Tales of Heroes 28: Play to Win

[Bridger]

If you listen to any of the audio show’s in the Tales of Heroes archive, let this be the one. This show could change the way you think about playing online, or you might just get offended at being called a Scrub. Either way, you won’t want to miss the first ever true Vitensby Rant, you definately won’t be able to explain how we get so far off topic, and you’ll love or hate our interview with David Sirlin about his book Playing to Win: Becoming the Champion.

Audio Show Downloads/Show Notes


Don’t forget to check out www.sirlin.net for more great articles from David Sirlin (including the original Slippery Slope vs. Perpetual Comeback article (as opposed to my bastardization of it).


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And for this week's Video Replay Review we’ve got another crazy match for you this week. Defensive and not blitz you say? What is the world coming to! Can Nuvion’s crazy defensive doctrine base rush work? Will the power of the Mexico’s airborne shine the way again even when it hasn’t been picked yet!?!??! Only way to find out is to watch the show


Video Show Download/Streaming Links


As always, you can find these and more at the Tales of Heroes Website

[Minius]

I want arranged teams 2/2 without 3/3 maps !

Edit and without Lyon and Vire.

[JagdAlex]

Wondering if it is an 88 base rush!? That would be cool! Dual 88 pounding your ennemy base FTW!

[roflmao]

Mexico (good buddy of mine xD, well sorta, we are both mexicans =D). Didnt tell me about this :P.
Vitsenby rant! Oh noes! I cannot wait!

[NuVioN]

ye there is an 88 punding a base, but i wont say more to ruin the game

[NumenorLord]

It's nice to see a bit of the community expressing their opinions with such flair.

Well, I think a lot of people have been clamoring for arranged ranked games for quite some time. Also, inspired assault is great if you go heavy infantry (especially since it costs about as much as a grenade). A better combo than IA and PW is Zeal and IA. Take losses, fire faster, do more damage. Defensive and Terror doctrines are the only ones I consider going both sides at once with. I also agree with the V1 being overpriced and taking too long to land. However, you can usually catch people off guard in a 4v4, though I tend to think 280mm Rockets are just as powerful, if not more, besides taking less time to land and costing much less.

One thing I'd like to add is that bundled grenades are too much more powerful than Allied hand grenades (for their priceerformance ratio). Allied grenades sometimes only do 25% damage to Grenadier squads if it lands in the middle of them, while Bundled grenades can take out entire squads of Allied infantry in one hit.

[JagdAlex]

ye there is an 88 punding a base, but i wont say more to ruin the game

Nice dude! I can't wait to see some 88 ownage among top 1 vs 1 players! I am getting tired of the same oll Blitz over and over!

[Swoodle1]

HOLY SHIT 2v2 Rigged, ^(*&(*&#(%#@(%%#@@$#$#@(%#(*&%)(*#@$$#@(*&$#@(*&%)&@@$#(*&$#@&%@#4532%#@$#432$#@%@6

Just had to get that out.

[Crumplecorn]

Playing To Win can be tricky. Fortunately CoH has it formalised as the Drop Hack.

[ugordan]

Hmm... looks like the video review is fubar again, it's pixelated all over.

[Bridger]

Yeah, had the wrong box checked in the encoder and it screwed up the quality Good news is that i found it and i'll make sure that doesn't happen again :P

As for the drophack, we did point out that the drop hack is not an accepted form of "playing to win" in the context we described.

[Falaris]

Agree a lot on the 'common wisdom' bit and reading on forums. Good show!

[Bridger]

Yeah, somebody over at GR.org posted a good example of when conventional wisdom isn't always right:
"Anyway, I liked that bit where Sirlin talked about conventional wisdom often being wrong.

Shortly after the retail release, I was shouting from the mountain tops that veterancy for Axis troops and vehicles was a worthy investment and virtually everybody said things to the tune of, "yeah if all you play are stupid noobs it's worth it." Now look at the most popular Axis strats. They all incorporate veterancy as a cornerstone.

I also raved about the effectiveness of the right side of the infantry company. Again, I was accused of noobishness of the 1st degree. Look in the Allies strategy section. The best players are acknowledging its viability, and this is after Howitzer accuracy got a huge nerf when firing into the FoW. When I was first espousing its virtues, you didn't need a spotter as long as you knew where your target was. But of course, I was a stupid noob because I wasn't saying "Infantry company is worthless you must always be airborne or armor."

My use of the Defensive doctrine was also ridiculed until Sepha or somebody of his caliber used it to wtfpwn somebody in a replay that was widely circulated."

[Tropper]

In my opinion this was one of the best audio shows ever. Some month ago somebody posted a link to the "Play to win" articles on this forum and David Sirlin is right: if you play a tournement and the rules don't say exlicit that (for example) the tanktraps/sandbag blockade are forbidden then use it. Else you will have a hard time because your opponent will use then.

The only difference is that David seems to refer mostly to console game and console games in the past could not be patched after they reached gold status. So in CoH there is always the change that Relic will fix certain issues if the community complaints to much about a certain bug/feature. So use it - but still complain about it and it may get fixed.

And Vitensby is so damn right: I want arranged 2vs2 games god damn it!!! I mostly play 2 vs 2 with a friend of mine and i'm sick of playing against noobs. It's just a waste of time! I prefer to get wtf pwned and finally learn something then play a boring game against noobs.

[Timeless]

Wow, I'm impressed that you got Sirlin for an interview on ToH - kudos. I agree with much of his thinking, but take it with a grain of salt as well. For example, based on what he's saying, it's okay to use bugs because it's difficult to figure out where to draw the line. I disagree in the respect that if the Dev comes out and says that a feature is broken and will be fixing it, this should be respected and not abused as it has the potential to kill game play. Like with Sherman smoke being spammed back when it was broken. With Arcade games, they aren't really patched, so I can see the logic there.

[Quercus]

I have posted on this subject before and I have to place myself firmly in the "scrub" camp. It really bugs me that in what is after all a hobby (playing games), playing "honourably" or with "sportsmanship" is considered a weakness. I play lots of different games and my preferred playing style is a friendly but competitive one.

