And to further the point, the Colts making the playoffs 14 out of 15 years (as you mentioned, often as first seed or first round bye at least) just proves my point. This kind of sustained success just would not feasibly end up in 1 super bowl victory in 2 appearences unless something was wrong. Something else was going on there in the playoffs. Nobody is doubting Peytons regular season success.
As for Brady being humble at Michigan, haha no sh*t. He was dead last on the depth chart on a team that carried around 8 quarterbacks at the time. I think thats more than enough to instill a little humility in anyone.
Ive already mentioned a few reasons why I think Bradys a dick. He talked trash to Sherman in the Seahawks game about "see me after the game when we win" and got a "U MAD BRO" for his trouble. He also went to Isiah Thomas school of leaving the field post-haste (should read early) when on the losing end. He's just not the best sportsman there ever was. And regardless of the golden boy image he portrays in the media very well, he still has a slip up every now and then. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5lk-wWUQKBg
Yes, you are right that competitiveness eventually involves a certain level of sociopathy, psychopathy and/or hatred. The certain feeling of I'm the best and I hate my opponent and I hate to lose and I don't care at all what happens to to any1 else especially my opponent. I believe this is true to all competition completely regardless of game or situation in rl. This doesn't mean that non-competitive, momentarily or not, people do not win, but in the long run, being able to maintain the trait will give a certain edge in many forms of activities involving competition. Did I miss something? With all the talk about football...:)
Yes, you are right that competitiveness eventually involves a certain level of sociopathy, psychopathy and/or hatred. The certain feeling of I'm the best and I hate my opponent and I hate to lose and I don't care at all what happens to to any1 else especially my opponent. I believe this is true to all competition completely regardless of game or situation in rl.
Maybe I'm part of a dying breed, but sportsmanship and respect for one's opponent, be it in sport or other competitions, seems to have gone the way of the dodo with the current generation. Your post is a shining example of that.
If you get a chance, watch the movie Master and Commander. You might find it an interesting view of competition.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
Yes, you are right that competitiveness eventually involves a certain level of sociopathy, psychopathy and/or hatred. The certain feeling of I'm the best and I hate my opponent and I hate to lose and I don't care at all what happens to to any1 else especially my opponent. I believe this is true to all competition completely regardless of game or situation in rl.
Maybe I'm part of a dying breed, but sportsmanship and respect for one's opponent, be it in sport or other competitions, seems to have gone the way of the dodo with the current generation. Your post is a shining example of that.
If you get a chance, watch the movie Master and Commander. You might find it an interesting view of competition.
Oh, I know chivalry and sportsmanship quite well and I'm sorry if I worded myself as somehow advocating competitiveness, but in the end it's a very different matter. I happen to dislike competitions and am not a very competitive person overall myself. I used to play soccer and we were taught quite a lot about true sportsmanship and to respect the game and the opponent. However, I insist that has next to nothing to do with competitiveness which in it's rawest form boils down to desire to win regardless of anything else. What it can be percieved to cause in a person is what OP describes as being an "asshole".
If I had to decide what to teach people, it would of course be sportsmanship and chivalry, but in a discussion like a percieve this thread to be...:D Oh well.. you got me a bit defensive, but I do believe sportsmanship and chivalry are about values and competitiveness is about desire, but naturally that's just my opinion:)
Until then, you're playing a video game, and no-one of importance cares about your "1v1 rankings omg!!!11oneone", nor does anyone of importance find you "skillful".
Is it this kind of thinking that relates school massacres to computer games?
Yes, you are right that competitiveness eventually involves a certain level of sociopathy, psychopathy and/or hatred. The certain feeling of I'm the best and I hate my opponent and I hate to lose and I don't care at all what happens to to any1 else especially my opponent. I believe this is true to all competition completely regardless of game or situation in rl.
Maybe I'm part of a dying breed, but sportsmanship and respect for one's opponent, be it in sport or other competitions, seems to have gone the way of the dodo with the current generation. Your post is a shining example of that.
If you get a chance, watch the movie Master and Commander. You might find it an interesting view of competition.
Oh, I know chivalry and sportsmanship quite well and I'm sorry if I worded myself as somehow advocating competitiveness, but in the end it's a very different matter. I happen to dislike competitions and am not a very competitive person overall myself. I used to play soccer and we were taught quite a lot about true sportsmanship and to respect the game and the opponent. However, I insist that has next to nothing to do with competitiveness which in it's rawest form boils down to desire to win regardless of anything else. What it can be percieved to cause in a person is what OP describes as being an "asshole".
