46 replies to this topic

[h0B0]

Leonhardt, on April 14 2014 - 06:51 AM, said:

h0B0, on April 14 2014 - 06:45 AM, said:

Playing to win is not an attitude i find satisfactory in pub play. However i won't hold back in a comp event. Its a personal thing and i totally agree they aren't mutually exclusive, its a personal thing.

But your statement confuses me. It appears you are contradicting your previous one.

I think it confuses you because the "playing to win attitude" has different meaning to you than it does to me. I would not hold off on spawning in order to win that does not fit into my ideal of "playing to win." When I win I want a complete victory cutting through the BS (as in I don't want to win on a technicality).

I guess what I don't understand is what separates your conduct in a tournament from a pub_ If playing to win and having fun aren't mutually exclusive than can one not do both at the same time in both places_

Playing to win in the absolute sense means that you will use any and all exploit, bugs, design flaws and imbalances to your advantage. I do not take pleasure from stomping pubs due to my extensive knowledge of the game. However if i were to participate in tournament with the intent of winning the i would not hold back and expect others to do the same.

If you have a unbeatable strategy and refuse to use it then winning isn't your absolute goal.

[Leonhardt]

h0B0, on April 14 2014 - 04:44 PM, said:

Playing to win in the absolute sense means that you will use any and all exploit, bugs, design flaws and imbalances to your advantage. I do not take pleasure from stomping pubs due to my extensive knowledge of the game. However if i were to participate in tournament with the intent of winning the i would not hold back and expect others to do the same.

If you have a unbeatable strategy and refuse to use it then winning isn't your absolute goal.

I don't consider spawning into a game holding back nor would I consider taking advantage of the game in that manner an unbeatable strategy worth using because it defeats the whole purpose of playing the game which is... to play it.

Playing to win in the manner you are speaking could be applied to theories of war, but even there you find situations where something is so horrible all sides agree not to use it. Some examples of this are chemical warfare during WWII, even the German's (it censored N.A.Z.I) refused to use it (granted they used it on Jews and other civilians, but that's a whole other matter altogether) because it was so absolutely horrible during WWI and of course the most famous of examples nuclear weapons during the Cold War. Once again after the first two uses of the weapon on Japan it was so absolutely horrific that both sides refused to use such unbeatable strategic weaponry.

Why would they do that_ Because at the end of the day both sides realized that by using such strategies not only did they defeat their enemies they also defeated themselves.

So as I said earlier h0b0 your definition and idea of "playing to win" does not match mine and that's ok I'm not here to force my ideals on you or anyone else nor am I here to change your mind. I am simply making the case that one can "play to win" without losing sight of how they want/should win.

Edited by Leonhardt, April 14 2014 - 06:02 PM.

[h0B0]

Good to know you're one of those cowardly enemies that won't do what must be done no matter how horrible the consequences. I'll remember that next time we meet on the battlefield.

*insert maniacal laughter here*

[kanamisan]

I play hawken to blow up mechs. so ya, I might win by not spawning in, but I would much rather be shooting up the other team win or lose. but hey, if you want to play sitting your mech on its fuzzy bunny butt. then so be it, but just so you know, your a boring person for doing so. btw, games do not equal real life warfare, so anyone using that to try to prove a point is just silly. but again, the point of a game is not to win, but to compete with each other. and sitting on the sides to not compete with the other team is not the point of the game.  btw, that tactic is also cowerly, because it proves that your too scared that the other team might beat you at a internet game to play with them. kinda ironic that someone abusing such a tactic is calling someone else out on the very same problem they have.

[Leonhardt]

h0B0, on April 14 2014 - 05:40 PM, said:

Good to know you're one of those cowardly enemies that won't do what must be done no matter how horrible the consequences. I'll remember that next time we meet on the battlefield.

*insert maniacal laughter here*

That gif would make a child cry. I have to say its quite scary! lol

[Mawnkey]

So far as I can recall, most FPSes force spawn in their DM and TDM modes to prevent exactly this exploit. Sounds like a feature due to be added to Hawken at some point, no_

[DFTR]

Two issues/suggestions:  

1) It sounds like the prime reason they had a 10-7 lead was that they started the match 3 vs 2 and it was even 3 vs 1 at one point.  That's a huge disadvantage... hopefully matchmaking will fix/improve this.  I can understand the frustration...    