I personally will not use any tactic if it seems cheap or lame just because it is possible within the game engine, as I prefer a better overall game experience that reflects the game I am playing. If all I was interested in was pure strategy or tactics I would play something like chess.
I play computer (PC) games because I like the experience of immersing myself in the game, whether it is fantasy based, futuristic or historical. Anything that jars as being out of place lessens that experience and this is especially the case with games based upon real-world physics or situations. I don't particularly disagree with rocket-jumping (an example mentioned) but would I do it myself? Probably not in a tactical game (assuming it was possible) that was at least vaguely realistic but probably in a less-real environment such as a typical futuristic deathmatch game.

I play to have fun and I know that almost all the people I am playing against are also playing to have fun. I will not (for example) knowingly force someone to endure an unnecessarily prolongued period of humiliation and frustration just so I can wrack up easy points or kills, whether or not it is possible within the game engine.
I also will not use a tactic if it gives a player an unfair advantage, if I know it is not working properly or "breaks" the immersion or spirit of the game.

That doesn't mean I don't want to win of course, but that I want to do so while still treating other players with a bit more respect than "Well, other people do it so why shouldn't I?"
That isn't a valid excuse in any other social context so why should it be for online gaming?
Yes it may place me at a disadvantage but you know what? Some things in life are more important.

Also David seemed to contradict himself when he said that anything goes as long as it doesn't break the game (quoting a bug in the code for a fighting game with the Juggernaut character that gave double damage for the entire round), then later said that if only one player could access a tactic it was unfair. Wouldn't the Juggernaut bug fall into that category?

I also disagree strongly with his comment that the "mind games" of countering tactics only exist amongst players who always play to win and exploit any tactic do do so, causing their opponents to constantly rethink their own tactics.
I'm sorry? So according to David, the fact that I choose to play a different style of gaming with "soft rules" (such as the old sherman smoke in CoH for example), means that there are no "mind-games" between myself and my opponents where we try to out-think each other and try new counters and counter-counters? What rubbish.

All games (and sports) are played on multiple levels, whether professional, tournament, ranked, friendly or casual. But each level still has people striving to improve themselves and their game, to play better.

Oops. Apologies for the huge post.

[Noir]

I did like the Arranged 2v2 rant. You clearly saw Vit stomping over any sort of niceity that such serious proposals usually entailed, but it wasn't a troll kind of thing. Hearing it of course was a nice departure from normal, and of course there's the method espoused, which makes it seem like you can hit two birds with one stones with this.

For the devs, perhaps we could use an update on this feature. I do admit that it's been called for since...DoW, and lots of promises with curiously little followups on the dev side of things. In any case, it is a nice feature, and it should be something to strive for.

[Virigoth]

I always draw a comparison of the "Playing to win" in video games to my experience in Judo competitions:

If those tournaments were not stricly regulated to enforce fair play then people would come out with injuries and the sport itself would suffer due to declining enrollment and loss of the "fun" factor due to "playing to win".

Because electronic gaming does not have such orginized enforcement and improvement of the rules, 'playing to win' usually ruins the competition. Ends should never justify the means.

[Black_Duck_1]

Although I agree mostly with David, but "playing to win" sometimes cannot even be close to being fun. Here is a good example:
Me and my friends decided to play all Airborne in a 3v3 game. we all save some resources and decided to base rape one specific base at the same time. Drop an AB squad then sachel charge every building and it will be nice if you get an AT gun in that base. You know what! gg in five minutes and it is almost unstoppable.

Can you call that fun? no way!

Is it cheap? I did it and I say yes! it is cheap.

[BlackLabel]

He was refering more to tournaments than to "your average custom online match".

I also find it intresting that he dosent put much value into the Online Ladder systems.

Nice show, btw. Loved the 2vs2 Ladder rant !

[Bridger]

The only difference is that David seems to refer mostly to console game and console games in the past could not be patched after they reached gold status. So in CoH there is always the change that Relic will fix certain issues if the community complaints to much about a certain bug/feature. So use it - but still complain about it and it may get fixed.

Actualy, the more you use something that is suposedly broken/overpowered, the better to discover if it is in fact broken/overpowered (I.E. if you win every time and climb to the top of the ladder, then yes it's broken, but if you find that somebody better than you counters it, maybe it's not unbeatable?). And if it is overpowered, you will get more people to agree with you by pwning them with it. So the best way to get a bug/OP unit/strat fixed is to abuse it for all it's worth until the entire community agrees

Wow, I'm impressed that you got Sirlin for an interview on ToH - kudos. I agree with much of his thinking, but take it with a grain of salt as well. For example, based on what he's saying, it's okay to use bugs because it's difficult to figure out where to draw the line. I disagree in the respect that if the Dev comes out and says that a feature is broken and will be fixing it, this should be respected and not abused as it has the potential to kill game play. Like with Sherman smoke being spammed back when it was broken. With Arcade games, they aren't really patched, so I can see the logic there.

I've been friends with Sirlin for a long time, and a big fan of his book. However, i disagree with your example. David's philosophy is that you should do everything "tournament legal." So basically you rely on the authorities of the competitive game to tell you what is/isn't ok. In the case of CoH i believe that would be Relic since they control the ladder. They've said Drophacking isn't allowed, so according to David's Play to Win philosophy, that's something you have to respect. In addition, if Relic comes out and says "we're fixing X bug in the next patch" it seems to me a legitimate authority telling you that this bug exploit isn't allowed.

It also just seems good sense to start practicing your play without using a bug relic is about to delete from the system, else you'll be farther behind other players cause you are relying on a soon to be non-exsistant bug in the game. Once i heard that sherman smoke was going to be fixed in a patch, i started playing without it to prepare myself for it not being as powerful.

That doesn't mean I don't want to win of course, but that I want to do so while still treating other players with a bit more respect than "Well, other people do it so why shouldn't I?"
That isn't a valid excuse in any other social context so why should it be for online gaming?
Yes it may place me at a disadvantage but you know what? Some things in life are more important.