If I had to decide what to teach people, it would of course be sportsmanship and chivalry, but in a discussion like a percieve this thread to be...:D Oh well.. you got me a bit defensive, but I do believe sportsmanship and chivalry are about values and competitiveness is about desire, but naturally that's just my opinion:)
I disagree with everything you wrote. The most important thing about competition is the competition. Winning is entirely secondary: There wouldn't be any competition if everyone didn't try to win. I couldn't care less if I won or not - all that matters is the dramatic struggle and the challenge, so I will try to win with the rest of them.
Any hint that competitiveness has anything to do with hate or any sort of psychological deficiency is complete and utter hogwash. If you can't understand it, do us a favor and don't even try.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
i don't know about all PVP orientated games, but certainly the ones i have played in, the only really good PVP skill worth having is the one that enables you to work alongside other players as part of a team, i've never really regarded 1 v 1 as even being PVP tbh, its more like a trainer for the real thing, PVP for me means teamwork and strategy
I disagree with everything you wrote. The most important thing about competition is the competition. Winning is entirely secondary: There wouldn't be any competition if everyone didn't try to win. I couldn't care less if I won or not - all that matters is the dramatic struggle and the challenge, so I will try to win with the rest of them.
Any hint that competitiveness has anything to do with hate or any sort of psychological deficiency is complete and utter hogwash. If you can't understand it, do us a favor and don't even try.
Well, that's an elaborate way of writing shut up:)
Competition is an occurrence. Competitiveness is a trait of a person. As usual in forums, ppl talk of different things, misunderstand, tell each other to shut up and resort to name calling. I expect you to get to that after this.
Yes, OP calls it being an asshole, I listed some less forum-friendly terms and you decided that I called you those things. I would expect you to know not to take things personally, but it seems everyday's a new day here too. I was wrong. Plus internez to ya and have a nice thread^^
Step 1. Put both combatants into a game about PVP skill. (By definition this won't be an MMORPG.)
Step 2. Congratulate the victor.
Simple.
All that other garbage is just an extension of the fact that MMORPG PVP is diluted by many non-skill factors. If you're interested in pure PVP skill, you play a pure PVP game. Otherwise you just accept the fact that skill is diluted by non-skill factors like playtime and don't take it too seriously because you're not playing a serious PVP game.
Your post reminds of the fable of the debate between the lion, the eagle and the bull about who should be the king of the beasts. The Eagle proposed that that the highest flier should be made king; the Lion suggested that the loadest roar and the sharpest teeth be the deciding factor, whereas the Bull claimed that the greatest strength and largest horns were the mark of the true King.
Likewise, you have proposed a sharply limited definition of PvP skill that just happens to suit the parts of PvP that you're good at or that you enjoy. And MMORPGs don't fit nicely within your preferences, so you try and claim that how high one can fly matters more than strength or horn size is what counts!
There is only one measure of PvP skill: victory over your opponent within the rules. The End.
A great PvPer in one game might well be mediocre at best in another, because the two games have different rules and mechanics. To take an example we're both familiar with, PvP in EVE requires fitting skills, knowledge of flight mechanics and micromanaging skills... and it also allows diplomacy, treachery and deceptive tactics to be employed to win a fight in ways which simply aren't allowed in other games. That doesn't mean that Arena PvP in Wow isn't "true" PvP, and it doesn't mean that I'm not better at PvP than another guy because I allowed him to aggress my lone battleship, and then the other 49 guys in my fleet jumped in and wtfpwned him. The two games have different rules of engagement, and only results within those rules are an incontrovertible measure of "skill".
Yes, you are right that competitiveness eventually involves a certain level of sociopathy, psychopathy and/or hatred. The certain feeling of I'm the best and I hate my opponent and I hate to lose and I don't care at all what happens to to any1 else especially my opponent. I believe this is true to all competition completely regardless of game or situation in rl.
Maybe I'm part of a dying breed, but sportsmanship and respect for one's opponent, be it in sport or other competitions, seems to have gone the way of the dodo with the current generation. Your post is a shining example of that.
If you get a chance, watch the movie Master and Commander. You might find it an interesting view of competition.
Oh, I know chivalry and sportsmanship quite well and I'm sorry if I worded myself as somehow advocating competitiveness, but in the end it's a very different matter. I happen to dislike competitions and am not a very competitive person overall myself. I used to play soccer and we were taught quite a lot about true sportsmanship and to respect the game and the opponent. However, I insist that has next to nothing to do with competitiveness which in it's rawest form boils down to desire to win regardless of anything else. What it can be percieved to cause in a person is what OP describes as being an "asshole".
