|
On November 16 2013 12:20 Agh wrote:
"Play for fun/It's just a game" type arguments really annoy me. If somebody is passionate about something you are basically demeaning it by saying that. As long as somebody doesn't have an ego about playing and is respectful then just leave it at that.
As for more on topic you should always play to win in a competitive setting (Qualifier/Tournament/etc). Regarding ladder, something I used to tell students I gave lessons to was if you think somebody is better than you, play to 'win' (ie. do whatever you think will give you the absolute best chance of winning), once you have beaten them, then play to improve.
It's in response to statements in the article such as "When laddering, literally (and I mean this figuratively) your only thought should be improving, not about winning or losing."
The responses are completely valid, because the entire point of the article is "this is how you should view the game."
|
On November 16 2013 13:56 FabledIntegral wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2013 12:20 Agh wrote:
"Play for fun/It's just a game" type arguments really annoy me. If somebody is passionate about something you are basically demeaning it by saying that. As long as somebody doesn't have an ego about playing and is respectful then just leave it at that.
As for more on topic you should always play to win in a competitive setting (Qualifier/Tournament/etc). Regarding ladder, something I used to tell students I gave lessons to was if you think somebody is better than you, play to 'win' (ie. do whatever you think will give you the absolute best chance of winning), once you have beaten them, then play to improve. It's in response to statements in the article such as "When laddering, literally (and I mean this figuratively) your only thought should be improving, not about winning or losing." The responses are completely valid, because the entire point of the article is "this is how you should view the game."
Given this is in a "SC2 strategy" forum, I don't think the idea of "this is how you should approach the game if you want to improve" taking precedence is unwarranted.
If you just want to play to have fun, then by all means do so. But then... why are you in a SC2 strategy forum, taking issue with those who wish to improve?
And, as mentioned, improving != not having fun for all people.
|
On November 16 2013 16:23 B-rye88 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2013 13:56 FabledIntegral wrote:On November 16 2013 12:20 Agh wrote:
"Play for fun/It's just a game" type arguments really annoy me. If somebody is passionate about something you are basically demeaning it by saying that. As long as somebody doesn't have an ego about playing and is respectful then just leave it at that.
As for more on topic you should always play to win in a competitive setting (Qualifier/Tournament/etc). Regarding ladder, something I used to tell students I gave lessons to was if you think somebody is better than you, play to 'win' (ie. do whatever you think will give you the absolute best chance of winning), once you have beaten them, then play to improve. It's in response to statements in the article such as "When laddering, literally (and I mean this figuratively) your only thought should be improving, not about winning or losing." The responses are completely valid, because the entire point of the article is "this is how you should view the game." Given this is in a "SC2 strategy" forum, I don't think the idea of "this is how you should approach the game if you want to improve" taking precedence is unwarranted. If you just want to play to have fun, then by all means do so. But then... why are you in a SC2 strategy forum, taking issue with those who wish to improve? And, as mentioned, improving != not having fun for all people.
I'd say your comment is fairly irrelevant. People who just play for shits and giggles still like to view strategies. In fact, they are probably the people most likely to. Why? Because they play as many different playstyles as possible without any care for mastering any one in particular. I play random to get the most out of the matchups. On top of that, I try to use a different strategy every few months to avoid making the game stale. On top of that, I alternate each season telling my race (get more macro style games) vs not telling my race (get more allin style games) just to vary the game up further.
I have no issue with people who want to improve. However, to think the SC2 Strategy section only caters to those who want to improve is silly. At the same time, sending the message to those who want to improve that the only thing they should be doing is acting like a mechanical robot is silly. People take this game far too serious, and it's annoying to have to read "YOU F* &#ING C#(KSUCKER" all the time. Which lately, has been over 50% of the time. Because people rage after taking the game so seriously.
I'd say there's a fairly significant correlation between those who rage and take this game very seriously.
|
United States4883 Posts
On November 17 2013 02:56 FabledIntegral wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2013 16:23 B-rye88 wrote:On November 16 2013 13:56 FabledIntegral wrote:On November 16 2013 12:20 Agh wrote:
"Play for fun/It's just a game" type arguments really annoy me. If somebody is passionate about something you are basically demeaning it by saying that. As long as somebody doesn't have an ego about playing and is respectful then just leave it at that.