Part of the issue is that you are not playing the game, not the real game. The game Company of Heroes is made up of hard rules that are in the code. You cannot see your enemys base unless you move a unit there, you just can't. It's a rule of the game that the game itself enforces.

Any rules the game does not enforce are not part of the game. By deciding not to use a unit/strategy/ability because it is "unrealistic" you are adding your own house rules to the game and declaring that anybody not following your made up rules is being dishonorable.

Who are you to create new rules and declare anyone not following them to be unsportsmanlike? If you were playing basketball would you think it was "cheap" that the people could nail a shot from the 3 point line and you thought that wasn't the point of the game (it's all about dunking, after all) so clearly anybody who is shooting 3 pointers is being a bad sport. Does this sound any more plausable than your argument with CoH?

You don't "play to win" because you don't want to play Company of Heroes, the game, you want to play "Company of Heroes by Quercus," which has special rules that only he knows, and if other players violate them he will hold them responsable for their actions? How does this make sense?

You talk about treating other players with "respect" but how much respect are you showing others when you call them disrespectful for breaking rules that don't actually exsist? There is nothing disrespectful about playing a game by the rules. Assuming you don't use some kind of 3rd party cheating software, or drophacking, anything else the game lets you do is within the bounds of the rules. Therefore, anyone who plays the game without cheating is playing "respectfully" and having sportsmanship.

Also David seemed to contradict himself when he said that anything goes as long as it doesn't break the game (quoting a bug in the code for a fighting game with the Juggernaut character that gave double damage for the entire round), then later said that if only one player could access a tactic it was unfair. Wouldn't the Juggernaut bug fall into that category?

No, because both players have access to the juggernaut character. In CoH this example would be the old HQ bug where you could destroy your HQ at the begining of the game to call in a volks squad, and officer, and 2 pioneers for very little manpower. This was only posible with the axis (allies only get 1 engineer, wtf?) so under David's philosophy this would be one of those exploits that someone who's playing to win would not use. It was also "banned" from tournament play, which in the context of CoH is that relic said that shouldn't be allowed and removed the ability to do it. So in both cases this bug would not be used by someone who is "playing to win."

I also disagree strongly with his comment that the "mind games" of countering tactics only exist amongst players who always play to win and exploit any tactic do do so, causing their opponents to constantly rethink their own tactics.
I'm sorry? So according to David, the fact that I choose to play a different style of gaming with "soft rules" (such as the old sherman smoke in CoH for example), means that there are no "mind-games" between myself and my opponents where we try to out-think each other and try new counters and counter-counters? What rubbish.

I don't think he meant that only top players play that mind game, but that they play it to a much greater extent. If you limit yourself to a given set of "acceptable" strategies you arn't playing the real game, and therefore arn't playing the full depth of the counter and counter of the counter system.

All games (and sports) are played on multiple levels, whether professional, tournament, ranked, friendly or casual. But each level still has people striving to improve themselves and their game, to play better.

Absolutly true, and I think David mentions multiple times in his book and his articles that playing to win is not for everyone. The point is that people who make up their own rules and limitations are handicaped from the start. They may think they are trying to win, but they lost the game before it's started.

That doesn't mean that everybody should play to win. Not everybody has the time to invest to play to win. Not everybody wants to. Some people like to rebalance games themselves and play with house rules with their friends. There's absolutly nothing wrong with that. We should have clarified that more on the show. However, It is unfair of you to say someone else is playing without respect for their opponent, or unsportsmanlike, just because they arn't following your house rules, do you see how that works? Once a scrub crosses the line and demands other people adhere to his house rules, that's when they are the unsportsmanlike ones. As long as they are fine playing their way and losing to people who don't, there's no probelm.

Oops. Apologies for the huge post.

Why apologize? Somebody has to scroll their mouse once more if they are too illiterate to bother reading? Long posts ftw!

I always draw a comparison of the "Playing to win" in video games to my experience in Judo competitions:

If those tournaments were not stricly regulated to enforce fair play then people would come out with injuries and the sport itself would suffer due to declining enrollment and loss of the "fun" factor due to "playing to win".

Because electronic gaming does not have such orginized enforcement and improvement of the rules, 'playing to win' usually ruins the competition. Ends should never justify the means.

I think it's a good comparison but you draw the wrong conclusions. Playing to win is all about playing within the limits set by competitive tournaments. So in the case of Judo, playing to win would be doing everything posible to win within the set safty confines of the tournament rules.

In CoH, the "tournament rules" are set by relic, since they run the ladder. So when relic says drophacking isn't OK, it's not longer availible to "playing to win" philosophy. When relic decided to fix observation posts, it no longer became a viable tactic for people using the "playing to win" philosophy.

[Timeless]

However, i disagree with your example.

What exactly do you disagree with? Sounds like you agree with me. I said if the Dev comes out and says such and such is broken, that should be respected and that such and such should not be used, especially if they announce it will be fixed. In the Arcade world, players hardly get to hear from the "Dev" and don't receive patches like the computer rts game. So, I can see him saying anything goes unless it's game breaking or banned from a tournament. The Arcade world of gaming is different than the computer rts world of gaming.

[Virigoth]

@Bridger

I think it's a good comparison but you draw the wrong conclusions. Playing to win is all about playing within the limits set by competitive tournaments. So in the case of Judo, playing to win would be doing everything posible to win within the set safty confines of the tournament rules.

In CoH, the "tournament rules" are set by relic, since they run the ladder. So when relic says drophacking isn't OK, it's not longer availible to "playing to win" philosophy. When relic decided to fix observation posts, it no longer became a viable tactic for people using the "playing to win" philosophy.

I don't think I draw incorrect conclusions. There is plenty of things one can do in a sport competition to tip the odds in your favor from slightly injuring your opponent to using illegal drugs that are NOT mentioned in regulations but known to give a competitive edge.

