What the "scrub"-mentality is

[SimianSwing]

This is a really good article defining what the "scrub"-mentality is, as well as discussing some of the most used arguments by scrubs against actually playing games as they actually are.

http://www.sirlin.net/articles/playing-to-win

[Rapax/希狐]

What they are saying is if you realize a mechanic or moveset is lame or broken and decide against using it, you are a scrub.

Well then I am proud to be a scrub.

Of course they paint it in a way assuming there is no imbalance to speak of and scrubs are just making it easy for themselves.

This article calls "good players", that is exploitative players, who play for the win the antithesis of a scrub, a player who intentionally avoids certain patterns. This is what we "scrubs" would call a tryhard.

I find this article insulting. It insists that the right way to play a game is of a purely competitive nature.

If everyhting is allowed in a competitive match with stakes, yes, then i would tryhard it unless among the stakes is my sense of honour and my respect to the game and audience. I feel uncomfortable saying that i would ever truly play to win, but in games like Dark Souls there are no stakes. There is no reason to go for the fastest and easiest pattern you know if you are playing to have a good time.

It's not that I die to some ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ and then retroactively label it as cheating, so I am "objectively" the winner, it's that I meet my opponent with patterns that emphasize the fight, that impress opponents and that push me forward. If my opponent's playstyle does not allow for that, I will be annoyed and instead use patterns that I see no pride in but deem them necessary to not have my time completely wasted with an opponent...or because I am just quite mad.

[Rapax/希狐]

You know, in some fighting games, some tactics are almost universally disapproved of, but they are not banned, because some "good players" insist that they can be easily countered, just no counter has been found yet as they happily keep using them. And while sports commentators are supposed to be neutral, they often cannot help but express their disapproval. When you win using such patterns, you get your prize, but don't you feel like you have lost something, too?

[SimianSwing]

Originally posted by _shiro96:

You know, in some fighting games, some tactics are almost universally disapproved of, but they are not banned, because some "good players" insist that they can be easily countered, just no counter has been found yet as they happily keep using them. And while sports commentators are supposed to be neutral, they often cannot help but express their disapproval. When you win using such patterns, you get your prize, but don't you feel like you have lost something, too?

If you win using those patterns against someone who dont know who defend against them you will get bored if you are looking for a challenge, but on the other hand you are giving your opponent an opportunity to try to counter something that they are not good at countering yet. So its good for them (aand they will be happy if they dont suffer from scrub mentality) while you grind the pattern to perfection. But probably you would want to fight better players than yourself, or equal, so that you have to push yourself to the limit and get a rush (and eventually a sense of achievement when you notice yourself getting better), so only playing against less experienced players for a whole evening might be boring. In that case you can of course gimp yourself in different ways to create a challenge, making some mini goal for a few fights (like deciding I am gonna ravioli bs next attack on reaction, or something, Im gonna parry and do a headshot with a bow instead of riposte. etc)

I do not understand why that would make someone feel like they lost something?
I think what you are writing is superweird. Why would people feel bad for winning by using a common bait or counter to a bait in a fighting game?

(Also I think its a bit arrogant to assume your opponent cant fight and then try to help them win against you. I am sure they will feel better if they won against you without you giving them any help.)

[Rapax/希狐]

Originally posted by SimianSwing:

Originally posted by _shiro96:

You know, in some fighting games, some tactics are almost universally disapproved of, but they are not banned, because some "good players" insist that they can be easily countered, just no counter has been found yet as they happily keep using them. And while sports commentators are supposed to be neutral, they often cannot help but express their disapproval. When you win using such patterns, you get your prize, but don't you feel like you have lost something, too?

If you win using those patterns against someone who dont know who defend against them you will get bored if you are looking for a challenge, but on the other hand you are giving your opponent an opportunity to try to counter something that they are not good at countering yet. So its good for them (aand they will be happy if they dont suffer from scrub mentality) while you grind the pattern to perfection. But probably you would want to fight better players than yourself, or equal, so that you have to push yourself to the limit and get a rush (and eventually a sense of achievement when you notice yourself getting better), so only playing against less experienced players for a whole evening might be boring. In that case you can of course gimp yourself in different ways to create a challenge, making some mini goal for a few fights (like deciding I am gonna ravioli bs next attack on reaction, or something, Im gonna parry and do a headshot with a bow instead of riposte. etc)

I do not understand why that would make someone feel like they lost something?
I think what you are writing is superweird. Why would people feel bad for winning by using a common bait or counter to a bait in a fighting game?

The whole article is to stroke the egos of people who get told that they were fighting in a dishonorable, cheap or "no-skill" way. It basically insists that when it's in the game, as long as it works, spam the hell out of it.

Say, how would you like it, if every would you invade, you are immediately met with TWoP+invisible rtsr+bellowing+dusk crown pursuers? If you would react with anything but admiration, you are nothing but a scrub, because your opponent is merely playing optimally.

[nulle]

"Say, how would you like it, if every would you invade, you are immediately met with TWoP+invisible rtsr+bellowing+dusk crown pursuers? If you would react with anything but admiration, you are nothing but a scrub, because your opponent is merely playing optimally."

