Playing to Win, Part 2: Mailbag
Sirlin
Rebuttals and Clarifications
My original Playing to Win article generated an incredible amount of e-mail, mostly of the form:
Dear Sirlin,
I thoroughly enjoyed your Play to Win article. It has changed the way I think about games. [Or, I always believed the same things about games but you put them into words for me.] What you described about Street Fighter is exactly the same for [game X] that I play.
This man just read Playing to Win. "Game X" took the form of Counter-strike, Virtua Fighter, Magic: the Gathering, Legend of the 5 Rings, Starcraft, Smash Brothers, Scrabble, Tiddlywinks, and many others. It's sort of like when a supreme being speaks and each listener believes the words were spoken directly to him in his native language. Ok, it's not exactly like that, but I had you going there. Seriously though, communities surrounding all sorts of competitive games do face the exact same issues.
Now that the overtly self-congratulatory portion of the article is over, let's move on to those who had disagreements and questions about "Playing to Win."
The Objections
There were some who objected to the entire notion of playing to win. Here are representative samples of their views:
"But I really have a tactic that wins every time! Tower rushing in Warcraft 3 [or camping in Unreal Tournament, or whatever else]. It's not that I'm a scrub, but the game is more fun when I don't use that tactic and when I play against others who also don't use it."
Bad news for you. You are a scrub. You can't e-mail me and claim not to be a scrub, yet exemplify the only pre-requisite! (Well you can, but please don't.) What's worse is that the tactics stated are always tactics I know for a fact not to be "too good." Does tower rushing win every Warcraft 3 tournament? No. Are all the best Unreal Tournament players hardcore campers (players who sit in one spot on the map)? No. Then what are you complaining about? Learn the counter to the strategy. If there is no counter (there is a 99.9% that there is, but you don't know about it), then enter some tournaments, win them all and prove it. If you manage to do that, then fine, you've exposed the game as a degenerate one that you should probably no longer play. Otherwise, expand your horizons and learn more about the game. I suppose you could continue to play your homemade version of the game against other scrubs, but I think you'd be missing out.
"What about using the map hack in Starcraft, or a packet interceptor, or a macro to cast your spells faster, or a server that enforces no camping in a first person shooter, or just a swift kick to the shins of your opponent?"
First let's address the smarty-pants questions, then get to the heart of the issue. One of the great things about playing to win is that it's a path of self-improvement that can be measured. Becoming a better cook is also path of self-improvement, but it's more subjective and much more difficult to measure. In playing to win, we have the cold, hard results of winning and losing to guide us. I think it's only useful to consider winning and losing in the context of formal competition, such as tournaments. Kicking your opponents in the shins is outside the scope of the game, and is not legal in any reasonable tournament.
Likewise, any 3rd party program obtained from an illegal warez site and installed as a hack into your game is also not going to be legal in any reasonable tournament. These things, though technically useful to those trying to win, are outside the path of continuous self-improvement that I'm talking about. You should use any *tournament legal* means to win. If you participate in some strange tournament where all players are allowed to use a map hack, then go for it. You're playing a rather weird, non-standard version of the game, though, which defeats the whole purpose of shedding extra rules so as to play the same game as everyone else. Any reasonable person would consider "no cheating from outside the game" to be part of the default rule-set of any game.
Leave your narcotic analgesics at home, kids.
The case of a server that monitors camping (sitting in one place too long) in a first person shooter, is a little more interesting. It meets the very important criteria for a ban of strict enforceability (players need no friendly agreement; the server knows exactly who breaks the rule and hands out a penalty). I think it fails on two other counts, though.
1) The tactic of camping is almost certainly not a game-breaking tactic, so it has no place being banned in the first place.
2) If it were a game-breaking tactic, it's just too hard to fairly monitor. If camping is defined as staying within one zone for 3 minutes, and if it really is the best tactic, then sitting that zone for 2 minutes 59 seconds becomes the best tactic.
A ban must be enforceable, warranted, and concrete (or discrete). The last requirement is really just part of the first, I suppose. Imagine that repeating a certain sequence of 5 moves over and over is the best tactic in a game. Further suppose that doing so is "taboo" and that players want to ban it. There is no concrete definition of exactly what must be banned. Can players do 3 repetitions of the 5 moves? What about 2 reps? What about 1? What about repeating the first 4 moves and omitting the 5th? Is that ok? The game becomes a test of who is willing to play as close as possible to the "taboo tactic" without breaking the (arbitrary) letter of the law defining the tactic.
Some games have it easier than others when it comes to banning. In the card game Magic: the Gathering, it's easy to create an enforceable, discrete ban. "Card X is now illegal. If you have card X in your deck, you are disqualified." The tough part there is whether the ban is actually warranted.
Street Fighter Again!
