain moves/tactics" that counter said broken character would be skillful. Are you suggesting that a player's "pure skill" should be able to allow him to overcome any person without having to adapt at all?
Crizthakidd
Smash Champion
its becoming that brawl is like a chess game. and i just cant watch 8 minutes of 2 stocks. players have way to much time to think about things instead of having rapid reflexs
Excellent thread, Was long read but glad I clicked this ^^
Person A: Spams
Person B: gets angry and just complains. And in my experience, does nothing to try to overcome this, Doesn't practice, doesn't research, just complains. This type of player i tend to not even care to know their names much less remember there faces, but will always be willing to play again and smile at the end.
A: Spams
B: Counters this technique and finds a way to get by the projectiles to stop it.
A: Adapts to B's approach and finds a way to counter that.
This is where mind games come in and true competition can come in.
I used to complain to my friend because of his Olimar, but i knew just whining wasn't going to do much so i went to the Olimar section, saw how he moves, Test the effects of each different Pikmin on me and the range of them. And learned how to take Advantage of his Very limited Recovery. So now i can win around 78% of the matches we have. And at one point i was thinking how long before he gets used to my play style or learns a new technique pressuring me to do like-wise to him. Asking myself where does it end. Unfortunately no one I know near me plays SSBB as much as me, my friends are good but only usually play 5-10 matches then are done :/
I remember when i took the leap into competitive play, Some stranger Destroyed me completely and i was shocked, i asked if i could practice real quick, then he introduced me to Smash boards, for the longest time i didn't even bother going to this site, but i was facing stronger competition (Marth's and the like) Then started playing around the forums watching videos, etc. When i got back from spring break, it was like i just came from the Hyperbolic time chamber and no one could touch me, i was on my own seperate plateau.
Person A: Spams
Person B: gets angry and just complains. And in my experience, does nothing to try to overcome this, Doesn't practice, doesn't research, just complains. This type of player i tend to not even care to know their names much less remember there faces, but will always be willing to play again and smile at the end.
A: Spams
B: Counters this technique and finds a way to get by the projectiles to stop it.
A: Adapts to B's approach and finds a way to counter that.
This is where mind games come in and true competition can come in.
I used to complain to my friend because of his Olimar, but i knew just whining wasn't going to do much so i went to the Olimar section, saw how he moves, Test the effects of each different Pikmin on me and the range of them. And learned how to take Advantage of his Very limited Recovery. So now i can win around 78% of the matches we have. And at one point i was thinking how long before he gets used to my play style or learns a new technique pressuring me to do like-wise to him. Asking myself where does it end. Unfortunately no one I know near me plays SSBB as much as me, my friends are good but only usually play 5-10 matches then are done :/
I remember when i took the leap into competitive play, Some stranger Destroyed me completely and i was shocked, i asked if i could practice real quick, then he introduced me to Smash boards, for the longest time i didn't even bother going to this site, but i was facing stronger competition (Marth's and the like) Then started playing around the forums watching videos, etc. When i got back from spring break, it was like i just came from the Hyperbolic time chamber
and no one could touch me, i was on my own seperate plateau.Eh, I've seen this posted quite a bit on different forums. I agree with some stuff, and disagree with others. The guy obviously knows what it takes to win tournaments and improve your game, but I think he comes off as a bit elitist against people with "scrub mentality."
To touch on one thing I disagree with, not everyone is going to agree on what makes a game fun or satisfying for them. This guy says that the scrub will tell you that they're having more fun playing their way. Then he goes on to say that "the experts are having a great deal of this “fun” on a higher level than the scrub can even imagine." Honestly though, is there a difference between the two groups here? Objectively, both groups playing the game the way they enjoy playing it, both think that they're having more fun than the other group.
IIRC he even admits on his site that he likes to find a single move that is hard to punish and spam it constantly, so much earned a nick name after the move. Now, if you're playing simply to win and nothing else, this could be the best strategy. But personally the day I play a game seriously and competitively so that I can spam one single overpowered move, is the day I stop playing altogether. At that point, it would not be a fun game for me any more. I'd move on to a game which required more diversity if my game somehow degenerated into that.
