ATN: Fun and Competitiveness

---

Hey there, it's The Tactician tuning in through ATN after a LONG break. I'm writing this after a thought I had after finishing a 50 turn world game (my first ever). I'll take you back through the events that led to me writing this article, with my personal insight on the matter being written on: fun and competitiveness.

This isn't like the usual ATN article, so bear with me while I take you back to this game.

So I joined this 5k FFA world game which was incredibly stacked. Players old and new, with an average rank of 10 (as I recall) and a lingering sense of epicness about to be unleashed. I looked at the time, it was closing in on 9 PM. Good, I have time, and nothing to wake up early for tomorrow. I thought ''I'm going in to win this game''. It was the first time in a long time that I was fully determined with the top goal in mind of winning. I always play for fun and compete to win, but never play for the sole reason of winning. The game started, and I was stunned at the game giving me first pick. 'Ohhhhh yes'. I debated what to pick, and with time shrinking less and less I went for the safe and strong pick. It's funny, I remember someone picking North Korea and a very prestigious player going ''pussy pick''. I thought its fine though and I'm playing to win. Ironically over a year later I pick the same pick and a different very strong player who will remained unnamed ( ~ ~~~~) said the exact same thing. I replied I have enough time to win this all and if I didn't someone will. Anyway, moving on, I had a Taiwan, Mongolia, and Vietnam near me. So the game starts and I did my expansion of China North, going through the turns with a few ups and downs. Taiwan went full offensive on me and Mongolia was quick to capitalize, and then I capitalized on his vulnerability from attacking Taiwan and eventually led to him surrendering. Vietnam and Burma died, and I was facing an incoming GW Pakistan. I had full China's and started pushing him back whilst sending subs and stealth planes to USA. This kept on going until turn 45, 5 turns before the game ended. It was my first game ever sticking through the 50 turns. I was roaming around third in SP just below Pakistan and sometimes Guatemala and Ukraine. I thought I had to make a move quick, taking the top in SP out and holding that position. I decided to send units (about 600 attack) and cap him, boom, dead. Now it's the most decisive moment, 3 turns to the finish, but Guatemala has more SP than I do! Marginal differences. And so I started attacking every single city and unit I can, but it wasn't enough. I was pretty mad because whilst I fought off several enemies killing the top SP and 2nd in unit count, Guatemala 2v1d a Cuba and then killed one person for a free North and South America. You can imagine the SP farm from taking all the neutral cities. I had actually competed, and came up on top of everyone. I had actually managed to prevail over the wits and tactics of all incoming enemies, yet it wasn't enough.

After some rage, caps lock, and utter disbelief at the fact that my loss was completely undeserved; I came to realize something. I realized that even though I'm sour at that loss, I was very proud at my performance, and I had a good time throughout. I was happy I competed, did my best, fought till the final whistle, and prevailed as a player. So this triggered a question, which is the basis of this whole article. What really is competitiveness? The first thought everyone has in mind is EU+ 3v3. That's definitely a competitive map, but what defines the entity which shapes competition? Let's take it back a step from the pollution of AtWar terms. This is the official definition of competition:




So, fighting for superiority; that sounds pretty shallow and single minded, but it is what we all do for fun (even RP players, but they compete for diplomatic supremacy). It is very fun actually, and the struggle for superiority is in every sport, work area, and social circle. Some people don't need to feel 'superior' in order to feel good, and those are the sensible type of people. Fighting for superiority in AW is different though, because it's the purpose of the game, the purpose of war, and a way to let loose and have fun. There it is, have fun. Have fun competing wits and methods to see who is superior. That is the basis of the game, and where the fun is born. By that interpretation competition is fun right? Then why do we see oh-so often competition with the goal of status and gaining social superiority rather than intellectual superiority? When the fire of competition for intellectual superiority is extinguished by competition for social superiority, is it still AtWar's true purpose for competition? It is still labeled competition and distinguishing between both is often a sketchy task, but in the end of the day it lies in one's self to make the choice of either taking time in one's day logging onto an online game to challenge minds and go head to head with intelligent opponents, or to train very hard to be viewed by other people as the best player. Having said that, it is natural to mingle and blend with both types of competitors, but to find and rejuvenate the joy of playing this polluted game you have to start with yourself. Get out of your comfort zone, play games you aren't used to, risk losing by trying a new strategy or expansion. This seems obvious but its something a lot of players miss. Once you start with yourself, and people see you are having fun, you will be joined, challenged, and elevated to that special place our AW forefathers were and stepped off because of it getting tainted. You shall rise to the place where you actually play almost pure competition.

