Friendlies vs Tournaments
Sept 21, 2011 18:47:45 GMT -8
Post by t3h Icy on Sept 21, 2011 18:47:45 GMT -8
I got into a discussion about the difference between friendly matches and tournament matches that ended without agreement, so I'm going to write up my thoughts here and see what you guys think.
What is the purpose of a tournament? A tournament is a competition for competitive players to determine who is the best, or at least the most consistent since RBY and other games are luck-based. If there was no common desire to be the best, there would be no tournaments.
What is the purpose of a friendly? Friendlies are just regular matches that can be played for any number of reasons. Perhaps you want to play someone you haven't played in tournament, want to experiment and test something, or simply just play for fun.
When a player enters a tournament, that player will be competing with others for the ultimate goal of winning the tournament, whether or not that player in particular has that goal. Perhaps that player just enters for the fun of it or to be a part of the excitement.
Does this mean that tournaments are of more value winning than friendlies? Most likely. In a tournament, you are likely playing against someone that is playing at full power, 100%, as they want to win, and obviously the best chance at winning is playing their best. If you can defeat a player at their absolute best, then your win is a lot more impressive than if you had just beaten that player in a friendly.
But maybe that opponent didn't play 100%. Is it impressive then? Maybe, maybe not. Naturally though, players that don't go 100% in tournament are not the top players, and beating top players is of greater value than beating players that are still rising or are intermediate. If someone beats a top player, chances are the top player was indeed playing at 100% because to be a top player in the first place, that player needs to be doing their best.
But there's an exception. What if the #1 player is so good that he/she can screw around and not play 100% in tournaments and still win the whole thing? Well then it doesn't matter whether or not that person plays 100%, since it apparently makes no difference in terms of winning and losing. Should someone defeat the #1 player, the winner of the tournament proved superior there and then. What happens if the "#1 player" wins the next tournament? Then he/she is #1 again. And if he/she refuses to play 100%, there's a more likely chance he/she won't keep winning anymore.
Does that make playing gimmicks or trying something weird mean the player isn't trying? No, because if a player feels that the greatest chance for him/her to win involves doing less common things, then he/she is still playing their best.
Does this mean that losing is a horrible thing? It depends, some players may handle losses differently. If a player played 100% and still lost, then that means the player needs to increase what their chances of winning would be when playing 100% (ie, improving).
Does this mean tournaments are not fun? Competition is definitely fun and is what drives people to play in the first place, but for tournament matches, players who want to win will put winning over fun. For example, stalling is usually considered a lot less fun than playing aggressively, but if stalling is the best way to win the match, then that tactic should be used for a tournament.
What if a player simply doesn't know what the most viable strategy is? The player is still playing their 100%, but has a less likely chance to win. These types of things are what differentiates intermediate players from top players.
So when can players just play to have fun? In friendlies of course. Friendlies are not tournament and it is not mutually agreed that the purpose of the games are to win. Sure, players will still attempt to win, but are less likely to do everything in their power to win. Why? Because it's not as fun (subjective and not always).
So is beating someone in a friendly of any value? Not really, since the opponent isn't trying their best. But what if both players are indeed playing 100% in their friendly match? That's commonly called a pride match/set, or less commonly "seriouslies", as they are playing in the way they would for a tournament, despite the match(es) not being part of an actual tournament.
Are ladder rankings like a tournament? Yes, as the ultimate goal is to be winning, though winning comes in different forms. To win a tournament, the player must be the last player standing, and to win (or to be winning) a ladder is to be at the top. To reach these goals, a player is likely playing 100%, or else they're more likely to be knocked out earlier or not be high on the ladder.
So why is it impressive when Nerd humiliates me with BLs against my OUs in friendlies? While I may or may not be playing my best, Nerd is playing so absolutely terribly in the way of using significantly less viable Pokemon in the match. Sure, he may be trying to win that match in the ways of reading and controlling correctly, but his team would not be viable for a tournament. So the gap is shown so large that Nerd doesn't have to try in the least to beat me. Would the same thing happen in a tournament? Maybe, maybe not. The difference would be based on my 100% play and my play in that particular friendly game. If Nerd were to beat me with BLs in tournament with me playing 100%, that would show how big the gap is in skill between the two of us.
So why don't players play 100% in friendlies anyway? Playing at a tournament level requires pure focus and a lot of mental power, and it can be stressful forcing yourself to play like that (depending on the game). For me in RBY when I'm playing 100%, I'll take time each turn to decide my gameplan and which decision I make, calculate damage ranges, statistics, etc, and I'll use any method of play to win, even if it's boring. In friendlies, I'll play much more carefree, possibly play and do things for the fun of it, try out ideas and experiments I have, and generally play much more aggressively. Does this mean beating me in a friendly matters? Not really. Does this mean losing to me in a friendly matters? Not really. Tournaments are what's important.