If I had to decide what to teach people, it would of course be sportsmanship and chivalry, but in a discussion like a percieve this thread to be...:D Oh well.. you got me a bit defensive, but I do believe sportsmanship and chivalry are about values and competitiveness is about desire, but naturally that's just my opinion:)
I disagree with everything you wrote. The most important thing about competition is the competition. Winning is entirely secondary: There wouldn't be any competition if everyone didn't try to win. I couldn't care less if I won or not - all that matters is the dramatic struggle and the challenge, so I will try to win with the rest of them.
Any hint that competitiveness has anything to do with hate or any sort of psychological deficiency is complete and utter hogwash. If you can't understand it, do us a favor and don't even try.
Its not a "psychological deficiency". I dont think anyone would accuse the people Ive mentioned specifically of being deficient in some way, in fact quite the opposite. And the public view of a winner is never negative, regardless of the way one chooses to win. We only care that they won. And of course, most people regardless of their own personal beliefs on the matter, will try to portray a certain level of class and sportsmanship when competing. It doesnt take that much effort to dictate how the public perceives you, and this is made all the more easier IF you win. Were all too eager to lap it up and dismiss minor outburts as "part of the game" or being "caught up in the moment" as long as you bring home a trophy at the end of the day.
I made the point earlier about how less than 1% of the population hoards 99% of the wealth of the world. Success in business and enterprise is rarely different from success in any competition. The reason these men are able to accomplish what they do is because they are exceptionally gifted at dominating or subjugating others. And they have the will to do so with impunity. And if for some reason they fail at a particular venture, it will nag at them, like a fractured bone that just wont heal. Now the majority of the human race would give out a resounding "ho-hum" if they lost 30 million on a business deal and still had 2 billion to bat with. Its a reasonable and completely natural reaction. But if these men had this apathetic attitude, they wouldnt be where they are in the first place. No matter how much money they make, its not about that, its about what they lost. They just dont accept losing, ever.
The greatest competitors in any sport are no different. And they're more rare than you realize. I named I think 3 in my main post. There are others, these just happen to be the sports Im mainly interested in. If I was talking about baseball I'd be talking about Pete Rose and Ty Cobb. Its easier with the team sports because you have a larger sample size to work with.
Sadly, I think its just lost on most of us what makes these men exceptional. Which is why I trivialized it by calling it the "asshole" trait. You would definitely have to have a lot of experience competing with other people before you would really get it I think.
I think a lot of PvP success comes from knowledge of your opponents, allies and yourself.
It's good to know your enemies to know what they can do, what skills they have in their arsenal, and what tricks they have up their sleeve so that you can counter them or bring in an ally that can counter them. If you know what your allies can do, you can cover your deficiencies by teaming up with them. If you know yourself, you know what skills are most useful against certain types of enemies, can support your allies in some situations, and even find a couple tricks up your sleeve.
Essentially, this knowledge is worthless unless you act upon what you know. The same knowledge is useful in PvE as well as PvP.
I played WoW up until WotLK, played RoM for 2 years and now Rift. I am F2P player. I support games when I feel they deserve my money and I want the items enough. I don't troll, and I don't take kindly to trolls.
I disagree with everything you wrote. The most important thing about competition is the competition. Winning is entirely secondary: There wouldn't be any competition if everyone didn't try to win. I couldn't care less if I won or not - all that matters is the dramatic struggle and the challenge, so I will try to win with the rest of them.
Any hint that competitiveness has anything to do with hate or any sort of psychological deficiency is complete and utter hogwash. If you can't understand it, do us a favor and don't even try.
Its not a "psychological deficiency". I dont think anyone would accuse the people Ive mentioned specifically of being deficient in some way, in fact quite the opposite. And the public view of a winner is never negative, regardless of the way one chooses to win. We only care that they won. And of course, most people regardless of their own personal beliefs on the matter, will try to portray a certain level of class and sportsmanship when competing. It doesnt take that much effort to dictate how the public perceives you, and this is made all the more easier IF you win. Were all too eager to lap it up and dismiss minor outburts as "part of the game" or being "caught up in the moment" as long as you bring home a trophy at the end of the day.