As for more on topic you should always play to win in a competitive setting (Qualifier/Tournament/etc). Regarding ladder, something I used to tell students I gave lessons to was if you think somebody is better than you, play to 'win' (ie. do whatever you think will give you the absolute best chance of winning), once you have beaten them, then play to improve. It's in response to statements in the article such as "When laddering, literally (and I mean this figuratively) your only thought should be improving, not about winning or losing." The responses are completely valid, because the entire point of the article is "this is how you should view the game." Given this is in a "SC2 strategy" forum, I don't think the idea of "this is how you should approach the game if you want to improve" taking precedence is unwarranted. If you just want to play to have fun, then by all means do so. But then... why are you in a SC2 strategy forum, taking issue with those who wish to improve? And, as mentioned, improving != not having fun for all people. I'd say your comment is fairly irrelevant. People who just play for shits and giggles still like to view strategies. In fact, they are probably the people most likely to. Why? Because they play as many different playstyles as possible without any care for mastering any one in particular. I play random to get the most out of the matchups. On top of that, I try to use a different strategy every few months to avoid making the game stale. On top of that, I alternate each season telling my race (get more macro style games) vs not telling my race (get more allin style games) just to vary the game up further. I have no issue with people who want to improve. However, to think the SC2 Strategy section only caters to those who want to improve is silly. At the same time, sending the message to those who want to improve that the only thing they should be doing is acting like a mechanical robot is silly. People take this game far too serious, and it's annoying to have to read "YOU F* &#ING C#(KSUCKER" all the time. Which lately, has been over 50% of the time. Because people rage after taking the game so seriously. I'd say there's a fairly significant correlation between those who rage and take this game very seriously.
I honestly think this whole argument is irrelevant. As I said before, I think everyone who plays SC2 does so because they actually think it's fun to some degree. My post here was not to say that everyone should either be in a) a mindset to win or b) a mindset to improve and those are the only choices; I was explaining the difference between the two and how people often get them confused.
If your goal is to improve, you should be focused on improving. However, if your goal is to just play the game because you enjoy it and hopefully get better, that's fine. I've spent a lot of time "practicing" in several fields, and I understand the difference between someone who really wants to improve no matter what vs. someone who enjoys playing but doesn't have any serious aspirations. I know which practice techniques work and which don't. I don't insist that everyone improves my way, but I guarantee that anyone who follows the guidelines I lay out WILL get better. Manners are a completely different topic altogether and have nothing to do with a practice mindset vs. a "playing for fun" mindset (although, they're probably more closely related to people who have the improper mindset of taking ladder seriously and "playing to win" in a training ground).
So, all in all, if I've offended anyone or made someone think that I've said "DONT ENJOY THE GAME PLAY LIKE A ROBOT", I apologize. Like Teo said, first and foremost, this is a game played for enjoyment. This is just an exposition of the difference between "playing to win" vs. "playing to improve", as the title suggests.
|
Papua New Guinea1059 Posts
|
I think the right conclusion you should have (you, OP) is to reflect on what you believe is important to play for, and to do just that. Not necessarily "play to improve", "play for fun" and whatnot. Pick your own reason and don't get mad if the rest doesn't come with it (for example, don't get mad if you don't win if you play mainly for funsies).
You can very well play to piss off people on ladder, that's fine by me, as long as it's fine by you :D
|
These concepts of playing to improve are starting to finally sink in for me. I am now paying much, much more attention to my thought process before, during, and after each game. The problem is that poor lines of thinking have become habitual and old habits die hard e.g I lost in a TvT the other night when I truly thought I was ahead and should have won the game... Subsequently I go on to queue for my next match thinking this thought "Dammit guy was probably high diamond that was such bullshit..." .
Now, because I have been practicing 'mindfulness' a concept I learned at university, I caught this line of thinking and realized how bad and irresponsible it was to be ignorant of the previous loss. So I jumped out of queue and sat there for a few minutes just going over the game in my head before looking at the replay. "Surely I was ahead, I'm pretty sure I threw that game away somehow..."
So I found out I really did outplay that guy in the early game for a significant economic lead however he sieged up outside the cliffs near my main and out of view of my natural and elevatored units up. My loss occurred because I made a very bad attempt to break the siege, lost my army and eventually lost the game. I also failed to scout and have map control so I could prevent this siege from even getting there.
So two errors occured, everything else was on point: a tactical error breaking a siege and failing to scout and have map presence. Now if I did that I would have substantiated my lead into a 3 base push for the win.
|
I dont understand this mentality of playing for fun, and not caring about outcome of games or playing for just personal improvement. Thats not why i watch sports nor do i play tennis/football etc. I love competition and thats why i love playing this game. Winning isnt the point, ability to compete with someone of similar skill level or better is what is fun. Bottom of bronze or top 5 gm, that woulnd change.
|
In that post where I mention 15+ games vs a style and in reply to that post about those that play less:
Simply look back at games and styles that you have encountered enough to have a good data set vs. Maybe instead of two base muta in TvZ that becomes 3 hatch double evolution chamber bling ling into 3 base 4 hatch muta ling bling. Take time to adjust you play when you have enough data to do intelligently and rely on mechanical precision till you have the needed data to make smart adjustments.