2) While this may be similar to "taking a knee" in football, 3 minutes is way too long for a spawn time especially since TDM lasts 10 minutes.  Would cut that down to 40 or 45 seconds like the playclock in NFL.  There may be times when you need to delay spawning right away so you can spawn w/  your group... that seems like a legitimate reason not to launch right away.

[Bazookagofer]

Rei, on April 13 2014 - 03:10 PM, said:

Lucier, on April 13 2014 - 03:01 PM, said:

Leonhardt, on April 13 2014 - 02:20 PM, said:

Lucier, on April 13 2014 - 02:16 PM, said:

h0B0, on April 13 2014 - 01:21 PM, said:

Lol. That is one of the few tactics we had planned for the 3v3 tournament that never happened.

Edit: its not so much about being "fuzzy bunny at games". Its about knowing the game and making the best of the limitations implemented to get a win.

I can't imagine a team doing that and not getting disqualified.

If you want to get technical its not against the rules although I think it goes without saying that its a scumbag thing to do and would obviously not fly.

I don't think something like that should really have to be explicitly stated in the rules for someone to be warned or disqualified for it, though it could easily be added since the tournament hasn't started yet.

It definitely should be explained in the rules. It's immoral sure, but technically not against the rules if you don't put that in there. I've also had this idea for quite a bit too for matches. 1 minute left_ We're up_ Don't spawn.

If it not written into the rules than it is a legal tactic. Whether it is scumbag or not is matter of opinion... but than again all fair in love and war... point is if there a loop hole u got every god damn right to use it lol

Personally I wouldn't do it but that just me...

Edited by Bazookagofer, April 15 2014 - 09:01 PM.

[Bazookagofer]

Leonhardt, on April 14 2014 - 04:59 PM, said:

h0B0, on April 14 2014 - 04:44 PM, said:

Playing to win in the absolute sense means that you will use any and all exploit, bugs, design flaws and imbalances to your advantage. I do not take pleasure from stomping pubs due to my extensive knowledge of the game. However if i were to participate in tournament with the intent of winning the i would not hold back and expect others to do the same.

If you have a unbeatable strategy and refuse to use it then winning isn't your absolute goal.

I don't consider spawning into a game holding back nor would I consider taking advantage of the game in that manner an unbeatable strategy worth using because it defeats the whole purpose of playing the game which is... to play it.

Playing to win in the manner you are speaking could be applied to theories of war, but even there you find situations where something is so horrible all sides agree not to use it. Some examples of this are chemical warfare during WWII, even the German's (it censored N.A.Z.I) refused to use it (granted they used it on Jews and other civilians, but that's a whole other matter altogether) because it was so absolutely horrible during WWI Actually chemical warfare was only devastating in the beginning of WWI. By the end it was less and less effective because most soldiers had gas masks by then... they were more worried by fragmentation shells than gas , chemical warfare in those times just became sub par compared to using fire bombs or fragmentation shells... and of course the most famous of examples nuclear weapons during the Cold War. Once again after the first two uses of the weapon on Japan it was so absolutely horrific that both sides refused to use such unbeatable strategic weaponry.  ​they would use it if not for the paradox that both sides would annihilate themselves if one launched a nuke... scientists who made nukes had a general idea of the devestation that nukes make what they didnt predict was the radioactive poisoning etc.

Why would they do that_ Because at the end of the day both sides realized that by using such strategies not only did they defeat their enemies they also defeated themselves.

So as I said earlier h0b0 your definition and idea of "playing to win" does not match mine and that's ok I'm not here to force my ideals on you or anyone else nor am I here to change your mind. I am simply making the case that one can "play to win" without losing sight of how they want/should win.

Edited by Bazookagofer, April 15 2014 - 09:02 PM.