I made the point earlier about how less than 1% of the population hoards 99% of the wealth of the world. Success in business and enterprise is rarely different from success in any competition. The reason these men are able to accomplish what they do is because they are exceptionally gifted at dominating or subjugating others. And they have the will to do so with impunity. And if for some reason they fail at a particular venture, it will nag at them, like a fractured bone that just wont heal. Now the majority of the human race would give out a resounding "ho-hum" if they lost 30 million on a business deal and still had 2 billion to bat with. Its a reasonable and completely natural reaction. But if these men had this apathetic attitude, they wouldnt be where they are in the first place. No matter how much money they make, its not about that, its about what they lost. They just dont accept losing, ever.
The greatest competitors in any sport are no different. And they're more rare than you realize. I named I think 3 in my main post. There are others, these just happen to be the sports Im mainly interested in. If I was talking about baseball I'd be talking about Pete Rose and Ty Cobb. Its easier with the team sports because you have a larger sample size to work with.
Sadly, I think its just lost on most of us what makes these men exceptional. Which is why I trivialized it by calling it the "asshole" trait. You would definitely have to have a lot of experience competing with other people before you would really get it I think.
Its not the same thing. Sure, financially thriving people are aslo very capable. However, a number of research papers report that "the rich" are significantly more selfish than any other person. Business ethics is a joke to some people, and I'm sure I don't have to tell you examples of this.
I attended a number of math and english competitions (second language) in school. I've played soccer and volleyball for years, martial arts for a few years, attended many, many tournaments, played videogames at a world championship level and you're telling me I don't quite "get it"? What the hell, man?!
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
Your post reminds of the fable of the debate between the lion, the eagle and the bull about who should be the king of the beasts. The Eagle proposed that that the highest flier should be made king; the Lion suggested that the loadest roar and the sharpest teeth be the deciding factor, whereas the Bull claimed that the greatest strength and largest horns were the mark of the true King.
Likewise, you have proposed a sharply limited definition of PvP skill that just happens to suit the parts of PvP that you're good at or that you enjoy. And MMORPGs don't fit nicely within your preferences, so you try and claim that how high one can fly matters more than strength or horn size is what counts!
There is only one measure of PvP skill: victory over your opponent within the rules. The End.
A great PvPer in one game might well be mediocre at best in another, because the two games have different rules and mechanics. To take an example we're both familiar with, PvP in EVE requires fitting skills, knowledge of flight mechanics and micromanaging skills... and it also allows diplomacy, treachery and deceptive tactics to be employed to win a fight in ways which simply aren't allowed in other games. That doesn't mean that Arena PvP in Wow isn't "true" PvP, and it doesn't mean that I'm not better at PvP than another guy because I allowed him to aggress my lone battleship, and then the other 49 guys in my fleet jumped in and wtfpwned him. The two games have different rules of engagement, and only results within those rules are an incontrovertible measure of "skill".
My definition of skill isn't sharply limited, it's precisely what skill is:
Skill is decision-making and execution.
Pure PVP games like FPSes, RTSes, Fighting games, or MOBAS measure only those elements.
Diluted PVP games (MMORPGs) muck up that purity with non-skill elements like playtime or excessively shallow game elements like zerging or class counters.
If somebody wants to quantify and compete about PVP skill, they play pure PVP games. They don't play War (a card game with a purely random victor) and they don't play Progress Quest (an RPG purely about playtime), because these games aren't solely measuring the thing he wants to measure: skill. For the same reason you wouldn't play EVE or WOW Arenas, because they're still tainted by non-skill factors and not a pure read of skill.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Players that don't need any significant advantage to mop the floor with the rest of the field.
That's all really.
In most cases, this is true: Usually, you're not as good as you think, only the competition is piss poor.
A friend of mine had their FPS clan of six players move to an MMOFPS where they steamrolled the top guilds in the game with hundreds of members. They regularly beat 5:1 even 10:1 odds. In some games, player skill has more effect than in others.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
Its not the same thing. Sure, financially thriving people are aslo very capable. However, a number of research papers report that "the rich" are significantly more selfish than any other person. Business ethics is a joke to some people, and I'm sure I don't have to tell you examples of this.
I attended a number of math and english competitions (second language) in school. I've played soccer and volleyball for years, martial arts for a few years, attended many, many tournaments, played videogames at a world championship level and you're telling me I don't quite "get it"? What the hell, man?!