Use the most hyperbolic example why don't you. It's universially agreed upon TWoP and invisible spells are broken. For everything else though, there are counters.

[SimianSwing]

Originally posted by _shiro96:

Originally posted by SimianSwing:

If you win using those patterns against someone who dont know who defend against them you will get bored if you are looking for a challenge, but on the other hand you are giving your opponent an opportunity to try to counter something that they are not good at countering yet. So its good for them (aand they will be happy if they dont suffer from scrub mentality) while you grind the pattern to perfection. But probably you would want to fight better players than yourself, or equal, so that you have to push yourself to the limit and get a rush (and eventually a sense of achievement when you notice yourself getting better), so only playing against less experienced players for a whole evening might be boring. In that case you can of course gimp yourself in different ways to create a challenge, making some mini goal for a few fights (like deciding I am gonna ravioli bs next attack on reaction, or something, Im gonna parry and do a headshot with a bow instead of riposte. etc)

I do not understand why that would make someone feel like they lost something?
I think what you are writing is superweird. Why would people feel bad for winning by using a common bait or counter to a bait in a fighting game?

The whole article is to stroke the egos of people who get told that they were fighting in a dishonorable, cheap or "no-skill" way. It basically insists that when it's in the game, as long as it works, spam the hell out of it.

Say, how would you like it, if every would you invade, you are immediately met with TWoP+invisible rtsr+bellowing+dusk crown pursuers? If you would react with anything but admiration, you are nothing but a scrub, because your opponent is merely playing optimally.

I do not get your argument here. If you are meaning that meeting a invader at spawn with a ganksquad using for example dark bead, wog and twop, is something some "good players" defend cause it "can be easily countered" you will have to give some example of some "good players" making that argument. Cause it seems like you are trying to steer the discussion into the realm of imagination. Like you are trying to derail it, or that you honestly do not get what the text is about. The text is not about defending cheap tactics against valid criticism, but about defending actually playing the game and learning to deal with everything in it, against an attitude of blaming all ones failures on that others are being mean or cheap, creating a small bubble with made up rules, and see everything outside of that bubble as impure, while at the same time refusing to have to deal with the outside world.

[Rapax/希狐]

Originally posted by SimianSwing:

Originally posted by _shiro96:

The whole article is to stroke the egos of people who get told that they were fighting in a dishonorable, cheap or "no-skill" way. It basically insists that when it's in the game, as long as it works, spam the hell out of it.

Say, how would you like it, if every would you invade, you are immediately met with TWoP+invisible rtsr+bellowing+dusk crown pursuers? If you would react with anything but admiration, you are nothing but a scrub, because your opponent is merely playing optimally.

I do not get your argument here. If you are meaning that meeting a invader at spawn with a ganksquad using for example dark bead, wog and twop, is something some "good players" defend cause it "can be easily countered" you will have to give some example of some "good players" making that argument. Cause it seems like you are trying to steer the discussion into the realm of imagination. Like you are trying to derail it, or that you honestly do not get what the text is about. The text is not about defending cheap tactics against valid criticism, but about defending actually playing the game and learning to deal with everything in it, against an attitude of blaming all ones failures on that others are being mean or cheap, creating a small bubble with made up rules, and see everything outside of that bubble as impure, while at the same time refusing to have to deal with the outside world.

Is there ANY difference?

Is what is avalid tactic just up to the self-proclaimed "good players"?

Then what is the difference between them and scrubs?

The text is just saying that people you call "scrubs" don't get to call a tactic unfair, cheap or no-skill. Yet you get to call a hopeless gank cheap? Then what do you say to gankers who tell you they are just good at the game?

[Rapax/希狐]

Originally posted by System:

Use the most hyperbolic example why don't you. It's universially agreed upon TWoP and invisible spells are broken. For everything else though, there are counters.

Do you not see the issue? If you do not allow "scrubs" to draw the line where it's cheap broken and no-skill, you do not deserve to draw that line yourself.

[SimianSwing]

Originally posted by _shiro96:

Originally posted by System:

Use the most hyperbolic example why don't you. It's universially agreed upon TWoP and invisible spells are broken. For everything else though, there are counters.

Do you not see the issue? If you do not allow "scrubs" to draw the line where it's cheap broken and no-skill, you do not deserve to draw that line yourself.

Why should the opinions of people who do not know and dont want to learn something be on the same level as people who master a subject?

[Rapax/希狐]

Originally posted by SimianSwing:

Originally posted by _shiro96:

Do you not see the issue? If you do not allow "scrubs" to draw the line where it's cheap broken and no-skill, you do not deserve to draw that line yourself.

Why should the opinions of people who do not know and dont want to learn something be on the same level as people who master a subject?

The article is just not worded that way. To me it is proclaiming, that any pattern you could use in a competitive game is valid, and that discriminating against any pattern for overly high efficiency, regardless of whether you are able to use it or not is inherently wrong and makes you a scrub, while someone who exploits the game as hard as he can to give his opponent as little of a chance as possible is a "good player".

And I heavily disagree with that.

if that is not what the article is saying, it's not well-worded.

