Start of 8th edition, Guilliman and Death Guard were the new kids on the block. 1000 point local GW store monthly tournament. Where we live, we didn’t have a wargaming club or anything like it back then, so for many of us it was the one time in a month to get some games in. One such tournament, one player came with an Ultramarine list, consisting of Guilliman, 2 Lieutenants, 2 Rhinos and 2 Sniper Scout squads with rocket launchers. Placed Guilliman in the middle, flanked by the 2 Lieutenants 2 mm more to the front, flanked on either side by the Rhinos 2 mm out in front. Scouts way back in cover. Auras galore. I had a proxy Typhus, two large bunches of Cultists and a ton of Pox Walkers and three Blight-Haulers for guns. Maybe some Plague Marines, I don’t really remember that part. No way to get to his warlord with my guns, had to shoot at the Rhinos while he sniped my Blight-Haulers off the board. Big open space in the middle (not much space in the store, so very small two by four foot table sections), so no other way but to go through there. He played the list against two other players in the same way, easily winning the tournament. I was so frustrated I threw the game after the second round after I lost my last Hauler and my Cultists ran off. I knew I would only be able to charge the Rhinos in the third round, while he woud be blasting away at my Pox Walkers. His take on his positioning was “Them’s the rules, so what…?” Credits to him for trying to be nice by gonig "Oh, don't give up, you're almost there" but we both knew I would not be able to kill a Primarch, the 2 Lieutenants and 2 Rhinos with 20 Pox Walkers, while a bunch of snipers were going at Typhus. When AdMech first came out in 7th edition I jumped at them (Nurgle and AdMech are my favourites), I painted up 1000 points within a couple weeks (a novum for me) and went to the aforementioned tournament. I had a unit of 2 Kastellans with triple Phosphors, 1 unit of Breachers with Haywire guns (very powerful back then), 1 unit of Destroyers with Grav Guns, a unit of Ruststalkers and a single Dragoon. I wrecked 2 out of my 3 opponents on my second turn (I tabled them pretty harshly) and reached a draw on the third game. I saw the havoc this wrought and while I won the day (the only time I did) I apologized to the other gamers for making their day not a fun one. The bottom line is, when competitive players are… let’s say, inclined, to bring Primarchs to the 40k version or Alarielle to an AoS version of a 1000 point local fun tournament, only they have the fun. And that is the issue I have with “competitive gaming”. My Ultramarine opponent described above is a brilliant painter. I will never be that good. His stuff is amazing. Utterly amazing. But he sucks the fun out of the actual gaming. Almost every time. So let the world elite gamers battle it out at the Grand Tournaments. But please come with an “fun for all” attitude to the local stuff. For some of us these are the only games we can play.
Thanks for sharing bluewater! That match sounds super brutal! Kudos for you for even playing that Guilliman matchup long as you did! That guy doesn’t sound like a bad dude, but it does sound like he maybe wasn’t empathetic to the idea that some people only get to play once in a while! That sucks! I wish you only fun games from now on!
The main take away I get from this is something I know to be 100% true and its GW refuses to balance their game correctly. In its current form you can say that 40k can be played at 500, 1k, 1.5k and 2k all with the same set of rules and be balanced. That is just not possible. Each total needs way more restrictions in what you can bring to force a "fair" game. If they leave the rules open to bring lords of war in small point games that is a GW problem and I don't blame people bringing that stuff to tournaments because GW needs to fix their game. I think Boarding Actions is a fantastic start at acknowledging small point games need special rules and hope they expand on this.
Great video! Competetive players can make or break play group. I think as long as both players know how the game will look like (cutthroat or just a casual game with keeping rules correct) then there might be less issues. I agree that painting is usually not looked at negatively and for me that's a good thing! Side note: I've pulled the trigger and bought Zoraida Rotten Harvest boxes! I was positively surprised with cast quality! There are some gaps to fill and mouldlines to cut, but the minis are amazing! So much character! Hopefully my painting abilities will transfer boxart to painting! I'm suprised your channel has not yet exploded (in subs)!
When I call someone a "Competitive Player" I mean it as almost an insult. I mean that I don't want to play the game with them outside of a tournament, and the only reason I play them in tournaments is because you're obviously going to play competitive players in tournaments. So what do I call players who are kind during play, but whoop my ass you ask? "Good Players" is what i call them, like "Yeah that guy is really good, he wrecks my shit every time." I've ran 40k leagues, T.O.'d 40k tournaments every other month for a few years, and played in lots of tournaments; I wouldn't consider myself a competitive player. I guess I'd argue if your fun is contingent on you winning the game you don't like the game you like winning.
Thanks Brent! Lollll I wasn't sure where this comment was going after the first sentence, but I think your POV is pretty reasonable. There were definitely times, especially in Malifaux, where I felt like some people were motivated to play it because the game was small enough where they could feel like a really big fish.
Yeah, competitive players are an important part of the ecosystem. The issue is that some competitive players are "that players" but not all competitive players are "that players" and people paint them all with the same #2 kolinski sable brush
My experience in the hobby is limited since I usually just play my friend but my main issue is casual players being "that guys" way more than competitive players. That said most people I play in competitive formats i accept many of the people I play with are not "competitive" people so they could count for both since they do both. But we have a group locally that "strictly enforces casual play" by their own omission and it is a real turn off to ever play with them. Whenever I talk with these types my main question is "How do I know whats acceptable to play?" I get some nebulous answer that honestly amounts to if you don't bring something bad they can easily steamroll you are a "try hard ahole" by their standards.
I think this is kind of a "not all polygons are rectangles, but all rectangles are polygons" situation. Not all competitive players are bad, but generally speaking if someone has a bad experience, it is going to be with a "competitive" player, and that is what has given it such a negative connotation. I've been a war gamer off and on for roughly 22 years, though hardly active through-out the entire time-frame. I played fairly competitively for a time, but in general consider myself a fairly casual "I just like to roll some dice and hang out" kind of player. In that time, I've seen a lot of players come and go, and more than a few interactions, and in general the most negative experiences I have seen, have been when hyper competitive players play new players in a hyper competitive fashion. When someone who has just started playing comes in who is still learning rules and hardly knows what they are doing and gets tabled turn 1 by a super competitive list, it isn't going to be fun for them, and on more than one occasion I've seen that happen to someone, and they just quit playing. The majority of people who get in to war gaming are going to be casual players, it's simply the way it is. Folks that want to get the models they think look cool, put them on a table, and roll some dice. That doesn't mean there is anything wrong with being a very competitive player, but I do think it means as a competitive player, you need to take in to account who you are playing. If you have the ability to run a hyper-competitive list, it's almost a guarantee that you have the ability to run a non hyper-competitive list. In my opinion, it's always good form to understand the kind of game you are going to be playing, and especially if you are going against a new player, I think it's simply good form to initiate that conversation as the person with more experience. We are a ridiculously niche hobby, and the only way to grow it in any significant form is to *keep* new players playing. Someone can start off as a casual player, and turn in to a competitive player that gives you someone to play those hyper competitive lists and games with, but if you scare them off right away it's just another person who isn't playing. Social games will always be driven by community, no community, no games. And the role of custodian to those games is always going to fall to those with experience.
Thanks for sharing ChickenHawk! This is a pretty reasonable take. I super agree that it falls on everyone, but especially veterans to try and keep people in. I don't know any other hobby that has to try so hard to keep people in haha.
I like to view it as a choice,if im going to play competitively I will either set up a local match with a likeminded player or ill attend a true tournament.if I want a casual match ill play with a friend with no strict adherances or nuance.
