Gamers' attitude to gaming?

[ThePandaDirector]

So I've been reading through a lot of threads recently, most of which can be divided into; newb questions, wise advice and wide declartions that something is broken... including the word broken (can't make that **** up)

Now I don't even play Malifaux at the moment, never really did to be honest, but I hope to take the plunge eventually (have 3-4 crews and counting). Until then I have my precious Puppet Wars - I believe to be the closest thing to a balanced miniature game - but this discussian doesn't just apply to Malifaux.

Can't say I listen to a lot of rules talk here, because I like to just take what I want and make it work, rather than rely on a drip feed of advice from other people*. So yeah, I ain't winning a tournament anytime soon. I can't understand what enjoyment anyone gets out of beating someone, they know is not of the same skill level, in a landside victory. It's easy to fix that attitude in friendly play, but in tournaments I imagine that it's easy for fresh hate fodder to be supplied for the internet when the goal often seems to spam and capitalize on whatever will win you the game, even if it's not fun until someone comes along who can beat it and the wheel turns... I suppose it is a sign of a good game design that your wheel turns faster than others

*In contrast to Malifaux (and other games) I love discussing combos in Puppet Wars, because as often as people try to say one combo is broken, it never sticks for long, the game always prevails =]

So this "poll" is to see whether it's possible that not only is Malifaux like every other miniature game in existance, i.e. perfect balance is impossible (unless it's restricted like PW), but in fact the closest thing to broken is perhaps the player's attitude to gaming, and their motivation for playing certain styles. I understand a certain hypocrisy with the first paragraph, but I'm not doomsaying here, merely conducting an experiment and debate - remember that when you reply

So here's the options, feel free to add more. Quote it and add Y for yes and a N for no (alternatively just list the numbers), see how many people are honest.

1. I take what I want and play how I want, doesn't matter whether I win or lose.
   
2. I take what I want, but become fatigued if I don't win for too long.
   
3. I take what I want, but tend to sell off anything that loses too often (I tried)
   
4. I take what I want because if it doesn't work I'll house rule it till it does
   
5. I take whatever people tell me to take... I now own every model =[
   
6. I don't like to waste money on something that won't ever win
   
7. I don't like to waste money on something that will always win
   
8. There's no such thing as something that will always win or lose, my opponents will just have to wait and see
   
9. I take everything and experiment, self discovery is my goal
   
10. My local community collectively experiment every combo, together
    
11. I rely on advice, only to point me in the right direction
    
12. I need advice on a regular basis, because competetive considerations are not my priority or strength
    
13. I rely on advice, because I want to see what I've missed
    
14. I like to give advice, it helps me get better too
    
15. I like to give advice, to show I'm better
    
16. I don't give advice because people need to learn themselves
    
17. I focus my attention on one thing and try to break it.
    
18. I focus on one thing and am happy with whatever results I get
    
19. I like to push things as far as they'll go, if it's broken and wins me every game then my opponent will just have to try and come up with something
    
20. I like to push things as far as they'll go, if it's broken and wins me every game then I'll come up with a counter myself
    
21. I like to push things as far as they'll go, if it's broken and wins me every game I'll share it and move onto something else
    
22. I like to push things as far as they'll go, if it's broken and wins me every game I'll help my opponent or come to an agreement
    
23. Themes and staying in character is what really matters
    
24. I like to stay in character but be competetive
    
25. I destroy themes completely in my effort to find the best combo, themes don't win you games.
    
26. I consider the skill level of my opponent and then take a crew I think will be fun and will give me a chance to both win and lose.
    
27. Casually I play with what I like, but in a competetive enviorment what I like has nothing to do with it.
    

So which apply to you? Are you the inventor, the regurgitator, the storyteller, the brick, the nomad, the tutor, the bookworm, the tweaker or the whiner? =]

FIGHT!

Edited February 28, 2012 by ThePandaDirector

[Ratty]

Can I go with option

26. I consider the skill level of my opponent and then take a crew I think will be fun and will give me a chance to both win and lose.

[ThePandaDirector]

Can I go with option

26. I consider the skill level of my opponent and then take a crew I think will be fun and will give me a chance to both win and lose.

Added, but what are your views on the tounrament enviorment?

