Lol. Sometimes it's truly just about the outcome though. : p
I'm sure there's obvious cases of how, but what would you say are some good examples?
I feel like that would apply much more to bigger groups than individuals.
Yeah sore losers lose to a 'cheap victory' and complain
For your autism: you dislike losing to such victories, so you complain even when you are not the loser
What if I'd won and my own victory felt cheap and hollow? By your terms that's still a sore loser, kinda.
Either that or the only distinction comes from who won versus who didn't. Have you never felt empty or otherwise disappointed when you win too easily?
While more challenging wins are more fun, I have never felt negative about a win.
And intentionally not winning in the most effective way possible is illogical. Plus I get pleasure from effective and optimized wins. The goal is always to win as fast as possible and as cost-effective as possible.
And to intentionally handicap yourself is retarded, I want an enemy that can beat me at my full power.
Yeah sore losers lose to a 'cheap victory' and complain
For your autism: you dislike losing to such victories, so you complain even when you are not the loser
What if I'd won and my own victory felt cheap and hollow? By your terms that's still a sore loser, kinda.
Either that or the only distinction comes from who won versus who didn't. Have you never felt empty or otherwise disappointed when you win too easily?While more challenging wins are more fun, I have never felt negative about a win.
And intentionally not winning in the most effective way possible is illogical.
Where is everyone getting this "intentionally not winning" idea from? The game still involves winning even if you choose to take a more challenging path.
There's more than one way to win a game, and I still attach more value to the journey. If it's just about winning and the speed of it solely, why not just face CPU opponents?
Plus I get pleasure from effective and optimized wins. The goal is always to win as fast as possible and as cost-effective as possible.
I prefer seeing their signature playstyle and learning more about them when I play.
Then again, I see it as a social game. If you rush the game there's no social components left whatsoever, and if your optimized strategy is the same every time it gets boring and stale, redundant even.
I want a challenge, and if that challenge isn't present in my opponent then why not raise the stakes on myself to keep things interesting and gain more out of it than rehearsing a rubix cube?
Doing this also gives more room to practice. I'm not in it to gloat, I'm in it to grow.
And to intentionally handicap yourself is retarded, I want an enemy that can beat me at my full power.
How does your not handicapping yourself affect how good your enemy is at the game itself?
It'd have to be a worthy opponent to go full force, but handicapping yourself or at least resisting the urge to use obviously replicatable exploits gives both the winner and the loser a better game. Who's to say Tryp wouldn't have played an amazing game if not for that one oversight? We'll never know now, and we'll never see what moves they'd have done, and frankly... winning isn't fun to me without some buildup. Even announcing your winning move before not taking it's better than cheering for such an uneventful game.
In a bare bones sense, winning just confirms for yourself where you already are while losing shows you where you need to improve. Handicapping yourself at key points can be what's needed sometimes to offer a proper challenge, too, such as choosing to play Fable 1 without ever leveling yourself up.
Meddy, let's play again
Yeah... I feel like her late game skill's probably lacking if she's this happy over beating Tryp.
Definitely a strategy for me to keep in mind if she and I end up playing.
Yeah sore losers lose to a 'cheap victory' and complain
For your autism: you dislike losing to such victories, so you complain even when you are not the loser
What if I'd won and my own victory felt cheap and hollow? By your terms that's still a sore loser, kinda.
Either that or the only distinction comes from who won versus who didn't. Have you never felt empty or otherwise disappointed when you win too easily?While more challenging wins are more fun, I have never felt negative about a win.
And intentionally not winning in the most effective way possible is illogical.
Where is everyone getting this "intentionally not winning" idea from? The game still involves winning even if you choose to take a more challenging path.
Taking a more challenging path is simply not playing the game correctly, its fooling around. You can if you want, but don't be mad when others actually play the game.
There's more than one way to win a game, and I still attach more value to the journey. If it's just about winning and the speed of it solely, why not just face CPU opponents?
Because it's boring.
Plus I get pleasure from effective and optimized wins. The goal is always to win as fast as possible and as cost-effective as possible.
I prefer seeing their signature playstyle and learning more about them when I play.
Then again, I see it as a social game. If you rush the game there's no social components left whatsoever, and if your optimized strategy is the same every time it gets boring and stale, redundant even.
I want a challenge, and if that challenge isn't present in my opponent then why not raise the stakes on myself to keep things interesting and gain more out of it than rehearsing a rubix cube?
Doing this also gives more room to practice. I'm not in it to gloat, I'm in it to grow.
Get a better opponent. You should gloat, it is half the fun. You grow your skills only if you go full force. Not going full force is not even testing your skills, it's pointless and boring.
The social aspect is only relevant to the mistakes your opponent can make or what their weaknesses are.
And to intentionally handicap yourself is retarded, I want an enemy that can beat me at my full power.
How does your not handicapping yourself affect how good your enemy is at the game itself?
Because if they were good, you won't have to handicap yourself to have a challenge...? Obviously.
It'd have to be a worthy opponent to go full force, but handicapping yourself or at least resisting the urge to use obviously replicatable exploits gives both the winner and the loser a better game. Who's to say Tryp wouldn't have played an amazing game if not for that one oversight? We'll never know now, and we'll never see what moves they'd have done, and frankly... winning isn't fun to me without some buildup. Even announcing your winning move before not taking it's better than cheering for such an uneventful game.
In a bare bones sense, winning just confirms for yourself where you already are while losing shows you where you need to improve. Handicapping yourself at key points can be what's needed sometimes to offer a proper challenge, too, such as choosing to play Fable 1 without ever leveling yourself up.
One oversight is all that it takes to lose. This is why its fun. Because it's actually skilled. You must take full advantage of your opponents mistakes and never let go, never give them room to breathe. Unless its a deception. But that does not count, as it is still not giving them room to breathe, they just don't know it, but decided to put it in here before you bring it up. Being unforgiving and merciless, anything less is boring.
Good sportsmanship is playing furiously, trash-talking and gloating and still be friends after the game. I don't consider anything less actually good sportsmanship, but I do pander to it with some people I like, except my irl friends. They actually know how to play.
I love this. AMA
Turncoat admitted he doesn’t play so he doesn’t reserve the right to talk :o
One day I will beat Chapo, handily . I remember when around when we first met, he would repeatedly upset the board as I nearly beat him—which he is now denying huhuh
Turncoat admitted he doesn’t play so he doesn’t reserve the right to talk :o
Where'd I say that?