Just don't get caught practicing fear based freestyle reactions. Practice logical game plans and adjust them in the presence of large amounts of data instead of small single examples or on the fly.
|
Yeah I agree with Terran1234 that having "fun" with SC for me is about attempting to win the game. I've played many team games and the matches that I remember from the past most vividly are the ones where my team was trying to really win and that's what made them so fun to play/ponder over. Its like when you go into a ladder match and your opponent is obviously drunk etc. and you can just tell that there not really trying at all to win, makes it not quite so fun for me when that happens. The competitive side of the game is what is fun in my opinion, but my version of fun doesn't overrule any other persons idea so...it is what it is. lol
|
hi im in bronze 5 and my favorite champ is annie. whenever i play i play to improve because improving is the way pros play and pros earn money while playing so if i was a pro id earn money and play instead of just playing
hope i could help
sry for my bad english...
User was banned for this post.
|
On November 17 2013 11:56 crispydunks wrote:
hi im in bronze 5 and my favorite champ is annie. whenever i play i play to improve because improving is the way pros play and pros earn money while playing so if i was a pro id earn money and play instead of just playing
hope i could help
sry for my bad english...
this acc wil be shortlived i fear 
|
On November 17 2013 11:57 crispydunks wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2013 11:56 crispydunks wrote:
hi im in bronze 5 and my favorite champ is annie. whenever i play i play to improve because improving is the way pros play and pros earn money while playing so if i was a pro id earn money and play instead of just playing
hope i could help
sry for my bad english... this acc wil be shortlived i fear
yolo
|
Needed this  thanks a lot
|
playing to win lets you naturally improve, at least if you mix it up
|
ranked = play to win
unranked = play to improve
"having fun is the most important part - winning happens to be more fun"
|
I think people should play however they want to. So long as it's within the rules of the game, what's the problem?
But I disagree with the statement that "It's quite clear that Jaedong is a superior player mechanically and perhaps even strategically". No doubt they're on a similar level, but it's not at all clear that Jeadong is superior, in fact I would argue s0s is superior in both respects. Just because a player uses a "cheesy" build successfully, doesn't mean he has bad mechanics.
|
Canada8158 Posts
On November 20 2013 08:33 BuddhaMonk wrote:
I think people should play however they want to. So long as it's within the rules of the game, what's the problem?
But I disagree with the statement that "It's quite clear that Jaedong is a superior player mechanically and perhaps even strategically". No doubt they're on a similar level, but it's not at all clear that Jeadong is superior, in fact I would argue s0s is superior in both respects. Just because a player uses a "cheesy" build successfully, doesn't mean he has bad mechanics.
I do think that JD is the better player mechanically, but sOs was better strategically. Of course doing cheesy builds doesn't correlate with your mechanics, those are separate things. In the end sOs was able to throw JD off enough that mechanics didn't matter.
|
United States4883 Posts
On November 20 2013 08:33 BuddhaMonk wrote:
I think people should play however they want to. So long as it's within the rules of the game, what's the problem?
But I disagree with the statement that "It's quite clear that Jaedong is a superior player mechanically and perhaps even strategically". No doubt they're on a similar level, but it's not at all clear that Jeadong is superior, in fact I would argue s0s is superior in both respects. Just because a player uses a "cheesy" build successfully, doesn't mean he has bad mechanics.
I apologize, this thread is not coming through the way I intended it to. This was merely an exposition of the difference between "playing to win" and "playing to improve" and has nothing to do with how people should play the game. Play for whatever reason you want, I don't care how anyone plays. When someone asks me "I don't know how to improve, what should I do?", I can specifically state "playing to improve" means this kind of mindset and you should do these things to improve your play. If you just want to play for fun and mass hellions for shits and giggles, DO IT! I don't care, I don't even think it's not a learning experience. But when someone asks for help in the forums on how to improve, I'm not going to say "macro better" or "just play a bunch of ladder games and you'll get better" because those results are going to take a long time to come to fruition. Most people would prefer to hear some solid advice on how to improve their gameplay IMMEDIATELY, which is where methodology comes in. Following specific methods and general practice habits will lead to rapid improvement, which is GREAT for those interested in it. Again, if you're not interested in rapid improvement, do whatever the hell you want! It's a game!
As far as Jaedong being mechanically superior:
http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft/Jaedong
http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft/SHy
Jaedong is by far mechanically superior to sOs. I'm not arguing that sOs has bad mechanics (as a kespa player, he has way stronger mechanics than a lot of SC2 heroes like PartinG, Naniwa, or Creator), just that Jaedong is definitely better. And in no way at all is this linked to his "cheese-esque sOs style". sOs won that series using brilliant strategies and mind games to throw Jaedong off; it also happened that he played quite well that day as well.
|
Holy shitballs I completely forgot how dominant JvZ was in BW, with the exception of the VERY end of BW where he became "marginally above average" compared to other top pros.
2006: 11-4
2007: 15-5
2008: 21-4
2009: 52-18
2010: 42-13
141 - 44. 76.2%. Insane. I always remembered him as being just as dominant JvP. Maybe I'm thinking Savior vs P before Bisu crushed him the second time at 54 -18 75%. 109 - 47 is still sick at 69.9% to be fair...
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
