Curse

Symbol · Aug 29, 2006, 11:14 PM // 23:14

I'm consistently surprised by the number of people who think that having any sort of strategy (as opposed to simply playing well tactically) is somehow bereft of skill.

Even first person shooters have an element that isn't just twitch-skill, knowledge of the map and the location of power ups is essential. Why should guild wars be any different?

Misc Merik · Aug 29, 2006, 11:35 PM // 23:35

Yeah I cant say I sympathize with EvIL for losing to IQ just because IQ outplayed them despite the fact they pulled a lamer and made use of VoD

Sacho · Aug 29, 2006, 11:42 PM // 23:42

This thread's comments simply show that Guild Wars is evolving into an excellent competitive game. The responses from scrubs and competitive players follow the expected pattern.

As individual and team skill rises, people start seeking other means to gain advantage. Player and team skill has its limits, and of course, as any improvement it has diminishing returns. The difference between the top teams is not substantial enough to warrant full attention on team improvement. So naturally, teams move to other areas where they can improve - and what more plentfiul area than build planning. Build planning has just as many levels and dimensions as build execution - uncovering your opponents' build strengths and weaknesses, assesing what skills they may or may not bring and building accordingly, forming a cohesive build that will play to your strengths and focus on your opponent's weaknesses. This also requires skill - one that may not be as flashy as say, executing a perfect counter-attack to win the game - but it is skill nontheless. As Sun Tzu wrote a long time ago, the generals that fight bloody battles and win are often praised, while those that put their minds into ending the battle before it started are never mentioned. As such, to the community, IQ may not be popular, but they did what they were supposed to do - win.

When you play to win, you have to let go of the mindset of honorable fighting. During the game, you have no opponent, you have enemies. You are not fighting a gentleman match, you're fighting a war. You're out there to win, and while you may be great friends outside the game(As shown by the last championship!), in the game, it's bloodshed. Limiting yourself to inferior tactics just because they take more "skill" to execute means you are giving your opponent an advantage, thus more chance to win. You are actively forfeiting the reason why you play a competitive tournament - to win.

You'll find that no high-level players consider a possible tactic "cheap". They may criticize *themselves* for not thinking of this possible tactic, and any counters. Did IQ complain that EviL brought a splitting build, designed with great mobility and terrific evasion, which would Divide IQ's superior 8v8 team and Conquer the smaller parts using their powerful movement and solo characters? No. I don't see you complaining that EviL brought such a build that would devastate IQ if they played EviL's game? I find this amusing. Yet, you complain that IQ did not play their opponents strategy, and entrenched themselves where it would be ineffective.

I think alot of you badly need to read Sirlin's article on playing to win:
http://www.sirlin.net/archive/playing-to-win-part-1/

IQ played to win. They knew their strengths and weaknesses, they played their advantages, they accented on Evil's weak points, and eventually won. I really don't want to bash EviL as I'm sure they're much better players than me, but from what it seemed, they just played IQ's game, instead of working out how to win themselves. Thus they lost. End of story.

JR · Aug 30, 2006, 12:12 AM // 00:12

Just a note: I shall be regularly purging this thread of all idiocy, so save me some time and don't post it to begin with.

Rieselle · Aug 30, 2006, 08:43 AM // 08:43

The only correct and legitimate comment on iQ's strategy is:

"That was a stroke of genius. Well planned, I applaud you all. Moving on, how do we fix the game so that noone can do it ever again?"

Basically there's no right or wrong, honor or foul when the fight is on. However, after the fight, between seasons, etc, we should think at a higher level and consider what rules and mechanics yield desirable gameplay, and what causes annoying, ugly, unfun gameplay.

Since GW is a game that's still being developed and evolved, it's valid to discuss changes and improvements to the rules.

Yichi · Aug 30, 2006, 10:08 AM // 10:08

honestly if you go back and rewatch game 3 (think its been taken down now) at vod iq had capped the flagstand and evil sent their martyr me/mo back to run the flag. on the way back he martyr'd cripple about 5 different times and took almost a minute longer to get to the flagstand allowing iq to get a boost and their sigs back. had that not happened seeing as iq was down some sigs then the whole outcome might have gone a different way.

