What does "Casual" play mean to you?

Discussion in 'General CPA Stuff' started by BigBlue, Sep 14, 2005.

  1. Spiderman CPA Man in Tights, Dopey Administrative Assistant

    DUke: Now that I can agree with.

    But let's take it a step further... suppose you don't know if there's a way to make your deck stronger (yet). You either try to think of a use of a card or think there's an even better or alternate way to improve a supposed winning deck. So you build, test, and rebuild some more. Basically the "traditional" idea for either a rogue deck or an upcoming tourney deck, but using cards that the current establishment are not using (the best that comes to mind is Donate/Illusions).

    Now is this process of seeking to become better mean you're competitive and not casual? Say you take Battle of Wits and win with it constantly. Is it no longer casual? The card that you win by having 20 creatures in your graveyard?

    In other words, if the deck is not well-known in tourney circles and thus on decklists everywhere, how do you know YOUR deck is not the best it can be? Yeah, you could test it by proxying up the well-known decks and seeing if it wins, but what casual player does that? All you know is that you have a deck that you play in your area and it wins fairly often. Not all the time (what deck does?) but enough that you don't want to scrap the idea and that you're having fun.
  2. Killer Joe Active Member

    I said: Is it ethical for "Competitive" players to prey on the casual?

    Keeping in context of playing a game of magic. Should a person who is 'competitive' (like me) ever PLAY against someone who is defined as 'casual' regardless of eithers skill level?

    The term "Baggage" was used by Gizmo and I see his view that some folks are bringing to this discussion that 'Casual=Good' and 'Competitive=Bad'. Well, I'M a competitive player and I don't consider myself to be a bad person for it. But just because I consider myself a 'competitive' player I shouldn't be allowed to play against 'casual' players?

    In other words, I said it 'tongue-in-cheek' because I'm going to keep playing the way I do and the folks I play with, at least to me, don't seem to necessarily mind my play-style. Some may sit down and play to see if their 'goofy-decks' works and believe me, I've on the recieveing end of having some of those decks clobber me. :rolleyes:

    So the question I purposed is ridiculous. OF COURSE it's ethical to play against anyone of ANY skill level or school of thought.

    Now here are some words to consider for this thread:
    Fun & Cheating
  3. Spiderman CPA Man in Tights, Dopey Administrative Assistant

    I don't think anyone's brought the baggage "casual=good and competitive=bad" to this thread. I just don't think there can be one, simple definition for casual. It means different things to different people (as evidenced by this thread).
  4. DÛke Memento Mori

    The following put a smile on my face...
    Spiderman? It only means different things to different people because of the emotional baggage that they did obviously bring, as evidenced by the multitude of different opinions most of which are baseless, or I should say, based only on the person's intimiate relation to the game ("emotional baggage" :D)...

    Now...
    It doesn't even matter if you have won a single game. It doesn't even matter if you will win at all. It doesn't matter if you are using cards that are popular or not. It doesn't matter which style you play. It doesn't matter how many cards you have in your deck. Only one thing matters: when you're building the deck, are you building it to the best of your own personal knowledge and using only the best resources that are avaliable to you personally? It doesn't matter if your resources are a bunch of commons or a bunch of rares. It doesn't matter if your knowledge is that of a 12 year old just learning to play or a some 30 year old who has been playing for 10 years. If you build to the best of your abilities, play to the best of your abilities, using only what you personally consider the best to use, then you are not being casual, but competitive...
  5. Spiderman CPA Man in Tights, Dopey Administrative Assistant

    Okay, then here seems to be the question: why is casual mutually exclusive from competitive? Why isn't it as KJ asks "casual-competitive"?
  6. orgg Administrator

    Because in a competition, there is one goal: WIN.

    You might take fifty minutes to go through a complex combo that has your opponent sitting there, and you getting carpal tunnel syndrome flicking cards this way and that before kililng your opponent-- but if you can do it consistantly on the first turn, you're going to play it in a competition. It's not fun, casual, or nice-- but you're there to win.

