I think a few people here might find this interesting

[Lindir The Green]

... [The playing to win series is stupid because of a bunch of nicely layed out reasons, of which Lindir is too lazy to compile in shortened form] ...

I disagree with you.

I enjoy playing games because of the mental challenge of trying to defeat my opponent. And I hate when there are large amounts of ways that I'm not allowed to defeat my opponent, because they are considered lame.

If the banned tactics are specifically layed out, that's fine, then it becomes a different game. I will still play the revised game with the goal to win at any cost. But when I play Spring against somebody I don't know, I know that if I:

a) rush
b) com-nap
c) com-bomb
d) nuke my opponent
e) build lots of gunships
f) in general, do something that he doesn't expect

there is a chance that whatever I did will be "lame" and, even if I win, it won't have been real. Which is stupid.

Sometimes there are games that have flaws, either in balance or in the engine. I see nothing wrong with exploiting them, unless it is specifically stated by the host/server that exploiting them is illegal. In which case it is as if the flaws don't exist, and so I will continue looking for good ways to win. In chess tournaments, you are not allowed to do one thing: take more than a set amount of time to do a set amount of moves. Everything else is allowed, and almost everything else is used by players. (Except for a few non-game related things, like waving your hands infront of your opponent's face. But they are all really common sense.) It gets annoying though when unspecific stuff like "spamming gunships" isn't allowed, because the interpretation of "spamming gunships" varies from person to person.

So, yes, I play to win. But if someone beats me, even if they use a "lame" tactic, I recognise that they were the superior player, for that game, and congratulate them.

P.S.

Yes, I suppose some stuff could be considered cheating. Basically, anything that involves trying to gain an edge by doing something out of game. Hacking and stuff for computer games, and trying to bug your opponent in chess. But anything that is done in the game is IMO fair.

[esteroth12]

com-napping is lame... but if its the enemy, you can probably prevent it quite easily...

alied comnapping sucks, though..

[Argh]

Lindir, I think you misread my arguments.

I don't know where I mentioned com-napping, spamming gunships, etc. None of these things are "lame". They're clever tactics, with specific (and, for the most part, reasonable) counters.

I don't see anything within Spring's engine design, or AA's usage of that design, that suggests any of these things are non-intentional or unwanted engine behaviors. There's a world of difference between the specifics you mentioned and things like sparking, com-hiding, etc. from OTA, or the current FPS-view Anti-Aircraft weapon bug in Spring. These things are all lame by definition- they weren't intentional functionality of the game engine. They break gameplay. They aren't remotely sporting to use on players who aren't aware that the loophole exists. If there was a code in Spring that would give you 1000E and 1000M every time you used it, without other people being able to see it, would that make it any laess lame?

There is the line. It's a pretty clear place, really. I think that nubs who're mad because you owned them fair and square are just... nubs. You can always offer to play with both hands behind your back, or something

[SwiftSpear]

The playing to win series isn't about game design or exploits, it's about sportsmanship and competitive play. Playing to win advocates using the tools you have to the best of their abilities. You completely missed the boat argh. Playing to win is using the game design to your advantage because you need to push the game forward and you need to push your play forward. If camping works in CS, use it, find a way to counter it, know it in and out, and don't waste your time complaining about it because it's part of the game and it isn't the competitive player's role to play the game on some imaginary standard of how it's meant to be played, it's the competitive player's role to play the game at the best it can be played.

Sirlin doesn't advocate bugs in games, sirlin advocates that it's the competitive player's role to use the game to the top of their ability even if it means exploiting bugs. If the hole is there to exploit you should be the one in there forcing rule makers to make rules against your style of play, and if they won't then you should know that style in and out if it really works. I can list you off hundreds of examples from most of the games I've played but in the end if you just don't get it you just won't get it. The concept of the playing to win article is spot on.