(non) competitive mindsets while playing

[riadsala]

Howdy people

 

I recently read a fascinating article about Go. One quote stood out to me:

 

"However, the point of playing is clearly understood as not that of winning games (when Go is played properly, you lose about half of your games), but of exploring the possibilities to be found in particular arrangements of stones."

 

I thought this was pretty interestingly in relation to some of Rob's recent comments about SC2, and how he finds the ladder really unsatisfying as you're always playing against people close to your skill level. I think, in general, people perhaps are more likely to have this mindset when playing single player games (campaigns in CivIV, CK2, etc), but as soon as they have an opponent, they find the game stressful and get themselves into a really competitive mindset.

 

Some interesting psychology at work? I've certainly found Go, and other games, more enjoyable after switching to the "explore possibilities" mindset. I still have a clear motivation to get better at the game... the stronger I get, the more sophisticated "conversation" I can have with my opponent through playing the game. I can say things (ie, play a stone) that have multiple meanings and repercussions, and I will be better at visualizing the potential futures that are generated by any given action.  That in itself is pretty satisfying in a kind of abstract way.

 

I should add that I don't think this is specific to Go. Go really really is a competitive game, and is played competitively at a very high level by professional players who earn a lot of money.

[sclpls]

This is something I have to remind myself of when playing DOTA, that it is more satisfying to get better at the game than to win a match. It is a tough thing to remember though when the rest of your team almost certainly doesn't have that perspective!

[Twig]

I prefer winning to getting better!

[Ninety-Three]

This is something I have to remind myself of when playing DOTA, that it is more satisfying to get better at the game than to win a match. It is a tough thing to remember though when the rest of your team almost certainly doesn't have that perspective!

 

I feel conflicted about this because I definitely have more fun winning, but I have won games of Starcraft or Magic where I know I played terribly, and I enjoyed them much less for it. I think the best way to express it is to say I enjoy winning and I enjoy exercising skill (which is why easy games of Starcraft are unsatisfying, you don't have to exercise much skill).

[riadsala]

I feel conflicted about this because I definitely have more fun winning, but I have won games of Starcraft or Magic where I know I played terribly, and I enjoyed them much less for it. I think the best way to express it is to say I enjoy winning and I enjoy exercising skill (which is why easy games of Starcraft are unsatisfying, you don't have to exercise much skill).

 

I would say that I enjoy winning against opponents who are equal (or above) me in terms of skill and/or technique. This applies to single player games for me too... if I just wanted to win at Civ all the time, I could put the AI on easy, hit End Turn a few hundred turns, and the victory is mine. But it's a completely hollow victory and I would feel as if I've just wasted a few hours of my life.

 

With Go, I don't enjoy playing weaker players so much. I'm happy to play them, as they will learn from the game, etc. But playing against an even/stronger opponent player is much more interesting, as they will challenge the points you try to make, and the "conversation" is far more nuanced.

 

I'm not sure if these ideas apply to all games though. From what I've read, it sounds like players who get stronger at Paradox games end up simple breaking the game mechanics.

[sclpls]

I feel conflicted about this because I definitely have more fun winning, but I have won games of Starcraft or Magic where I know I played terribly, and I enjoyed them much less for it. I think the best way to express it is to say I enjoy winning and I enjoy exercising skill (which is why easy games of Starcraft are unsatisfying, you don't have to exercise much skill).

 

Yeah obviously this is not a universally shared sentiment. I am with you where winning doesn't feel good if I feel like I played like shit.

 

Another way of stating it is I like winning, but I like getting better at the game even more since it increases my odds of winning so losing is okay if it gives me an opportunity to get better. And what riadsala said about the game getting more interesting as you play against more skilled opponents also holds true.

[Adam Beckett]

I remember decades ago - sorry, I am that old - a friend of mine and myself tried to play Age of Empires (ok, not THAT old) against each other.

While I was occupied building things, making my economy flow, finding people things to eat, to build, to do, my opponent (my friend) build a wall around my settlement. I was baffled that this was even possible. That someone could think of this. It taught me something about life and people.

I was interested in building things. He was interested in destroying me.

Not to sound pompous, but I do think, there are different type of 'players'? Deeply rooted in psychology, in character, in behavior? I don't need to be 'first' in real life neither. I let others speak up first, let them run in front of me, if they feel they have to do it. I am confident enough not to bother. Maybe I lack a certain competitive gene.

There are people who like to build and there are people who like to 'fight'? I don't mind the competitive nature of (most) games, but I am always looking to play an 'interesting' game, while people online mostly care how quickly they can defeat me and/or destroy me, or shoot me in the virtual face. Both sides playing to win - at all cost - for them IS an interesting, a 'good game'; playing to explore the boundaries/limits of the game by competing to be 'first', to beat the other player. While for me a good game is something aesthetically as intellectually pleasing ... not dependent on pure skills. It is enough, if the game makes me think of something new.

I do understand that 'high level' player only find satisfaction playing equally skilled opponents, just because they have played all the lesser tactics before and know their outcome. I don't.

[Jutranjo]

I prefer winning to getting better!

 

Paradoxically, always playing to win over getting better will make you lose more games long term.

 

 

Mark Rosewater (head designer of MTG) coined the 3 archetypes of players he sees for MTG:

- players who want to see big effects, big creatures, big spells

- players who want to win via some clever play, combo players, unorthodox strategy, do not like netdecking (copying a deck you see online 1:1)

- players who want to win whatever strategy it takes, big fans of netdecking

 

He also said there's a lot of overlap between them. 

 

David Sirlin did a really good article series http://www.sirlin.net/articles/playing-to-win

 

 

Personally, winning is still the top goal, but there's a difference between winning every single game versus winning more games over time. Sirlin explains it, as well as what "fun" and "interesting" games might mean.

[Twig]

MTG. What a broken game!

[Jutranjo]

MTG. What a broken game!

How can a game be broken if it has these kinds of decks?

 

http://archive.wizards.com/Magic/magazine/Article.aspx?x=mtg/daily/rc/195