[Leonhardt]

Bazookagofer, on April 15 2014 - 08:59 PM, said:

Playing to win in the manner you are speaking could be applied to theories of war, but even there you find situations where something is so horrible all sides agree not to use it. Some examples of this are chemical warfare during WWII, even the German's (it censored N.A.Z.I) refused to use it (granted they used it on Jews and other civilians, but that's a whole other matter altogether) because it was so absolutely horrible during WWI Actually chemical warfare was only devastating in the beginning of WWI. By the end it was less and less effective because most soldiers had gas masks by then... they were more worried by fragmentation shells than gas , chemical warfare in those times just became sub par compared to using fire bombs or fragmentation shells... and of course the most famous of examples nuclear weapons during the Cold War. Once again after the first two uses of the weapon on Japan it was so absolutely horrific that both sides refused to use such unbeatable strategic weaponry.  ​they would use it if not for the paradox that both sides would annihilate themselves if one launched a nuke... scientists who made nukes had a general idea of the devestation that nukes make what they didnt predict was the radioactive poisoning etc.

After WWI they found out about the environmental effects of the gas over most of Europe. The agreement not to use it has much more to do with that and the physical and psychological damage inflicted upon millions of innocent people then it does the waning effectiveness of the weapon during the war. In fact after the beginning of the war the primary use of gas was on civilians, but people don't like to talk about that.

Both sides refused to use the bomb because the cost was too great the reason for the cost doesn't change the outcome. Also the aftermath of the bombings were observed by both sides. Historians and political scientists point to "mutually assured destruction" as the reason neither nation used nuclear weapons on each other, but really that has a lot more to do with the balance of power then reasons not to use the weapons. The balance of power was in favor of whomever could put out the most nuclear weapons onto the other country in the shortest amount of time. Mutually assured destruction came about because both countries had to strike a balance of power and when that balance of power started to fade in one direction or the other the decision to use nuclear weapons was at its highest, yet neither side did so.

Do you know why_ The cost was too great for use of the weapon even on a rival nation. Thus an example of an unbeatable strategy not used because it would end up being something more akin to a pyrrhic victory.

For reference on pyrrhic victory - http://en.wikipedia....Pyrrhic_victory

Edited by Leonhardt, April 16 2014 - 07:20 AM.

[craftydus]

Leonhardt, on April 16 2014 - 07:17 AM, said:

For reference on pyrrhic victory - http://en.wikipedia....Pyrrhic_victory

I shudder to think too long on the horrors in which people are willing to participate, toward the destruction of themselves.

Back to the tactic under discussion, is that not pyrrhic in the sense that it [font=arial,helvetica,sans-serif] "negates any sense of achievement or profit (another term for this would be "hollow victory")" - from the wiki link.


When a match gets to the level that a player is willing to eat up several minutes refusing to spawn in, nobody wins.[/font]

Edited by craftydus, April 16 2014 - 07:37 AM.

[Aregon]

h0B0, on April 14 2014 - 05:40 PM, said:

Good to know you're one of those cowardly enemies that won't do what must be done no matter how horrible the consequences. I'll remember that next time we meet on the battlefield.

*insert maniacal laughter here*

I believe I found out how people look at me when I am angry.

[Bazookagofer]

Leonhardt, on April 16 2014 - 07:17 AM, said:

Bazookagofer, on April 15 2014 - 08:59 PM, said:

Playing to win in the manner you are speaking could be applied to theories of war, but even there you find situations where something is so horrible all sides agree not to use it. Some examples of this are chemical warfare during WWII, even the German's (it censored N.A.Z.I) refused to use it (granted they used it on Jews and other civilians, but that's a whole other matter altogether) because it was so absolutely horrible during WWI Actually chemical warfare was only devastating in the beginning of WWI. By the end it was less and less effective because most soldiers had gas masks by then... they were more worried by fragmentation shells than gas , chemical warfare in those times just became sub par compared to using fire bombs or fragmentation shells... and of course the most famous of examples nuclear weapons during the Cold War. Once again after the first two uses of the weapon on Japan it was so absolutely horrific that both sides refused to use such unbeatable strategic weaponry.  ​they would use it if not for the paradox that both sides would annihilate themselves if one launched a nuke... scientists who made nukes had a general idea of the devestation that nukes make what they didnt predict was the radioactive poisoning etc.

After WWI they found out about the environmental effects of the gas over most of Europe. The agreement not to use it has much more to do with that and the physical and psychological damage inflicted upon millions of innocent people then it does the waning effectiveness of the weapon during the war. In fact after the beginning of the war the primary use of gas was on civilians, but people don't like to talk about that.c Yea I could agree with the fact that civilians did suffer from this, but overall soldiers in WW1 still suffered a lot more than civs. And the waning effectiveness of gas  against military targets also declined its use, no point in wasting money on something that isn't nearly as effective as other stuff. Overall though IMO WW1 was the stupidest war humanity ever waged...

