Theory Calibur/Go to DEV/Like This Post Thread

I base it on mentality. Even if you're terrible, so long as you're showcasing a thought process for options, when to and not to attack/block, and just showing that you understand fighters and what to look for you're not a scrub in my book. If you're one of those:

"Real players dont use guides/tutorials"
"That's cheap" (followed by no reasonable argument of actual mechanics and limits of counter options)
"I won so I'm better" (despite lag or a state where your character does all the work in low level matches or simple luck)
"You only do that one move/combo"

types...yeah you a scrub. If show an interest in learning to surpass ignorance of the game you're fine, we all start somewhere. Scrub is a mentality not a skill level.

It also defines a person who does not really understand why they win. They automatically assume a win = skill. You can have a person who understands the game more, but hasn't put it all together because they're trying to do it right, and have a scrub who has learned gimicks and combos feels that's the top plateau because they win while the other is still working things out. This particular case pisses me off IRL.
 
If your good you don't get mad at things people do when they play, instead you try and figure out why they won with that tactic and try to find a way to beat it. Also not taking the game serious shows that your better than most people IMO.
 
There are two concepts of 'scrub' being used in the thread. The one I use, and usually assume is being used, is the roughly Sirlin one: The player that doesn't believe in playing to win, but still complains at people who do - at their events - like it's their problem and they're messing up his game.
This, yes, is a discussion about what the meaning of a word is, but when you ask that, there's always some fundamental sense of 'what thing it's supposed to mean'. If I ask you what 'mouse' is, and you know I've seen one, then probably we're in some zoology context and I'm actually asking you "hokay, what is 'mouseness' really, and why is it the category it is, rather than one that includes other stuff in the world, or less?" We both know roughly I'm talking about mice, even though we're going to talk about the category. Meanwhile, the existence of the computer peripheral of the same name doesn't limit our discussion, or get in the way at all beyond perhaps an initial "wait do you mean the mammal or the computer thing?"

So here, you can tell from the way another person uses the word, what sort of thing they are picking out from the world with a term. I'm pretty sure from the first post that lobo was meaning to contrast, roughly, "good player" and "not so good player." The Sirlin definition, my definition, is about attitude. This definition coming from lobo is about ability. They are in different realms.
And since they are completely distinct, the two conversations being held in this thread to me seem like a hateful argument waiting to happen.

If this becomes a discussion about which of these two sorts of meanings should once and for all be the standard for "scrub" - to have debates from there about what exact attitude, or what exact lack of ability, ought to be identified - then that can be meaningful, but that will require some attempt made at invoking what sense, what shared sense there is, about "a sort of player that is out there in (Fighter) Gaming," where 'scrub' or some common impression appears, in rough. We have to make sure I'm not talking about rats when I say 'mouse', and here there is a similar job to be done, making sure we actually have a shared sense of the category out there in the world, to start talking about specifics.

I don't see how the two senses can be bridged to the same thing, because to me the difference is one of moral character, and mere skill. One sense of scrub is an accusation, something to be guilty of. Any other sense, which is not something to be guilty of, shouldn't be combined with any word - shouldn't have its job done by a word - that has a sense of guilt.
I'm saying, we can agree that 'not so good', however qualified, should never be lumped in with "those assholes who don't know how to lose," right?

From Belial: "I meant that if you have the time to ask stupid questions "what makes good goood???" you're obviously better off spending this time elsewhere. Of course communitcation is important part of social activity blah blah, but still the more you wonder about bullshit like this topic is, the further you are from becoming a good player. That is all."
I'll agree that this shit is a waste of time, insofar as, yes, as long as I'm doing philosophy, I'm not practicing any other of my skills. But I've always been fascinated by the sort of philosophical questions that come up in Fighter Gaming. To me it's the perfect brew of my two hobbies, so, yeah.

TL; DR: We can agree that 'not so good', however qualified, should never be lumped in, as one word, with "those assholes who don't know how to lose," right?
 
Yo, why the hating on Voldo? If you are talking about attack at disadvantage there are lots of characters with better options. Especially facing forward, Voldo has nothing good except 4A+K. Hate on Kilik. Asura, 1B, 4B+K is like the holy trinity of attacking at disadvantage. (Note: ok after writing this I recall that basically his whole moveset TC's. Fair enough, but although Voldo's exceptionally good at TC, TC is common enough to always be a consideration whenever you throw out a high or a grab).

