When does competitive gaming go too far?

[Qwerty 42]

My apologies if this is perceived as necromancy, I just figured this was preferable to making a new topic.

When I play Pokemon, I've taken without question the process of selecting pokemon with certain natures (which heighten certain stats) and training them in effort values, which influence individual stats further. This is an extremely time-consuming process, but one which the programmers seem to encourage (items can be purchased in the game which accelerate EV training,) but my question is simple: is this an example of competitive gaming gone too far?

[chitoryu12]

I don't think it's necro. It's only a week old.

[Stark]

My apologies if this is perceived as necromancy, I just figured this was preferable to making a new topic.

When I play Pokemon, I've taken without question the process of selecting pokemon with certain natures (which heighten certain stats) and training them in effort values, which influence individual stats further. This is an extremely time-consuming process, but one which the programmers seem to encourage (items can be purchased in the game which accelerate EV training,) but my question is simple: is this an example of competitive gaming gone too far?

I don't think so, no. Most RPGs involve grinding to maximise benefits, and nobody is going to say levelling is 'compeditive gaming gone too far'. It would be bad if you simply refused to ever, ever fight anyone ever without your precious maxed-out super-Pokemon, even when fighting novices or those of significantly lower level. You know, like the level 70 guys in WoW who go around trying to trick noobs into accepting duels so they can rape them in one hit, but who are too pussy to actually take their character into real PvP.

[Julhelm]

I remember when I used to play D-Day Normandy mod on Q2, it was basically forbidden to use the MP43 because it was "cheap" and would get you banned from servers.

[2000AD]

I tend to be a bit competative. If the weapon is in the game I'll use it, but I draw the line at clear exploits of the game engine.
I don't care if people consider a weapon 'cheap' if it's there I'll use it

[Covenant]

I call certain things cheap, but I like to justify it. Something can easily be 'cheap' or 'lame' and still be completely, 100 percent intentional on the part of the game designers. Sometimes they don't realize that people can do certain things, or would, and they're often surprised by some of the tricks people come up with. Things that violate the spirit of the game, even if it doesn't exploit the engine, can easily be termed cheap or lame. A lot of people falsely call anything they dislike cheap, like throwing in Street Fighter. Throwing is certainly not cheap.

It's a fine line. In competition, I say, go as hard as you can for the win. If you want to compete, go for the victory. If you're playing socially to have fun with people, then pull some punches. If you act like a hardcore badass when playing a family game, for example, that's not going to win you any friends. Or when someone really starts getting frustrated, I find it eases tensions a lot if you explain what you're doing rather than just being a jackass about it.

At some level, these games are about the shared experience. If you're playing to win, then play to win. If you're playing to be part of something with your buddies or family, then don't play just to win. Playing to win is playing for yourself. I love to play Street Fighter, and I love to play it socially. However, my brothers play as cheaply and lamely as possible in order to beat me, since they really want to beat me more than they just want to play around. This forces me to play to win, which is arguably less fun for everyone, as they win less and I just play with more winnable characters. If they could ease off and be less competitive, they'd probably have more fun most of the time, even if they give up the ability to gloat once and a while.

So it's a tradeoff, I think.

It's really all about context. However, there's fewer ways to suck all the fun out of something than having one guy who is playing far more competitively than the rest of the group, and forcing everyone else out of the game.

[Kihmbar]

The OP mentioned PvP computer games, but I've seen plenty of examples of competitive gaming going too far with board games. At once event, a guy was playing one of my friend's son - when the guy lost, he flipped the game board up into the air (pieces and all) then took my friend's son's dice and threw them across the room. Needless to say, the guy didn't win the sportsmanship award and he had difficulty finding opponents after that. Even though we were playing at a tournament, I think this guy took competitive gaming too far.

There are also some folks who only play one style in a game. For example, I play Advanced Squad Leader (ASL), a tactical level WWII game. Some folks will only play Russian vs German scenarios (because they are good with Eastern Front tactics), citing that the Eastern Front is what the original Squad Leader was designed around. They won't even consider playing Western Front, Italy, North Africa or anything in the Pacific Theater. I generally consent to this limit because I play all theaters (even though I am worse at some than others). I will say that I have not had any of these guys bragging about how good they are because they beat me in their own ballpark. Perhaps that is a difference between face-to-face and online gaming.