The difference between real sports and electronic sports are that the latter's rules and regulations are generally static and rarely updated. Or in case of relic for example, when updated create as many new issues as they fix. In real life you also can face reprimands, and social repricussions from your peers due to 'cheating' or unfair play.

The good ole rule of internet applies in online gaming:
Internet + ok guy = asshole.

Most people who would never think of throwing their opponent a bit sidewise and putting a knee or elbow under their side as they fall to injure their rib, will gladly play using whatever flavor of 'overpowered' strategy they can find to win.

[Timeless]

Virigoth, we all know that Sirlin, if asked, would not say that taking illegal drugs falls within his "Playing to Win" philosophy. In fact, I'm pretty sure that if caught, a Judo participant would be disqualified for that. I know they would be in wrestling, boxing, etc. Never once does he say it's okay to cheat. Playing to win doesn't mean "accidently" slipping from your controls to bang the other guy's hand really hard to give him an injury. It doesn't encompass slipping something into his drink before the game or any other such nonsense. But it does mean that rushing is okay, because that falls into the legitimate rules of the game. It means using anything, even stuff that the community thinks is imbalanced, because this is how we determine if something is truly imbalanced or not. It means giving your opponent no time to breathe, etc.

If, in Judo, a devastating combo was proven effective and known to you but not your opponent, a person would be a fool not to use it, even if it gave that person a fairly easy win. I observed this in my son's wrestling this year. He took 4th in district, falling short of third because the kid he had to rematch, though physically weaker than him, had some devastating techniques that my son simply had not been taught. The kid was brutal in his quest for victory and held no punches. I'm thankful of that because it gave us insight and expanded our idea of what is possible.

[0mar]

Well, the only thing applicable is to this "playing to win" philosophy in COH and the use/abuse of bugs is the Sherman Smoke.

It was an ability so broken that it was frowned upon by the whole community because it made the game stupid to play. As long as a bug doesn't break the game (ie OP bugs prior 1.5; both sides have access to it and not game-breaking), you can use it. The M8 bug against the puma is in the same category. There's no way you can prevent the bug to the engine, And the M8 is a viable counter and a useful unit, so I don't cry when he builds one to counter my Puma. I just suck it up and deal with it. However, the sherman smoke bug was wholly avoidable and broke the game because it caused 95% of all things to miss completely while having no accuracy penalty on the sherman. And on top of all this, it was spammable at 50 munitions and had only 1 or 2 seconds of down time.

But for strategies, do the best one you can possibly do. If he has no AT, I'm sure as hell going to base-rush him with my Puma/StuH or whatever the hell else I can do. I'm going to use blind-spots on buildings, blind-spots to sneak into his base; basically I'm going to do everything I can to ensure a win, short of cheating and abusing game breaking bugs.

[Timeless]

However, the sherman smoke bug was wholly avoidable and broke the game because it caused 95% of all things to miss completely while having no accuracy penalty on the sherman. And on top of all this, it was spammable at 50 munitions and had only 1 or 2 seconds of down time.

This is exactly what I was saying up a few posts. The dev even acknowledged it was broken and would be fixed. Things like this should NOT be used, even if it's not a tournament setting.

[Bridger]

What exactly do you disagree with? Sounds like you agree with me. I said if the Dev comes out and says such and such is broken, that should be respected and that such and such should not be used, especially if they announce it will be fixed. In the Arcade world, players hardly get to hear from the "Dev" and don't receive patches like the computer rts game. So, I can see him saying anything goes unless it's game breaking or banned from a tournament. The Arcade world of gaming is different than the computer rts world of gaming.

Yeah, i guess i do agree with your example, musta had a brain fart there or something lol.

And 0mar, that is a good example of the community agreeing as a whole that something is definately broken, and shouldn't be used. Nothing else has come close to uniting the community against it than the sherman smoke.

And Virgoth, Timeless has it right. Your purposefully ignoring the fact that Sirlin's playing to win philosophy is based off of playing in a tournament legal way.

Most people who would never think of throwing their opponent a bit sidewise and putting a knee or elbow under their side as they fall to injure their rib, will gladly play using whatever flavor of 'overpowered' strategy they can find to win.

Using a strategy that is effective doesn't break the rules of the game. Neither does using any effective throw/kick/whatever in Judo that fits within the rules of the tournament. As soon as someone starts breaking those rules (as in your example of subtling injuring them so the ref can't see) such as using a map-hack to see the whole map (and thus destroy all of the fog of war rules within the game), they have gone beyond the "play to win" philosophy as David Sirlin has written it.

There's "Play to win" and "play to win at all costs (including cheating)." No one is advocating the second.

[Renahzor]

Ive read the writeup on playing to win before, and you have to take it in context. back with streetfighter and Mortal Kombat games on the SNES, me and my friends always played with obscure house rules because certain things seemed cheap, but in the context of the game those things that were cheap were also perfectly acceptable strategies. This concept works in pretty much any competitive arena. If its legal, and within the rules of the governing body, Your opponent at some point WILL do it, so you're handicapping yourself unnecessarily if you chose not to use those strategies, or havent practiced against them.


They can change the rules of the game to account for the unforseen stratigies, but they cannot enforce a rule which is not in place, and anyone who used something "overpowered" will not be reprimanded for doing something that seems liek a cheap tactic. Theres one major example i can think of in professional sports. That namely being the use of the "Neutral Zone Trap" by the 1995 New Jersey Devils in the NHL. The use of this type of strategy makes up for a lack of offensive power by neutraizing players from the other team and severley limiting scoring chances. It makes the game less exciting, and it Nullifies some great offinsive players from the other team by simply shutting them down before they reach the offensive zone. It was criticized for slowing down the game and making it boring for fans, but the fact is, they won the Stanley Cup by using a strategy most teams were unprepared for, and while seemingly cheap, it was perfectly within the rules.