Strangely enough I have been shamed for painting and indeed called a "try hard" and that all I want is a beauty paegent on the table. Other than that, the reason people have an issue with competitive players is that we've all had a bad experience with an overly competitive person, that is not putting time to his list and just shows up with the tournament winning list we all saw the weekend before at a big event. Another issue is that in all the hobby, the only time you have a bad time is when you play a really bad match and we link that to the one person infront of us. For me what has always rubbed me the wrong way was that companies tend to cater to competitive players, while the bigger chunk of the community that likes more randomness and certain unbalance in the name of fun, is shoved to the side.
I'll counterpoint that that "catering" to competitive players with eratta and balance passes does directly benefit casual players. If something was overtuned and never addressed it makes for a negative experience for those who don't know the meta workarounds, and so if someone takes it as part of their chosen faction it can destabilize and foster resentment in casual groups because it is entirely unchecked.
Hyper competitive players drive out the casuals and killed my local meta. New players got treated super rudely by them and now we have no players. I miss my weekly games. In my experience the competitive guys kill communities.
Hey Marquisdan! I'm so sorry that happened to you! There are definitely those players out there, and I don't deny that. Even in my meta, there's a guy who's honestly pretty nice, and wants to build his local community, but people actually don't enjoy playing with him because he can't not be competitive. Getting a "demo" of game and not getting to play feels pretty bad.
I think it has to do with how these sections of the community communicate. It's easy to praise paint jobs when somebody puts in the smallest effort into it, but to comment on the competitive nature of a team you have to be negative. I've only ever heard painters being positive and willing to teach. whereas competitive players while seem to only really explain why everything is bad and what not to use, deflating possible excitement for the hobby now that the many unit possibilities has dropped to a small tier list. Point being, Competitive conversation tend to be negative a push less dedicated people away, whether intentional or not
Thanks sheep! The negativity does end up being a huge share of voice doesn’t it? Damn shame. I feel like it’s a video game thing for sure. Like is it like this in competitive sports?
@@CornerCase I do think it's a product of the competitive nature, I see it in card games as well. When you only have so much time for your hobbies you tend to focus on a certain aspect of it, in this case being Competitive, pushing to be better/best. I think it can easily be taken as dismissive when you are new and want to engage with all aspects of a hobby till maybe you find your niche and being told "no", "don't look over there, it's bad". I do think that video games do also share this problem. I'm not sure about sports, the larger spectator appeal makes it a bit different I think
Thanks grey! Really was eager to get back to it! The channel's been growing well, and I'm excited to see how far we can take it just hanging out like we do.
I’m happy I can be a part of this wholesome channel. Discussions on the relationships between the subsets of our niche community is so healthy. I used to be a “competitive xwing player” and now I fall into the “everybody else” category as my home life has taken a change and my hobby has had to adapt. I’m more into “push some proudly-poorly-painted models around and roll some dice while drinking fizzy liquid.” Kinda hobbyist. And I’m so very thankful there’s a space for me here.
It’s no question competitive players keep the game alive, but that doesn’t mean they cannot also be elitist pr*cks. A well painted army or great looking table has never been the cause of a negative play experience for me. That honor is reserved strictly for competitive players. I admit they are a necessary evil but they are very worthy of villainization.
Thanks Kevin! It sounds like you’ve come across a lot of bad players! I’m sorry about that! It’s definitely not fun, and you’ve done well to stick to the hobby in spite of it!
I feel like being good at the game is different than the other parts. If someone did some kitbashing or some painting, they are making art that you can appreciate. If someone knows a bunch about lore and memes, that is sort of storytelling and a communal language they can share with you. Being good at the game is not like this. If someone is massively better than you, they will wind up putting you in a spot where they make you choose between hiding your army on the tabletop, or getting them massacred, or they have to take it easy on you, which can feel kind of condescending. The competitive aspect of the hobby is the only part where someone being good at it can make it harder for you to enjoy.
If someone is better at the game then that affords them the ability to run weaker, potentially more fluffy lists as well as provide advice to improve your plays, or just by picking up how they position their units. Any time someone is better at something they have the opportunity to teach you how to get closer to their level, either directly with advice or indirectly by noticing the techniques they apply. A player with high system mastery certainly _can_ simply stomp their opponent into the ground but so can an expert painter make your models look like a toddler fingerpainted your colours or a lore expert could make obscure references and jokes that you don't understand and exclude you from those around you. It's all about how the person handles the situation.
@@theundeadgentleman4998 Well sure, anyone could be a jerk if they wanted to be, but hobby games with competitive sides naturally trend towards being slightly zero sum in terms of enjoyment in a way other parts aren't (At least in the actual mechanics of the game). Also, a player who actually understands the game and cares about the mechanics of the game is going to have a very different idea of what a 'fluffy' list is. While they might not bring something competitive, being interested in the mechanics of the game will naturally lead to building lists with power in them. A fluffy list might not be powerful in ways that work competitively, but if you aren't super competitive, you aren't in a position to play around the 30 mortar list.
It’s very interesting and I think it comes down to those few people who can’t stop being competitive even on new players and that’s when the bad press comes from. I played a 40k player as a newbie and he proceeded to put a tank in a building and as he could draw line of sight through a window slit in the building shot my unit off the board . It became a game of him bending rules or using my lack of knowledge ( as being a noob ) to just stomp me with gotcha moments galore , as you can imagine a negative experience. On the flip side I played age of sigmar with anther more experienced gamer and he more talked me through explaining things as we went gave advice on tactics and that’s how you want a player to be . Still play AoS to this day and hope to find an infinity player who can introduce me into game like that .
Thanks as always Jamie! Yeah, those people who are willing to take care of you in the hobby are super important to keeping the community thriving. I'm glad you found a home in AoS! It's a super cool looking game.
I find the divide interesting, especially in the content creation world. When you have all these Tier Lists that really dump hard on 75% of the models for any game system as being "trash" because they don't work well in the current meta. I don't want to bring a "trash" army to a tournament that I've spent a ton of time building and painting and learning just to get stomped just because I think they look cool or thematic. That being said, it's not just wargaming, I'm a "filthy casual" in so many different hobbies that I probably don't give the competitive players enough room in my space to prove they're just not going to pubstomp me into oblivion and give me a complete negative play experience.
I love the community but I have never had a good gaming experience with somebody who considers themselves competetive. My models and army were always being put down because they "were shit" so I just stopped playing with anybody who plays competitively and I've been having a better experience since just playing with friends and friends of friends at the LGS. Just my experience though. Hopefully not everybody experiences this the same way I have.
@@CornerCase I mean obviously lol. But unfortunately in my gaming scene that seems to be the lion share of "competitive" players. Same goes for MTG as well. I only play commander with friends because my decks were "sub optimal" and gimmicky.
I will say being a competitive player in a mostly casual meta is very frustrating on both sides of the fence. I see the potential in people that just don't elevate their game to the level I know they can easily achieve and surpass with more effort. However that is not who they are or how they wish to experince the game. So rather than pushing people into something they are not choosing for themselves. I changed my approach based on my experince running demo games. i have taken to carrying two armies or at least list configuration. One is for competitive play the other is well a joke or bad army. this let's me go as hard as I like without typically creating a negative play experience. While having a competitive list available if one of the other competitive players shows up. The other thing is I quit playing in tournaments years ago now, I just TO events. I like to hit two or three cons a year when pandemics are not ruffling feathers. I can stretch my competitive legs there and have fun with people that are just out to merc each other.