[Rapax/希狐]

Originally posted by SimianSwing:

should the opinions of people who do not know and dont want to learn something be on the same level as people who master a subject?

if there is nothing to argue about cheap strategies, then it doesn' matte rhow experienced the player is.

Though of course, there is a kind of player who dismisses a pattern they deem as "cheap" without knowing the difficulty involved or considering counters.

my problem is, I think this article encourages every tryhard to claim that this was the case with everything they do.

[SimianSwing]

Originally posted by _shiro96:

It's not that I die to some ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ and then retroactively label it as cheating, so I am "objectively" the winner, it's that I meet my opponent with patterns that emphasize the fight, that impress opponents and that push me forward. If my opponent's playstyle does not allow for that, I will be annoyed and instead use patterns that I see no pride in but deem them necessary to not have my time completely wasted with an opponent...or because I am just quite mad.

This part. If I try to follow you line of reason here I cant find any way to appriciate a well played game. A well played game being two players knowing all the outs and ins, mastering the applications of principles and performance, and doing it with esprit. There are no place for a well played game when one allows eachothers misstakes go unpunished, when both players just let the other jump around and do random stuff that would have made them lose if they fought a serious opponent. The beauty of a fight comes from when the players know the game and used that knowledge in a focused, spirited and inventive way. Its the difference of listening to a "jazz soloist" that master a lot of styles and expressions, and one that dont know how to play neither the instrument or any style but just use intuition while fumbling around (found in some avant garde scenes).

Look at the beauty in this tech from Kali/Zweihard who also commented in this thread. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i7fIDYIINHM It would be impossible to be creative on that level if he didnt already master many things in the game, and that kind of creativity is totally different from doing random moves unknowingly of what dangers one is putting oneself in while asking ones opponent to let one do the free from repercussions cause one wants to "impress ones opponent and push oneself forward"

[Rapax/希狐]

Originally posted by SimianSwing:

Originally posted by _shiro96:

It's not that I die to some ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ and then retroactively label it as cheating, so I am "objectively" the winner, it's that I meet my opponent with patterns that emphasize the fight, that impress opponents and that push me forward. If my opponent's playstyle does not allow for that, I will be annoyed and instead use patterns that I see no pride in but deem them necessary to not have my time completely wasted with an opponent...or because I am just quite mad.

This part. If I try to follow you line of reason here I cant find any way to appriciate a well played game. A well played game being two players knowing all the outs and ins, mastering the applications of principles and performance, and doing it with esprit. There are no place for a well played game when one allows eachothers misstakes go unpunished, when both players just let the other jump around and do random stuff that would have made them lose if they fought a serious opponent. The beauty of a fight comes from when the players know the game and used that knowledge in a focused, spirited and inventive way. Its the difference of listening to a "jazz soloist" that master a lot of styles and expressions, and one that dont know how to play neither the instrument or any style but just use intuition while fumbling around (found in some avant garde scenes).

Look at the beauty in this tech from Kali/Zweihard who also commented in this thread. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i7fIDYIINHM It would be impossible to be creative on that level if he didnt already master many things in the game, and that kind of creativity is totally different from doing random moves unknowingly of what dangers one is putting oneself in while asking ones opponent to let one do the free from repercussions cause one wants to "impress ones opponent and push oneself forward"

This is like the most sophisticated counter backstab I have ever seen and I see no problem with that.

Yeah if you condemn backstabs in general, then this sort of tech does not happen. And I don't condemn backstabs in general. but to me inarguably there is something very wrong with backstabs and it may not be possible to find a good compromise. The real problem with backstabs is, given sufficient poise and a weapon optimized for critical damage, backstabs become so powerful in a match, that performing any move other than a backstab is an inherent mistake. And when your build is not optimized for backstabs, this also puts you at a disadvantage from the start. so then when for the whole fight you have to be mindful of your opponent's most powerful and pretty much only weapon, the backstab and mirror that pattern yourself, what happens? You have the choice to make a build optimized for backstabs or be at a great disadvantage in every fight. This means in high-level play you exclusively see backstab-optimized builds, which makes backstabs the "only one good move" and makes Dark Souls a "degenerate game".

Once backstabs are initiated, a whole new game begins with its own patterns and tech. That's pretty cool, it's only that it is way too easy to land a backstab and they do way too much damage, which makes them "cheap moves" as they harm the overall meta greatly.

The problem is not that backstabs are viable, the problem is that backstabs make a majority of fighting styles unviable.

[SimianSwing]

No. Not really. You just constantly need to be aware of backstabs. If I compare to boxing one could say that bs is uppercut and normal r1 is a jab. You jab while you are careful not to leave yourself open for a KO. So you have to think of more than one thing, find a good way to jab way at your opponent without him hitting you (or doing smart trades) and not letting him get through your guard to do a critical while you are looking for an opening in his guard.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AF3-4xIOx7k

[Rapax/希狐]

You are describing typical fencing. Backstabbing in this scenario bypasses the normal nature of fighting. Because when an opponent goes for a backstab he does not have to pay attention to our moves at all. Because you cannot do anything that would threaten them sufficiently.