And despite all this, they have not made a neutral zone trap illegal. They have changed the rules of the game to more favor an offensive play style, and it has limited the effectiveness of the trap. They call more obstruction and interferrance penalties, and it has brought more scoring to the game. However, the Devils should not be criticized for using the strategy, and anyone who did criticize them simply lost. It may have been cheap, and boring to watch, but it was damn effective and within the rules. at the highest level of play, the other teams adapted and so did the rules. There was no use in pointing out the "unfairness" of using a trap play against a faster team to neutralize that advantage. The fact is it was in the rules, and the teams simply adapted or lost.

If you play to win, you do everythingwithin the confines of the game and the rules set forth to win. if that means using the same tactic every game, or building units with seemingly no real counter, then thats what you do until the rules change or the game changes. I am not a person who plays to win to that extreme. There are those out there that do though, and they dont need to be reprimanded for it, nor should they be looked down upon. its at this highest levels of the ladder where you start to see if things are truly broken with the game itself. Alot of times if you watch replays from higher level players, you see things you would have never thought of, or someone countering a "cheap" tactic you may have thought was impossible to beat.

And finally, this game actually allows you to modify the rules, and then distribute tht to people you wnt to play with and you can create your own house rules entirely from scratch all within the game engine. However, the ladder will always be vanilla CoH, and thats where you'll see the balance changes come from (no, the devs dont always get it right, but im sure they try).

Part of the issue is that you are not playing the game, not the real game. The game Company of Heroes is made up of hard rules that are in the code. You cannot see your enemys base unless you move a unit there, you just can't. It's a rule of the game that the game itself enforces.

well said Bridger. That right there is the best way to put it. the rules in the code are the rules. Play to win means using all of them, and circumventing none of them. Its fair, honest, and it is not cheating to play to win. It may seem overly simplistic, but in the end, the people who are really pushing the strategies and testing the units will show where the weaknesses in balance are. Thats not accomplished if everyone decides not to use "Cheap" tactics.

-Ren

[Virigoth]

@Timeless/Bridger

And Virgoth, Timeless has it right. Your purposefully ignoring the fact that Sirlin's playing to win philosophy is based off of playing in a tournament legal way.

I suppose I am, simply that to me 'Playing to win' seems obvious otherwise. The way I have read Sirlin's article has always been along the lines of an extreme sort of 'End justify the means' philosophy simply because most arcade games to which the article refers were not updated often enough to have flexible rules.

In SF2, 'ticking' and throwing was so abusable you might as well bang the guys controls and push him out of the way instead of doing that. Most arcades had house rules against it.

[Zwebbie]

The thing that I'd like to see more defined is, as 0mar mentioned, the difference between abilities and strategies. Whereas limiting strategies - that is, infantry only, no artillery, that kind of rules - is not playing to win, limiting yourself in abilities is a step higher on the play to win ladder. Sherman Smoke is the most obvious example, but the line can be drawn anywhere; some people think Suppression Fire is something that can so easily win you an engagement that it's not really fair to use it.

Playing to win is nice and all, but I'd much rather have a long, good game than waltz over someone with ease. If you're Allies and somewhat dominating in the early game, a Crocodile can be an instant-gg, whereas a Sherman can allow comeback. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I've watched Vitensby's replay pack, and he seems to me to only be using Crocodiles when it can save him the game, not when it's anyone's chance, and I think that's a good attitude to the game.

What you said, Bridger, about the forum-mentality nestling itself in your own is completely true. I've read so much anti-BAR threads (of ye olde days from before the Crocodile buff) that I've never used BARs in an online game, and I've played 150+. Watching replays and encountering it myself, I think it's a fair enough upgrade, and I'll be using it in the future. It's really a tricky thing with the forums, because I've actually seen 1.5 Sturm Armory, Panzerfausts and Infantry Company being put to good use, despite thinking they're absolutely worthless.

Also, if you deselect everything (by pressing Escape) the Company/Doctrine icon is shown on the Taskbar where the unit icon normally is. No more hassle with "Is he Terror then? No wait... Where'd he put his points into?"

[Timeless]

One of my favorite parts of the interview was when he was talking about leader boards (ladders). It is amazing that we as players get so caught up in them that we feel we have to play our very best in every game and win no matter what. This causes a lot of stress and burn out, imo. It also stifles creativity and the evolution of the game or causes people to smurf. Part of the problem is the concern over our reputations - "Oh, look, that noob beat Sepha!". If everyone plays to win on the ladder each and every single game, all the time, they will mostly stick to what is already known. I really think this is why so many top players so quickly burn out and leave one game for another. If they played to experiment and for the love of the game more, their enjoyment would last a lot longer and they'd also get even better in the long run.

For more on this, read Ender's Game and Ender's Shadow by Orson Scott Card. While these books are fiction, they offer brilliant insights into competition and strategy - it often seems as if Card is talking directly about RTS games. In Ender's Shadow, he addresses the issue with leader boards and strategies becoming stagnant because people are afraid of trying anything new out of fear of losing, even if what they are doing is down right stupid. Btw, not only are these books fantastic reads anyway, but I believe anyone that truly enjoys the art of rts should definitely check them out.

[Virigoth]

I second both books as a good read. Ender's Game especially.

[0mar]

ye, but that's the point. House rules diminish the game as a whole. It's like saying "okay, Puma rushing is cheap. Let's make a rule for us that no one will Puma rush." It's fine if those players never branch out, but the second they do, they will encounter it and then call the other player cheap for Puma rushing, when it's a perfectly viable tactic.

There's overpowered (which most everyone can agree Allies are) and then there's cheap (sherman smoke bug abuse). Overpowered strategies/tactics should change from the top down, meaning that Relic has to patch their game to ensure a level playing field. If you say to yourself "Airborne is cheap, I don't want to play using it" that's fine for yourself, but you can't disparage people who do use Airborne because they want to win. Relic's job is to ensure a balanced game with equally viable doctrines. It's not the community's job to self-regulate what units can and can't be used.