Speaking of banning, forgive my tangent into the world of Street Fighter. In the 10 year history of the 30 different versions of the game, there has only been one banning issue which had any serious debate: the issue of "roll canceling" in Capcom vs. SNK 2 (CvS2). So-called "roll canceling"is a bug-exploit that allows a player to cancel a ground roll within the first 5/60ths of a second into any special or super move, retaining the invulnerability of roll during the special or super. Let's try that again. Roll canceling is a bug requiring difficult timing that allows a player to have many invulnerable moves that the game designers never intended.
Some people claimed that players would never master roll canceling. That was just foolish, so I'll pretend I never heard that. Players will master anything that will help them win. Some players claimed that if you can beat person A, but not person B, and both A and B learn to roll cancel, that you will still beat A but not B. Others believed that even if the game ended up being all about roll canceling vs. roll canceling, that there would still be a game. Others, including myself, believed that roll canceling would ruin the game, making it degenerately unplayable. The actual results are amusing.
On August 9-11, 2002, we held the largest fighting game tournament ever in the United States. 20 players from Japan attended and CvS2 was one of the 3 primary tournament games. Most American players did not learn to roll cancel (including myself, I did not take the game seriously). Most Japanese players did. The 7th and 8th place finishers were from the US; the top 6 finishers were all Japanese. The player who won the tournament, Tokido of Japan, played Blanka and Honda(!?), using nothing but roll cancelled invulnerable versions of their self-projectile moves. This tactic absolutely destroyed the #1 US player (who even used roll canceling himself!), and the other Japanese finalist, who was clearly the better player. The "better player" just never got a chance to actually do anything during entire the set of games since the roll cancelled Blanka ball seemed unbeatable.
Should roll canceling be banned? I'm pretty sure it meets the standard of "warranted" since I'm satisfied that under serious tournament conditions, the game completely fell apart into a joke. Unfortunately, the ban would be practically unenforceable, since roll cancelled moves are exceedingly hard to actually detect or prove. I should note that many top players of the game believe that the tactic creates a different, but non-degenerate game, so it should not be banned. Ha!
Whew, we made it through more Street Fighter mumbo-jumbo. Back to the complaints!
"But playing hard against beginners (or my girlfriend) is mean. I play down to their level so it will be close."
This one is tough. Many people presented elaborate situations which were basically equivalent to them being stuck on a desert island with only one video game and one opponent who is doomed never to improve and claimed that it is more fun not to play to win since it would always be a blowout. In such a case, I suppose I concede the point.
Apparently, several of my readers are in this situation. But what about a case where you have ready access to a variety of opponents? I'll present the case of legendary Street Fighter player Thomas Osaki (darn, back to that game again). I did not actually play with Thomas during his heyday, but I have since met him and I hope he forgives any misrepresentation of his conduct during his glory years.
Thomas Osaki dominated the game of Street Fighter in Northern California. His reputation for "playing to win" was quite extreme. They say he never really engaged in "casual play," but rather always played his hardest, as if every game had something on the line or was a serious tournament. They say he played this way regardless of his opponent, even if his opponent was a 9 year-old girl with no skill at the game. He would "stutter step, throw" her like all the rest (a particularly "cheap" tactic). Did he have no compassion at all? Was he just a jerk? I like to think of Thomas (or his legend, in case it happens not to be true) not as mean player, but as an inspiring player. He set a bar of excellence. In his path of self-improvement, he was not willing to compromise, to embrace mediocrity, or to give less than his all at any time. His peers had the extraordinary opportunity to experience brilliant play whenever he was near, not just at rare moments in a tournament.
And what of the 9 year-old girl? Perhaps she had no business playing in the first place. From Thomas's view, getting her off the machine allowed him to face the opponents he "should" be facing anyway.
*pause for hate-mail*
Because I'm psychic, I can tell that you violently object to the above, and that you have three specific grievances:
1) "I can't play that way, because if I did, and even if I believed it was the best path to self-improvement, I DON'T have a steady stream of opponents in the game I play. I have a limited audience and playing that way, or playing to win at all, alienates them so I am forced to tone it down."
2) "If everyone played that way, no one would ever be able to learn the game."
3) "There are better things in life than winning. You are just a rude bully."
On the fist point--yeah. You got me. If playing your hardest prevents your opponents from playing you, and you have access to only a very few opponents, I guess you're stuck. Sorry. Too bad you don't play Warcraft 3 or some internet game with endless opponents. You will be unable to improve past a certain point, so make the best of it, find more opponents, or play a different game.
