Jump to content


Play for Fun

play for fun

  • Please log in to reply
147 replies to this topic

Sgt__Guffy #121 Posted May 17 2018 - 02:18

    Captain

  • -Players-
  • 3433 battles
  • 1,896
  • Member since:
    04-01-2017

View PostNunya_000, on May 16 2018 - 19:02, said:

 

Lazy - unwilling to work or use energy.

 

It isn't much work and not much energy is expended playing a computer game.  One might apply "lazy" to a person's desire to watch videos or have someone teach them so that they improve, but I would bet that would apply to 80%+ of the player base.  After all, I would assume that a majority of people play to give themselves a little entertainment in their otherwise hectic lives.  Not too many people are interested in wasting that time watching a video when they can play.....and most people DO learn and improve by playing.    

 

Not so much lazy, I only play a handful of games, during the day often too busy, in the evening too darn tired to concentrate for very long, assuming the Lag Monster lets me play!

 

Have fun, where you can get it,

 

Guffy.



Jryder #122 Posted May 17 2018 - 06:55

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 13714 battles
  • 2,064
  • Member since:
    11-01-2010

There is only one reason for anybody to be playing this game.

If this game isn't a fun diversion for us, then there is no reason for it to exist.

Period.



Kenshin2kx #123 Posted May 17 2018 - 17:51

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 18111 battles
  • 6,138
  • Member since:
    07-20-2014

View PostNunya_000, on May 16 2018 - 15:15, said:

 

Maybe he is a time traveler from the 1600's.  Did you consider that???

 

:D

Dougy_Fresh #124 Posted May 18 2018 - 00:59

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 54528 battles
  • 106
  • [INVIL] INVIL
  • Member since:
    09-15-2012

Yes FL is fun, takes the pressure off stats.  Get lots of creds too.  Better players get more creds, bad players get less. 

 

But to say you just play for fun.....don't get that.  Every game invented is competitive.  Competition is fun.

 

Do good...get more, win.  Do the minimum get less, lose.

 

Would be a waste of time to play this game and not compete.  

 

Someone please explain how this is a fun game if you "play for fun" and leave out the competition part of it.  Are you not competing when you are dueling with another tank, or trying to stay alive?  Or do as much damage as possible?

 

Competition is healthy and a crucial part of Western civilization.  People that don't like to compete....well....that just does not compute.



Sgt__Guffy #125 Posted May 18 2018 - 01:15

    Captain

  • -Players-
  • 3433 battles
  • 1,896
  • Member since:
    04-01-2017

View PostDougy_Fresh, on May 17 2018 - 17:59, said:

Yes FL is fun, takes the pressure off stats.  Get lots of creds too.  Better players get more creds, bad players get less. 

 

But to say you just play for fun.....don't get that.  Every game invented is competitive.  Competition is fun.

 

Do good...get more, win.  Do the minimum get less, lose.

 

Would be a waste of time to play this game and not compete.  

 

Someone please explain how this is a fun game if you "play for fun" and leave out the competition part of it.  Are you not competing when you are dueling with another tank, or trying to stay alive?  Or do as much damage as possible?

 

Competition is healthy and a crucial part of Western civilization.  People that don't like to compete....well....that just does not compute.

 

:teethhappy: :teethhappy: :teethhappy:

 

I like it when people have a sense of humor. 



EmperorJuliusCaesar #126 Posted May 18 2018 - 08:03

    Major

  • Players
  • 28175 battles
  • 4,072
  • [EOR] EOR
  • Member since:
    03-16-2014

View PostCognitive_Dissonance, on May 15 2018 - 07:35, said:

View Poststalkervision, on May 15 2018 - 06:59, said:

So what some people are actually saying here, once their argument is deconstructed a bit, is that people should play much better becase it ruins their stats if they don't and they can't have any " fun" whatsoever  without good stats because of some kind of insecurity about playing arcade games in a casual manner. The argument that people can't have fun without winning at a higher level would obviously be moot for them if the people posting that argument were not affected by other players win ratios and xvm stats.  I say play exclusivly in clans battles then if ones win ratio and stats in a arcade game are so importent to ones self. Don't saddle your insecurity on others.

 

Just saying..

 

Nope.

 

Games, as a whole, from the beginning of time have but one simple premise. Pitting one opponent against another, where one wins and one is defeated. Even Tic Tac Toe is based on this premise. Put out a list of games based on winning, and then list games whose premise is not based on winning and you will have a lopsided ratio with one numbering in the thousands, and the other barely a list by comparison.

 

So winning, regardless of other stats, is the very foundation of WoT. Even the terms used in it's advertising, clicking into the game, and the very way the game is pitched all invokes "combat" and "win vs. defeat". So all the other arguments about playing for fun and other stuff are just ways to obfuscate that someone is there to enjoy the game on their terms, but not really put any effort into the very premise of the game which is to defeat the enemy, and come out on top as the winner. The winners, even the ones that did poorly get more XP. The entire system is built around favoring those who do better. Win, more XP, as a winner more damage, more spotting etc. more money more XP, crew XP etc.

 

It has nothing to do with epeen for many many people, it has more to do with folks who want to participate with how the game was actually designed and the fact that some will join to play to "have fun" by derping around, looking at the sky, shooting teammates, or sitting idly at cap and or exploring vs. fighting.

 

So instead of always turning it into an epeen swaggering thing for folks that do want to win, as you are rewarded for doing so, I think everyone else who is just there to durp around and not really contribute should just say that and admit by doing so, they are making things harder for folks who are at least trying to contribute the the very premise of the game - to win, in combat, by clicking the Battle button. Instead of long drawn out explanations as to why it is okay to "enjoy" the game by exploring the map and not contributing to the actual goal the game was built around.

 

So lets do away with epeen and ego arguments, and let's just have everyone admit that plays only for their own version of enjoyment that doesn't contribute toward the goal of winning, at least admit they are making it harder for their team to accomplish the very outcome the game was built on - to win, in combat, against an enemy. Instead of these long drawn rationalizations as to why "I play for fun" is a valid tenant in a game designed around winning or losing.

 

 

 

But there are plenty that just want to play tanks, and it's really good for them that there is PVE option coming later this year.  There don't care about winning and losing, despite this game being centered on it since it's PVP.  It will be better for all that we will soon have PVE.



Cognitive_Dissonance #127 Posted May 18 2018 - 16:47

    Major

  • Players
  • 38363 battles
  • 5,927
  • [ANASS] ANASS
  • Member since:
    01-31-2013

View PostBillT, on May 16 2018 - 10:55, said:

 

For you to say the people playing for fun are a "detriment to those trying to win" is presumptuous -- you're assuming the game is meant for those trying to win, and those having fun are unwanted invaders.   I could argue you have that backwards, and you're being more competitive than this game actually justifies.   Yes, XP is doled out based on performance, and that encourages people to play better: but everyone gets some XP even if they do nothing, so clearly the game isn't designed only to reward good performers.  I think the game is a compromise: enough merit-based-reward and stats for the competitive players, while still letting the "for fun" players slowly progress just for playing the game.  

 

Back to the softball analogy, a nice thing is that there are different leagues for different levels of skill and commitment.  Someone like you can get into a more challenging league where everyone else is really committed to winning, while I can play in a more laid-back league.  Unfortunately WOT only gives us one league for pub matches.  Given that, I honestly think you're the one who's mistaken: it's simply not reasonable to expect that 14 random people are all as dedicated to improvement as you are.  And when you demand that of people, they think you're waving your epeen.

 

(That epeen comment is unfair obviously; but so is your assumption that "I play for fun" means "I don't even try to play well.")

 

I'm curious... you say nobody does an Ironman for fun.  So why do you do it?

 

Thanks for the back and forth, I love this kind of discourse.

 

First I get (despite others implying otherwise), that this game matters not in the grand scheme of things, it could disappear tomorrow, and I would scrape it off my hard drive and not look back.

 

I may be presumptuous sounding, as I am not defining my boundaries well, but if someone is having "fun" and they help when needed, and no sweat off their back, then that is good. What drives me nuts (two games in a row with this kind of stuff) is a top tier IS7 parked in a bush and sat the entire game, as I was a tier 8. Did nothing, contributed nothing. Another game, a top tier Defender on Ice Road, pulled in behind arty at cap, sat in bush, did nothing popped a few vehicles that rushed our cap. That type of play for fun isn't helpful at all. People can play for fun and still be useful, or completely useless - those are the ones I am referring to.

 

Your softball analogy is correct, maybe I expect too much in WoT, so I might just keep tilting at Windmills in random pubs, but I will keep trying.

 

I do the Ironman, and other endurance events, Spartan's etc. to see what can break me. I like to find my limits, and push past them. It is something I truly enjoy, as sadist as that sounds. Why not find your limits, and push past them, mentally, physically etc. in a quest for self awareness of what you really are made of, and what really matters? Ultra Events will really help you put things in perspective . . . like WoT, which is why I want to win and play well, but I could scrape it off my disk and never miss it.

 

 


Edited by Cognitive_Dissonance, May 18 2018 - 16:48.


Deputy276 #128 Posted May 18 2018 - 17:51

    Major

  • Players
  • 19022 battles
  • 5,390
  • [3_NZ] 3_NZ
  • Member since:
    06-17-2013

View PostEmperorJuliusCaesar, on May 18 2018 - 01:03, said:

 

But there are plenty that just want to play tanks, and it's really good for them that there is PVE option coming later this year.  There don't care about winning and losing, despite this game being centered on it since it's PVP.  It will be better for all that we will soon have PVE.

 

Not so sure about that. PvE could easily remove a good many players from PvP that PvP can't spare to lose. Especially if the rewards for PvE are comparable to PvP. If there are no credits or XP for playing PvE, then it will be okay. But if they make it like Armored Warfare, it could spell the doom of PvP.

Cognitive_Dissonance #129 Posted May 18 2018 - 18:18

    Major

  • Players
  • 38363 battles
  • 5,927
  • [ANASS] ANASS
  • Member since:
    01-31-2013

View PostKenshin2kx, on May 16 2018 - 10:17, said:

 

Initially I chalked it up to on the fly typo, but since you defined the term ...

 

Its "Tenet" ... not "Tenent"

 

Tenet:  A principle or belief, especially one of the main principles of a religion or philosophy.

 

Tenent was the common spelling in the 1600s for tenet, which was defined as a belief or principle. Today it is a common misspelling for either tenet or tenant, which are defined as someone who rents a space.

 

I am thinking this is what Kehaha was alluding to ...

 

Nice catch, sorry, doh!

 

So in high school I took Latin and studied the use of Latin suffixes and prefixes in the English language, and yes we studied the roots and history of English.

 

I learned to spell it the old way, the new way, and yes, I did misspell it once at first, which meant I used the wrong word. This is why English is a difficult language to learn, lol. :trollface:



kekaha #130 Posted May 18 2018 - 20:13

    Sergeant

  • -Players-
  • 14859 battles
  • 139
  • Member since:
    10-06-2015

View PostCognitive_Dissonance, on May 18 2018 - 18:18, said:

 

Nice catch, sorry, doh!

 

So in high school I took Latin and studied the use of Latin suffixes and prefixes in the English language, and yes we studied the roots and history of English.

 

I learned to spell it the old way, the new way, and yes, I did misspell it once at first, which meant I used the wrong word. This is why English is a difficult language to learn, lol. :trollface:

 

Except you used the wrong word four times in three different posts, not just "once at first". You want some more Merriam-Webster? Try "I can't really decide if your excuse is more specious or spurious".

 

I studied Latin in Jr. High and HS, and yes this does mean I was learning about one of the roots of modern-day English. I guess we'll have to agree that there's a difference between "studying" and "learning".



Cognitive_Dissonance #131 Posted May 18 2018 - 21:21

    Major

  • Players
  • 38363 battles
  • 5,927
  • [ANASS] ANASS
  • Member since:
    01-31-2013

View Postkekaha, on May 18 2018 - 13:13, said:

 

Except you used the wrong word four times in three different posts, not just "once at first". You want some more Merriam-Webster? Try "I can't really decide if your excuse is more specious or spurious".

 

I studied Latin in Jr. High and HS, and yes this does mean I was learning about one of the roots of modern-day English. I guess we'll have to agree that there's a difference between "studying" and "learning".

 

Yup, while I was responding to these topics, I was migrating an HA pair of firewalls from Cisco CX to Cisco FirePOWER. Working the standby unit, upgrading, making sure everything was good, then invoking a fail-over. So coming to this site, making sure I could post, and generally follow stuff was a good way for me to test a live firewall migration.

 

So during and after the fail-over my focus was on traffic, IDS and IPS actions of my new firewall. I have been writing the rules, translating, applying and just finished up today.

 

You will have to forgive me, but I was not entirely focused on this forum - but insinuate all you want, I am guessing it was a cheap thrill for you to coin the wordplay on "studying" and "learning", glad I gave you something to start off your weekend with on a high note! Please spell check and point out any inconsistencies, we are all waiting with bated breath.


Edited by Cognitive_Dissonance, May 18 2018 - 21:23.


owlgator #132 Posted May 18 2018 - 21:37

    Captain

  • Players
  • 14495 battles
  • 1,280
  • Member since:
    05-27-2011

View Postkekaha, on May 16 2018 - 19:10, said:

 

So you know what it means, but just refuse to spell it correctly. Even your source says that spelling is obsolete. But thanks for explaining: you just weren't aware of how ignorant you sound.

 

Cool.

_Tsavo_ #133 Posted May 18 2018 - 22:27

    Major

  • Players
  • 40961 battles
  • 16,840
  • [PBKAC] PBKAC
  • Member since:
    02-16-2011

View Postkekaha, on May 18 2018 - 14:13, said:

 

Except you used the wrong word four times in three different posts, not just "once at first". You want some more Merriam-Webster? Try "I can't really decide if your excuse is more specious or spurious".

 

I studied Latin in Jr. High and HS, and yes this does mean I was learning about one of the roots of modern-day English. I guess we'll have to agree that there's a difference between "studying" and "learning".

 

Oh, the grammar police!  Better run or your going to find them coming after you for you're screw ups!

 

Spoiler

 



EmperorJuliusCaesar #134 Posted May 19 2018 - 02:03

    Major

  • Players
  • 28175 battles
  • 4,072
  • [EOR] EOR
  • Member since:
    03-16-2014

View PostDeputy276, on May 18 2018 - 08:51, said:

View PostEmperorJuliusCaesar, on May 18 2018 - 01:03, said:

 

But there are plenty that just want to play tanks, and it's really good for them that there is PVE option coming later this year.  There don't care about winning and losing, despite this game being centered on it since it's PVP.  It will be better for all that we will soon have PVE.

 

Not so sure about that. PvE could easily remove a good many players from PvP that PvP can't spare to lose. Especially if the rewards for PvE are comparable to PvP. If there are no credits or XP for playing PvE, then it will be okay. But if they make it like Armored Warfare, it could spell the doom of PvP.

 

Good, it's super toxic.  Many don't want to play that aspect, it will be better for them and those that are still pvp'ing will have better players to play with. 



Deputy276 #135 Posted May 19 2018 - 17:39

    Major

  • Players
  • 19022 battles
  • 5,390
  • [3_NZ] 3_NZ
  • Member since:
    06-17-2013

View PostEmperorJuliusCaesar, on May 18 2018 - 19:03, said:

 

Good, it's super toxic.  Many don't want to play that aspect, it will be better for them and those that are still pvp'ing will have better players to play with. 

 

Good in theory, but not in reality. Go take a look at Armored Warfare. The PvP mode is non-existent in NA. EU still has it, but only at certain times. Everyone went to PvE because it was easy to farm damage and buy stuff. Next thing they knew, no more PvP players. Just PvE. 

_Tsavo_ #136 Posted May 19 2018 - 20:07

    Major

  • Players
  • 40961 battles
  • 16,840
  • [PBKAC] PBKAC
  • Member since:
    02-16-2011

View PostDeputy276, on May 19 2018 - 11:39, said:

 

Good in theory, but not in reality. Go take a look at Armored Warfare. The PvP mode is non-existent in NA. EU still has it, but only at certain times. Everyone went to PvE because it was easy to farm damage and buy stuff. Next thing they knew, no more PvP players. Just PvE. 

 

Joe Average will gravitate towards easy and bots are easier to fight than humans.  I'd prefer to not see PvE in this game, unless it's a single player campaign or something along those lines.

Knagar #137 Posted May 19 2018 - 20:16

    Captain

  • Players
  • 20320 battles
  • 1,558
  • Member since:
    05-13-2011
People say that about front line because you make stacks of cash and xp even if you lose. People hate to lose in random because you get next to nothing if you're not running premium or don't do very well.

TheGipper22 #138 Posted May 20 2018 - 02:20

    Captain

  • Beta Testers
  • 25963 battles
  • 1,011
  • Member since:
    10-21-2010

View PostAwestryker, on May 15 2018 - 04:05, said:

 

Yea I just don't get "play for fun"...to me, winning is fun...winning = fun...losing, not so much fun...

Its just the way I am programmed I guess....to always try and improve...

 

 

 

Yeah and to me - even though my stats are bad, the goal of improving them -  or doing better in a new tank than my overall .. that is a LOT of fun and important to me

 

without stats the game gets less interesting to me and.. well it means something to me to see other peoples stats and know some can see mine too in game.

 

I'm proud to get a tank up to a green WR and happy to keep my overall up as a goal even if that means I need to drop to my level of competence at lower tiers where I belong.



EmpressDream #139 Posted May 20 2018 - 12:30

    Corporal

  • -Players-
  • 3664 battles
  • 37
  • [EOR2] EOR2
  • Member since:
    04-08-2015

View PostDeputy276, on May 18 2018 - 17:51, said:

View PostEmperorJuliusCaesar, on May 18 2018 - 01:03, said:

 

But there are plenty that just want to play tanks, and it's really good for them that there is PVE option coming later this year.  There don't care about winning and losing, despite this game being centered on it since it's PVP.  It will be better for all that we will soon have PVE.

 

Not so sure about that. PvE could easily remove a good many players from PvP that PvP can't spare to lose. Especially if the rewards for PvE are comparable to PvP. If there are no credits or XP for playing PvE, then it will be okay. But if they make it like Armored Warfare, it could spell the doom of PvP.

 

Sounds GREAT, can't wait!!



Cognitive_Dissonance #140 Posted May 20 2018 - 13:01

    Major

  • Players
  • 38363 battles
  • 5,927
  • [ANASS] ANASS
  • Member since:
    01-31-2013

View Post_Tsavo_, on May 18 2018 - 15:27, said:

 

Oh, the grammar police!  Better run or your going to find them coming after you for you're screw ups!

 

Spoiler

 

 

They came, beat me about the head for my spelling, but gave me a pass because all 5000 or so of my users can still get to our cloud ERP system. So far a good weekend, only Escobedo MX had one group of tablet users with an issue, no other problems. That makes for a great tanking weekend!

Edited by Cognitive_Dissonance, May 20 2018 - 13:02.






Also tagged with play for fun

4 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 4 guests, 0 anonymous users