Both sides refused to use the bomb because the cost was too great the reason for the cost doesn't change the outcome. Also the aftermath of the bombings were observed by both sides. Historians and political scientists point to "mutually assured destruction" as the reason neither nation used nuclear weapons on each other, but really that has a lot more to do with the balance of power then reasons not to use the weapons. The balance of power was in favor of whomever could put out the most nuclear weapons onto the other country in the shortest amount of time. Mutually assured destruction came about because both countries had to strike a balance of power and when that balance of power started to fade in one direction or the other the decision to use nuclear weapons was at its highest, yet neither side did so.

Do you know why_ The cost was too great for use of the weapon even on a rival nation. Thus an example of an unbeatable strategy not used because it would end up being something more akin to a pyrrhic victory.

For reference on pyrrhic victory - http://en.wikipedia....Pyrrhic_victory  Yea that what I said about the nukes, the paradox of both sides destroying each other etc. So I agree with that one. You just restated what I just said . And pyrrhic victories lol, i hate those, damn greeks kept winning battles against the romans but they were taking too much casualties in return so romans won by attrition.

[Leonhardt]

Its not a paradox. Its a carefully thought out strategy using game theory. The doctorine of mutually assured destruction was a carefully crafted strategy meant to create a stalemate between the USSR and the USA.

The refusal to use gas during WWII has a lot to do with lasting environmental effects on Europe. Other options certainly made it an easy option for the nations to abide by, but land that can't grow crops is useless to the victor and the loser.

Edited by Leonhardt, April 18 2014 - 12:29 PM.

[Bazookagofer]

Leonhardt, on April 18 2014 - 12:28 PM, said:

Its not a paradox. Its a carefully thought out strategy using game theory. The doctorine of mutually assured destruction was a carefully crafted strategy meant to create a stalemate between the USSR and the USA Whatever it is maybe I am not using the word "paradox" properly which is probably the case... my english is pretty bad lol... but still nuke won't be used cuz both sides annihilate each other and that ain't good for politicians, it not as much strategy as more common sense, politicians won't use em cuz they need "something to rule"

The refusal to use gas during WWII has a lot to do with lasting environmental effects on Europe. Other options certainly made it an easy option for the nations to abide by, but land that can't grow crops is useless to the victor and the loser.

[Leonhardt]

Bazookagofer, on April 18 2014 - 12:56 PM, said:

Leonhardt, on April 18 2014 - 12:28 PM, said:

Its not a paradox. Its a carefully thought out strategy using game theory. The doctorine of mutually assured destruction was a carefully crafted strategy meant to create a stalemate between the USSR and the USA Whatever it is maybe I am not using the word "paradox" properly which is probably the case... my english is pretty bad lol... but still nuke won't be used cuz both sides annihilate each other and that ain't good for politicians, it not as much strategy as more common sense, politicians won't use em cuz they need "something to rule"

The refusal to use gas during WWII has a lot to do with lasting environmental effects on Europe. Other options certainly made it an easy option for the nations to abide by, but land that can't grow crops is useless to the victor and the loser.

MAD: Mutually Assured Destruction- http://en.wikipedia....red_destruction

Game Theory- http://en.wikipedia....iki/Game_theory

It was a strategy used by the USA during the Cold War. They calculated the actions of the USSR given the stalemate caused by Mutually Assured Destruction. It was the strategy used to stop a nuclear war from occurring.

[Bazookagofer]

Leonhardt, on April 18 2014 - 01:00 PM, said:

Bazookagofer, on April 18 2014 - 12:56 PM, said:

Leonhardt, on April 18 2014 - 12:28 PM, said:

Its not a paradox. Its a carefully thought out strategy using game theory. The doctorine of mutually assured destruction was a carefully crafted strategy meant to create a stalemate between the USSR and the USA Whatever it is maybe I am not using the word "paradox" properly which is probably the case... my english is pretty bad lol... but still nuke won't be used cuz both sides annihilate each other and that ain't good for politicians, it not as much strategy as more common sense, politicians won't use em cuz they need "something to rule"

The refusal to use gas during WWII has a lot to do with lasting environmental effects on Europe. Other options certainly made it an easy option for the nations to abide by, but land that can't grow crops is useless to the victor and the loser.