JR · Aug 30, 2006, 10:22 AM // 10:22

Quote:

Originally Posted by MistressYichi

honestly if you go back and rewatch game 3 (think its been taken down now) at vod iq had capped the flagstand and evil sent their martyr me/mo back to run the flag. on the way back he martyr'd cripple about 5 different times and took almost a minute longer to get to the flagstand allowing iq to get a boost and their sigs back. had that not happened seeing as iq was down some sigs then the whole outcome might have gone a different way.

Amusing observation, I hadn't noticed this. I'll have to go back and re-watch it, to see if there was any critical reason to Martyr, or if it really was just a blatant mess-up.

Skuld · Aug 30, 2006, 11:48 AM // 11:48

Quote:

Originally Posted by shadowfell

I had been rooting for evil

Eek!

Nightwish · Aug 30, 2006, 02:54 PM // 14:54

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sacho

This thread's comments simply show that Guild Wars is evolving into an excellent competitive game. The responses from scrubs and competitive players follow the expected pattern.

As individual and team skill rises, people start seeking other means to gain advantage. Player and team skill has its limits, and of course, as any improvement it has diminishing returns. The difference between the top teams is not substantial enough to warrant full attention on team improvement. So naturally, teams move to other areas where they can improve - and what more plentfiul area than build planning. Build planning has just as many levels and dimensions as build execution - uncovering your opponents' build strengths and weaknesses, assesing what skills they may or may not bring and building accordingly, forming a cohesive build that will play to your strengths and focus on your opponent's weaknesses. This also requires skill - one that may not be as flashy as say, executing a perfect counter-attack to win the game - but it is skill nontheless. As Sun Tzu wrote a long time ago, the generals that fight bloody battles and win are often praised, while those that put their minds into ending the battle before it started are never mentioned. As such, to the community, IQ may not be popular, but they did what they were supposed to do - win.

When you play to win, you have to let go of the mindset of honorable fighting. During the game, you have no opponent, you have enemies. You are not fighting a gentleman match, you're fighting a war. You're out there to win, and while you may be great friends outside the game(As shown by the last championship!), in the game, it's bloodshed. Limiting yourself to inferior tactics just because they take more "skill" to execute means you are giving your opponent an advantage, thus more chance to win. You are actively forfeiting the reason why you play a competitive tournament - to win.

You'll find that no high-level players consider a possible tactic "cheap". They may criticize *themselves* for not thinking of this possible tactic, and any counters. Did IQ complain that EviL brought a splitting build, designed with great mobility and terrific evasion, which would Divide IQ's superior 8v8 team and Conquer the smaller parts using their powerful movement and solo characters? No. I don't see you complaining that EviL brought such a build that would devastate IQ if they played EviL's game? I find this amusing. Yet, you complain that IQ did not play their opponents strategy, and entrenched themselves where it would be ineffective.

I think alot of you badly need to read Sirlin's article on playing to win:
http://www.sirlin.net/archive/playing-to-win-part-1/

IQ played to win. They knew their strengths and weaknesses, they played their advantages, they accented on Evil's weak points, and eventually won. I really don't want to bash EviL as I'm sure they're much better players than me, but from what it seemed, they just played IQ's game, instead of working out how to win themselves. Thus they lost. End of story.

Play to win, hmm...

So if my opponent is allergic to fur, I should intentionally and secretly spread my cat's fur everywhere just before the game starts to cause an allergic reaction so that I can win the game easily.

Metanoia · Aug 30, 2006, 03:12 PM // 15:12

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nightwish

Play to win, hmm...

So if my opponent is allergic to fur, I should intentionally and secretly spread my cat's fur everywhere just before the game starts to cause an allergic reaction so that I can win the game easily.

It's really not such a hard concept to grasp.

The reason for 'play 2 win' is because everyone has different standards of what's fair and lame. It's impractical/impossible to compile a list of these self-imposed rules that everyone will agree on, so you might as well just get on and play the game for what it is. Some people insinuate that this is bad sportsmanship, IMO it's the petty people complaining over such things that lack sportsmanship. There's nothing stopping you from playing by your own rules, but don't complain when people don't follow them.

Example: There are people that consider kiting 'lame'. Does that mean nobody should kite? Where do you draw the line with these un-written 'rules'?

... But then, you already understood that as you bothered to read Sirlin's article before posting that, right?

kitiara · Aug 30, 2006, 04:32 PM // 16:32

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nightwish

Play to win, hmm...