Anyway, I'm sure being a competitive community, most players here already knew all this, but for those unfamiliar with competition or interested in the differences, I wrote this. Feel free to discuss this with your own opinions and what you believe, etc.
What is the purpose of a tournament? A tournament is a competition for competitive players to determine who is the best, or at least the most consistent since RBY and other games are luck-based. If there was no common desire to be the best, there would be no tournaments.
What is the purpose of a friendly? Friendlies are just regular matches that can be played for any number of reasons. Perhaps you want to play someone you haven't played in tournament, want to experiment and test something, or simply just play for fun.
When a player enters a tournament, that player will be competing with others for the ultimate goal of winning the tournament, whether or not that player in particular has that goal. Perhaps that player just enters for the fun of it or to be a part of the excitement.
Does this mean that tournaments are of more value winning than friendlies? Most likely. In a tournament, you are likely playing against someone that is playing at full power, 100%, as they want to win, and obviously the best chance at winning is playing their best. If you can defeat a player at their absolute best, then your win is a lot more impressive than if you had just beaten that player in a friendly.
But maybe that opponent didn't play 100%. Is it impressive then? Maybe, maybe not. Naturally though, players that don't go 100% in tournament are not the top players, and beating top players is of greater value than beating players that are still rising or are intermediate. If someone beats a top player, chances are the top player was indeed playing at 100% because to be a top player in the first place, that player needs to be doing their best.
But there's an exception. What if the #1 player is so good that he/she can screw around and not play 100% in tournaments and still win the whole thing? Well then it doesn't matter whether or not that person plays 100%, since it apparently makes no difference in terms of winning and losing. Should someone defeat the #1 player, the winner of the tournament proved superior there and then. What happens if the "#1 player" wins the next tournament? Then he/she is #1 again. And if he/she refuses to play 100%, there's a more likely chance he/she won't keep winning anymore.
Does that make playing gimmicks or trying something weird mean the player isn't trying? No, because if a player feels that the greatest chance for him/her to win involves doing less common things, then he/she is still playing their best.
Does this mean that losing is a horrible thing? It depends, some players may handle losses differently. If a player played 100% and still lost, then that means the player needs to increase what their chances of winning would be when playing 100% (ie, improving).
Does this mean tournaments are not fun? Competition is definitely fun and is what drives people to play in the first place, but for tournament matches, players who want to win will put winning over fun. For example, stalling is usually considered a lot less fun than playing aggressively, but if stalling is the best way to win the match, then that tactic should be used for a tournament.
What if a player simply doesn't know what the most viable strategy is? The player is still playing their 100%, but has a less likely chance to win. These types of things are what differentiates intermediate players from top players.
So when can players just play to have fun? In friendlies of course. Friendlies are not tournament and it is not mutually agreed that the purpose of the games are to win. Sure, players will still attempt to win, but are less likely to do everything in their power to win. Why? Because it's not as fun (subjective and not always).
So is beating someone in a friendly of any value? Not really, since the opponent isn't trying their best. But what if both players are indeed playing 100% in their friendly match? That's commonly called a pride match/set, or less commonly "seriouslies", as they are playing in the way they would for a tournament, despite the match(es) not being part of an actual tournament.
Are ladder rankings like a tournament? Yes, as the ultimate goal is to be winning, though winning comes in different forms. To win a tournament, the player must be the last player standing, and to win (or to be winning) a ladder is to be at the top. To reach these goals, a player is likely playing 100%, or else they're more likely to be knocked out earlier or not be high on the ladder.
So why is it impressive when Nerd humiliates me with BLs against my OUs in friendlies? While I may or may not be playing my best, Nerd is playing so absolutely terribly in the way of using significantly less viable Pokemon in the match. Sure, he may be trying to win that match in the ways of reading and controlling correctly, but his team would not be viable for a tournament. So the gap is shown so large that Nerd doesn't have to try in the least to beat me. Would the same thing happen in a tournament? Maybe, maybe not. The difference would be based on my 100% play and my play in that particular friendly game. If Nerd were to beat me with BLs in tournament with me playing 100%, that would show how big the gap is in skill between the two of us.
So why don't players play 100% in friendlies anyway? Playing at a tournament level requires pure focus and a lot of mental power, and it can be stressful forcing yourself to play like that (depending on the game). For me in RBY when I'm playing 100%, I'll take time each turn to decide my gameplan and which decision I make, calculate damage ranges, statistics, etc, and I'll use any method of play to win, even if it's boring. In friendlies, I'll play much more carefree, possibly play and do things for the fun of it, try out ideas and experiments I have, and generally play much more aggressively. Does this mean beating me in a friendly matters? Not really. Does this mean losing to me in a friendly matters? Not really. Tournaments are what's important.
Anyway, I'm sure being a competitive community, most players here already knew all this, but for those unfamiliar with competition or interested in the differences, I wrote this. Feel free to discuss this with your own opinions and what you believe, etc.