Thanks as always Snarky! I really feel that pain of disparate skill levels. Leaning Infinity, my first 2 months, I was just desparate to give my opponent a good game. I can only imagine if I wasn't actively trying to get good, that feeling would be enough to make me quit.
@@CornerCase well the one thing playing bad lists does is it allows you to experiment with non optimized profiles. You can find value is something that you would just overlook because it seems over costed or most of the profiles is poor but that one thing makes it viable in this one mission. One of the hilarious accidental finds was just how good riot stoppers and adhesive launchers can be. I completely inadvertently trolled the hell out of a guy in his 5th game. I handed him 3 lists totally open information and told him to pick a list he wanted to play against. Now... in my defense he was the friend of one of our infinity n2 veterans. I had seen them hanging around at the game nights for months... I thought he had gotten some lessons. Nah they had just been painting. So here I am trying to be nice to a newer player going pick your poison with totally open info. And he picked my o12 troll list of everyone has to have a riot stoppers or adhesive launcher. I found out the error that happened almost immediately as basically everything on his side of the table was immobilized or burning order through the top of one.
There is a world of difference between the 40k and Infinity competative scene. I think this started when GW learned from video games what a cash cow competative play was. The constant stream of must have models to compete and list building being more of a factor in winning than actual play are the culprits. Infinity rules and community seem to be specifically geared towards making sure there are no gotchas and everyone has a good time. Kind behavior is written right into the rules. A more philisophical look makes me wonder about American culture being rooted in competition. Claims are made about how it is good for everyone but those people tend to be the ones with the "winning armies". Are the games we play just reflections if this?
Thanks Ham! Interesting discussion about competition being a deep cultural thing. I do think American media for sure kindof oversells winning and the power of the individual. As per winning armies, for sure! Many people who love winning only play what wins! Vs many people who love the hobby more just play what makes them happy. At least in my local scene, though, I have been pretty blessed to see people who are both great at the hobby and great at the game. It's rare, but it's such a fine thing to come across one of these all around Real Deal individuals.
As I am a casual wargamer, this is just escapism and mental health support for me. My rule is you can bring your competitive list/A game just don't be a d**k about it. As long as both parties have fun that is all that matters to me.
Im not a big competitive player. I have been calling a casual. And i have had people be kinda critical of my painting. But i would say generally people are cool at my LGS.
Playing against someone with a well painted army is a treat. Playing against someone who has knowledge about the lore is cool. Playing against someone who only brings the strongest cheesiest list can be ok I guess? But it can also be pretty boring. It's the only focus that can damage the other players enjoyment, not that it has to but it can.
The reason no other aspect of the hobby is seen negatively is quite obvious really There is no conceivable way someone else building or painting will hurt someone else's experience It's always a net positive for everyone involved You have more interesting and cool things to use, or at least fight against The absolute worst thing that can come from someone else painting their stuff, is making you feel ashamed for not painting yours, which is still a positive as you can use that as a motivator Meanwhile playing well, or "mercilessly" can very easily damage someone else's experience, especially if the competitive player is vs a noob By all means, if it's a tournament, bring your A game, that's the point of it But the hatred exists because of people who actively take the absolute best things vs people that are either new or just prefer more casual ways of playing, like using fluff lists For instance, in my FLGS I saw a pro player (seen him in tournament before) bring a hacking heavy list vs a first timer who literally just finished building his very first yu Jing models (all Invincible Army), now anyway you slice it, that's kind of a dick move Of course, not everyone who plays competitive is like that, but the fact remains, only within the competitive mindset will you find people who are willing to stomp on other peoples enjoyment for their own exclusive benefit, and as such they are the only ones who get hate And yeah there are some people that are just sore losers and competitive players bring in the bank But I know plenty of newbies who tried to get into a game system, and got stomped so bad they gave up on the game entirely, that works for no ones benefit, and it can only be caused by competitive players who don't know how to take it easy Disclaimer: Some competitive players are absolute heroes who know when to take it slow and when to go hard on a game, and such people are the ones who got me and my friends into the game Like everything there are shades of grey
Thanks Alex! That was something I was thinking about how to discuss. There is a bit of a social contract on a normal game night that both parties should be responsible for each other’s fun, isn’t there? My second ever infinity game was like that. A tournament guy, the guy who was running that local groups game night, brought a TAG, and mowed down my whole army in a single turn. I didn’t even know how to play yet, really. I think he thought it was tough love. I didn’t play there again, and that group dissolved. But then I met my current group. Everyone is super competitive, but everyone is super nice. The first 3 or 4 games I did there, we played like 3 hours and didn’t get past turn 1, because everyone was really involved and committed to ramping me up. It was a really great experience. So, I know it’s a mix bag out there, but I’m optimistic. Thanks again Alex!
I would push back that there's no negative outcome for being way better at painting, go look at a content creator like Squidmar or any of the thousand other very very skilled painters making content and you'll find more than a few people commenting that it completely destroyed their motivation to even try to paint their models because they're using that level as a point of comparison. If there is a noticeable skill gap in any scenario then there is potential for it to make the less skilled individual feel like it's pointless to even try, especially if the more skilled person doesn't take action to avoid those feelings. The fact that gameplay intrinsically makes that scenario more apparent really doesn't justify the pure venom that people get by default in most communities just for trying to improve their gameplay skill.
@@theundeadgentleman4998 Fair enough point, I think the main separating point is, the ones who give up on painting from comparing themselves to the absolute best are making a completely isolated decision, I started painting by seeing said content creators and I got quite the opposite from it, I started painting in order to one day getting close to it, knowing full well it might not happen and if it did, it would take great time and dedication And the main difference is, playing really really well, usually means your opponent doesn't get to play at all Fair, you might feel embarrassed that your minis aren't as well painted as your fellow players, but while a competitive player can actively damage your enjoyment (or just outright not even allow you to play), a painter (of any skill level) will always try to nurture other peoples desire and skill to paint, that's why you see so many painting content creators, that's why Ninjon and Guy constantly find easy hacks to help people get started and say things like "keep slaying the grey" Now squidmar I feel is a very isolated case, one of the reasons I don't enjoy his content is because (like others like zorpazorp) it's only "hey look what I can do!", instead of the ones that I actually enjoy and motivate me, again like Guy and Ninjon, that go "hey look at what YOU can do!" Art can be done by yourself, for yourself Competition needs a willing participant My art only affects you, if you let it My JSA list with 7 minis in hidden deployment that can kill you without you even having a chance to react in turn 1, affects you, whether you like it or not
Excuuuse me Princess. I'm ALSO a Lore Wh0re. I can see negative interactions in both the hobby and lore aspect of the game, they're just less common and maybe we DO need terms for them. It's unlikely anyone is going to make you feel bad for fielding a well-painted army BUT someone my make rude comments if your army is poorly painted or unpainted. 40k has a serious issue with lore nerds gatekeeping and trying to ruin other people's fun i.e. the Female Space Marine discussion (I once had a concept for a IG regiment mocked by several lore nerds on a discord).
LOLL yes you are a lore whore! Good callout with the Female Space Marines. That's so funny. I forgot about that, but those lore gatekeepers are so trash lolll. I do feel like that's a function of 40k though. A 40k loretuber discord is the first place I ever saw anti-semitic content in my life. I got out of there so fast.
