RageAgainstVoid wrote:One player wants to play soccer, the other wants to kill him.
What I referred to from the finals some hours ago, in case you missed that. Asshole was allowed to play on. The game defined through that referee allowed for playing like that, ergo that shit must have been alright, right? and so it happened galore.
It was you who stretched PtW to not only justify but even cheer on fouling in soccer. It is also you who stretches PtW already by having it justify rule abuse in any game at all; if anything, PtW's freedom of play is meant to be within a certain space of sanctioned play, to make effective use of it, that is first of all the very spirit of competitive tournament play. Anything else is scientific talk in game theory meant for better understanding of certain aspects of the world, but with limits to how we want to play our games--a confusion all too often with some tourney players when they pick up some tidbits, twisting it in their attempts to explain themselves. That you even brought up PtW at all in a discussion about cheese and fouls which are acts outside the game, is meaningless. Yes, cheese is outside the game as much as fouls, because as much as fouls can often not be prevented, only punished hindsight according to a consensus of what is acceptable play, cheese can often not be prevented as well until a next patch of the game--only refrained from or punished by the community to have any chance of worthwhile matches at all meanwhile. That's the point of it, to make the best out of what's there explicitly, that's the interim patched-up game for the players and spectators, until things get improved implicitly in a real patch. All competitive tourneys have various rule overlays for exactly this reason. However what you did here was arguing the exact contrary, you contradicted the very foundation you fielded: You used PtW to justify degeneration of play merely because it's implicitly possible to do, whereas this on its own has never been justification enough in competitive play anywhere, be it for computer games or real world athletics.-Y- wrote:First off PtW deals (mostly) with competitive multi-player computer games. Stretching it to a new domain dilutes PtW and makes it more fuzzy.
The stark devision is actually most perfectly useful to this discussion, because it glaringly shows the very core of the problem: the problem is when the computer world does not make use of the abundant possibilities and superiorities it has above real world athletics such as soccer, not making use of advantages inherent to the medium because of misconstrued ideas on freedom and tolerance.-Y- wrote:Real world and computer world are starkly divided by the games coding. This is the main problem with your football example,
It was you who repeatedly justified the breaking of rules with PtW, just as so many people use Sirlin's writing not only to justify their play in the game as is, but even to fend off any changes to the game in order to keep that play. Your own statements are in conflict with each other, because you have yet to make up your mind on what it means and in what space it makes sense to apply.-Y- wrote:he obviously broke the explicit rules of the tournament which is in conflict with PtW
It's not about oversights in implicit rules, it's making the best out of explicit rules, this is what it always has been about, because every game ever created has "oversights" in implicit rules, there's always something that is not or cannot be accounted for inside and outside. And there is a real world embedding the game box, you can "win" a chess match by threatening the opponent with physical harm should he make a good move, nothing in the implicit rules can prevent this or even mentions this as wrong; social context, common sense, explicit rules do, they have always covered up for that and whatever else, they complete the game so that a meaningful play can take place, they are intrinsic as well as direly needed, circumvention of which defeats the game, not the opponents. This is nothing different from frowning upon and explicitly outlawing building cheese until a later patch, not despite but because the game currently cannot handle this implicitly. This goes hand in hand, these provisions are meant to complement for mutual benefit, it has always been this way, not against each other as you describe it. The practical question for fans of a game is not "how can we fuck this game all over for a win until the game gets changed or no one plays anymore", it is "how can we play this game such that playing and winning still make sense until it's changed?"-Y- wrote:, on the other hand, one can interpret this as an oversight in implicit rules which is PtW.
It always is and it always requires, because you yourself on your own are already a social construct to begin with. The players create the game by negotiation and agreement, and they carry responsibility to all those involved. If only one player is involved, then that's that, he still faces himself, and this makes single-player a mere difference in scale, not an exception to the principle.-Y- wrote:Speaking of, while a (computer) game is created in a social context it doesn't require a social construct to exist, as it can be played without any players at all (replace players with bots for instance).
The hell, this is what we are talking about the whole time, and this is what you argued against the whole time and still do in other passages now, on basis of PtW!-Y- wrote:You get what you measure. If you want to watch sportsmanship in a game, measure it. Players (especially professional) aren't stupid, they'll optimize for what it takes to win.
There is a sanctioned consensus of what the game is, and that consensus forces the player the moment he agrees to the game, or should force if that wasn't eroded on false grounds.-Y- wrote:Each player has its own vision of what designer meant that matches his best overall game-style. Each player, in a game will try to force other players into a game that suits him the most.
What the fuck is that kind of reasoning? Pan-galactic logic from the 7th dimension?-Y- wrote:Playing to Win doesn't excuse the player; It just says that he can do whatever he wants.
What's much more important is that it's up to a better judge, be it the referee or the game designer, or be it peers and audience, basically to everyone else but him.-Y- wrote:Its still up to the player to judge if acting like a douche is most beneficial for him.
Great fucking sportsmanship, give me a break. The very word sportmanship means to value your opponents and the spirit of the game more than victory. And cheese and fouls by definition always promise much more reward than risk, they are a no brainer to such a bastard, not an intricate consideration to play, the moment there are lapses in enforcement, which is why they are so common then.-Y- wrote:Most top players are also great sportsman because playing like a douche carries many risks and some aren't willing to take those risks (in case of a foul/fake - you bring air of negativity which in turn is more stressful, judges are less likely to believe you and probably will favor your opponent in a dispute and the very act also carries a risk of getting suspended).
You used PtW to justify degeneration of play merely because it's implicitly possible to do, whereas this on its own has never been justification enough in competitive play anywhere, be it for computer games or real world athletics.
You did. You even encouraged it. Literary. You are just hiding behind word and phrase games as you see fit.-Y- wrote:I never justified.
The effect on other's performance beyond that match is not part of the definition of foul; severity further qualifies but not quantifies it. A foul is breaking the rules, be they implicit or explicit, simple as that.-Y- wrote:And second are you in all seriousness comparing a foul to a cheese? Are you saying a move that can affect your performance not just in this but potentially in all other matches for a long time, be compared to an exploit in a game whose effect wears off after the game is over?
-Y- wrote:As for the Pan-galactic logic 7, think about it all PtW says play however you choose/want. If you choose to play a certain way that is your choice; PtW didn't make that choice for you. Didn't God made a similar deal with man?
-Y- wrote:This statement would be true if ToB was played for a long period of time without any counter strategy being developed or leading to a degenerative play in the long run (long run taking months at the very least). To my knowledge I never used cheese in ToB as a specific example as I'm unaware of the gameplay (I may have used cheese as a general term).
No, no that is definitely not what you were talking about, that was what we were talking about, we were talking about changing the implicit game and denouncing cheese explicitly meanwhile. Your talk amounts to "Better freedom than safety" to justify (oh right! you just explained!...) cheese and fouls just because it's possible to do, even if that means no one plays it anymore, basically saying "that's that then" when we were talking about actively preventing exactly this abandonment. You even disagreed on the very notion of denouncing "players" and "play"-styles with asshole and bastardly, based on all that.-Y- wrote:I interpret PtW that way for the same reason I use pessimistic locking - "Better safe than sorry". If you make a game so assholes can't spoil it much, then regulars will enjoy it as well.
-Y- wrote:A question for you:
In the middle ages a King defeated his enemy. In such cases most Kings executed their enemies without a flinch but this King decided to give the defeated a chance to join him as an ally (King didn't demand anything in return). Was this act an act of good will? Of sportsmanship?
RageAgainstVoid wrote:Denied. You're done here. Take the pity rests of this matter to another place on the web if you care. Notice something? I gave you a taste of your own medicine
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest