Discussion in 'General CPA Stuff' started by TheCasualOblivion, Feb 16, 2005.
Exactly. It does not get any clearer than this.
Thanks. I think this should be the thesis to everyone that I've said.
I'm thinking of copying & pasting my remarks and putting up for an article. You know...those oinky things that everyone detests.
Here's another typical scenario I see a lot of, that I would assume DUke and HOUTS would also be offended by:
I have a pile of creatures. My opponent has no creatures/some creatures, but none that are any threat to mine. I don't attack.
I see this all the time. People don't attack, and don't kill their opponents when they can. Call it bad play, call it stupid, but it happens. I see it all the time, and I've been seeing it ever since I started playing 10 years ago.
I personally rarely do it. I'll attack on turn 2 with LLanowar Elves whenever possible, and that's how I usually play. Sometimes though, I'll do this myself, and not attack or let somebody alive when I could kill them. Sometimes when I'm playing somebody really bad I'll not attack and let them live for a while because I know I can win whenever I want. Other times, I'll forgo winning on one turn so I can win in more style later. For example, I'm playing my elf deck against a booster draft deck. I can deal lethal damage to my opponent, but instead put 2 additional Heedless Ones into play and pass. Next turn, I drop 3 more elves and attack with three 11/11 Heedless Ones. He dies, in a bit higher style than he would have a turn sooner.
"I have a pile of creatures. My opponent has no creatures/some creatures, but none that are any threat to mine. I don't attack.
I see this all the time. People don't attack, and don't kill their opponents when they can. Call it bad play, call it stupid, but it happens. I see it all the time, and I've been seeing it ever since I started playing 10 years ago."
Wow, so many variables here....
First off, you are wrong. I wouldn't be offended...UNLESS you are in a major tournament and flaunting the state of the game (in which means you are dominating if you can choose not to attack).
With my friends, I might not attack a turn. Sure, we aren't saying we don't have "fun" in the game. Your taking a general idea and making a specific unrational statement.
"He dies, in a bit higher style than he would have a turn sooner."
I know what you mean.
"I see this all the time. People don't attack, and don't kill their opponents when they can. Call it bad play, call it stupid, but it happens. I see it all the time, and I've been seeing it ever since I started playing 10 years ago."
Well, you really aren't being specific here. They don't attack because they forget? Or because they are playing for fun? Or, why?
It's a bad play if they forgot...sure. And if it is a premiere tournament. Not so big if a FNM, or at your friends.
I will highly suggest you reread my comments. You've really overlooked what I was saying.
I play like this too TCO, and I know exactly what you are saying. There is absolutely nothing wrong with wanting to play a solid, balanced game with two decks (or more) at equal levels. Those kinds of games, at least to me (and TCO I gather), seem to be much more rewarding.
Regarding walking into a match underestimating someone's ability, well then you get smoked. Oh well. That said, it isn't difficult to gauge your competition's style without being belittling.
Usually I play a stronger deck the first time I play someone. One of my top 5 at least, unless I'm pretty sure I should grab a lesser one. Its the people I know I usually go easy on.
WHEW! That took me 30 minutes to read all those replies! (and who says that the CPA has no activity these days?)
But, I digress. It would appear that the one thing that is being argued over here is semantics. Everyone wants to tell what their definition of "Casual" is. The whole concept is insane. Casual is just a word that we were throwing around to counter the tournament level play that was out there. It wasn't meant to become the basis of a religion or political movement (I wonder if this is how Karl Marx felt).
One of the things that has truly annoyed me is the fact that so many people think that tournament player and casual player are mutually exclusive. Also, people seem to think that playing to win and playing for fun are also contradictions.
Wake up call for everyone: None of these terms are contradictions because everyone is different. Each one of us has our own points of view on everything. Some of us are Gun-Toting Red-State Conservatives while others could be considered Tree-Hugging Blue State Liberals. Some are Xtians going to church every sunday. Some of us think that there is no God, just free will to deal w/ our modern-day problems. Some of us like orange juice. Some like papaya. Yup, so many things. However, none of these terms truly defines us. At no point should any of us be shoved into a group just because of a definition that is too vague to begin with.
Let's face it folks: there's only one thing that truly defines all of us here. We play Magic and we love playing it. Period.
If you find that someone is playing w/ a style that you don't like, here's an easy solution: don't play w/ them. There are millions of other players out there that would probably love to take his/her place.
"Elitism? That has to be the funniest thing I've heard in years!"
People kill people.
Dang, If "I" can understand this then it must make sense.
Actually there are different levels of rules enforcement in "pro" events, same as in a Casual or home game.
Your opponent draws and extra card. At rules level 3 that is is an immediate game loss, would you do that in a "casual" game? I don't think so.
Our group would have the player randomly return a card from their hand to the top of their libray after reveling it to all players. That could not be done in a tournament.
Also, we use both the mulligan and paris-mulligan rule, once again not in tournaments.
The difference between casual and pro games are mostly the penalties applied to rules infractions.
Have to agree with HOUTS here.
Who plays not to win? You don't "let" some other player play their deck, that is insulting. If my deck or my play is not good enough to win, then beat me and maybe I'll learn to be better.
Sorry about the rant, but dang, at least compete with your opponents.
If you have an argument or opinion, say it. If all you can do is to deconstruct what somebody else said, why bother? Its petty and annoying. State an opinion, don't try to twist words or point out the lack of college english level clarity in a statement made by someone who has a life and doesn't really bother to spend valuable time proofreading or "englishafying" posts for a stupid message board.
I've also noticed that its almost always a certain sort of poster who does things like this.
If I am not too careful, I would almost agree. The only problem here is that there is no "casual" games. Every casual group seems to have its own rules. I didn't like, don't like, and didn't allow people to accidentally draw extra cards and then put them back on their library. Does that make me not casual? I also care a lot if someone forgets his or her upkeeps. Does that make me less caual than anyone else? I rarely play multiplayer games, and more than a part of me actually doesn't like such games. Does that reflect on my playing attitude?
It's a game because it has rules. "Letting it slip" is a different world than being a sensible "casual" player. For example, when someone mulligans only to end up with 3 cards in his or her hand, I usually just restart the game altogether. If he or she mulligans once, down to 6 cards, and likes his hand, good. Six cards it is. Not seven. That's a rule, not a choice. If someone forgets to pay an echo cost because he got so excited to attack me, too bad. Again, that's rules, not a choice.
That some of us adhere to the rules of the game does not make us any less casual and does not say anything in regards to our attitudes as far as being "casual" players, which in return debunks the argument that a casual game is more "loose" and "lighthearted" as if a serious game isn't.
The first mistake here is thinking that a person who plays seriously, and to win, is execluded from the circle of "casual" players.
Um. Like you have not deconstructed anyone's opinion before? isn't that the first thing Gizmo warned you about in this very thread? Why bother? That's the nature of discussion.
"Everyone wants to tell what their definition of "Casual" is. The whole concept is insane. Casual is just a word that we were throwing around to counter the tournament level play that was out there."
Um, Mr. Ferrest, this is a forum. Discussions such as this will arise, merely because they are appropiate for forums. And it is completely appropiate considering this site is Casual Players Alliance,
I've pointed out already that the word "casual", by definition, doesn't apply for today's MTG players, and for this site in specific. Does it counter the tournament level play? Absolutely, you hit it on the nail!
These defintions help define status in this game. After all, what truly makes a "Pro" player? That had been a long winded discussion on SCG a few years ago. I can honestly say it was a great discussion. But, as you've said, it isn't just about countering the tournament player, but help distinguish the difference in play/style/rules between each. After all, from what everyone's said, these seem to be important because they are both different playing fields.
"One of the things that has truly annoyed me is the fact that so many people think that tournament player and casual player are mutually exclusive. Also, people seem to think that playing to win and playing for fun are also contradictions.
Wake up call for everyone: None of these terms are contradictions because everyone is different. Each one of us has our own points of view on everything"
Mr. Ferret, they are in fact mutually exclusive. If you could provide any examples how they aren't, I'd love to hear them. I've provided my thoughts about it.
Playing for "fun" and playing to win was a contridiction....as stated above by one of the posts. If you reread (alot of people aren't reading everything) it, you'll see he was talking about. It wasn't merely the idea that playing for fun and playing to win are a contridiction on its own accord, there was more to it.
However, playing to win isn't a point of view. It is quite simple. You play to win, or you are playing for "fun" and not for the win.