I don't know what the point of this article is. I wanted it to be a thought-inducing piece of literature that pushes players to play this game for its true purpose. It obviously isn't, and I don't know if anyone would like it, but I wanted to share my experience and ideas hoping someone would think it was worthy of the time it took to be read. If you don't like it, tell me why, and if you do, maybe I can rant some more later.

It has been my pleasure to present you with this hopeful read - short as it is -

Sincerely,

The Tactician.

Cheers!

---

Enjoyed reading this thanks

Hahaha tactie!!! fuckedup for the loss tho :$

Good work, bro.

Its nonsense, so much nonsense you wrote, but it was great to read, and its right

I remember a similar game where you was North Korea, I was Taiwan, Gonzo was Mongolia, and some rank 8-less were in both Vietnam and Burma. Though in that game you expanded to Northeast first turn and Gonzo actually killed both me and vietnam... like, wtf XD.

I kinda like this:

Написано от The Tactician, 11.08.2015 at 04:06

Get out of your comfort zone, play games you aren't used to, risk losing by trying a new strategy or expansion. This seems obvious but its something a lot of players miss. Once you start with yourself, and people see you are having fun, you will be joined, challenged, and elevated to that special place our AW forefathers were and stepped off because of it getting tainted.

But it ain't fun. Losing a game is only fun when you know that you grave a good fight, but not when you just lost like a noob. It makes no sense, at least, not for me. What I hate more of this is to see other players doing it. People that picks SM Sweden, MoS Iceland, SM Georgia, NC Malta, and those type of weird picks, totally ruining the game for their Team. Having a new pick is not bad, but really, before doing it, the player MUST analyze it first.

Before picking RA Poland, NC Northwest, I did analyze the expansion, possibilities, combos (with other countries), and how the game should progress. Watching high ranks like Ferlucci and Freeland to play those countries and win is just not enough for someone to think he can win on that position, in fact, you don't even know if they won by tactic or just had a very op luck.

To sum up, I would rather want someone to do what he already know how, than trying something weird in games (specially in CW's). Avoid ruining the whole game to your team, and before trying anything new, make a private game, pick that combo, do your expansion and then, analyze it it would work for a real game. After that, when you lose by playing that combo, you can be sure that you got outplayed, and not that you were just noobing around.

Написано от The Tactician, 11.08.2015 at 04:06

I don't know what the point of this article is.

Написано от clovis1122, 12.08.2015 at 10:22

Thats the game hahaha, and I went North not NE first turn. Remember you late moved North 2nd turn leading to you being vulnerable to Gonzo and Gonzo being vulnerable to me.

I agree you shouldn't ruin the game for the other players and you should analyse potential strategies/countries before playing them, but what I am saying is to not be afraid to play them when your reputation and image is on the line (play for fun and a challenge rather than reputation and image).

Написано от The Tactician, 13.08.2015 at 04:53

Thats the game hahaha, and I went North not NE first turn. Remember you late moved North 2nd turn leading to you being vulnerable to Gonzo and Gonzo being vulnerable to me.

No man, China: North is where Pekin is... you went Northeast, took a city of it and also walled Seoul in SK. But don't mind me then...

Написано от The Tactician, 13.08.2015 at 04:53

I agree you shouldn't ruin the game for the other players and you should analyse potential strategies/countries before playing them, but what I am saying is to not be afraid to play them when your reputation and image is on the line (play for fun and a challenge rather than reputation and image).

I'd still be mad if you lose with a weird pick, but at least you wouldn't make people angry in vain

(*cough cough, more than five game as poland ruined, cough cough. Sorry guys ).

Ah my bad, I just realized it was NE huehue.