Curse

alchohol · Jun 19, 2006, 10:53 AM // 10:53

Quote:

Originally Posted by Patrograd

I am telling you now that the moment you act "with honour", 99% of your opponents will percieve that, quite rightly, as a sign of weakness and they will punish you for it

I can see people thinking that "doing the right thing", "acting with honour", "good sportsmanship" and "fairplay", is a sign of weakness.

I actually think not having "strength of honour" is a sign of weakness.

JR · Jun 19, 2006, 11:02 AM // 11:02

Quote:

Originally Posted by Schrale Kerel NL

You have to deside what you wanna do in such a situation yourself. But if you win like this, you sure dont have a very good feeling about it. Getting a good feeling about a win is the only thing where I would play for...

I'd rather get a mediocre feeling about a flawed win, than a bad feeling about a loss.

Ec]-[oMaN · Jun 19, 2006, 11:17 AM // 11:17

Nice guys finish last

sir lockt · Jun 19, 2006, 11:19 AM // 11:19

It is competative play... you have to deal with the situation you come in. even if you are handicapped. In this case its a bug, but you can imagine several situations... Anyhow with sportsmen its the same.. if you are disabled you will have to deal with the situation. It doesnt make you weak.. just stronger...

So i hate it to rely on the sportmenship of others, certainly when you have an option of getting out of trouble with minimalised cost.

I think its a bit the same as the "worst final ever" thread. Play to win if you play competative... and remember: when you are bugged out, your team learn a lot more: Its not nice to lose, but learn from the losses... Even in a men-less situation you can win...

Ethics in competative play are bound only by the rules. Without rules the victors will pull everything off they can... Playing by a set of self-made rules can make you stronger, thats true... but you can never apply them on a community.

Personal i would finish the stuck character of... after giving him the hint of taking a vamp weapon with him. But if ppl decide not to do that... because of the tactical advantage.... I can imagine.

And of course: pls ask me again when I play in an elite-guild for the championship... I am almost certain my answer changed... so its also situational.

minor · Jun 19, 2006, 12:21 PM // 12:21

Everyone is free to do what they want but my guild(which is not one of the top 100) does kill ppl that are bugged. Honestly its not our fault, but we have been given an unfair edge that the game was not supposed to give us. As for the whole bring vamp thing, heal party cancels it out; so if your fighting and need the heals for everyone else you are stuck. To quote our leader the other night, "We will not be dicks and stand around a bugged guy after his whole team falls back."

Quote:

Originally Posted by JR-

I'd rather get a mediocre feeling about a flawed win, than a bad feeling about a loss.

Now we get to the heart of the matter "flawed" means what not right or good, so if you want a win that is "not right" your choice. The good thing about the ladder is that you may beat a few high ranked teams by bugs; but at the end of the day it will even out and you will get knocked back down the ladder most likely.

Anyways i am now putting on my flame suit, since i am such a noob who doesn't play to win. You can have your flawed wins that might have been real.

JR · Jun 19, 2006, 12:40 PM // 12:40

Quote:

Originally Posted by minor

The good thing about the ladder is that you may beat a few high ranked teams by bugs; but at the end of the day it will even out and you will get knocked back down the ladder most likely.

That's all very well from the perspective of a low ranked guild, but if you are low ranked then you probably aren't hugely bothered about being competitive anyway.

As stated already; I can kill stuck players, or /resign when a higher ranked guild has an err=7 against us, or give them a break when their thief bugs... but what is the point, if I can't trust everyone else to do the same. I am all for sportsmanship, but not gimping my team against opponents who aren't.

XxForgexX · Jun 19, 2006, 12:58 PM // 12:58

winning with style > just winning. every game has its class acts, and its total pricks. the question is, which are you?

Tortoise · Jun 19, 2006, 01:33 PM // 13:33

I have always deemed the entire 'play to win' argument rather flawed. Though it might hold true for the individual guild or player it is clearly not a philosophy you want to support when you extend your view to an entire community or game. The 'play to win' philosophy though harmless when bugs and exploits are small and wellknown can also destroy an entire online game when those exploits and bugs have a more devastating effect. According to the 'play to win' philosophy you might as well tell fellow guildies to permanently spam an opposing guilds players with pms, go and harass them at their vent or just generally be as abusive as possible in hopes of winning a fight. I for one do not deem 'play to win' as a good excuse for acting abusive.

The question at hand has two aspects: both one with an individual aspect and one from a community point of view. Using the 'play to win' card neglects a very important aspect of the discussion that deserves to have some light shed on to it: Guildwars would be a better a game if sportmanship was more widespread. When you counter every post here with 'play to win' you fail to see the genuine concern underlying this topic. For me this is not just about what an individual player should do but also a question as to how we want the GW community to evolve. The fact that most here that use the 'play to win' argument also use the fact that 'other guilds aren't acting sportmanslike' shows that this is for a large part a community issue.