"Elitism? That has to be the funniest thing I've heard in years!"
Actually this term applies fittingly. I am not the only one who agrees.
I've always stated my poing. When I posted the first time, people were being critical because of the harshness of tone. So, I decided to give you a "civil" conversation. It's frustrating to read some of these posts and see people overlook obvious points, or maybe those not see easy to see. Being a writer, I am able to break down points, or a persons logic, to derive the true meaning or help clarify.
I don't twist words. I've never taken someone's words out of context. But I don't see the problem with clarifying points.
Quite funny....I give them hate, they cry. I give them civility, they uproar.
Yes it does, most casual players prefer multi-player games.
Who said that? A least one of our group is a tournament player and I have played casual games with at least one Pro tour winner and many who play or have played on the pro tour.
Maybe an analogy would work here:
A duffer and Tiger Woods both play golf, but the winner of a game between them would be a foregone conclusion. But, Tiger's goal is to play better than his opponent and the duffers goal was just to play a round with Tiger Woods and not embarress himself.
Pick out the pro and the casual players.
Could the duffer become a pro player? Maybe. Could Tiger play a casual game of golf? Most assuredly.
Well, you did say "most." And while I've never been one to turn down a good multiplayer game, I do prefer one-on-one. I think a lot of casual players do prefer multiplayer because of the politics involved, and because they can use less focused decks. Is it a majority? I think so, but I'm not sure. Being an exception doesn't exclude one from being casual though...
It does make me less of a casual player and reflect on my playing attitude?
My god. I'm not going to nitpick this at all. It speaks loud and clear.
"Yes it does, most casual players prefer multi-player games"
Wow, this is so wrong, and your trying to make a generalization.
I've talked to the little furry animal, Ferret, and I am looking into writing an article for SCG about what we've been discussing.
I'd like to address:
1. What is a "casual" player? Has the definition changed, or stayed the same. If so, how?
2. What is the difference between the supposed "casual" player and one who is 'competitive' or 'pro'?
3. What are the tying connections/difference between them, if any?
We've touched on all of these points, I'm proud to say, through our "civil" (sad laughter) discussions.
What I need from all of you is to reread what points you've made in respect to these discussions, and e-mail them to me. Copy & Paste what you've posted, and you can add in anything. I will give credit to everyone who does chip in, and I plan on giving full credit to CPA for any/all help.
Let's see the enthusiam you have for this site by participating in my article.
You can be safe in knowing I will NOT make any slanderous remarks, use foul language, or slash this site/players.
It's true. No matter how much this discussion might be driving some of us to pulling our hair out. No matter how much some people seem to be contradicting themselves. No matter how many other moderators think that I should just pull the plug on this whole affair, I'm encouraging everyone (that's right, EVERYONE) to send what you think to HOUTS.
Worst case scenario: he comes up w/ something that everyone doesn't like. If that happens, then I encourage anyone to write another article rebuting his views (which, will more-or-less be our views).
The thing is that I wonder: do some casual players take themselves too seriously? Perhaps. Dunno. I'm just curious to see how this plays out.
"I heartily endorse this product and/or service"
Thank you Mr. Ferret. I appreciate the kindness, and your ability to seperate any differences we've had.
People WILL have to admit that while they might hate/detest me, I still have contributed to this site and offered up thought provoking discussions.
And that while I will admit I believe casual players take themselves too seriously (people at CPA in specifically) I will put aside my bias to put forth an article that will proudly suuport them.
1. HOUTS, DUke, and possibly Gizmo. You two(three) have made it quite clear that you play the game of magic far more competitively and intensely than what I have come to know as casual play. You(HOUTS and DUKE) also seem to have little regard for those who play less seriously than you guys do. You call me opinionated and elitist. I just try to advocate less serious play as a legitimate form of this game. Its you guys who turn up your nose and start calling people names.
2. Multiplayer games. I find with my friends they all basically prefer it. I'm the odd one out in not really liking to play that way. Less serious decks tend to do better in multiplayer than in one-on-one, and those are the sort of decks the people I know prefer to play.
3. The article. I'm kind of curious to see it. I'm not sure I trust HOUTS to speak for me as a casual player. He has his own opinions, and doesn't seem to have respect for others.
Separate names with a comma.