Its exactly the same thing. If you cant see any correlation between the selfishness required in obtaining incredible sums of money by stepping over others, and winning in competition because of not only the will the see yourself succeed, but also not wanting to see anyone else have the same success, well, I dont know what to tell you. Theres no difference. And the only thing the people I have described have in common outside of atheltic ability is that very factor, thats it. They all have athletic ability, they're professional athletes. Jordan was on record saying Charles Barkley would never win a championship. They faced each other in the finals once, and Barkley was a close friend of his and also a top 50 player of all time. Why would Jordan say this? Barkley doesnt have it, and Jordan knew it, only those with this trait I suppose can really sense it in others.
No, you dont get it. You said you dont care about winning. Thats fine, if thats how you feel. But no, you dont get what Im talking about.
Originally posted by Meridion attemping to give f*** about mad skillz... error: Life present. sorry, unable to proceed, no f***s were given...
You gave enough of a f--k to make an attempt at being witty on an internet forum dedicated to MMORPGs.
This life you speak of, evidently its on hold?
As predictable as it is, its still a little baffling to see posters who are intent on devolving every discussion into yet another opportunity to show off their l33t rhetoric of apathy.
Arent there plenty of other threads and dubstep youtube videos where you can tell us that you dont care?
You DO have to be an asshole to be any measure of champion.
Good post, enjoyed reading this. But I have to disagree in the main.
The same is said in business - "I didn't get where I am today by being nice..." yada yada.
The problem is that people BELIEVE they have to be arseholes to succeed.
I think PvP is a combination of gear, skill, experience and - and here's the bloody clincher if you're over 30... a lack of RSI and good reactions!
I've been chewed up and spat out by lesser-experienced/geared players because their reactions are faster, their coordination better and their medicine cabinet full of spot cream.
'Skill' in games is almost always measured by efficiently and endurance. How efficiently you can do something over a period of time is generally what determines your skill level.
However, this also depends on the type of game you are playing. In any game with a ladder, you will find that skil is quantified using the above criteria, weighted against the 'skill lvl' of other players. In the best games though, there is also a creative / ingenuity factor that comes into play, that isn't really quantifyable. I.E. That play in League of Legends that is able to pull a ridiculously idiotic dive, and come out on top. Or the players that are constantly changing the Meta. This requires that a game actually have a meta, though.
im not implying that about Chess. That really takes a person's skill to play it well. In Chess you only move pieces mindlessly if you dont know how to play. Very different than mmos that doesnt require people's skills.
Yes, decision-making and execution. I didnt have those words in mind but i do agree with it on my first post. The mmos we have now dont require any decision making or good execution. They just require good gear and button spam. Even TERA.
Given equal gear and classes, if you don't hit the right skills in the right order you lose in MMORPG PVP. It requires skill, even if the game depth isn't as deep as Chess.
And that's without calling up some of the other non-skill-choice decisions required to do well in PVP.
MMORPG PVP is lousy because it's diluted by non-skill factors, but let's not pretend that dilution is the same as not requiring skill. MMORPG PVP clearly requires skill, it just requires less than a pure skill-focused game.
Why are we capitalising chess? Just out of interest. Did they make an MMO? (so do not link me if they did, please)
And surely, comparing chess to PvP is like comparing extreme sporting to rambling through the countryside with a map, a compass and an anorak... ?
And surely, comparing chess to PvP is like comparing extreme sporting to rambling through the countryside with a map, a compass and an anorak... ?
We're not comparing chess to PVP. Chess is PVP. You do realize the acronym stands for Player vs. Player, right? PVP isn't something specific to MMORPGs or even videogames. It's the concept of any player vs. player competition in a game.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
And surely, comparing chess to PvP is like comparing extreme sporting to rambling through the countryside with a map, a compass and an anorak... ?
We're not comparing chess to PVP. Chess is PVP. You do realize the acronym stands for Player vs. Player, right? PVP isn't something specific to MMORPGs or even videogames. It's the concept of any player vs. player competition in a game.
If all PvP is can be broken down to one player trying to outdo another, why compare it to something mentally challenging? The LAST thing PvP is, is mentally challenging... unless you've forgotten where your keys are. Compare it instead to, say, swingball. Or Tiddlywinks. Or mutual masturbation.
Thanks for the heads up on the acronym though - if for no other reason, I come here to learn.
I hope this provides you some amusement, cause that's all it it for me: a game of thought and a way to pass some time. I would advice not to look for anything even remotely scientific and take it with a pinch of salt. As OP, I was writing about extreme cases. Not the annual petanque/texas hold'em event of your pub friends. Habitual zoning happening outside of competitive situations. Now I'm certain not many of the extremely successful people could be diagnozed with anything and neither would the shrinks have the balls to do that. Plus they wouldn't use none of the nasty words I used before, but would perhaps if any use terms like raging problems.