[Ratty]

I generally take what I want to play. Normally for a big tournament, like back in the day I used to do 1 or 2 big Epic tournaments a year. I would paint an entirely new army and play it maybe 2 or 3 times before the tournament. I like using a Tournament as an excuse to do painting and try out something new. It gives me the boost I need to get painting done.

[Chucklemonkey]

Somewhere between 23 and 24 for me.

I tend to try to stick with the theme of the crew but will try to take as competitive a list as I can within that structure.

[ukrocky]

7 8 and 9, but my main aim is to take the stuff that people says doesn't work and make it work in a competitive environment

[Bucket Monkey]

Currently a mix of 1 and 5 for the guild for me, I own everything and I tend to try and take a variety of crews depending on my mood and qhat I feel like playing. I'm currently turning into a 9 as im building a variety of crews which all play differently from the guild.

Edited February 28, 2012 by Bucket Monkey

[ThePandaDirector]

7 8 and 9, but my main aim is to take the stuff that people says doesn't work and make it work in a competitive environment

I would say I'm like this, but in a friendly enviorment. I like to show how effective a theme or underestimated modelcan be. Currently I can barely hold out on picking up Molly just to see what I can do with the wee lass. She is my Marcus =]

[Calmdown]

Depends. I like to mix it up.

Originally I wanted to see how good I was when I wasn't hampered by a bad master > did that whilst playing Dreamer and winning tourneys.

Then I wanted to prove I could *really* beat people > did that by continuing to play Dreamer and doing well in more serious tourneys

Then I wanted to prove people who said I only won because I played Dreamer wrong > doing that successfully with a 1st and 2nd place running non-Kirai rezzers so far

I like a challenge. The challenge varies based on the current goalposts. The scene and people's comments about me are currently the goalposts, and it's quite fun to constantly score

When I'm not at tournaments, though, I pick my master based on fun. Which is why I still own Rasputina, and why I've had Rezzers for so long even whilst playing Neverborn.

[Jewomie]

I am probably a 1 (I take what I want and play how I want, doesn't matter whether I win or lose)

and an 11 (I rely on advice, only to point me in the right direction)

Ultimately i like what i like, and the game itself is my favorite part. The winning and losing are back burner stuff for me. (i wont lie, i do enjoy a win... but i am not the type to scream broken after 5 consecutive losses to viktoria... lol) I also enjoy asking others for advice on things because while i am going to do what i want, i do enjoy getting a bit of information before i purchase. Not so much a terrible or amazing type of response, but a fun/complicated/heavy learning curve/easy to handle tough to master type response.

I would also maybe say, i stick with crews who i like, win or lose, but i do try to keep getting better with them all the time. Even a brutal loss teaches something. Maybe i find a fatal error in my hiring, or a poor match up, or maybe i find a new activation order that might allow me to get a little further toward a win.

[ModollerMorgan]

Both 1 and 18 suit me pretty much:

1.I take what I want and play how I want, doesn't matter whether I win or lose.

18.I focus on one thing and am happy with whatever results I get.

As for Tournys, not to much of a fan as I don't like going against the " I will win at all cost" kinda player. I still go to some tournys if i have a chance.

[Jewomie]

I would say I'm like this, but in a friendly enviorment. I like to show how effective a theme or underestimated modelcan be. Currently I can barely hold out on picking up Molly just to see what I can do with the wee lass. She is my Marcus =]

i second this... i really want to get her, mostly because i like her sculpt and lore... but part of me just wants to play her because everyone hates her... idk... maybe i feel bad... like she's the kid on the playground that no one wants to be friends with and i eat lunch with her mostly out of pity? lol

[ThePandaDirector]

Interesting that people seem so... content.

So to those who feel like they bang their head against a wall for long periods until you're damaged cranium can come to no other logical conclusion than the game is rigged, ask your opponent why they let you

[lokis222]

not sure any fit.

i am highly competative, but have a crap attention span. so, i tweak and tweak with one idea until i am winning significantly more than i am losing. then, i get bored and do something else. so, i avoid autowins and often take crap choices to see how i can use them to win. however, i always play to win.