We don't "villainize" what you call "competitive players" ... we just don't like playing with people who treat the game as a money fight, a zero sum fun situation, or otherwise suck out the fun and drive up the cost in terms of money, time, resources, mental energy, and so on. These "Competitive Players" are the reason the wargaming hobby is a footnote compared to the roleplaying game community. They drive off perspective new players even faster than 40k sticker shock, or Games Workshop's radically intolerant attitude and legal warfare team.
Thanks Tomy! Competitive players driving off prospective players is a big claim! I think what I can agree to instead is that TTRPG are often co-op, where wargaming is often PvP 1v1 gaming. I think that is inherently going to yield more antagonistic results than a co-op game. I think another consideration is the existence of the GM. When GMs are good, they’re facilitating great play experiences. Which is not to put all the onus on them for good experiences, but the game design basically has an innate referee. I’ve heard old versions of Warhammer and other war games had GM’s, too. Lastly, I think there’s something to be said about comparing video games to TTRPG. I can watch a competitive Street Fighter streamer for their upbeat personality. But it’s much more difficult to create and consume wargaming content. The lowest barrier is comment sections, so even if there were bright, optimistic competitive characters, there are limited options for them to shine within the community.
I think the problem is not the competative players but misunderstanding of what you are playing for. Like, maybe it's a deal in Ukrainian community only, but I've never heard someone playing to win as a problem in BattleTech community, though it's always a topic if you are playing 40K. 'Cause 40K is obsessed with balance and rules and changes in meta, while BT let's you essentially play your own game, with whole books of optional rules to use or not to use, which you can discuss with your opponent, creating a moment of needed discussion "what do we want to play". When everybody came to a tournament with something powerful-only nobody saw this as a problem, for you have come to play a competitive game, you knew what you were singing for. And when you come to have some roleplay-like fun, by creating fun situations, only to see army of something ultra-non-lorewise organised, to be beaten -- of course you'll be feeling tricked, even if you've actually never discussed what you do want to play with your opponent. I think, the problem of "competative is main community locomotive" could be fixed by more narrative events. So people who are playing competative could relax and try something new, and people who don't could find themselves involved with those players in same community-action.
Thanks Oleska! I agree that communicating about what kind of game both players want is the key! Also, locally at least, I think we’ve had trouble getting enough players for narrative events, even though it feels like there is a lot of interest! We’ll keep trying
You ever play Corn-hole? If you play against a average person for fun it's just a silly back yard game. You play against someone who dose it competitively and they can make shots with their eyes slowed backwards. Now it's not even a contest.
I think that this discussion could be broken down further as to why competitive players are viewed negatively in the hobby. 1) this is a hobby that attracts a lot more neuro-atypical people than other hobbies, so people who either don’t act like NTs and/or don’t know how to act around people who aren’t NT are interacting. If there’s isn’t a strong, positive, open minded environment created, some behavior can be misunderstood as negative - especially in the competitive setting. 2) there are some people whose whole identity is based on being the “best” in one thing and this can make their behavior negative, poor sportsmanship, etc 3) the people from #1 and #2 can focus on having the newest things/rules/pieces for different reasons: neuro atypical people can focus on having the most up to date things because it’s the “right” way to do the hobby, while poor sportsmanship competitive players can use this as a reason to be “better” than other people As people tend to remember negative experiences more than positive (unfortunately… thanks human brain coding 🙄🙄🙄) it’s easy for lots of people to broadly paint “competitive players” as “bad” bc of those negative experiences (Sorry for the blurb, Dek. You know this is one of the subjects I like to nerd out on 😂💖)
You may not have been called a painting tryhard, but there's a lot of passive aggressive "I don't have the time for that, I have a life" type comments. Or "seeing that makes me not want to paint". It's not hard to be a painter, and we don't have to deal with outright "You make the game unfun" comments.
OOOOOOF. Yeah man, actually I remember that now! I would show my friend cool boards online, and they’d say stuff like “that makes me feel like a noob” Bummmer. That’s on them tho.
It is not the competitive player's responsibility to measure how much effort an opponent is willing to put into the game and then adjust their play to match. Excluding people who are just a-holes,
@@CornerCase ever heard of D&D “session 0” I think every single game of every tabletop game should start with a discussion “why are we playing this?” Are you testing out a list/build/team/faction? Are you training for a tournament? Or are you just burning an hour before your kid’s soccer practice? SET EXPECTATIONS. Does a comp player need to “tone it down” nah, but maybe that game just isn’t for them? Is that ok? To just say “I don’t think we can play, because we want different things.” Judging the casual Frostgrave players with their empty containers for terrain and monster can LOS blockers doesn’t make sense to me if both players are enjoying the game.
Eh for me a majority of competitive players have be A holes and sweaty nerds about the funniest thing. Like people gave me shit for having a certain HQ or choices because they're not the best ect. They keep games alive by going to tourney's so guess I'll thank em there.
Thanks Jubilee! Lol on the other side of things, I’ve met players who were aggressively narrative driven. They bring the fluffiest army knowing damn well it’s going to crash and burn, and still get salty when it’s happening 😂. I think my local meta is an oasis of super nice competitive players, so I wish this experience on everyone.
Please don't use the term "micro-aggression". It's just nonsense. Regardless of the depth of a persons aggressive or offensive actions, they either are or are not aggressive. Adding "micro" to the beginning of the descriptor is unnecessary. If you think you're seeing "micro-aggressive" tendencies everywhere, its more likely an issue with your perceptions of their behavior than any aggressive bent intended by that individual. The verbal jabs are simply aggressive, nothing small about them. That said, sure comp players may keep the game being played at tourneys, but they are the EXTREME minority in the wargaming/hobby space (think 3 or 4:1 ratio, casual:competitive). I'm sorry if this rings untrue to you, but it's a simple fact that comp players wouldn't have games to play in shops or at tourneys at all if the hobbyists and casuals didn't buy so much product and keep the companies afloat, ESPECIALLY when it comes to GW games.
@@actualwafflesenjoyer using the term this many times in a 20 minute video is weird. Yes, you are correct, it is a nonsense-i mean, psychiatric term from the 70s that still doesn't see broad usage in the field, and only sees niche usage in liberalized social circles whom like to focus on their own victimhood.
Thanks Shredeemer! Microaggression is a more specific term that usually refers specifically to Exclusionary Behaviors. My intention in the video is not at all to defend bad players, but rather to try and decouple the idea of bad players from the greater competitive community.
![I.N "HALLUCINATION" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/n5B5q1Hwt_U/mqdefault.jpg)
Start of 8th edition, Guilliman and Death Guard were the new kids on the block. 1000 point local GW store monthly tournament. Where we live, we didn’t have a wargaming club or anything like it back then, so for many of us it was the one time in a month to get some games in.
One such tournament, one player came with an Ultramarine list, consisting of Guilliman, 2 Lieutenants, 2 Rhinos and 2 Sniper Scout squads with rocket launchers. Placed Guilliman in the middle, flanked by the 2 Lieutenants 2 mm more to the front, flanked on either side by the Rhinos 2 mm out in front. Scouts way back in cover. Auras galore. I had a proxy Typhus, two large bunches of Cultists and a ton of Pox Walkers and three Blight-Haulers for guns. Maybe some Plague Marines, I don’t really remember that part. No way to get to his warlord with my guns, had to shoot at the Rhinos while he sniped my Blight-Haulers off the board. Big open space in the middle (not much space in the store, so very small two by four foot table sections), so no other way but to go through there. He played the list against two other players in the same way, easily winning the tournament. I was so frustrated I threw the game after the second round after I lost my last Hauler and my Cultists ran off. I knew I would only be able to charge the Rhinos in the third round, while he woud be blasting away at my Pox Walkers. His take on his positioning was “Them’s the rules, so what…?” Credits to him for trying to be nice by gonig "Oh, don't give up, you're almost there" but we both knew I would not be able to kill a Primarch, the 2 Lieutenants and 2 Rhinos with 20 Pox Walkers, while a bunch of snipers were going at Typhus.