In the end my view is similar to what happens in most top sports: people should play to win and should generally play as hard as possible, but with an eye open for what is sportsmanlike. There isn't a single teamsport out there that will ignore an injured player. I will generally kill a bugged player because I'm still at the point where supporting a community is more important to me then winning. With that having said: I am not in a top guild and I can see how that could change. (although I highly doubt that qualification for playoffs will be determined by the the fact whether you kill of bugged players or not).

As a closing note: it is up to Anet to fix these bugs and make sure a 'play to win' mentality is as close as it could possible get to a 'sportsman' like situation.

JR · Jun 19, 2006, 01:36 PM // 13:36

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tortoise

I have always deemed the entire 'play to win' argument rather flawed. Though it might hold true for the individual guild or player it is clearly not a philosophy you want to support when you extend your view to an entire community or game. The 'play to win' philosophy though harmless when bugs and exploits are small and wellknown can also destroy an entire online game when those exploits and bugs have a more devastating effect. According to the 'play to win' philosophy you might as well tell fellow guildies to permanently spam an opposing guilds players with pms, go and harass them at their vent or just generally be as abusive as possible in hopes of winning a fight. I for one do not deem 'play to win' as a good excuse for acting abusive.

Read Sirlin's "Playing To Win" articles again, and you will see it is nothing like that.

Too many people talk about this 'play to win' ethos without actually understanding it.

AlbinoChocobo · Jun 19, 2006, 01:39 PM // 13:39

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rent

Sportsmanship is overrated. If you've got the advantage, press it.

No it's not. It's actually precious. At least in games/sports you can afford that. It's a respise from the morally arguable free-for-all of everyday life.

On this particular point, some people argue that this glitch is a fact of the game, and will cut both ways. I'd say it's like the wind favoring one side, and dying mid-game : sucks, but that's life.

However, "do whatever it takes" just won't cut it for me. I'd rather have panache than victory.

Happy · Jun 19, 2006, 02:00 PM // 14:00

Quote:

Originally Posted by XxForgexX

winning with style > just winning. every game has its class acts, and its total pricks. the question is, which are you?

<-- Total prick.

Won't loose any sleep over it though, won't enjoy life less because of it, sex will still feel good.

Patrograd · Jun 19, 2006, 02:00 PM // 14:00

Quote:

Originally Posted by AlbinoChocobo

No it's not. It's actually precious. At least in games/sports you can afford that. It's a respise from the morally arguable free-for-all of everyday life.

.

To a competitive person there is no difference between their game/sport and real life, the two are intertwined. You might call such people sad, or whatever you like, and they will probably call you a loser, and both are right to a degree.

As JR said, it would be fantastic if everyone could be relied on to act in a sportsmanlike way, or if there was some way of enforcing such behaviour, but there isn't. The simple fact is that when you play enough, as I said before, you will just see this happen to you as much to everyone else, and you just accept that this is the way that it is. Would you drop a monk from your team if the other team said they loaded without a monk? If the other team was suffering from heavy lag spikes would you slow down your play to make the match fair? How are these bugs any less debilitating to a team then getting a player stuck in stairs or a thief that runs off to die (or more annoyingly not die) when rezzed? Lag spikes kill players, its tough, but everyone gets them from time to time. Err=7 vastly tilts the battle towards one team, much, much more than a guy getting stuck in stairs, but everyone gets them, its tough, deal with it. No-one ever drops a player from their team in response, and yet that would be the sportsmanlike thing to do, no?

Aarroe of Gilgamesh · Jun 19, 2006, 02:49 PM // 14:49

this whole arguement is kind of a moot point. a-net is still " working" on reconnects, which are a "high-priority", they (ie gaile in one of here logs over 2 months ago) have said that being aware of the problem (bridges, ramps, and stairs) makes getting stuck a "tactic". if a-net chooses to 1) do nothing, or 2) play the problem off as a legitimate tool ftw, who are we to argue. i suggest you play the game you have, because waiting on the game you want to have could be a long time coming.

Tortoise · Jun 19, 2006, 03:00 PM // 15:00

Quote:

Originally Posted by J.R.

Too many people talk about this 'play to win' ethos without actually understanding it.

In Sirlin's original article he includes boundaries. There are grey zones. You can argue that my examples are beyond the 'play to win' paradigm but I don't see why they are. The main reason why one example is deemed 'ok' and another is not, is for the effect it has on the overall game. In my opinion the effect of the old Balthazar's Aura bug was as detrimental for my enjoyment of the game as a random constantly pm-ing me is. You are free to disagree but since we're in the grey zone you'll have to argue why.