[ThePandaDirector]

not sure any fit.

i am highly competative, but have a crap attention span. so, i tweak and tweak with one idea until i am winning significantly more than i am losing. then, i get bored and do something else. so, i avoid autowins and often take crap choices to see how i can use them to win. however, i always play to win.

How about

17. I focus my attention on one thing and try to break it.

21. I like to push things as far as they'll go, if it's broken and wins me every game I'll share it and move onto something else

You focus not on one model, but on an idea and then move on after you're successful.

[Calmdown]

Interesting that people seem so... content.

So to those who feel like they bang their head against a wall for long periods until you're damaged cranium can come to no other logical conclusion than the game is rigged, ask your opponent why they let you

Don't confuse making the best of a bad situation with content.

None of us want to have to follow self-imposed restrictions to make the game work, which is essentially what most of the UK tourney scene are doing now to avoid having to play with/against the same few masters week in week out.

We all love the game to death but it needs work, and we're all looking forward to how it will turn out when that work is done!

[Jewomie]

Don't confuse making the best of a bad situation with content.

Also don't confuse a group of tourney player's opinions (however valid they may be) with the overall feel of players around the world.

[ThePandaDirector]

None of us want to have to follow self-imposed restrictions to make the game work, which is essentially what most of the UK tourney scene are doing now to avoid having to play with/against the same few masters week in week out.

But what is it in the gamer mindset that dictates that unless restrictions are imposed to "fill gaps" gamers will come along with the same spectrum of Masters when it has been proven already (by yourself amongst others) that that need not be the case. Are there people more concerned with the safe win or proving their worth with a "competetive" Master, instead of just basing their time working on strategies for their favourite Master whoever they may be.

[Ozz]

2, I take what I want, but don't enjoy any scenario where defeat is likely. Poor phrasing for it to be properly applicable, but I do prefer to win.

8, There's no such thing as something that will always win or lose, my opponents will just have to wait and see. No skill players can always lose, even with chompy sometimes:P

11, I rely on advice, only to point me in the right direction

13, I rely on advice, because I want to see what I've missed

14, I like to give advice, it helps me get better too. It helps me to remember what I know if I share what I know.

I do however seem to be just buying everything for this game atm, playing less than a year and have 17 masters/ Henchmen and bar VS I have a crew (or will do when they arrive) to go with them all, got to love that you can use the same models with different masters though

I just need to play more games using my other masters to learn the various tricks, as I actually seem to have a good grasp of what I'm doing in this game (unlike GW games where I play and do ok and have no idea why I win or lose )

[lokis222]

How about

17. I focus my attention on one thing and try to break it.

21. I like to push things as far as they'll go, if it's broken and wins me every game I'll share it and move onto something else

You focus not on one model, but on an idea and then move on after you're successful.

Yeah, I guess that is accurate.

[Dustcrusher]

1. N I'd like to win at least a few games.
   
2. N I expect a reasonably fair fight unless clearly defined otherwise (some scenarios are meant to be lopsided by design, and that's fine).
   
3. N I only sell if I have absolutely no use for a model AND I don't like it anymore looks-wise.
   
4. N I play at stores- house ruling is a last resort.
   
5. N Hell no. I have other things to do with my money too.
   
6. Y Generally yes, unless I really love the model.
   
7. Y The same- games should be fun and exciting- auto-wins are even worse than near-auto-losses.
   
8. Y There's no such thing as something that will always win or lose, my opponents will just have to wait and see Yes, though a few key tactics are/were near insurmountable
   
9. N I can't take everything- not in the budget :-P
   
10. N Nope, only some share- others hoard.
    
11. Y Indeed- only just now do I feel like I'm finally starting to grasp the game.
    
12. N I often can't put combos together in my head, and this is a loaded question that comes off condescending.
    
13. Y I miss a hell of a lot.
    
14. Y I like to think I can help people avoid repeating my mistakes, thus shortening the time they need to feel like they "get it."
    