Do I hate playing against Airborne users? Yes, I feel it's the biggest crutch in the world, next to suppression fire. Have I lost games due to Airborne where I outplayed the other opponent (in my opinion at least), yes. However, I hardly ever flame others for using Airborne (unless I have a particularly shitty day at work) and the only posts I make concerning AB are balance posts, not whining posts (usually).

[MajFauxPas]

Ender was the noob who revolutionized the game.

[LoneWolf666]

If spamming Riflemen is okay, as it can be countered etc. you can use it to win. If there exists a bug where starting placing sandbags, immediately stopping, then running 3 circles around them with an engineer squad summoned P-47 planes that crash into the enemy HQ, it's clearly a bug, so it's not okay to use it. But where is the line which divides the "OK" from "not OK"?

Besides, some things are cheap, and there are people who know it and still use them. There are also those who also know it, but use them to win. Then there are those who see no problems.

I think that tournaments allow for most kinds of cheesiness, after all, people participate in those... to WIN. Outside the tournaments? That depends entirely on the player

[0mar]

LoneWolf, no one is telling anyone how to play, but when someone goes "I never Puma rush, so anyone that Puma rushes is cheap" is limiting him/herself, especially when they disparage people who do so.

I approach every game as a tourny game. I screw around, sure, but that's usually only games in which I'm dominating terribly. However, I approach every game I play as a game for money. Whether it's Golradaer (he's OP, nerf gol!) or some poor level 4.

[fldash]

Excellent post Timeless. I know we don't agree often, but you've completely hit the nail on the head. Salut!

[Bridger]

Playing to win is nice and all, but I'd much rather have a long, good game than waltz over someone with ease.

Well the point to the article/book is that if your opponent is also playing to win, there's no way you will waltz over him with ease unless your greatly outmatched. Two players who are both playing to win will have just as tough, long, and fun a game if evenly matched in skill as anyone else.

If there's a strategy/tactic/ability that is so overpowered, i challange you right now to use it and see how far you get. Most of the time what we thing is "super-overpowered" is only that way because we ourselves don't know how to counter it. But what if other people do? Is it still overpowered? Or is it just overpowered against people who don't know how to beat it?

I've been playing an artilery heavy axis game recently because 90% of the games i get are airborne AT lockdown players, and mortars/nebels/walking stukas really ruin their day (on the more chokepoint maps of sturz and semois anyway). I'm not saying i've got the end-all be-all to beating airborne, i'm not even saying it's not overpowered, i'm saying that much of the time we cannot know what is or isn't overpowered for a long time. Conventional wisdom is often wrong.

Also, very good writeup Renahzor, and Virigoth, I don't know too much about fighting games, but from what i've heard David say, he'd probably tell you that that move isn't overpowered at all, or maybe that was one of those rare cases where something was actually so overpowered it warrented a ban. Best pickup his book and find out, i can't remember where i put my copy

Timeless also makes a good point, and i think that's where smurfing comes in. Create a smurf account for when you want to test out new strategies and not "play to win" but perhaps find a new way that will help you "play to win" in the future

[Zwebbie]

Well the point to the article/book is that if your opponent is also playing to win, there's no way you will waltz over him with ease unless your greatly outmatched. Two players who are both playing to win will have just as tough, long, and fun a game if evenly matched in skill as anyone else.

Perhaps, but a Croc can make a change so big that it's definitely worth its cost. A well-microed uber unit will beat a well-microed good unit (i.e. Croc > Gren) and though it CAN be countered, it'll cost much more than the thing it's originally trying to counter, allowing the other player to more easily switch over to another tactic. Mind you, I don't think the Crocodile is the bane of all evil, but I think matches usually play out more interestingly if the Allied player chooses a Sherman first. It's still a good anti-infantry weapon, but allows for a comeback without the opponent HAVING to go loads of PaKs/Schrecks/Sturm Armory.

If there's one thing I learned from David Sirlin though, it's that M10s driving over infantry is something that needs to be used as much as possible

[Quercus]

Any rules the game does not enforce are not part of the game. By deciding not to use a unit/strategy/ability because it is "unrealistic" you are adding your own house rules to the game and declaring that anybody not following your made up rules is being dishonorable.

Who are you to create new rules and declare anyone not following them to be unsportsmanlike?

I think you are missing my point Bridger, which may be my fault because I was thinking of other games as well as CoH.. As others have pointed out, in sports there are always rules on how the game should be played because the rules are clearly defined when the game is and sports generally last a very long time with the same set of rules. Computer games on the other hand are much more transient, rarely lasting more than a few years and each new game has a new set of rules embedded within the code.

To be fair to CoH, there haven't been that many obvious examples of things players can do that anyone would call unfair. The main one that springs to mind is the Sherman smoke bug (where Relic confirmed it was a bug a long time before they fixed it) and where many (but not by any means all) players took the unilateral decision not to use it until it was fixed. Hell, you even applauded people for avoiding it on your show. So how do you view the people that knew it was broken and knew it was an unfair advantage but used it anyway?

You don't "play to win" because you don't want to play Company of Heroes, the game, you want to play "Company of Heroes by Quercus," which has special rules that only he knows, and if other players violate them he will hold them responsable for their actions? How does this make sense?

Not true. As I said above, I have a preferred playing style and that determines who I play with and what sort of game I like playing. I may even argue my views within the community, but I'm not forcing anyone to adopt them.

I have played Battlefield 1942 and BF2 for a long time and there are serious issues with the tactics players (who play to win) employ that DICE often admitted were problems, were unintended and occasionally made changes to in patches to prevent it from happening.
These were all things that players were capable of doing within the game code, but that DICE hadn't anticipated. Tactics such as squad hopping, bunny hopping, blackhawk abuse, causing people to TK you by standing in front of them, dolphin diving and use of point-blank rifle-grenade use. Using dropped vehicles to kill players and so on. According to David Sirlin, right up until the point that the devs issued a patch to change it, all of these are perfectly fine and acceptable tactics. I disagree. Certain tactics look and feel wrong within games and are where players are effectively exploiting loop holes or limitations within the game to do something unrealistic.