On the second point, I guess you got me again. You, the expert player, are powerful in the narrow domain of whichever game you play. How will you use that power? Perhaps you will judge who is worthy to be taught the secret knowledge and who is to be dispatched quickly. Perhaps you will take one of the two extremes, and either defeat all or nurture all. No matter what you do, I am strongly in favor of you passing on your wisdom and passion to other players. It's no "fun" being good at an esoteric game with no players, so it is even to your advantage to train and mentor new players. But beware--all training and no "real playing" can weaken you. Thomas "trained" his peers by exemplifying excellence, setting an inspiring standard. But what is the "moral" thing to do? Does morality matter in this context?
This whole area is far beyond the scope of my ability to advise. It all comes down to what your goal really is. To improve yourself? To improve others? To win? To have "fun"?
We need to take about 100 steps back and remember what the whole point of "playing to win" was in the first place. It's certainly not about beating 9 year-old girls at Street Fighter.
The Whole Point
Imagine a majestic mountain nirvana of gaming. At its peak are fulfillment, "fun", and even transcendence. Most people could care less about this mountain peak, because they have other life issues that are more important to them, and other peaks to pursue. There are few, though, who are not at this peak, but who would be very happy there. These are the people I'm talking to. Some of them don't need any help; they're on the journey. Most, though, only believe they are on that journey but actually are not. They got stuck in a chasm at the mountain's base, a land of scrubdom. Here they are imprisoned in their own mental constructs of made up game rules. If they could only cross this chasm, they would discover either a very boring plateau (for a degenerate game) or the heavenly enchanted mountain peak (for a "deep" game). In the former case, crossing the chasm would teach them to find a different mountain with more fulfilling rewards. In the latter case, well, they'd just be happier. All "playing to win" was supposed to be is the process of shedding the mental constructs that trap players in the chasm who would be happier at the mountain peak.
This brings us to point 3 from way back ("there are more things to life than winning"). A lot of people get rubbed the wrong way by this stuff because they think I want to apply "playing to win" to everyone. I don't. It's not that I think everyone should or would want to be on that peak. There are other peaks in life, probably better ones. But those who are stuck in the chasm really should know their positions and how to reach a happier place.
Thanks for all the responses.
--Sirlin
Reader Comments (31)
I find it odd that so many are so offended by Sirlin's definition of "The Scrub" and his arguments for "Playing to Win." The one thing that nobody seems to get (maybe I'm reading into this too much and making up my own rationalizations) is that Sirlin has nothing against the notion of the scrub as an entity who plays only for fun, as a hobby, rather than playing to win as a goal. It seems to me, (and please correct me if I'm wrong Sirlin), that the problem with the scrub, and perhaps the true essence of scrub-ness is bringing the scrub mentality to the professional level. In that case you're bringing a knife to gun fight, as the professional player is playing to win, not just to have fun (though I'm sure they're having fun). The scrub will cry foul as the professional exploits glitches, counters every move, and throws the scrub five times because the scrub is bound my some nebulous code of honor that will not allow them to do what it takes to win.
Additionally, what Sirlin is talking about here only applies to a select number of people, those who aspire to and are attempting to compete at the highest levels. If that's not what you're attempting to do, then none of this applies to you. Because your desire to win is not a driving desire, whereas in the tournament levels it is what drives those players and motivates them and ultimately makes them succeed. You don't get to be Daigo, or Justin Wong or Fuudo by merely sitting down and having fun, you get there by because you're driven to be the best.
It seems to me as though there should be some sort of delinieation of scrub-ness a "Scrub Prime" and a "Scrub Beta" if you will. The Scrub Prime is the exact person Sirlin is describing, and I would also additionally posit that the Scrub Prime does so in a professional or tournament level setting, while still citing a desire to win and be the best, at the same time dismissing those better than him with talk of dignity and honor. The Scrub Beta would be your average gamer, someone who plays the game, just for hobby and fun, but doesn't pursue it seriously and has no desire to, but is more content to sit around the TV with friends or online and play for the fun of playing, regardless of winning or losing.
Maybe I'm creating my own rules and rationalizations, indulging in my own scrub-ness, but I think there is a distinction between the Scrub Prime and the Scrub Beta. I'd wager that Sirlin has no problem with the Scrub Beta, as the Scrub Beta is harmless scenery on the way to the top of the mountains, whereas the Scrub Prime is another attempting to ascend the mountain, while claiming that those who go higher than him are not doing so in the right way. I'd like to know what you think Sirlin if you're reading this, and let me know if maybe I'm the scrubbiest scrub of all, or if we're seeing eye to eye on this matter.
Regardless of distinctions and whether or not im right, I'm a scrub (a Scrub Beta if you will), and I'm fine with it, I'd like to be able to play pro and to place in tournaments, but after work and other social commitments, I don't have time to play as much as I'd like to, let alone the amount of time I'd need to play if I wanted to be able to truly learn the game well enough to compete. I play because ever since I was big enough to stand up at the arcade cabinet, I've loved fighting games. I enjoy your site Sirlin, and find "Playing to Win" to be a fascinating read, additionally I'd also like to thank you for HDR, I downloaded it the week it came out and have put about 150 hours into it since then. So thanks for both, and keep up the great work!