When AdMech first came out in 7th edition I jumped at them (Nurgle and AdMech are my favourites), I painted up 1000 points within a couple weeks (a novum for me) and went to the aforementioned tournament. I had a unit of 2 Kastellans with triple Phosphors, 1 unit of Breachers with Haywire guns (very powerful back then), 1 unit of Destroyers with Grav Guns, a unit of Ruststalkers and a single Dragoon. I wrecked 2 out of my 3 opponents on my second turn (I tabled them pretty harshly) and reached a draw on the third game. I saw the havoc this wrought and while I won the day (the only time I did) I apologized to the other gamers for making their day not a fun one.
The bottom line is, when competitive players are… let’s say, inclined, to bring Primarchs to the 40k version or Alarielle to an AoS version of a 1000 point local fun tournament, only they have the fun. And that is the issue I have with “competitive gaming”. My Ultramarine opponent described above is a brilliant painter. I will never be that good. His stuff is amazing. Utterly amazing. But he sucks the fun out of the actual gaming. Almost every time. So let the world elite gamers battle it out at the Grand Tournaments. But please come with an “fun for all” attitude to the local stuff. For some of us these are the only games we can play.
Thanks for sharing bluewater! That match sounds super brutal! Kudos for you for even playing that Guilliman matchup long as you did! That guy doesn’t sound like a bad dude, but it does sound like he maybe wasn’t empathetic to the idea that some people only get to play once in a while! That sucks! I wish you only fun games from now on!
The main take away I get from this is something I know to be 100% true and its GW refuses to balance their game correctly. In its current form you can say that 40k can be played at 500, 1k, 1.5k and 2k all with the same set of rules and be balanced. That is just not possible. Each total needs way more restrictions in what you can bring to force a "fair" game. If they leave the rules open to bring lords of war in small point games that is a GW problem and I don't blame people bringing that stuff to tournaments because GW needs to fix their game. I think Boarding Actions is a fantastic start at acknowledging small point games need special rules and hope they expand on this.
Great video! Competetive players can make or break play group. I think as long as both players know how the game will look like (cutthroat or just a casual game with keeping rules correct) then there might be less issues.
I agree that painting is usually not looked at negatively and for me that's a good thing!
Side note: I've pulled the trigger and bought Zoraida Rotten Harvest boxes! I was positively surprised with cast quality! There are some gaps to fill and mouldlines to cut, but the minis are amazing! So much character! Hopefully my painting abilities will transfer boxart to painting!
I'm suprised your channel has not yet exploded (in subs)!
Thanks as always Patryk! Lol I love hearing about your paint table every time, too!!
Those are some sick REMs! @5:02
haha thanks Curse! I've been working on them :]
When I call someone a "Competitive Player" I mean it as almost an insult. I mean that I don't want to play the game with them outside of a tournament, and the only reason I play them in tournaments is because you're obviously going to play competitive players in tournaments. So what do I call players who are kind during play, but whoop my ass you ask? "Good Players" is what i call them, like "Yeah that guy is really good, he wrecks my shit every time."
I've ran 40k leagues, T.O.'d 40k tournaments every other month for a few years, and played in lots of tournaments; I wouldn't consider myself a competitive player. I guess I'd argue if your fun is contingent on you winning the game you don't like the game you like winning.
Thanks Brent! Lollll I wasn't sure where this comment was going after the first sentence, but I think your POV is pretty reasonable. There were definitely times, especially in Malifaux, where I felt like some people were motivated to play it because the game was small enough where they could feel like a really big fish.
Love to see my Kasrkin storm trooper getting some screen time again.
Yeah, competitive players are an important part of the ecosystem. The issue is that some competitive players are "that players" but not all competitive players are "that players" and people paint them all with the same #2 kolinski sable brush
LOLLLL dude NGL I’m on that Windsor Newton 7 series 😂.
But I do feel invigorated in my campaign to separate That Player from Competitive Players.
My experience in the hobby is limited since I usually just play my friend but my main issue is casual players being "that guys" way more than competitive players. That said most people I play in competitive formats i accept many of the people I play with are not "competitive" people so they could count for both since they do both. But we have a group locally that "strictly enforces casual play" by their own omission and it is a real turn off to ever play with them. Whenever I talk with these types my main question is "How do I know whats acceptable to play?" I get some nebulous answer that honestly amounts to if you don't bring something bad they can easily steamroll you are a "try hard ahole" by their standards.
Baby's first tournament tomorrow, good timing!
Lolllll
I think this is kind of a "not all polygons are rectangles, but all rectangles are polygons" situation. Not all competitive players are bad, but generally speaking if someone has a bad experience, it is going to be with a "competitive" player, and that is what has given it such a negative connotation. I've been a war gamer off and on for roughly 22 years, though hardly active through-out the entire time-frame. I played fairly competitively for a time, but in general consider myself a fairly casual "I just like to roll some dice and hang out" kind of player. In that time, I've seen a lot of players come and go, and more than a few interactions, and in general the most negative experiences I have seen, have been when hyper competitive players play new players in a hyper competitive fashion. When someone who has just started playing comes in who is still learning rules and hardly knows what they are doing and gets tabled turn 1 by a super competitive list, it isn't going to be fun for them, and on more than one occasion I've seen that happen to someone, and they just quit playing.
The majority of people who get in to war gaming are going to be casual players, it's simply the way it is. Folks that want to get the models they think look cool, put them on a table, and roll some dice. That doesn't mean there is anything wrong with being a very competitive player, but I do think it means as a competitive player, you need to take in to account who you are playing. If you have the ability to run a hyper-competitive list, it's almost a guarantee that you have the ability to run a non hyper-competitive list. In my opinion, it's always good form to understand the kind of game you are going to be playing, and especially if you are going against a new player, I think it's simply good form to initiate that conversation as the person with more experience. We are a ridiculously niche hobby, and the only way to grow it in any significant form is to *keep* new players playing. Someone can start off as a casual player, and turn in to a competitive player that gives you someone to play those hyper competitive lists and games with, but if you scare them off right away it's just another person who isn't playing. Social games will always be driven by community, no community, no games. And the role of custodian to those games is always going to fall to those with experience.
Thanks for sharing ChickenHawk! This is a pretty reasonable take. I super agree that it falls on everyone, but especially veterans to try and keep people in. I don't know any other hobby that has to try so hard to keep people in haha.
I like to view it as a choice,if im going to play competitively I will either set up a local match with a likeminded player or ill attend a true tournament.if I want a casual match ill play with a friend with no strict adherances or nuance.
Thanks Jason! Knowing what you want is half the battle!
Strangely enough I have been shamed for painting and indeed called a "try hard" and that all I want is a beauty paegent on the table.
Other than that, the reason people have an issue with competitive players is that we've all had a bad experience with an overly competitive person, that is not putting time to his list and just shows up with the tournament winning list we all saw the weekend before at a big event.
Another issue is that in all the hobby, the only time you have a bad time is when you play a really bad match and we link that to the one person infront of us.
For me what has always rubbed me the wrong way was that companies tend to cater to competitive players, while the bigger chunk of the community that likes more randomness and certain unbalance in the name of fun, is shoved to the side.
Carkossss!!! Omg who would shame your paints?! That person is insecure. I would only be excited to see your stuff if you were in my local meta 🙂
I'll counterpoint that that "catering" to competitive players with eratta and balance passes does directly benefit casual players. If something was overtuned and never addressed it makes for a negative experience for those who don't know the meta workarounds, and so if someone takes it as part of their chosen faction it can destabilize and foster resentment in casual groups because it is entirely unchecked.
Hyper competitive players drive out the casuals and killed my local meta.
New players got treated super rudely by them and now we have no players. I miss my weekly games.
In my experience the competitive guys kill communities.
Hey Marquisdan! I'm so sorry that happened to you!
There are definitely those players out there, and I don't deny that.
Even in my meta, there's a guy who's honestly pretty nice, and wants to build his local community, but people actually don't enjoy playing with him because he can't not be competitive. Getting a "demo" of game and not getting to play feels pretty bad.
I think it has to do with how these sections of the community communicate. It's easy to praise paint jobs when somebody puts in the smallest effort into it, but to comment on the competitive nature of a team you have to be negative. I've only ever heard painters being positive and willing to teach. whereas competitive players while seem to only really explain why everything is bad and what not to use, deflating possible excitement for the hobby now that the many unit possibilities has dropped to a small tier list.
Point being, Competitive conversation tend to be negative a push less dedicated people away, whether intentional or not
Thanks sheep!
The negativity does end up being a huge share of voice doesn’t it? Damn shame. I feel like it’s a video game thing for sure. Like is it like this in competitive sports?
@@CornerCase I do think it's a product of the competitive nature, I see it in card games as well. When you only have so much time for your hobbies you tend to focus on a certain aspect of it, in this case being Competitive, pushing to be better/best. I think it can easily be taken as dismissive when you are new and want to engage with all aspects of a hobby till maybe you find your niche and being told "no", "don't look over there, it's bad".
I do think that video games do also share this problem. I'm not sure about sports, the larger spectator appeal makes it a bit different I think
Nice seeing you make vids again
Thanks grey! Really was eager to get back to it! The channel's been growing well, and I'm excited to see how far we can take it just hanging out like we do.
I’m happy I can be a part of this wholesome channel. Discussions on the relationships between the subsets of our niche community is so healthy. I used to be a “competitive xwing player” and now I fall into the “everybody else” category as my home life has taken a change and my hobby has had to adapt. I’m more into “push some proudly-poorly-painted models around and roll some dice while drinking fizzy liquid.” Kinda hobbyist. And I’m so very thankful there’s a space for me here.
Thanks Noxious! 🥲 happy to have you and see you in the comments so often
It’s no question competitive players keep the game alive, but that doesn’t mean they cannot also be elitist pr*cks.
A well painted army or great looking table has never been the cause of a negative play experience for me. That honor is reserved strictly for competitive players.
I admit they are a necessary evil but they are very worthy of villainization.
Thanks Kevin! It sounds like you’ve come across a lot of bad players! I’m sorry about that! It’s definitely not fun, and you’ve done well to stick to the hobby in spite of it!
I feel like being good at the game is different than the other parts. If someone did some kitbashing or some painting, they are making art that you can appreciate. If someone knows a bunch about lore and memes, that is sort of storytelling and a communal language they can share with you.
Being good at the game is not like this. If someone is massively better than you, they will wind up putting you in a spot where they make you choose between hiding your army on the tabletop, or getting them massacred, or they have to take it easy on you, which can feel kind of condescending. The competitive aspect of the hobby is the only part where someone being good at it can make it harder for you to enjoy.
If someone is better at the game then that affords them the ability to run weaker, potentially more fluffy lists as well as provide advice to improve your plays, or just by picking up how they position their units. Any time someone is better at something they have the opportunity to teach you how to get closer to their level, either directly with advice or indirectly by noticing the techniques they apply.
A player with high system mastery certainly _can_ simply stomp their opponent into the ground but so can an expert painter make your models look like a toddler fingerpainted your colours or a lore expert could make obscure references and jokes that you don't understand and exclude you from those around you. It's all about how the person handles the situation.
@@theundeadgentleman4998 Well sure, anyone could be a jerk if they wanted to be, but hobby games with competitive sides naturally trend towards being slightly zero sum in terms of enjoyment in a way other parts aren't (At least in the actual mechanics of the game).
Also, a player who actually understands the game and cares about the mechanics of the game is going to have a very different idea of what a 'fluffy' list is. While they might not bring something competitive, being interested in the mechanics of the game will naturally lead to building lists with power in them. A fluffy list might not be powerful in ways that work competitively, but if you aren't super competitive, you aren't in a position to play around the 30 mortar list.
It’s very interesting and I think it comes down to those few people who can’t stop being competitive even on new players and that’s when the bad press comes from.
I played a 40k player as a newbie and he proceeded to put a tank in a building and as he could draw line of sight through a window slit in the building shot my unit off the board . It became a game of him bending rules or using my lack of knowledge ( as being a noob ) to just stomp me with gotcha moments galore , as you can imagine a negative experience.
On the flip side I played age of sigmar with anther more experienced gamer and he more talked me through explaining things as we went gave advice on tactics and that’s how you want a player to be . Still play AoS to this day and hope to find an infinity player who can introduce me into game like that .
Thanks as always Jamie!
Yeah, those people who are willing to take care of you in the hobby are super important to keeping the community thriving. I'm glad you found a home in AoS! It's a super cool looking game.
@@CornerCase thanks it’s super cool game and I’m hopeful in finding a local infinity group too. Or see if they will have a few games with me
That armory at 4:19: where is it from?
That's from Warsenal's Cosmica range, I believe.
Haha thanks Realder!
I find the divide interesting, especially in the content creation world. When you have all these Tier Lists that really dump hard on 75% of the models for any game system as being "trash" because they don't work well in the current meta. I don't want to bring a "trash" army to a tournament that I've spent a ton of time building and painting and learning just to get stomped just because I think they look cool or thematic. That being said, it's not just wargaming, I'm a "filthy casual" in so many different hobbies that I probably don't give the competitive players enough room in my space to prove they're just not going to pubstomp me into oblivion and give me a complete negative play experience.
I like your Fisherman's Guild colored Kasarkin
Haha thanks Curse! A gift from my neighbor! Pretty blessed to have a wargaming neighbor XD
I love the community but I have never had a good gaming experience with somebody who considers themselves competetive. My models and army were always being put down because they "were shit" so I just stopped playing with anybody who plays competitively and I've been having a better experience since just playing with friends and friends of friends at the LGS. Just my experience though. Hopefully not everybody experiences this the same way I have.
Awww I’m sorry Javelin! Bummer! People who talk like that generally aren’t even that good in the first place tho 😂
I mean people who say models are shit and make you feel bad
@@CornerCase I mean obviously lol. But unfortunately in my gaming scene that seems to be the lion share of "competitive" players. Same goes for MTG as well. I only play commander with friends because my decks were "sub optimal" and gimmicky.
I will say being a competitive player in a mostly casual meta is very frustrating on both sides of the fence.
I see the potential in people that just don't elevate their game to the level I know they can easily achieve and surpass with more effort.
However that is not who they are or how they wish to experince the game. So rather than pushing people into something they are not choosing for themselves. I changed my approach based on my experince running demo games.
i have taken to carrying two armies or at least list configuration. One is for competitive play the other is well a joke or bad army. this let's me go as hard as I like without typically creating a negative play experience. While having a competitive list available if one of the other competitive players shows up.
The other thing is I quit playing in tournaments years ago now, I just TO events. I like to hit two or three cons a year when pandemics are not ruffling feathers. I can stretch my competitive legs there and have fun with people that are just out to merc each other.
Thanks as always Snarky!
I really feel that pain of disparate skill levels. Leaning Infinity, my first 2 months, I was just desparate to give my opponent a good game. I can only imagine if I wasn't actively trying to get good, that feeling would be enough to make me quit.
@@CornerCase well the one thing playing bad lists does is it allows you to experiment with non optimized profiles.
You can find value is something that you would just overlook because it seems over costed or most of the profiles is poor but that one thing makes it viable in this one mission.
One of the hilarious accidental finds was just how good riot stoppers and adhesive launchers can be. I completely inadvertently trolled the hell out of a guy in his 5th game. I handed him 3 lists totally open information and told him to pick a list he wanted to play against. Now... in my defense he was the friend of one of our infinity n2 veterans. I had seen them hanging around at the game nights for months... I thought he had gotten some lessons. Nah they had just been painting. So here I am trying to be nice to a newer player going pick your poison with totally open info. And he picked my o12 troll list of everyone has to have a riot stoppers or adhesive launcher.
I found out the error that happened almost immediately as basically everything on his side of the table was immobilized or burning order through the top of one.
Ahhhh got super excited thinking I would meet you at battle by the beach!
Sorry! Baby! I MIGHT swing by, but it’s tough! Definitely can’t play!
infinity competitive players are the best people in the community ❤️
Awww I agree! Thanks as always Metallaio!
There is a world of difference between the 40k and Infinity competative scene.
I think this started when GW learned from video games what a cash cow competative play was. The constant stream of must have models to compete and list building being more of a factor in winning than actual play are the culprits.
Infinity rules and community seem to be specifically geared towards making sure there are no gotchas and everyone has a good time. Kind behavior is written right into the rules.
A more philisophical look makes me wonder about American culture being rooted in competition. Claims are made about how it is good for everyone but those people tend to be the ones with the "winning armies". Are the games we play just reflections if this?
Thanks Ham!
Interesting discussion about competition being a deep cultural thing. I do think American media for sure kindof oversells winning and the power of the individual.
As per winning armies, for sure! Many people who love winning only play what wins! Vs many people who love the hobby more just play what makes them happy. At least in my local scene, though, I have been pretty blessed to see people who are both great at the hobby and great at the game. It's rare, but it's such a fine thing to come across one of these all around Real Deal individuals.
As I am a casual wargamer, this is just escapism and mental health support for me. My rule is you can bring your competitive list/A game just don't be a d**k about it. As long as both parties have fun that is all that matters to me.
Im not a big competitive player. I have been calling a casual. And i have had people be kinda critical of my painting. But i would say generally people are cool at my LGS.
Thanks Kook! Dang that’s a bummer when people are too insecure to appreciate other peoples paint jobs
Playing against someone with a well painted army is a treat. Playing against someone who has knowledge about the lore is cool. Playing against someone who only brings the strongest cheesiest list can be ok I guess? But it can also be pretty boring. It's the only focus that can damage the other players enjoyment, not that it has to but it can.
The reason no other aspect of the hobby is seen negatively is quite obvious really
There is no conceivable way someone else building or painting will hurt someone else's experience
It's always a net positive for everyone involved
You have more interesting and cool things to use, or at least fight against
The absolute worst thing that can come from someone else painting their stuff, is making you feel ashamed for not painting yours, which is still a positive as you can use that as a motivator
Meanwhile playing well, or "mercilessly" can very easily damage someone else's experience, especially if the competitive player is vs a noob
By all means, if it's a tournament, bring your A game, that's the point of it
But the hatred exists because of people who actively take the absolute best things vs people that are either new or just prefer more casual ways of playing, like using fluff lists
For instance, in my FLGS I saw a pro player (seen him in tournament before) bring a hacking heavy list vs a first timer who literally just finished building his very first yu Jing models (all Invincible Army), now anyway you slice it, that's kind of a dick move
Of course, not everyone who plays competitive is like that, but the fact remains, only within the competitive mindset will you find people who are willing to stomp on other peoples enjoyment for their own exclusive benefit, and as such they are the only ones who get hate
And yeah there are some people that are just sore losers and competitive players bring in the bank
But I know plenty of newbies who tried to get into a game system, and got stomped so bad they gave up on the game entirely, that works for no ones benefit, and it can only be caused by competitive players who don't know how to take it easy
Disclaimer: Some competitive players are absolute heroes who know when to take it slow and when to go hard on a game, and such people are the ones who got me and my friends into the game
Like everything there are shades of grey
Thanks Alex! That was something I was thinking about how to discuss. There is a bit of a social contract on a normal game night that both parties should be responsible for each other’s fun, isn’t there?
My second ever infinity game was like that. A tournament guy, the guy who was running that local groups game night, brought a TAG, and mowed down my whole army in a single turn. I didn’t even know how to play yet, really. I think he thought it was tough love. I didn’t play there again, and that group dissolved.
But then I met my current group. Everyone is super competitive, but everyone is super nice. The first 3 or 4 games I did there, we played like 3 hours and didn’t get past turn 1, because everyone was really involved and committed to ramping me up. It was a really great experience.
So, I know it’s a mix bag out there, but I’m optimistic.
Thanks again Alex!
I would push back that there's no negative outcome for being way better at painting, go look at a content creator like Squidmar or any of the thousand other very very skilled painters making content and you'll find more than a few people commenting that it completely destroyed their motivation to even try to paint their models because they're using that level as a point of comparison.
If there is a noticeable skill gap in any scenario then there is potential for it to make the less skilled individual feel like it's pointless to even try, especially if the more skilled person doesn't take action to avoid those feelings. The fact that gameplay intrinsically makes that scenario more apparent really doesn't justify the pure venom that people get by default in most communities just for trying to improve their gameplay skill.
@@theundeadgentleman4998 Fair enough point, I think the main separating point is, the ones who give up on painting from comparing themselves to the absolute best are making a completely isolated decision, I started painting by seeing said content creators and I got quite the opposite from it, I started painting in order to one day getting close to it, knowing full well it might not happen and if it did, it would take great time and dedication
And the main difference is, playing really really well, usually means your opponent doesn't get to play at all
Fair, you might feel embarrassed that your minis aren't as well painted as your fellow players, but while a competitive player can actively damage your enjoyment (or just outright not even allow you to play), a painter (of any skill level) will always try to nurture other peoples desire and skill to paint, that's why you see so many painting content creators, that's why Ninjon and Guy constantly find easy hacks to help people get started and say things like "keep slaying the grey"
Now squidmar I feel is a very isolated case, one of the reasons I don't enjoy his content is because (like others like zorpazorp) it's only "hey look what I can do!", instead of the ones that I actually enjoy and motivate me, again like Guy and Ninjon, that go "hey look at what YOU can do!"
Art can be done by yourself, for yourself
Competition needs a willing participant
My art only affects you, if you let it
My JSA list with 7 minis in hidden deployment that can kill you without you even having a chance to react in turn 1, affects you, whether you like it or not
Excuuuse me Princess. I'm ALSO a Lore Wh0re.
I can see negative interactions in both the hobby and lore aspect of the game, they're just less common and maybe we DO need terms for them. It's unlikely anyone is going to make you feel bad for fielding a well-painted army BUT someone my make rude comments if your army is poorly painted or unpainted. 40k has a serious issue with lore nerds gatekeeping and trying to ruin other people's fun i.e. the Female Space Marine discussion (I once had a concept for a IG regiment mocked by several lore nerds on a discord).
LOLL yes you are a lore whore!
Good callout with the Female Space Marines. That's so funny. I forgot about that, but those lore gatekeepers are so trash lolll.
I do feel like that's a function of 40k though. A 40k loretuber discord is the first place I ever saw anti-semitic content in my life. I got out of there so fast.
We don't "villainize" what you call "competitive players" ... we just don't like playing with people who treat the game as a money fight, a zero sum fun situation, or otherwise suck out the fun and drive up the cost in terms of money, time, resources, mental energy, and so on. These "Competitive Players" are the reason the wargaming hobby is a footnote compared to the roleplaying game community. They drive off perspective new players even faster than 40k sticker shock, or Games Workshop's radically intolerant attitude and legal warfare team.
Thanks Tomy!
Competitive players driving off prospective players is a big claim! I think what I can agree to instead is that TTRPG are often co-op, where wargaming is often PvP 1v1 gaming. I think that is inherently going to yield more antagonistic results than a co-op game.
I think another consideration is the existence of the GM. When GMs are good, they’re facilitating great play experiences. Which is not to put all the onus on them for good experiences, but the game design basically has an innate referee. I’ve heard old versions of Warhammer and other war games had GM’s, too.
Lastly, I think there’s something to be said about comparing video games to TTRPG. I can watch a competitive Street Fighter streamer for their upbeat personality. But it’s much more difficult to create and consume wargaming content. The lowest barrier is comment sections, so even if there were bright, optimistic competitive characters, there are limited options for them to shine within the community.
I know those tables😜
Hahahaha yuuuuppp! Garage Meta represent
Warms up commenting fingers....
😂
I think the problem is not the competative players but misunderstanding of what you are playing for.
Like, maybe it's a deal in Ukrainian community only, but I've never heard someone playing to win as a problem in BattleTech community, though it's always a topic if you are playing 40K. 'Cause 40K is obsessed with balance and rules and changes in meta, while BT let's you essentially play your own game, with whole books of optional rules to use or not to use, which you can discuss with your opponent, creating a moment of needed discussion "what do we want to play".
When everybody came to a tournament with something powerful-only nobody saw this as a problem, for you have come to play a competitive game, you knew what you were singing for. And when you come to have some roleplay-like fun, by creating fun situations, only to see army of something ultra-non-lorewise organised, to be beaten -- of course you'll be feeling tricked, even if you've actually never discussed what you do want to play with your opponent.
I think, the problem of "competative is main community locomotive" could be fixed by more narrative events. So people who are playing competative could relax and try something new, and people who don't could find themselves involved with those players in same community-action.
Thanks Oleska!
I agree that communicating about what kind of game both players want is the key!
Also, locally at least, I think we’ve had trouble getting enough players for narrative events, even though it feels like there is a lot of interest! We’ll keep trying
You ever play Corn-hole? If you play against a average person for fun it's just a silly back yard game. You play against someone who dose it competitively and they can make shots with their eyes slowed backwards. Now it's not even a contest.
LOLLLLL I LOVE cornhole! Hahahaha you saying cornhole game design not conducive for disparate skill levels? 😂😂😂
I think that this discussion could be broken down further as to why competitive players are viewed negatively in the hobby.
1) this is a hobby that attracts a lot more neuro-atypical people than other hobbies, so people who either don’t act like NTs and/or don’t know how to act around people who aren’t NT are interacting. If there’s isn’t a strong, positive, open minded environment created, some behavior can be misunderstood as negative - especially in the competitive setting.
2) there are some people whose whole identity is based on being the “best” in one thing and this can make their behavior negative, poor sportsmanship, etc
3) the people from #1 and #2 can focus on having the newest things/rules/pieces for different reasons: neuro atypical people can focus on having the most up to date things because it’s the “right” way to do the hobby, while poor sportsmanship competitive players can use this as a reason to be “better” than other people
As people tend to remember negative experiences more than positive (unfortunately… thanks human brain coding 🙄🙄🙄) it’s easy for lots of people to broadly paint “competitive players” as “bad” bc of those negative experiences
(Sorry for the blurb, Dek. You know this is one of the subjects I like to nerd out on 😂💖)
This comment ^^
You may not have been called a painting tryhard, but there's a lot of passive aggressive "I don't have the time for that, I have a life" type comments. Or "seeing that makes me not want to paint". It's not hard to be a painter, and we don't have to deal with outright "You make the game unfun" comments.
OOOOOOF. Yeah man, actually I remember that now! I would show my friend cool boards online, and they’d say stuff like “that makes me feel like a noob” Bummmer. That’s on them tho.
@@CornerCase but it does make you feel a little bad when you hear it.
It is not the competitive player's responsibility to measure how much effort an opponent is willing to put into the game and then adjust their play to match. Excluding people who are just a-holes,
Yeah I think this is a tough topic. Like how to tactfully make a video about good play experience attitude? Because it does come from both sides.
@@CornerCase ever heard of D&D “session 0” I think every single game of every tabletop game should start with a discussion “why are we playing this?”
Are you testing out a list/build/team/faction? Are you training for a tournament? Or are you just burning an hour before your kid’s soccer practice? SET EXPECTATIONS. Does a comp player need to “tone it down” nah, but maybe that game just isn’t for them? Is that ok? To just say “I don’t think we can play, because we want different things.”
Judging the casual Frostgrave players with their empty containers for terrain and monster can LOS blockers doesn’t make sense to me if both players are enjoying the game.
Eh for me a majority of competitive players have be A holes and sweaty nerds about the funniest thing. Like people gave me shit for having a certain HQ or choices because they're not the best ect. They keep games alive by going to tourney's so guess I'll thank em there.
Thanks Jubilee!
Lol on the other side of things, I’ve met players who were aggressively narrative driven. They bring the fluffiest army knowing damn well it’s going to crash and burn, and still get salty when it’s happening 😂.
I think my local meta is an oasis of super nice competitive players, so I wish this experience on everyone.
Please don't use the term "micro-aggression". It's just nonsense. Regardless of the depth of a persons aggressive or offensive actions, they either are or are not aggressive. Adding "micro" to the beginning of the descriptor is unnecessary. If you think you're seeing "micro-aggressive" tendencies everywhere, its more likely an issue with your perceptions of their behavior than any aggressive bent intended by that individual. The verbal jabs are simply aggressive, nothing small about them.
That said, sure comp players may keep the game being played at tourneys, but they are the EXTREME minority in the wargaming/hobby space (think 3 or 4:1 ratio, casual:competitive). I'm sorry if this rings untrue to you, but it's a simple fact that comp players wouldn't have games to play in shops or at tourneys at all if the hobbyists and casuals didn't buy so much product and keep the companies afloat, ESPECIALLY when it comes to GW games.
@@actualwafflesenjoyer using the term this many times in a 20 minute video is weird. Yes, you are correct, it is a nonsense-i mean, psychiatric term from the 70s that still doesn't see broad usage in the field, and only sees niche usage in liberalized social circles whom like to focus on their own victimhood.
Thanks Shredeemer! Microaggression is a more specific term that usually refers specifically to Exclusionary Behaviors.
My intention in the video is not at all to defend bad players, but rather to try and decouple the idea of bad players from the greater competitive community.