    As Yellowjacket is saying 'casual-competitive,' I read it as 'playing casually at the top of the learning curve.' It's playing the game to the top of your ability, but not only for the reason of winning-- the playing of the deck is the reason you're playing the game.
  7. Mooseman Isengar Tussle

    So if your having a "bad hair day", you are being casual not competitive?

    So what do you call it when I use a deck someone else built and play it against someone who is using a deck another person built? Can that be competitive or only casual? I'm still playing to best of my, (admittedly meager) abilities. BTW - I consider the person who built the deck, the best I have ever met.

    Very good........
  8. Spiderman CPA Man in Tights, Dopey Administrative Assistant

    Any game or matchup with rules, one person is going to "win" or come out ahead. That's just the nature of games in general.

    That said, you can either go "cutt-throat, win at all costs" or "win, but don't care if you lose (or care less)". You could have a competitive deck that wins on the first turn in a casual game. How? It could be a deck that no one's seen before and you're not sure if you could actually do it until tested under battle conditions. But if it doesn't or your combo isn't in your starting hand, you still have fun playing the deck and don't care so much as losing. But yeah, you'd like to win.

    I honestly can't think of anyone who plays any game to continuously lose*. I mean, why play? You might as well save yourself the time and call your opponent the winner. You play the game because you think you can beat your opponent. Even if there's a small chance.

    So I don't think "casual" and "competitive" are exclusive. Even casual players want to win.

    * There could be some people out there. It's a big world and who knows how people think.
  9. orgg Administrator

    The game has a goal-- winning. This is true, and eventually someone will win most games (Unless they're playing Python's Quest for the Grail and draw low grail numbers). However, if you're competitive, only the Win matters. Nothing else.

    Granted, it's possible to have a deck that is tournament caliber in a casual game-- sometimes you just don't realize how effective things are until you try them out. New decks sometimes end up like that... An all-common Rebel deck that slaughters everyone. Spellbomb Affinity with Disciple. Illusions of Grandeaur and Donate. Good? Yes. Tournament-Calibre? They certainly turned out to be quite similar to tournament winning decks, and viable in practice against other casual decks. Something I'd play in a casual one-on-one duel style game? Maybe the Illusions-Donate, but only because it's about ninty cards now, and diluted as all get-out. Multiplayer, on the other hand... the Rebels might come out to play.

    Key word there-- play. Not win, but actually play the deck towards winning. I actually care about the deck working, and allow the Win to come if it can. It's not all about winning, and I don't care how I do it... I could play Academy if that was all I cared about.
  10. Spiderman CPA Man in Tights, Dopey Administrative Assistant

    See, I think that's an over-simplification of being competitive, to the extreme. An example of being competitive where the win doesn't matter to exclusion of everything else is a deck-building challenge, where each player takes one card and builds a deck around it. Or a challenge where you see who can have the most life in 20 turns. You're still being competitive but here, the challenges aren't "win at all costs".
  11. Gizmo Composite: 1860

    In that deckbuilding challenge are you trying to make the best deck you can built around a single card? That's a competition.

    Say in that deck built around a card thing, did you go "Living Death, thats a really strong card let's see how strong I can make a deck built around Living Death" then made it as strong as you felt you could? That's competitive. Or did you pick on a card you knew wasnt ultra-hot "Umbilicus, that's a card I can make a deck around" or picked a good card but didnt exploit it "Enduring Renewal is fun, but I don't want to play some infinity combo like Pebbles" then that's casual.

    If the restriction on your deck's strength is in the format you're playing then you tried your best to succeed within those restrictions it's competitive.
  12. Spiderman CPA Man in Tights, Dopey Administrative Assistant

    Ah, but in Enduring Renewal's example, what if you're trying to find a different way to use it that turns out to be as strong or possibly stronger? Sure, Pebbles is a known strong deck, but a lot of cards can be used in different combos, especially with new expansions coming out. But you'll never know until you start fiddling around with it.