Further, I am wondering about causality. It is possible, that assholes are simply often more competitive and at times more successful, but I would think frequent entering in high level competitions involving extreme decision making, execution skills and harmful stress levels. In normal situations, the brain releases endorphin and people are able to find enjoyment in what they are doing. In habitual and compulsive cases, the desire to win (competitiveness) is so great that no enjoyment is found. If rl situation doesn't compensate, it is very much possible that the situation persists and gets out of hand. Thus they become assholes while displaying the same competitive behavior outside of competitive situations. In worst cases it might lead to symptoms resembling mental disorders, but I guess that's a taboo here:)
Now if you feel offended, I urge you to not take internet forum ramblings seriously, take a deep breath, vent e.g. here a bit and move on. I personally find OP's thread slightly entertaining and the game of thought and reactions to it quite amusing.
Comments
And to further the point, the Colts making the playoffs 14 out of 15 years (as you mentioned, often as first seed or first round bye at least) just proves my point. This kind of sustained success just would not feasibly end up in 1 super bowl victory in 2 appearences unless something was wrong. Something else was going on there in the playoffs. Nobody is doubting Peytons regular season success.
As for Brady being humble at Michigan, haha no sh*t. He was dead last on the depth chart on a team that carried around 8 quarterbacks at the time. I think thats more than enough to instill a little humility in anyone.
Ive already mentioned a few reasons why I think Bradys a dick. He talked trash to Sherman in the Seahawks game about "see me after the game when we win" and got a "U MAD BRO" for his trouble. He also went to Isiah Thomas school of leaving the field post-haste (should read early) when on the losing end. He's just not the best sportsman there ever was. And regardless of the golden boy image he portrays in the media very well, he still has a slip up every now and then. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5lk-wWUQKBg
Yes, you are right that competitiveness eventually involves a certain level of sociopathy, psychopathy and/or hatred. The certain feeling of I'm the best and I hate my opponent and I hate to lose and I don't care at all what happens to to any1 else especially my opponent. I believe this is true to all competition completely regardless of game or situation in rl. This doesn't mean that non-competitive, momentarily or not, people do not win, but in the long run, being able to maintain the trait will give a certain edge in many forms of activities involving competition. Did I miss something? With all the talk about football...:)
Maybe I'm part of a dying breed, but sportsmanship and respect for one's opponent, be it in sport or other competitions, seems to have gone the way of the dodo with the current generation. Your post is a shining example of that.
If you get a chance, watch the movie Master and Commander. You might find it an interesting view of competition.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
Oh, I know chivalry and sportsmanship quite well and I'm sorry if I worded myself as somehow advocating competitiveness, but in the end it's a very different matter. I happen to dislike competitions and am not a very competitive person overall myself. I used to play soccer and we were taught quite a lot about true sportsmanship and to respect the game and the opponent. However, I insist that has next to nothing to do with competitiveness which in it's rawest form boils down to desire to win regardless of anything else. What it can be percieved to cause in a person is what OP describes as being an "asshole".
If I had to decide what to teach people, it would of course be sportsmanship and chivalry, but in a discussion like a percieve this thread to be...:D Oh well.. you got me a bit defensive, but I do believe sportsmanship and chivalry are about values and competitiveness is about desire, but naturally that's just my opinion:)
Is it this kind of thinking that relates school massacres to computer games?
I disagree with everything you wrote. The most important thing about competition is the competition. Winning is entirely secondary: There wouldn't be any competition if everyone didn't try to win. I couldn't care less if I won or not - all that matters is the dramatic struggle and the challenge, so I will try to win with the rest of them.
Any hint that competitiveness has anything to do with hate or any sort of psychological deficiency is complete and utter hogwash. If you can't understand it, do us a favor and don't even try.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
Well, that's an elaborate way of writing shut up:)
Competition is an occurrence. Competitiveness is a trait of a person. As usual in forums, ppl talk of different things, misunderstand, tell each other to shut up and resort to name calling. I expect you to get to that after this.
Yes, OP calls it being an asshole, I listed some less forum-friendly terms and you decided that I called you those things. I would expect you to know not to take things personally, but it seems everyday's a new day here too. I was wrong. Plus internez to ya and have a nice thread^^
Your post reminds of the fable of the debate between the lion, the eagle and the bull about who should be the king of the beasts. The Eagle proposed that that the highest flier should be made king; the Lion suggested that the loadest roar and the sharpest teeth be the deciding factor, whereas the Bull claimed that the greatest strength and largest horns were the mark of the true King.