I am not saying that these tactics are never valid - I fully accept that in tournament play there are well defined rules and if the rules allow it, I have no problem with that.
But outside of tournaments there are no rules other than the "hard" rules of the game.
If I think something is wrong (exactly like the sherman smoke bug in CoH), I will not exploit it and prefer to play games with like-minded people. If I am in a position to influence online game servers I will state my case and try to have it enforced or agreed, but I also accept that on most servers this is not the case and if I don't like what happens on those servers, I don't rant at other players because they aren't playing the way I want to play, I leave.

You talk about treating other players with "respect" but how much respect are you showing others when you call them disrespectful for breaking rules that don't actually exsist? There is nothing disrespectful about playing a game by the rules.

Again, let's get back to the smoke bug in CoH - how much respect did you have for people who used it continuously even knowing it was flawed?
Again, according to David everything is acceptable unless it is hardcoded out of a game or unless it is an acknowledged bug. Relic eventually confiemed the Sherman smoke was a bug but the community had been complaining about it for ages beforehand.

My experiences with the Battlefield games often involved what is referred to as "spawn-camping". In the BF games this was (if possible) more of a problem than with deathmatch games, because if one team had been pushed back to a single spawn point that the enemy could not capture (and end the round), they were forced to keep spawning into a killing zone like fish in a barrel.
So, if you were on the team doing the "spawn-camping", do you think that is a valid tactic? Keeping the other team in a spawn-die-spawn-die-spawn-die cycle for half an hour until the map ends? Is that fun? Are you demonstrating your skill by lots of easy kills? Now how about if you are on the other team. Is that a good game?
According to David it is perfectly fair and acceptable, even outside tournament play. A lot of players would back David up on that. However, a very large number of players disagree and think it is an poor way to play. DICE admitted it was a problem but didn't do anything to resolve it. Do I consider players doing that to be poor sportsmen? Yes I do - but that is just my opinion. If I could have had a "Quercus rant" on EA's forums that would have been the number one subject.

both players have access to the juggernaut character.

Fair enough. I wasn't sure if that was the case, which is why I asked the question.

The point is that people who make up their own rules and limitations are handicaped from the start. They may think they are trying to win, but they lost the game before it's started.

But then this is the core factor at the heart of the argument isn't it? It doesn't matter how you play as long as you win. Personally I would rather (in certain situations) accept a handicap if I believed something to be wrong.

Once a scrub crosses the line and demands other people adhere to his house rules...

Heh - do you have any idea how derogatory that sounds? :P

[Kaskad]

Zwebbie, another of Sirlin's little bits of advice you can find on his site is that if you really think something (like the croc) is overpowered or next to instawin, then try to climb the ladder using it. You'll either crush everyone and prove that it's really broken or someone will beat you and you'll see why it isn't.

[ugordan]

If someone beats you in 1 out of 10 games when you go for the quick Croc, that doesn't mean it's not overpowered. I fail to see the reasoning behind that statement of his.

[Bridger]

To be fair to CoH, there haven't been that many obvious examples of things players can do that anyone would call unfair. The main one that springs to mind is the Sherman smoke bug (where Relic confirmed it was a bug a long time before they fixed it) and where many (but not by any means all) players took the unilateral decision not to use it until it was fixed. Hell, you even applauded people for avoiding it on your show. So how do you view the people that knew it was broken and knew it was an unfair advantage but used it anyway?

The sherman smoke was on the verge of being something that would be bannable in any tournament setting, and i think the community as a whole "banned" it in that they looked down upon people for using it. I think once we knew it was getting fixed in a patch it became "banned" because relic had said it's in need of fixing, so after that point i think it was no longer acceptable to use "playing to win" as an excuse to exploit the sherman smoke bug.

As far as spawn camping, yeah, that's a legitimate way to win the game, and i think that's why the game is flawed for competition. The battlefield games were always a ton of fun with a bunch of friends just looking for carnage, but if you played them to win, you'd find the design of the game was pretty broken. So while i did play BF42 in a clan for a while, i burnt out when i recognized all the broken-ness and unapealing gameplay that evolved.

I will say i perhaps mis-labled you. I did not mean to imply that you yourself are out there calling people names and looking down on them for not playing by house rules, but rather that when you mentioned people playing "without respect for their opponent" it reminded me of this additude. You do not seem to fall into this catagory however.

It's kind of like the person that gets beat calling his opponent a n00b for using cheese tactics. If your opponent is the unskilled one, how did he win?

I'm not saying that. What I'm saying is that you shouldn't need have an official announcement that a tactic is wrong or imbalanced to stop using it, you should be able to make your own judgement and be judged by fellow gamers based upon that.
Again, think of the Sherman smoke bug.

Of course you need an official announcement, judgement of what is or isn't overpowered is a very subjective thing. What one person sees as overpowered others see as weak (see the two dueling threads of "rangers are so worthless" and "rangers are unstoppable!"). Therefore your own opinion cannot be counted upon because maybe you've had experienced certain things that create a bias.

For example, what if you only ever experienced someone using the sherman smoke badly? Just by chance you hadn't had a really good player ever use it against you. You'd have a very different oppinion from others out there no? So because this is so subjective, there needs to be a concensus or an official announcement from an autority that something is/isn't ok to use.

Things that don't need any consensus or official announcements are any types of cheats or ways that circumvent the rules. Those are always off limits even to people using the "playing to win" mentality.

[DatonKallandor]

Zwebbie, another of Sirlin's little bits of advice you can find on his site is that if you really think something (like the croc) is overpowered or next to instawin, then try to climb the ladder using it. You'll either crush everyone and prove that it's really broken or someone will beat you and you'll see why it isn't.

And if it turns out to be overpowered he is the bastard who absues it. That philosophy creates unrest instead of resolving it.

[Zwebbie]

Zwebbie, another of Sirlin's little bits of advice you can find on his site is that if you really think something (like the croc) is overpowered or next to instawin, then try to climb the ladder using it. You'll either crush everyone and prove that it's really broken or someone will beat you and you'll see why it isn't.