MAD: Mutually Assured Destruction- http://en.wikipedia....red_destruction

Game Theory- http://en.wikipedia....iki/Game_theory

It was a strategy used by the USA during the Cold War. They calculated the actions of the USSR given the stalemate caused by Mutually Assured Destruction. It was the strategy used to stop a nuclear war from occurring.

DUDE THIS IS WHAT I WAS SAYING. I just don't use fancy terms because I don't think there necessary...

[Leonhardt]

Bazookagofer, on April 18 2014 - 02:24 PM, said:

Leonhardt, on April 18 2014 - 01:00 PM, said:

Bazookagofer, on April 18 2014 - 12:56 PM, said:

Leonhardt, on April 18 2014 - 12:28 PM, said:

Its not a paradox. Its a carefully thought out strategy using game theory. The doctorine of mutually assured destruction was a carefully crafted strategy meant to create a stalemate between the USSR and the USA Whatever it is maybe I am not using the word "paradox" properly which is probably the case... my english is pretty bad lol... but still nuke won't be used cuz both sides annihilate each other and that ain't good for politicians, it not as much strategy as more common sense, politicians won't use em cuz they need "something to rule"

The refusal to use gas during WWII has a lot to do with lasting environmental effects on Europe. Other options certainly made it an easy option for the nations to abide by, but land that can't grow crops is useless to the victor and the loser.

MAD: Mutually Assured Destruction- http://en.wikipedia....red_destruction

Game Theory- http://en.wikipedia....iki/Game_theory

It was a strategy used by the USA during the Cold War. They calculated the actions of the USSR given the stalemate caused by Mutually Assured Destruction. It was the strategy used to stop a nuclear war from occurring.

DUDE THIS IS WHAT I WAS SAYING. I just don't use fancy terms because I don't think there necessary...

They are necessary. The words you use completely change the meaning of the sentence. I have written many University essays on these topics trust me when I say 1 or 2 words changes everything.

Also if you look in the above you specifically stated that it was not a strategy.

Edited by Leonhardt, April 18 2014 - 02:40 PM.

[Bazookagofer]

Leonhardt, on April 18 2014 - 02:39 PM, said:

Bazookagofer, on April 18 2014 - 02:24 PM, said:

Leonhardt, on April 18 2014 - 01:00 PM, said:

Bazookagofer, on April 18 2014 - 12:56 PM, said:

Leonhardt, on April 18 2014 - 12:28 PM, said:

Its not a paradox. Its a carefully thought out strategy using game theory. The doctorine of mutually assured destruction was a carefully crafted strategy meant to create a stalemate between the USSR and the USA Whatever it is maybe I am not using the word "paradox" properly which is probably the case... my english is pretty bad lol... but still nuke won't be used cuz both sides annihilate each other and that ain't good for politicians, it not as much strategy as more common sense, politicians won't use em cuz they need "something to rule"

The refusal to use gas during WWII has a lot to do with lasting environmental effects on Europe. Other options certainly made it an easy option for the nations to abide by, but land that can't grow crops is useless to the victor and the loser.

MAD: Mutually Assured Destruction- http://en.wikipedia....red_destruction

Game Theory- http://en.wikipedia....iki/Game_theory

It was a strategy used by the USA during the Cold War. They calculated the actions of the USSR given the stalemate caused by Mutually Assured Destruction. It was the strategy used to stop a nuclear war from occurring.

DUDE THIS IS WHAT I WAS SAYING. I just don't use fancy terms because I don't think there necessary...

They are necessary. The words you use completely change the meaning of the sentence. I have written many University essays on these topics trust me when I say 1 or 2 words changes everything.  I will keep that in mind. Thank you for the tip, but this is a internet forum after all... not a university just throwing that out there.

Also if you look in the above you specifically stated that it was not a strategy. I didn't say there was absolutely NO strategy I said it was mainly common sense... big difference.

So we still agree... except I say it without using the fancy terms...

PS Isn't this already gone way off topic_

Edited by Bazookagofer, April 18 2014 - 05:23 PM.

[Leonhardt]

Bazookagofer, on April 18 2014 - 05:23 PM, said:

PS Isn't this already gone way off topic_

Worth