keris

I hope you one day realize what I mean.

And do you really think that you're not in the wrong for your ad hominem outburst?

Well then, I still meant that part where I said:

I really hope you open your eyes and realize there are more people in the world than you and they all have differing opinions to yours. I hope that you realize that just because people see things differently than you, it doesn't make their views wrong. Also, if a person sees things the similar to the way you do, it doesn't make your mutual opinion right.

Is this not the exact same position you're taking against people who wronged you in RDR?

@legion_: Wanting to draw is not the mentality of a loser. By definition, drawing is neither winning nor losing. How is it the mentality of a loser to offer a draw and get a first place ranking, rather than fight to the bitter end and chance losing and end up in fifth place? Doesn't getting first place qualify as winning?

If you exhibit clear anti-social behaviour, and you only engage with other players to ruin their experience, then I have no problem with saying that it's not only the wrong way to play a game, it's the wrong way to lead a life.

What makes you so certain that these people lead their lives in this way? Or are you taking it further and saying that the actual playing in this manner is the wrong way to lead a life?

I really hope you open your eyes and realize there are more people in the world than you and they all have differing opinions to yours. I hope that you realize that just because people see things differently than you, it doesn't make their views wrong. Also, if a person sees things the similar to the way you do, it doesn't make your mutual opinion right.

You strike me as a person, if given the chance and the authority, would kill everyone who broke the rules. That's a terrifying thought.

@legion_: No, the goal is not just to checkmate. Especially, if a last round draw meant $5,000 while a loss meant $300. Also, it's not just ending in stalemate. A lot of these matches are ended on handshakes.

It is also the case where RDR's multiplayer isn't there just to let you level up (or even help you level up). It's called Free Roam for a reason. Everyone is free to do as they please making fun as they see fit. This includes engaging in behavior typical of the Wild West.

And do you seriously believe that because you refuse to play in a certain manner (sympathizing with bandits), that it somehow invalidates the notion that others would play in such a manner? That somehow that means they're playing the game wrong? How exactly do you debunk a play experience?

@legion_: Right, he's the number one player in the world. So for him it would seem that given a draw position, he'd try for a win instead of worrying about a loss. Afterall, everyone he plays is lower ranked than him.

Did you read my other link above? The draw problem – a simple solution

That's a lot of matches, more than half at each of these tournaments where winning isn't the ultimate goal.

@legion_: I didn't see anything debunked. The goal from the outset in a game of chess is to not lose. This is different, and not necessarily opposed nor aligned, with winning.

@legion_: I take it you didn't read this link I put above? http://www.chess.com/article/view/punishing-a-chess-pro-for-making-a-draw

Do you not see the delicious irony of you proclaiming that chess is only about dominating over your opponent and decrying players who play RDR multiplayer thinking its only about deathmatch?

I think my analogy works a lot better than you give it credit for. Is it not implicit that if the one player is dribbling the ball in the key and under the basket that that one player is trying to engage the other players? Is it not implicit that you playing in Normal (or possibly Hardcore) Free Roam and not Friendly Free Roam that you wish to engage in possible Player vs. Player action? You find it unfair that the other players take the one player's ball and score a basket over that player. You find it unfair that RDR players kill you and score over you. Would it not be better for the one player to practice dribbling off to the side? Would it not be better for you to play cooperatively in Friendly Free Roam?

I'm not kidding you about sympathizing with the NPCs, one dude didn't take too kindly to me shooting buffalo, I remember screams of Pike's Basin being avenged. People will play the game in the manner which they feel is fun.

This is the Wild West we're talking about, why do you think other outlaws will just let you have your way? The Wild West was a trying time where law wasn't of much consequence and people would shoot you for looking at them wrong. Why do you think you'd get to play the game however you want unopposed? PvP in MMOs means players can't finish their damn story quests without being pestered by the other faction. That's the environment that PvP is designed to provide.

No, I do not agree that every move one takes in a game of chess is in service of winning over an opponent. A great many moves are devised to limit the opponent's chances of winning. This does not always result in a win, and in many cases results in a draw.

I'd say a much more apt analogy is as follows:

There's a bunch of people in a rec club just shooting hoops, no structured play. Then one person dribbles onto the court, just dribbling around, minding their own business. The one person is dribbling through the key. The other people shooting balls at the hoop steal the ball from the one person (in accordance with the rules of basketball) and shoot the ball (scoring over that one person) into the basket. The one person either retrieves their ball from under the net, or grabs another basketball from the rack and just continues dribbling around the court. The other players continue to steal the ball from the one player and shoot that ball into the hoop.

Would it not be the assumption that the one player dribbling in the court wants to interact with the other players? Is it antisocial to steal the one player's ball and shoot it into the hoop (even though it's in accordance with the rules of the game)?

Whose to say that the people killing you over and over in Red Dead don't sympathize with the bandits in the gang hideout? That they don't take (roleplayed, not actual as you exhibit) offense to a disrespect of their turf? One of my great memories with Read Dead's multiplayer was my posse clearing out a gang hideout with two other posses trying to stop us. They weren't antisocial, they were playing the game as it was designed.

Furthermore, what does it matter if you were walking about with your gun holstered if one of the biggest gameplay mechanics of the game is quick drawing on your opponent and painting three shots on them in Dead Eye?

If chess were that simple, then why is there a problem with the number of draws in competitive play?

You can tell the difference between killing in a game and killing in real life, by your own admission. Why is it that you cannot also see the difference between behavior in the game and behavior in real life? Why would one correlate with the other? I'd hope that you would not correlate playing the opposite gender in a game with a person living with gender identity crisis. I'd hope you would not correlate a Civilization player who wins through military means with a person who has aspirations to be a bloodthirsty despot. I'd hope that you would not correlate an Assassin's Creed player with someone who believes in Lamarckism evolution.