That'd work only if I were the best player in the game. If my Croc gets destroyed, it's my micro's fault, 90% of the time. I'm not saying it's instawin, it's just a bit too much win for the buck, in my opinion.

[Timeless]

Quercus, all you have to do is really read what Bridger and others are saying here. Most acknowledge that Sirlin comes from a different gaming world, one in which games are not patched like rts games are. He speaks of playing to win, but also playing most of your casual games for fun in order to enhance learning and stimulate creativity. As such, in games like CoH where the developers state that such and such is a bug and will be fixed we can draw a parallel to a tournament game forbidding such a move or exploit. Really, "Playing to Win" is about a mindset. It's about understanding that no move is really cheap, no matter how difficult it might be to counter, unless it is banned from a competition or deemed a bug with an impending fix, as the case was with Sherman smoke. House rules are fine when playing with friends for fun. What is not fine, however, is competing with strangers and expecting them to observe certain artificial rulesets. The scrub mentality, imo, is to get beat then start telling your opponent that he's cheap for base rushing you, for using a croc, for going fast MP like everyone else - "That's all you know how to do!".

Using Starcraft as an example (because it is the most balanced rts game I know of), there are still many moves that are devastating and incredibly difficult to counter. Some might see a zergling rush on Challenger as cheap as it is certainly easier to execute than to defend. Some might see a fast reaver drop aimed at taking out an opponent's workers on Road War as cheap. Perhaps it's fast Dark Templars before you had the appropriate detection counters. Whatever. One could choose to artificially limit the game by banning them from his games and therefore have an incredibly limiting experience or he can relish the challenge and begin to see the game on a much deeper level. Concepts start becoming apparent to this player that he was blind to before. He develops finesse, intuitive awareness, an understanding of his opponent's mind. In short, the game becomes much deeper on a strategic and tactical level because of the brutal competition.

All this said, I really dislike playing at a disadvantage balance wise, and will speak my mind on these issues. A good rts game needs to be balanced. But I think we're getting too caught up in nitpicking the overall philosophy which is a very sound one.

[Bridger]

And if it turns out to be overpowered he is the bastard who absues it. That philosophy creates unrest instead of resolving it.

Part of Sirlin's point was that if you try this aproach, 99% of the time you'll find it has drawbacks you didn't recognize before, or ways to beat it you didn't think about. But if it truely is overpowered, then abusing it for all you're worth is the best way to get relic's attention. The more people you can prove that it's overpowered the more people will be on the forums posting in threads, the faster it gets fixed

[Renahzor]

These were all things that players were capable of doing within the game code, but that DICE hadn't anticipated. Tactics such as squad hopping, bunny hopping, blackhawk abuse, causing people to TK you by standing in front of them, dolphin diving and use of point-blank rifle-grenade use. Using dropped vehicles to kill players and so on. According to David Sirlin, right up until the point that the devs issued a patch to change it, all of these are perfectly fine and acceptable tactics. I disagree. Certain tactics look and feel wrong within games and are where players are effectively exploiting loop holes or limitations within the game to do something unrealistic.

That in and of itself is a flawed argument. I played BF2 quite alot, and while frustrating many of these things were used very excessively in the game on any of the public servers. two of your eamples in particular are not playing to win. Forcing your teamate to TK you by any means is NOT playing to win, by the very definition of wining. Also kiling players with air drops, so long as its not your own teamate, doesnt even seem like a problem.

All the other things you talk about are using in game mechanics to bend what would otherwise be a fairly realistic game. the people who used this type of tactic wouldnt be looked at any differently than a normal player in any tournament setting. Bunny hopping, dolphin diving etc all were a problem with BF2 because it so dramatically altered the hit box of your opponent. But it is nowhere near one sided, anyone can use these, and its not cheating because the game code allows exactly what you described. They could easily fix it by making it impossible to jump if you dont have enough stam on your run bar. However, I dont think any tournament COULD outlaw such behavior. there can be house rules against it, but if you dont learn how to counter these funky tactics then anyone who does use them may be "cheap" in your mind, but imo they just won because they knew how to use a game mechanic (and likely know how to counter it was well).

Bringing realism into the argument is pretty far off base. its no more unrealistic to dolphin dive to completely change your players hitbox than it is to get shot in the face and respawn 6 seconds later at a point closer to your enemies base. Also the only way the rifle grenade thing really worked was in games without team damage.

Now, I stopped playing BF2 because it got stale. i didnt really prefer the direction the gameplay was going and it just wasnt as fun without a good group of friends. i never got good at dolphin diving so I was always at a disadvantage. But I still dont think its cheating. It may break game immersion, but it doesnt constitute cheap/unfair tactics unless defined by the game. And if enough of the community thinks its unfair, it generally gets changed by the devs. Playing to win however is a means of using whatever means necessary to win within the paramaters of the game at the time. The obvious exceptions are Bugs, tournament rules, and Explained bugs that are slated for change. at that point the player who is really playing to win will stop using it because they now in short time their tactics will be gone, and they need to adapt to that.

-Ren

[ugordan]

The more people you can prove that it's overpowered the more people will be on the forums posting in threads, the faster it gets fixed

See, this is the opposite viewpoint than some folks here have. They think we should all stop whining about obviously OP units because it's been beaten to death.

[Quercus]

You are contradicting yourself Bridger - first you say you do need an official announcement and then you say a consensus is just as good.
That is kind of my point - certainly with CoH I bow down to the experiences of a lot of people here because I don't play it nearly as much as they do, but if you have someone that (for example) uses testing to demonstrate that something is not right (such as the sherman smoke) in a clear and uncontravertible manner, would you only react to that once Relic waded in or would you look at the evidence and base how you played upon that?

Actually, there were some things david said that I agree with - namely that you don't have to be a vet at a game to beat the current leaders and that some people seem to have an innate ability to do well with certain games. I have a friend who takes about 10 minutes to play an RTS before he becomes a serious threat. Kind of like you and the beta advantage.