Before anyone attacks me, I'm not saying that "playing to win" is not the correct way to play, but that there really is no right or wrong way to play IMHO. Do you feel that the character you play most in SSBB is the best in the game? That you can win with them more than you could if you mastered any other character? I'm sure some will say yes, while others may say no. By the strictest definition, it looks like those who say no may be considered "scrubs" because they're not doing everything they can to win. But if people enjoy playing their character to the best of their ability, is there anything wrong with that? I would say no, and I feel the same way about play styles. For example, some people will play a more offensive game while others will play a more defensive one. I don't see anything wrong with developing your own style of play regardless of whether it's considered ideal, as long as you can make it work (obviously some characters play better using certain strategies rather than others but that isn't my point). In some cases, an unorthodox style may even be preferred, especially in a game like SSBB where nearly every attack can be avoided or countered and being unpredictable is important. In that case, playing unorthodox and playing "to win" would be the same.
Anyway, I'm done rambling. This post went on a little long than expected.
To touch on one thing I disagree with, not everyone is going to agree on what makes a game fun or satisfying for them. This guy says that the scrub will tell you that they're having more fun playing their way. Then he goes on to say that "the experts are having a great deal of this “fun” on a higher level than the scrub can even imagine." Honestly though, is there a difference between the two groups here? Objectively, both groups playing the game the way they enjoy playing it, both think that they're having more fun than the other group.
IIRC he even admits on his site that he likes to find a single move that is hard to punish and spam it constantly, so much earned a nick name after the move. Now, if you're playing simply to win and nothing else, this could be the best strategy. But personally the day I play a game seriously and competitively so that I can spam one single overpowered move, is the day I stop playing altogether. At that point, it would not be a fun game for me any more. I'd move on to a game which required more diversity if my game somehow degenerated into that.
Before anyone attacks me, I'm not saying that "playing to win" is not the correct way to play, but that there really is no right or wrong way to play IMHO. Do you feel that the character you play most in SSBB is the best in the game? That you can win with them more than you could if you mastered any other character? I'm sure some will say yes, while others may say no. By the strictest definition, it looks like those who say no may be considered "scrubs" because they're not doing everything they can to win. But if people enjoy playing their character to the best of their ability, is there anything wrong with that? I would say no, and I feel the same way about play styles. For example, some people will play a more offensive game while others will play a more defensive one. I don't see anything wrong with developing your own style of play regardless of whether it's considered ideal, as long as you can make it work (obviously some characters play better using certain strategies rather than others but that isn't my point). In some cases, an unorthodox style may even be preferred, especially in a game like SSBB where nearly every attack can be avoided or countered and being unpredictable is important. In that case, playing unorthodox and playing "to win" would be the same.
Anyway, I'm done rambling. This post went on a little long than expected.
Doyoudigworms
Smash Cadet
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2008
- Messages
- 34
I've read over this thread and the discussions and near flames that have taken place, and I find all of you pose legitimate arguments.
But ultimately people are getting upset with aren't always the players who exploit the game or complaints of cheapness. What gamers ultimately get frustrated with is what it requires to win.
But you did mention Street Fighter so I will use that as the basis for my argument as well. With the introduction of Street Fighter it set a precedent for all fighting games of the future, SSB was one of the standout titles that broke the mold, and wasn't even considered competitive until Melee, and with EVO acceptance.
SFII is one of the only fighting games with limited defense options that is still widely played today, and maybe because it was the original, and our generation grew up with that fighting game format. But what you failed to mention is that most good fighting games have direct counters to spamming.
Take SFIII, now you could counter fireballs with parry and tech throws, so no longer could a player abuse or spam fireballs and throws, it created an advanced metagame. It forced players to actually get good at the game, beyond QCF motions. Countering a hadoken no longer required a hadoken to counter. Players could press forward before the move hit them and stop the move full force. No longer did a player have to worry about chip damage, or stuns, they had a legitimate way to counter turtle fighters or hit and run fanatics. So the importance of learning those tactics became mandatory.
So if you decided to do five throws in a row, the scrub could tech your five throws, requiring a different more advanced metagame.
Now to segue to SSBB players are given multiple airdodges, sidestepping, rolling, and a sheild that diminishes if hit or has prolonged use. But a vast majority of of projectiles that are used excessively are spammed relentlessly ie. Pit's arrows, Wolfs blaster and with huge fighting arenas it makes means of escape easy for the spammer and the vicious cycle continues.