As for "cheap tricks," in board games they usually only exist in complex games (such as ASL) and are sometimes corrected by errata. In the community I play in "cheap tricks" (aka "sleeze moves") are allowed, but it is generally recognized if you have to use them to win, the win was a "sleeze win." Most of the tricks involve using units in an ahistoric way, which defeats the purpose of playing a board game to recreate historical events. In tournaments though, the gloves come off - a win is a win (the game takes precedent over recreating historical events).

[Medic]

I tend to be a bit competitive. If the weapon is in the game I'll use it, but I draw the line at clear exploits of the game engine.
I don't care if people consider a weapon 'cheap' if it's there I'll use it.

I fit right in that mold as well, I like to win, in real life sports and in games but in the game I've played online the most, CoD:UO, I know what's a vicious map exploit and I don't do it. (Arnhem is infamously exploitable for Germans)

Which is why a good player is someone who changes their playing style to fit the new situation, not someone who manipulates the maps and settings to favor them.

Definitely but more fundamentally, this is just funner. If you really are so good, you'll relish more in the ability to adapt than to master the One True Way.

On the other hand, even in the close-range deathfest maps in CoD, I'll stick to the rifle but that's actually a handicap on me, I just happen to have a stubborn streak and a soft-spot for the bolt-action. (edit: and I don't complain about getting gunned down by sub-machine gunners, nor do I rub it in if I happen to bash one to death) I've also noticed that among those gamers that are competitive, but aren't assholes like the type discussed in this thread, are also the quickest to compliment others, either for getting the best of them, or helping the team.


What's really pathetic is an exchange I had with a guy chucking satchel chargers over a wall into the British spawn point in the aforementioned CoD map, Arnhem. This is the quintessential example of why the map is infamously biased towards Germany. Basically, if the Germans take over that middle street, or only part of it, they can do this. (worse, one of their 2 spawn points gives them de-facto access to the end of the street that allows them to do this, the layout of the map is really viciously bad) I told this guy to quit exploiting the map, as no one was impressed by his killcount and his brilliant response was "is shooting your gun a map exploit?"

[CaptHawkeye]

Ahh COD:UO, one of my favorite multiplayer games ever and the best expansion pack i've ever played. I loved the increased map sizes, addition of tanks and jeeps, as well as rocket launchers and, finally light machine guns. At the same time, i've never seen a game with more whining. I just couldn't get enough of the morons who bitched on and on and "zomg teh tanx are overpowad!"

It wasn't hard to kill a tank in UO at all. It was even easier to sneak up on one. The complaining came from the fact that they couldn't wtfpwn a tank with their sub machine gun. They complained that rocket launchers weren't common enough (which was absurd, panzerfausts spawned in more 2/3 of the buildings).

[Medic]

Ahh COD:UO, one of my favorite multiplayer games ever and the best expansion pack i've ever played. I loved the increased map sizes, addition of tanks and jeeps, as well as rocket launchers and, finally light machine guns. At the same time, i've never seen a game with more whining. I just couldn't get enough of the morons who bitched on and on and "zomg teh tanx are overpowad!"

It wasn't hard to kill a tank in UO at all. It was even easier to sneak up on one. The complaining came from the fact that they couldn't wtfpwn a tank with their sub machine gun. They complained that rocket launchers weren't common enough (which was absurd, panzerfausts spawned in more 2/3 of the buildings).

Hehe, quite true although IMO, the game is really opened up if you take off shell shock. I will say that tanks versus infantry in the open is a slaughterfest but on the other hand, if the game has gotten to that point, one side probably played better to get there.

It is a very finely balanced FPS, the expansion pack. (vanilla CoD, 2 and 3 are all worse for the lack of sprint and rank system, as you can spawn with 3 grenades depending on your weapon choice, which is murder on small maps)

[Isil`Zha]

If I had a dollar for every time some moron in Halo 2 went on and on about how superbouncing wasn't cheating...

(It was a glitch with the Havoc engine and couldn't be fixed really, so of course any idiot that would exploit it, would, and try to justify that it wasn't cheating, when clearly it was.)

[Xisiqomelir]

My apologies if this is perceived as necromancy, I just figured this was preferable to making a new topic.

When I play Pokemon, I've taken without question the process of selecting pokemon with certain natures (which heighten certain stats) and training them in effort values, which influence individual stats further. This is an extremely time-consuming process, but one which the programmers seem to encourage (items can be purchased in the game which accelerate EV training,) but my question is simple: is this an example of competitive gaming gone too far?

Well, there's a spectrum of competitiveness which spans

Gabe's method...

...to my method...

...and ends at Surgo's method