I think the difference between a scrub and a decent player is what lolo said: knowing when to attack. I'm taking the question literally; we are not looking at the difference between ok players and really good ones but rather between ok players and horrible players. A good chunk (maybe half) of people online will consistent try to do things like follow a blocked BB with a 1A. If I'm playing random games, it takes a while just to find a match where my opponent follows a normal attacking pattern (i.e. blocks most of the time after they are blocked, sometimes tries GI/evasive move).

The difference between ok players and good players I think lies more in what other people have talked about, defense and adaptability in particular.

I have to add a caveat. The knowing when to attack thing (and frame data in general) is not an absolute license giving you a right to attack and to yell "lag!" if your opponent beats you to the punch. I think the really good players recognize when lag is affecting the way things work, and when they just made a mistake. Sometimes it's your "turn" to attack, and you take a moment to step or hesitate and you get BB'ed. That's not lag or the other person being bad, that's them being aggressive and you making a mistake.
 
I certainly don't, block and grapple break until you opponent A) gets fatigued B) gets bored and wanders off.. then strike for the win.

I think the two versions of "scrub" that Mandritti put forward are inextricably linked, most likely if you have that attitude more likely than not you are not a great player. I think good and great players relish in the fight, others relish in the win.

But it remains a attack or insult to someone you believe isn't playing within the spirit of the game. Unlikely anyone here will call someone who is inexperienced and positive of mind a scrub, rather attempt to help them.

On the other side someone who is experienced and negative of mind would receive such a scorn because of what they say. There is a difference between a new player and a scrub.
 
IvyFanboy said:
It also defines a person who does not really understand why they win. They automatically assume a win = skill. You can have a person who understands the game more, but hasn't put it all together because they're trying to do it right, and have a scrub who has learned gimicks and combos feels that's the top plateau because they win while the other is still working things out. This particular case pisses me off IRL.
Click to expand...

hahahahahahahahahaha no
 
Dullyanna said:
hahahahahahahahahaha no
Click to expand...
hahahahahahaha...scrub

no...but in all honesty let me clarify. Imagin if you will a typical net scrub in SC: Knows a few youtube combos, thinks ranked matters, feels Ivy is OP, no idea what frame data is, is clueless to what a yomi is in both concept and term, etc... To a certain extent these people can hold marginal skill. Lets take one of the ranked top 10, Corondo25, notable scrub and fits the description well. He is not the worst player in the world even when he's not abusing lag tactics. He understand a few gimicks, combos, and has some understanding of the game. What makes him a scrub is his ignorance to higher level play, lack of modesty towards the ignorance for what info he's missing, and false assumption his wins are not largely credited to lag and soul caliburs rather uneducated casual base.

He will never achieve a higher level of play because he doesn't understand the deeper mechanics of the game. Meanwhile a person who does educate themselves sometime hasn't reached the point of perfect execution. You may know you can punish with an i13 move, but haven't quite got the timing down, but you keep trying till you learn it and eventually you'll lock out that option. This person may get owned at first because what they're trying is harder and riskier, thus leading to more losses till it's mastered. Look at MvC3...you could do the easy combos and always get damage but never do better...or take the time to learn the harder but more rewarding ones at the risk of dropping the combo till it's down. The road to being a better player can sometimes cause more losses when pending a new skill. The end result is...that player will generally surpass the scrub at some point. Raw talent has a cap that's reflective of your knowledge of the game, a scrub doesn't not respect that fact and will often feel it is purely talent and disregarded essential concepts and information.

At the stages of learning a game, how you good are is not really validated till you reach a certain point. Until you've mastered the basics and fighting people who also have, nothing really matters, your tactics that have netted you wins may be completely invalidated by higher play that respects the technical aspects.
 
Meh. Mr. Ivy guy has a point.

For the most part, a superior mentality determines the better player before the outcome even happens. Skill is necessary for execution, but it's not as concerning until you know what will work in the first place.

Some new guy Chaos came and left this forum. He couldn't understand how everyone still thinks I'm better despite him beating me 16-3. Lololol.
 
Vincent said:
Meh. Mr. Ivy guy has a point.

For the most part, a superior mentality determines the better player before the outcome even happens. Skill is necessary for execution, but it's not as concerning until you know what will work in the first place.

Some new guy Chaos came and left this forum. He couldn't understand how everyone still thinks I'm better despite him beating me 16-3. Lololol.
Click to expand...

What ever helps you sleep at night vince.
 
i think everyone in toronto except for...franman maybe?...has quit this game at least once before.
 
how do you differentiate a good player from a scrub? it's easy, I'll brake it down. A scrub sucks, a good player doesn't. End of slide. That was easy, summarized in a phrase instead of 3 pages
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back