What is a Lucas player to do against a Toon Link? Sure, a skilled Lucas can put up a good fight, but with large hit boxes on projectiles and no means to reflect those projectiles, the Lucas player already knows before the match starts that the fight will be problematic. So what is a Lucas player to do? Attempt to spotdodge, block, and airdodge every arrow, bomb, and boomerang? Impossible, even for the most expert player. And even if they do the Toon Link is at a safe distance by then, and can avoid any counter the Lucas player may have. In Street Fighter you have a small limited space to run, making true counters effective. In SSBB if becomes a huge game of hit and run, and the victim becomes irate very fast. So what is the Lucas player really to do? Play a different main everytime he/she encounters Toon Link? If so that is just a sad state of affairs, I mean we all understand pro/con match ups. But if we all are playing to win that means that pretty soon we will only see true tier matches, Sadly. Even if that Lucas player is playing to win and looses it's not because he is a "scrub" it's because the character match up is ultimately in favor of Toon Link.
It's hard to graciously accept that fact, when most gamers train daily to be good with a specific character. If SSBB had parry or tech throws, we would see more balance and less spamming, but it doesn't so hit and run will always exist, and therefore spammers will always exist, scrub or no scrub.
But ultimately people are getting upset with aren't always the players who exploit the game or complaints of cheapness. What gamers ultimately get frustrated with is what it requires to win.
But you did mention Street Fighter so I will use that as the basis for my argument as well. With the introduction of Street Fighter it set a precedent for all fighting games of the future, SSB was one of the standout titles that broke the mold, and wasn't even considered competitive until Melee, and with EVO acceptance.
SFII is one of the only fighting games with limited defense options that is still widely played today, and maybe because it was the original, and our generation grew up with that fighting game format. But what you failed to mention is that most good fighting games have direct counters to spamming.
Take SFIII, now you could counter fireballs with parry and tech throws, so no longer could a player abuse or spam fireballs and throws, it created an advanced metagame. It forced players to actually get good at the game, beyond QCF motions. Countering a hadoken no longer required a hadoken to counter. Players could press forward before the move hit them and stop the move full force. No longer did a player have to worry about chip damage, or stuns, they had a legitimate way to counter turtle fighters or hit and run fanatics. So the importance of learning those tactics became mandatory.
So if you decided to do five throws in a row, the scrub could tech your five throws, requiring a different more advanced metagame.
Now to segue to SSBB players are given multiple airdodges, sidestepping, rolling, and a sheild that diminishes if hit or has prolonged use. But a vast majority of of projectiles that are used excessively are spammed relentlessly ie. Pit's arrows, Wolfs blaster and with huge fighting arenas it makes means of escape easy for the spammer and the vicious cycle continues.
What is a Lucas player to do against a Toon Link? Sure, a skilled Lucas can put up a good fight, but with large hit boxes on projectiles and no means to reflect those projectiles, the Lucas player already knows before the match starts that the fight will be problematic. So what is a Lucas player to do? Attempt to spotdodge, block, and airdodge every arrow, bomb, and boomerang? Impossible, even for the most expert player. And even if they do the Toon Link is at a safe distance by then, and can avoid any counter the Lucas player may have. In Street Fighter you have a small limited space to run, making true counters effective. In SSBB if becomes a huge game of hit and run, and the victim becomes irate very fast. So what is the Lucas player really to do? Play a different main everytime he/she encounters Toon Link? If so that is just a sad state of affairs, I mean we all understand pro/con match ups. But if we all are playing to win that means that pretty soon we will only see true tier matches, Sadly. Even if that Lucas player is playing to win and looses it's not because he is a "scrub" it's because the character match up is ultimately in favor of Toon Link.
It's hard to graciously accept that fact, when most gamers train daily to be good with a specific character. If SSBB had parry or tech throws, we would see more balance and less spamming, but it doesn't so hit and run will always exist, and therefore spammers will always exist, scrub or no scrub.
Pikaville
Pikaville returns 10 years later.
Excellent post.Many people need to read this.........many people.
WeltallZero
Smash Cadet
I'm very and gratefully impressed with this thread. I've been a fan of Sirlin's articles ever since I discovered them many years ago, and I can say they did change my mentality forever and made me notice I had been being a scrub. However, I usually find they're awfully unpopular in general (for obvious reasons), and I expected he wouldn't be highly thought of in these boards, not the least because I've never seen him voice his opinion on Smash being a deep, competitive game. While most people would assume this just means he doesn't (and he politely declines to comment), I think it might just be that he doesn't feel he knows the game well enough to voice his opinion. Or perhaps not, who knows.