Great articles, Sirlin. I really enjoyed reading both this and the first one.
I just thought I'd chip in a little on what you said regarding L-cancelling in Melee in the comments section. You say that it adds "zero depth". However, the timing for it changes depending on if you hit your opponent or not, since hitting a body means you'll hit the ground a little later. (you probably know this). Now, it's possible to alternate the size of your shield by pressing the shield button down more or less (you probably know this as well).
But here's the interesting part. Alternating the size of your shield when getting pressured can, and relatively (RELATIVELY) often does, result in your opponent missing an L-cancel (since the size of the shield differs from time to time, so does the time between the starting the aerial and landing on the ground), which could potentially earn you a shield grab, in a situation where the timing window for a grab could've/would've been too small, had the opponent hit the L-cancel.
This is particularly effective for Ice Climbers players, as they control "two" characters, resulting in two shields and even more difficulty for the opponent to time the L-cancel correctly every time (assuming the IC player alternate the size of the shield), and because they get such ridiculous combos out of grabs (IC players also happen to be the ones who use this trick the most afaik).
Idk, maybe I'm wrong, but I've never viewed L-cancelling as merely an "execution tax". I've always seen it as a feature that adds depth to the game, since there actually are ways to mess around with it. Removing it would actually also remove a soft counter to shield pressure.
Just my two cents.
Again, thank you for two great articles.
Pretty late to be replying to this, but I think it's important to point out that you waffle a bit on your position about "cheap" or bannable tactics in a game. Yes, playing to win is important, and yes, that means using tactics that work, even if to some players they seem cheap.
However, you first vehemently disagree with scrubs wanting to ban things, and then bring up several occasions where arbitrary rules should be applied. ST Akuma, 3rd party hacks, and now roll-canceling aren't allowed? Hacks I can agree with. Akuma and roll-canceling, however, I cannot, given your previous arguments. You claim that a game which does have cheap tactics should be abandoned, and then claim that ST was not a game that should be abandoned. You shouldn't have entered that CvS2 tourney, nor should you take issue with it, as it was not an important game by your own criteria.
Worst of all the things you've said in this chapter however, is "You should use any *tournament legal* means to win." This is a straight 180 from your original position of "Play to win, no arbitrary rules." Just because high-level players agree that something is bannable, doesn't make it any less an arbitrary rule.
All in all, I agree with your position about playing to win, but I think you need to consider your exact position, and be less harsh in your judgment of others, as your point is not fully correct.
This is honestly really simple stuff, so I'm not sure why you're getting tripped up on it. Obviously you should use any tournament legal means to win a tournament. There is no real reasonable alternative to that statement. Using tournament-illegal things would be a bad idea and not using helpful things that are legal also wouldn't be smart. So you know, you use common sense and use tournament-legal things to win in a tournament.
Roll cancelling. No idea what you're talking about. Roll-cancelling is stupid and infeasible to ban. Therefore you should either enter a tournament and accept that it exists (I did) or stop playing the game (I did). I don't see why you are criticizing me for this??
3rd party hacks are obviously not allowed in a tournament. What is your point.
Akuma has been explained to death. There is no contradiction there.
You seem really confused about what's arbitrary and what's not, maybe. Or maybe you're confused about the difference between a player and a tournament organizer. A player should use whatever, but a tournament organizer should not allow "whatever." A tournament organizer shouldn't allow some game-breaking bug that crashes the game that someone can trigger if they are going to lose, for example. You allow as much as possible, and it's totally false to think that "allow as much as possible means that I must allow EVERYTHING no matter how extreme." It actually doesn't mean that at all. As a tournament organizer you make illegal the obviously insane things that ruin competition, such as kicking people in the shins, cheat codes, 3rd party hacks, ST Akuma, etc. It's anything but arbitrary. It's restricting clearly gamebreaking stuff.
That you should not put arbitrary restrictions on yourself while playing is a different topic entirely. Surely you see the different roles of a player and a tournament organizer. The player would use unfair broken stuff if it were available, and it does not logically follow that therefore a tournament organizer must make all broken things available. There would be no competition if cheat codes and hacks were allowed, etc.
If you don't understand something, rather than calling it wrong, you should really ask questions. I don't think you really even made a coherent point there.
The distinction between player and organizer is a good one to make. I think you may be confused about what I took issue with, and I apologize for that. I have no problem with banning things that equate to kicking a player in the shins. The stance you initially took in your writing did, however, and then you switched to a more reasonable stance, before switching back. I merely wanted to point this out as something to look into.
Still no idea what you're referring to. My stance has never changed on any of this.