Like you are stating I do not understand the 'play to win' concept I can say exactly the same about most people that come into this thread state 'play to win' and then leave. Why? Because even when 'play to win' is a given there can STILL be valid discussion about whether or not killing a bugged player falls under the 'ok to exploit' or 'too detrimental to exploit' category. If you're only stating 'play to win' you aren't contributing to the discussion at hand (and that was what my post was about). You need to point out why it is 'ok' or why it is 'too detrimental'. The balance between those two is hard to find but it is important to realize that balance IS there. Using 'play to win' as an arguement why 'trick X' is ok to use, can only be done when you forget the balance aspect of that entire philosophy.

You are right when you state that 'play to win' isn't understood by many, but it is a bit strange you use that fact against me and fail to see how many others in this thread ignore a vital concept to that philosophy. I have seen 'play to win' being used here in situations where it shouldn't be used. If anything then 'play to win' is a concept that should free the individual player and allow him to become a better player. It is not an argument pro or against a certain action.

TheOneMephisto · Jun 19, 2006, 03:23 PM // 15:23

I have to say that, as long as I'm not trying to maintain an extremely high rating, I'll go ahead and kill their stuck player. I hope that others will do this for me, but I don't know that, so I will always bring measures to get unstuck myself.

kryshnysh · Jun 19, 2006, 03:24 PM // 15:24

Two good sides to this issue, depending on your guild, quality of competition, and personal views. Its up to your team to either come up with one way to handle this, or find a way to disagree and still play together.

In my guild, we kill if its not going to hinder us. We don't expect other teams to be the same, although we do prefer if they do it to us as well.

When I guest for other guilds, I do as they prefer. Its up to their guild to decide how they want to handle it and while I may not play with them again if I think they go too far, I'm a guest in their guild for that match.

neoflame · Jun 19, 2006, 03:32 PM // 15:32

Quote:

Originally Posted by alchohol

Ethics = a system of accepted beliefs which control behaviour, especially such a system based on morals.

Wrong. Ethics is a subbranch of philosophy involving the study of moral values. Morality is an ethical knowledge claim.

JR · Jun 19, 2006, 03:40 PM // 15:40

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tortoise

You are right when you state that 'play to win' isn't understood by many, but it is a bit strange you use that fact against me and fail to see how many others in this thread ignore a vital concept to that philosophy.

My post wasn't aimed entirely at you; I realise others have shown simmilar misunderstandings.

To expand on my point; In a game where the developers set no real rules for the use/abuse of bugs, what the player does is entirely up to themselves. Their view is fairly understandable aswell; this is not a case of deliberately hacking, or deliberately doing something ingame that causes you to gain an unfair advantage. This is you not doing something that would be nice if you did.

This means that whilst you may make the concious choice to do the honourable thing if the other team gets a player stuck, nobody else is forced to do the same. Chances are you will face dozens of teams who just laugh and rank your face if you get stuck. Due to the nature of the bug you can't really use it as a basis for reporting someone, so people will continue to 'not be helpfull'. Your choice to be helpfull is doing nothing but gimping your team at this point.

Sirlin describes the line drawn at the intentional use and abuse of 'game-breaking' bugs; I don't really think you can classify not helping a stuck player as intentionally using and abusing a bug. It's not pleasant, and I hope Anet can sort it out soon. Untill then; let the glitch/err=7 russian roullette of GvG continue.

I apologise if you found my previous post a bit snappy, but your examples of PM spam etc. brought back memories of people using 'play to win' as justification for using the VoD gate bug. I have always had a fairly clear idea in my head of what can be construed as 'playing to win', and what can't.

In my mind a bug which allows a lesser skilled guild the chance to beat a higher skilled guild in completely even and controlled competition would be game breaking. This would of course have to be something the lesser skilled guild purposfully used. This is purely in a theoretical sense of course; in real life better guilds lose to worse guilds regularly.

lilnate22 · Jun 19, 2006, 03:43 PM // 15:43

well here is the way I look at it

if ur GVG or pvp just for the hell of it i.g. scrimmage,you just dont care shiit bout ranking or etc. Kill the "glitched" person if yo happen to be by him.. but dont realy need to go out of the way to kill him.

Now say that ur actualy serious about rank and your a high ranked guild... then DONT kill him! if some one hands you a 9MM pistol or a m60e3 what gun would you take? abviosly the m60.. you do anything and everything to win (except cheating) other persons loss is your gain

Schrale Kerel NL · Jun 19, 2006, 04:02 PM // 16:02

Quote:

Originally Posted by JR-

That's all very well from the perspective of a low ranked guild, but if you are low ranked then you probably aren't hugely bothered about being competitive anyway.

As stated already; I can kill stuck players, or /resign when a higher ranked guild has an err=7 against us, or give them a break when their thief bugs... but what is the point, if I can't trust everyone else to do the same. I am all for sportsmanship, but not gimping my team against opponents who aren't.

Its all about yourself. If you get a good feeling by acting sportive, you must do it. Dont think about what other people should do. If you are acting like everyone else, things will never get better...