Anyway. The thing here is that, while this article is probably the cornerstone of the "playing to win" philosophy, it is one in a series, and some of the points that are brought time and again against it are actually answered in the rest of the articles. Some of these points have also been mentioned by other people in the thread, particularly regarding the "playing to win VS. playing for fun / to learn". There is one other point that keeps being brought up, however, and it's the fact that "if a character/tactic/move is too good/broken, abusing it makes the game shallow and/or boring".
Sirlin's response is quite simple. If the game really has such a tactic (and this is a very important if, as more than half of this thread's posts seem to revolve about this point), then the game's depth essentialy becomes reduced to "who can pull the tactic most efficiently". If this, in turn, is not very deep (as is probably the case), then the game as a whole has become broken. If the game can't be patched to correct this fatal weakness (as is the case with Wii games), then the best course of action is simply to abandon it. Period. Move on, nothing to see here.
The gut reaction for most people at this point would be that this solution is quite extreme, particularly if they DO enjoy the game minus this broken tactic. And I can really emphatize. But really, is it that extreme? Do you really want to invest time in a game where, no matter how many subtleties of it you can master, someone who just knows this technique wil destroy you? It really seems like a waste. This one fatal flaw will alwas haunt you. Every time you play the game, even against a friend, both of you will know that the other could have won just by resorting to it. Honestly, I wouldn't be confortable.
Fortunatelly, I strongly believe that no Smash game to this date, and especially not Brawl, have seen anything truly game-breaking. This, I gather not from my own experience (I'm a REALLY lousy Smash player), but from the vastly more informed collective on these forums.
On another subject, I can't express how glad I am to see that many people in this thread shed their scrubness on the spot and embrace a no-holds-barred philosophy. I can only imagine how proud this would make Sirlin if he read it (unless he's used to it already, heh). I'm tempted to link this article in the comments section of his website or something. Or would that be bad for Smashboards' bandwidth?
All in all, this thread is a really great read, as the discussion has been very civil and interesting on both sides of the question. Thanks especially to masterspeaks, for bringing up the topic and skillfully defending it, and Yuna, for cutting to the heart of each question with surgeon-like (and almost scary) precision and efficiency. Looking forward to reading more opinions!
Anyway. The thing here is that, while this article is probably the cornerstone of the "playing to win" philosophy, it is one in a series, and some of the points that are brought time and again against it are actually answered in the rest of the articles. Some of these points have also been mentioned by other people in the thread, particularly regarding the "playing to win VS. playing for fun / to learn". There is one other point that keeps being brought up, however, and it's the fact that "if a character/tactic/move is too good/broken, abusing it makes the game shallow and/or boring".
Sirlin's response is quite simple. If the game really has such a tactic (and this is a very important if, as more than half of this thread's posts seem to revolve about this point), then the game's depth essentialy becomes reduced to "who can pull the tactic most efficiently". If this, in turn, is not very deep (as is probably the case), then the game as a whole has become broken. If the game can't be patched to correct this fatal weakness (as is the case with Wii games), then the best course of action is simply to abandon it. Period. Move on, nothing to see here.
The gut reaction for most people at this point would be that this solution is quite extreme, particularly if they DO enjoy the game minus this broken tactic. And I can really emphatize. But really, is it that extreme? Do you really want to invest time in a game where, no matter how many subtleties of it you can master, someone who just knows this technique wil destroy you? It really seems like a waste. This one fatal flaw will alwas haunt you. Every time you play the game, even against a friend, both of you will know that the other could have won just by resorting to it. Honestly, I wouldn't be confortable.
Fortunatelly, I strongly believe that no Smash game to this date, and especially not Brawl, have seen anything truly game-breaking. This, I gather not from my own experience (I'm a REALLY lousy Smash player), but from the vastly more informed collective on these forums.
On another subject, I can't express how glad I am to see that many people in this thread shed their scrubness on the spot and embrace a no-holds-barred philosophy. I can only imagine how proud this would make Sirlin if he read it (unless he's used to it already, heh). I'm tempted to link this article in the comments section of his website or something. Or would that be bad for Smashboards' bandwidth?
All in all, this thread is a really great read, as the discussion has been very civil and interesting on both sides of the question. Thanks especially to masterspeaks, for bringing up the topic and skillfully defending it, and Yuna, for cutting to the heart of each question with surgeon-like (and almost scary) precision and efficiency. Looking forward to reading more opinions!