So if my opponent is allergic to fur, I should intentionally and secretly spread my cat's fur everywhere just before the game starts to cause an allergic reaction so that I can win the game easily.

The artical does mean play to win but it says anything you do within the game is fine as long as its not overpowered/broken or a glitch. Thats playing to win.

Now if you do something outside the game like say cause the other team to get a few error 7s ( dont now how you would do this but lol ) and then you win by crushing the remaining team 8v5, thats not playing to win thats cheating because you did something outside of the game that gives you an unfair advantage.

LightningHell · Aug 31, 2006, 02:40 AM // 02:40

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nightwish

Play to win, hmm...

So if my opponent is allergic to fur, I should intentionally and secretly spread my cat's fur everywhere just before the game starts to cause an allergic reaction so that I can win the game easily.

You can't get allergic reactions from a cat ingame spreading cat fur.

Thom Bangalter · Aug 31, 2006, 04:05 AM // 04:05

Quote:

Originally Posted by JR-

Amusing observation, I hadn't noticed this. I'll have to go back and re-watch it, to see if there was any critical reason to Martyr, or if it really was just a blatant mess-up.

my guess is to martyr deep wounds, because vod+deep wound is pretty scary.

Eonwe · Aug 31, 2006, 04:19 AM // 04:19

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thom Bangalter

my guess is to martyr deep wounds, because vod+deep wound is pretty scary.

Well, we did have a trapper... and for some funny reason matyr works on npcs apparently

Thom Bangalter · Aug 31, 2006, 05:41 AM // 05:41

Quote:

Originally Posted by LightningHell

You can't get allergic reactions from a cat ingame spreading cat fur.

If I had the ability to do it, I totally would. not because i'm that super-competitive, but because I'm mean. But now we're getting off topic I think.

Schorny · Sep 03, 2006, 04:39 AM // 04:39

Isn't it funny to see who is arguing for what?

You can tell by the rank of the guild a person is in if he thinks iQ earned the win or not.

It's quite amusing

just rude · Sep 08, 2006, 06:07 PM // 18:07

Nothing IQ did was wrong. It was evil who couldn't adapt. The skill of this game comes from the combination of understanding, in full, the dynamics of the game, correct situational analysis, devising a winning strategy, and effectively executing the new strategy. Lots of people who play do 1 or 2 of these well but there are few people who do all 4 well, especially the executing part.

All in all, match 3 was a snoozer till VoD, I don't like the npc centric nature of GvG, but hey that's life.

Congrats on the win, and the first match of the finals was one the best I've seen.

Thom Bangalter · Sep 08, 2006, 07:13 PM // 19:13

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rieselle

The only correct and legitimate comment on iQ's strategy is:

"That was a stroke of genius. Well planned, I applaud you all. Moving on, how do we fix the game so that noone can do it ever again?"

Basically there's no right or wrong, honor or foul when the fight is on. However, after the fight, between seasons, etc, we should think at a higher level and consider what rules and mechanics yield desirable gameplay, and what causes annoying, ugly, unfun gameplay.

Since GW is a game that's still being developed and evolved, it's valid to discuss changes and improvements to the rules.

Non. I think it's perfectly reasonable to see something like this happen again; considering how many teams run highly mobile characters that run off and gank npcs in an effort to setup the match for optimum conditions at VOD. iQ, as has been noted throughout the forums, refused to play like that, and decided to turtle and keep npcs alive, wait for the Guild Lord to come out, and nuke the crap out of him.

IT is not annoying, ugly, or unfun; money was on the line, and you do what you need to do to win. click on the link to the sirlin article, it'd do a lot of people a lot of good.

Ismoke · Sep 08, 2006, 08:31 PM // 20:31

The sirlin article has been around for quite sometime! We live by that mantra in the bf2 ladder and caleague(thats BF2 FPS)!

Ontopic IQ did "play to win" Grats guys keep it up!

Thom Bangalter · Sep 14, 2006, 10:51 AM // 10:51

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ismoke

The sirlin article has been around for quite sometime! We live by that mantra in the bf2 ladder and caleague(thats BF2 FPS)!

Ontopic IQ did "play to win" Grats guys keep it up!

offtopic thread revival:

I like all the street fighter references in the sirlin article; i've barely played the game and just pick ryu and throw nonstop fireballs at people, or if I remember how to do it the green guy's electricity attack.