Likewise, you have proposed a sharply limited definition of PvP skill that just happens to suit the parts of PvP that you're good at or that you enjoy. And MMORPGs don't fit nicely within your preferences, so you try and claim that how high one can fly matters more than strength or horn size is what counts!
There is only one measure of PvP skill: victory over your opponent within the rules. The End.
A great PvPer in one game might well be mediocre at best in another, because the two games have different rules and mechanics. To take an example we're both familiar with, PvP in EVE requires fitting skills, knowledge of flight mechanics and micromanaging skills... and it also allows diplomacy, treachery and deceptive tactics to be employed to win a fight in ways which simply aren't allowed in other games. That doesn't mean that Arena PvP in Wow isn't "true" PvP, and it doesn't mean that I'm not better at PvP than another guy because I allowed him to aggress my lone battleship, and then the other 49 guys in my fleet jumped in and wtfpwned him. The two games have different rules of engagement, and only results within those rules are an incontrovertible measure of "skill".
Give me liberty or give me lasers
Its not a "psychological deficiency". I dont think anyone would accuse the people Ive mentioned specifically of being deficient in some way, in fact quite the opposite. And the public view of a winner is never negative, regardless of the way one chooses to win. We only care that they won. And of course, most people regardless of their own personal beliefs on the matter, will try to portray a certain level of class and sportsmanship when competing. It doesnt take that much effort to dictate how the public perceives you, and this is made all the more easier IF you win. Were all too eager to lap it up and dismiss minor outburts as "part of the game" or being "caught up in the moment" as long as you bring home a trophy at the end of the day.
I made the point earlier about how less than 1% of the population hoards 99% of the wealth of the world. Success in business and enterprise is rarely different from success in any competition. The reason these men are able to accomplish what they do is because they are exceptionally gifted at dominating or subjugating others. And they have the will to do so with impunity. And if for some reason they fail at a particular venture, it will nag at them, like a fractured bone that just wont heal. Now the majority of the human race would give out a resounding "ho-hum" if they lost 30 million on a business deal and still had 2 billion to bat with. Its a reasonable and completely natural reaction. But if these men had this apathetic attitude, they wouldnt be where they are in the first place. No matter how much money they make, its not about that, its about what they lost. They just dont accept losing, ever.
The greatest competitors in any sport are no different. And they're more rare than you realize. I named I think 3 in my main post. There are others, these just happen to be the sports Im mainly interested in. If I was talking about baseball I'd be talking about Pete Rose and Ty Cobb. Its easier with the team sports because you have a larger sample size to work with.
Sadly, I think its just lost on most of us what makes these men exceptional. Which is why I trivialized it by calling it the "asshole" trait. You would definitely have to have a lot of experience competing with other people before you would really get it I think.
I think a lot of PvP success comes from knowledge of your opponents, allies and yourself.
It's good to know your enemies to know what they can do, what skills they have in their arsenal, and what tricks they have up their sleeve so that you can counter them or bring in an ally that can counter them. If you know what your allies can do, you can cover your deficiencies by teaming up with them. If you know yourself, you know what skills are most useful against certain types of enemies, can support your allies in some situations, and even find a couple tricks up your sleeve.
Essentially, this knowledge is worthless unless you act upon what you know. The same knowledge is useful in PvE as well as PvP.
I played WoW up until WotLK, played RoM for 2 years and now Rift.
I am F2P player. I support games when I feel they deserve my money and I want the items enough.
I don't troll, and I don't take kindly to trolls.
Players that don't need any significant advantage to mop the floor with the rest of the field.
That's all really.
Enter a whole new realm of challenge and adventure.
Its not the same thing. Sure, financially thriving people are aslo very capable. However, a number of research papers report that "the rich" are significantly more selfish than any other person. Business ethics is a joke to some people, and I'm sure I don't have to tell you examples of this.
I attended a number of math and english competitions (second language) in school. I've played soccer and volleyball for years, martial arts for a few years, attended many, many tournaments, played videogames at a world championship level and you're telling me I don't quite "get it"? What the hell, man?!
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
My definition of skill isn't sharply limited, it's precisely what skill is:
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
In most cases, this is true: Usually, you're not as good as you think, only the competition is piss poor.