15. N This ain't an exercise on validation
    
16. N D-ck move, pure and simple.
    
17. N Breaking things makes for no fun unless you have just the right game group.
    
18. N Not sure what "results" refers to.
    
19. N Congratulations, you win again. You're also a fun-killing jerk :slap:
    
20. N I'm terrible at this, but these people make awesome playtesters.
    
21. N I only wish.
    
22. Y If need be, I will come to an agreement. I don't like to push too far though.
    
23. Y Might as well play a snooze-inducing historical game if it doesn't matter.
    
24. Y I think there's a balance between "tough opponent" and "fun, character-filled, but tough opponent."
    
25. N I leave that to people who are good at finding this stuff.
    
26. Y A win is nice, but a win in a fun and evenly matched game is better
    
27. Y If prizes are on the line, I understand playing harder than in a friendly game. That said, follow the Wheaton Mantra and "don't be a d-ck."
    

Part storyteller, part tutor, part whiner :-P

[Spiku]

1, 8, 13, 14, 15, 18, 20, 22, 23, 24

I'd say I do 1; but it is far, far more 23/24. 28: I play Gremlins, so there.

Where's the option for "I only say broken when a mechanic is actually clearly in error; such as having infinite activations with Mosquitoes repeatedly sacrificing each other to summon a new Mosquitoe"

Edited February 28, 2012 by Spiku

[ThePandaDirector]

12. N I often can't put combos together in my head, and this is a loaded question that comes off condescending.

Not intended, as the second part applies to me, but edited all the same.

I admit that I have many unfond memories of playing Warhammer and 40K, both in store and in tournaments. I remember how I would play some opponents, they'd field a list that exploited something or other, and just go through the motions, swiftly and efficiently defeating me with no real emotional investment apart from a sly glee that I can see just how smart they were. They didn't care that their attitude made me think little of them, they were oddly secure in being unpopular, perhaps just happy to break the game and enjoy the process of doing so than actually enjoying the result. But that was many years ago, and most of them were quite young, and considering it's GW we're hardly talking about abusing a healthy specimen. Still, I suppose I always been fascinated by people who are more intellegent than I am by a long shot (in some cases I have to raise the criteria to filter those applicable to that statement). One of my old flatmates was a computer wiz, possibly a genuine genius, liked to play me at computer games like Supreme Commander, where he would toy with me a bit before going in for the kill, politely mocking me by saying I nearly won. He got the most enjoyment when I fought hard and made a dent in his battle plan, but in the end I just felt like a lab rat, like he was conducting an experiment on how to improve the strategic capability of an underdeveloped brain.

But I'm not completely hopeless. I remember fondly the times when a singe space marine sergeant conducted a one man counter attack against an Ork army and won me the game against all odds, the time when my LotR orcs were nearly outnumbered by Uruk-hai (I was clearly using less points), and yet destroyed my smug opponent through simple divide and conquer tactics, along with many memorable and explosive games of Inquistor and more recently Puppet Wars. Plus when I fought my other friends at SupCom I was the researcher and they were my lab rats. I think we're just lucky in the miniature game world, that we can change our experience freely, from scenarios to house rules. We want to get better, we want to win, but we also need to sometimes tailor the terms we play with to increase our chances of having games to remember fondly.

Where's the option for "I only say broken when a mechanic is actually clearly in error; such as having infinite activations with Mosquitoes repeatedly sacrificing each other to summon a new Mosquitoe"

I'm not interested in what people think is broken or what their criteria is for attaching that word to something, but rather how they respond, particular in relation to their play group. If something is (in your opinion) broken, do you continue to use (and abuse) it to highlight that fact (opinion), refuse to touch it, house rule it or try to beat it (just because something is really broken doesn't mean it can't be beat in rare circumstances).

Edited February 29, 2012 by ThePandaDirector

[osoi]

Genrally I am at #26, I will vary what I play a lot based on my opponents, I ask them if they are more experienced if they want to play against a hard list or just one of my choosing. If I am the ringer in a tourney generally I'll pick something hard and that I am familiar with so I can do things quickly and I want to make sure whoever ends up playing me is getting workout, of course attitude during the game keeps it fun (or at least it should).

[Spiku]

Where would not using the broken part of a mechanic, outside of events that Wyrd monitor so they finally fix it, fall in this case? Should I be marking 21? What if the mechanic in question doesn't cause wins, but is just broken in my opinion? Should there be a response section for us to state how we respond to others using things that are, in our opinion, broken?

Where does something that isn't broken because of an opinion, but an actual problem in the system (such as the infinite activation loop) fall?