    Yes, but the point I'm trying to make is that the format itself could be "casual". You can be casual and still be competitive.
  13. Gizmo Composite: 1860

    There's no such thing as a casual format. Formats are neutral, any format can be taken as competitively or as casually as any other format. I've been in anything-goes multiplayer games with nothing on the line that are taken more seriously more competitively than 90% of PTQs.

    If you're makign the Enduring Renewal deck and trying to make it better than Pebbles then you're being competitive. If youre just trying to make something significantly different and not interested in making the ebst E.R. deck you can then it's pure coincidence if your casual tinkering turns out to be great. It's about INTENT. Although I would imagine that in practice at some point in your tinkering you'll go 'hey you know, this is starting to be pretty nifty, let's see how good I can make it' and then you'll be taking it competitively. If you went 'hey you know, this is starting to be pretty nifty, I'd best tone it down a bit' then thats the casual attitude.
  14. depolarization Lover of Schmaltz!

    People should be smiling and joking around. Bring some sweets and soda to the table and I'm happy. I like sharing food when playing magic. That's why they invented sleeves right? Remember when those clear, hologram sticker ones first came out by Ultrapro?

    I like adding voices to creatures and moving my serra avatar around the table like an action figure.

    Now if only miniatures were cheaper (or I had a better job) so I could use them like counters. I'd like to field an army of that new DnD pegasus mini for the Sacred Mesa, except that it's rare (cheaper to buy the reaper ones, but they're heavy!).

    Now they need to design a sweet werewolf creature card so I can use my painted up confrontation wolfen (well the one I spent about 20 hrs on...can't really do that much anymore, darn career development).

    - depolarization
  15. Killer Joe Active Member

    Okay, I made a BGr deck loosley based on "The Rock" but I altered it for two reasons:
    1.) I couldn't afford all of the necessary rares
    and,
    2.) I adjusted it for Multiplayer games.

    It has Swamps, Mountains and Forests. It also has 2 Spiritmongers, Darigaaz the Igniter, Kokusho the Evening Star, 4 Ravenous Baloth, 4 Wall of Blossoms, 4 FTKs and 4 Sakura-Tribe Elders. I also added in 3 Decree of Pain, 4 Terminates, 3 Darigaaz's Charms, 4 Kadoma's Reach, 2 Pernicious Deeds and 2 Fireballs.

    It doesn't really look like "The Rock" does it? But it works very well in multiplayer games. I adjusted it so that I can WIN those games.

    According to Gizmo's statement I built a competitive deck but it wouldn't withstand one round in a sanctioned tournament.

    So I built a competitve deck to play in a casual environment, right?
  16. Gizmo Composite: 1860

    Theres no such thing as a casual environment, environments are neutral. From the sound of it you've made the msot competitive deck of that type that you were able to make, thus you're being competitive.
  17. Spiderman CPA Man in Tights, Dopey Administrative Assistant

    I think you're comparing apple and oranges Gizmo. The true distinction is whether it's casual vs a tourney environment, and you can be competitive in both.

    So yes KJ, I think you're casual-competitive.
  18. Killer Joe Active Member

    I should've been more descriptive: I meant Casual Environment to mean the type of players in the room/store. At Blue Star Games and at GASP Game Days, I would consider both of those places as a gathering of casual players.

    Spiderman: Thanks, Dude. I knew I liked you for a reason! :)
  19. Mooseman Isengar Tussle

    Back to the original question:
    I don't think the deck is as important as the play. But, the deck should go with the enviroment, MP, etc........
    You wouldn't bring a Vintage deck to a Type II tourney, so why bring a deck that dominates your play group if it's not fun for everyone (well mostly everyone)? What is the point of always beating up on your friends with the perfectly tuned deck, that could be played by a idiot and win? Challange your playing ability and try to win with a less than perfect deck.
    I guess the question is are you a good player or just a good deck builder?
    That doesn't mean that you stop tuning your decks and trying them out against you friends, just doesn't have to be the only thing you do.
  20. Spiderman CPA Man in Tights, Dopey Administrative Assistant

Share This Page