A friend of mine had their FPS clan of six players move to an MMOFPS where they steamrolled the top guilds in the game with hundreds of members. They regularly beat 5:1 even 10:1 odds. In some games, player skill has more effect than in others.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
Its exactly the same thing. If you cant see any correlation between the selfishness required in obtaining incredible sums of money by stepping over others, and winning in competition because of not only the will the see yourself succeed, but also not wanting to see anyone else have the same success, well, I dont know what to tell you. Theres no difference. And the only thing the people I have described have in common outside of atheltic ability is that very factor, thats it. They all have athletic ability, they're professional athletes. Jordan was on record saying Charles Barkley would never win a championship. They faced each other in the finals once, and Barkley was a close friend of his and also a top 50 player of all time. Why would Jordan say this? Barkley doesnt have it, and Jordan knew it, only those with this trait I suppose can really sense it in others.
No, you dont get it. You said you dont care about winning. Thats fine, if thats how you feel. But no, you dont get what Im talking about.
error: Life present.
sorry, unable to proceed, no f***s were given...
You gave enough of a f--k to make an attempt at being witty on an internet forum dedicated to MMORPGs.
This life you speak of, evidently its on hold?
As predictable as it is, its still a little baffling to see posters who are intent on devolving every discussion into yet another opportunity to show off their l33t rhetoric of apathy.
Arent there plenty of other threads and dubstep youtube videos where you can tell us that you dont care?
Good post, enjoyed reading this. But I have to disagree in the main.
The same is said in business - "I didn't get where I am today by being nice..." yada yada.
The problem is that people BELIEVE they have to be arseholes to succeed.
I think PvP is a combination of gear, skill, experience and - and here's the bloody clincher if you're over 30... a lack of RSI and good reactions!
I've been chewed up and spat out by lesser-experienced/geared players because their reactions are faster, their coordination better and their medicine cabinet full of spot cream.
'Skill' in games is almost always measured by efficiently and endurance. How efficiently you can do something over a period of time is generally what determines your skill level.
However, this also depends on the type of game you are playing. In any game with a ladder, you will find that skil is quantified using the above criteria, weighted against the 'skill lvl' of other players. In the best games though, there is also a creative / ingenuity factor that comes into play, that isn't really quantifyable. I.E. That play in League of Legends that is able to pull a ridiculously idiotic dive, and come out on top. Or the players that are constantly changing the Meta. This requires that a game actually have a meta, though.
LOL... I like that. I'm going to steal it for use someday.
Why are we capitalising chess? Just out of interest. Did they make an MMO? (so do not link me if they did, please)
And surely, comparing chess to PvP is like comparing extreme sporting to rambling through the countryside with a map, a compass and an anorak... ?
We're not comparing chess to PVP. Chess is PVP. You do realize the acronym stands for Player vs. Player, right? PVP isn't something specific to MMORPGs or even videogames. It's the concept of any player vs. player competition in a game.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
If all PvP is can be broken down to one player trying to outdo another, why compare it to something mentally challenging? The LAST thing PvP is, is mentally challenging... unless you've forgotten where your keys are. Compare it instead to, say, swingball. Or Tiddlywinks. Or mutual masturbation.
Thanks for the heads up on the acronym though - if for no other reason, I come here to learn.
I hope this provides you some amusement, cause that's all it it for me: a game of thought and a way to pass some time. I would advice not to look for anything even remotely scientific and take it with a pinch of salt. As OP, I was writing about extreme cases. Not the annual petanque/texas hold'em event of your pub friends. Habitual zoning happening outside of competitive situations. Now I'm certain not many of the extremely successful people could be diagnozed with anything and neither would the shrinks have the balls to do that. Plus they wouldn't use none of the nasty words I used before, but would perhaps if any use terms like raging problems.
Further, I am wondering about causality. It is possible, that assholes are simply often more competitive and at times more successful, but I would think frequent entering in high level competitions involving extreme decision making, execution skills and harmful stress levels. In normal situations, the brain releases endorphin and people are able to find enjoyment in what they are doing. In habitual and compulsive cases, the desire to win (competitiveness) is so great that no enjoyment is found. If rl situation doesn't compensate, it is very much possible that the situation persists and gets out of hand. Thus they become assholes while displaying the same competitive behavior outside of competitive situations. In worst cases it might lead to symptoms resembling mental disorders, but I guess that's a taboo here:)
Now if you feel offended, I urge you to not take internet forum ramblings seriously, take a deep breath, vent e.g. here a bit and move on. I personally find OP's thread slightly entertaining and the game of thought and reactions to it quite amusing.