Pokémon Universe > Game Features
losing to a gym leader
ghostman50:
--- Quote from: Frenchfry545 on July 22, 2010, 07:36:37 PM ---
--- Quote from: ghostman50 on July 22, 2010, 07:26:08 PM ---When I say "here and now" game.. i mean exactly how it's said. No one cares about past accomplishments (so what if you're number 1). There is no possible way to gauge a player's worth in a game until it's actually played (There is no DBZ radar gun mask eye patch thingie.) The only way to tell if someone is really good, is to see them in action.. and if the player in question happens to lose to "several players in a row"... does that really mean that he/she is any good?
hmmm. In mi eyes, No.
In your passive illusory world... probably the greatest alive.
--- End quote ---
Mmm... More personal interference?
--- End quote ---
huh?
--- Quote --- Anyway, Losing streaks happen. Nobody cares what you've done in the past in Call of Duty, either, but a good player can still have a losing streak if he goes up against BETTER players.
--- End quote ---
Exactly what im trying to figure out. What constitues a good player? Dont you think that if a player is any good, they'd win most, if not all?
--- Quote ---I don't think you're getting the detail that good and bad isn't black and white.
--- End quote ---
ALright! Now you're seeing mi point.
--- Quote ---There's a big-ass gray area of average, okay, good, skilled, great, pimped, awesome, and godly.
--- End quote ---
Oh God, you completely missed mi point.
Side note: We must be using a different dictionary because pimped does not make any sense in that sentence.
--- Quote ---If someone at the 'skilled' level battles five 'pimped' players in a row, he's liable to lose
--- End quote ---
Again, the standard for being "skilled" and "pimped" is...?
In the eyes of the guy losing, he's still skilled... relatively competitive.. ya know.. "Not that bad"
But in the eyes of the pimped player, the losing player is just some loser.. Am I right?
--- Quote --- but that doesn't mean he's any worse at the game.
--- End quote ---
Actually it does. The losing player begins to realise that he/she isnt as good as he/she thought he/she was.
--- Quote from: ghostman50 on July 22, 2010, 07:26:08 PM ---Im sure he could, he has Parkinson's
--- End quote ---
Really, dude? I'm talking about both of them in the peak of their careers. Ali was great. Tyson was better.
I wouldnt know, im not into boxing like that.
--- Quote from: Jerry ---I agree, because there is also the element of luck in pokemon battles, and by this, I'm referring mainly to critical hits, and the random number generated before each damage is calculated and applied.
--- End quote ---
Closest to the point I was trying to make. Status is relative. A player's only as good as his/her last match and luck decides a players worth at that point in time. If a player that win's relying on luck really any good? If a player losing 7 battles in a row really good?
WHo's to say what's good, skilled, pimped, or the worst I've ever seen in mi life? There isnt a scale. Only thing a person can honestly claim is the experience.There isnt a definite name for anything.
To be blunt and make mi point, claiming to be "good" (anything more than experienced) is fairly conceited.
Frenchfry:
--- Quote ---Oh God, you completely missed mi point.
Side note: We must be using a different dictionary because pimped does not make any sense in that sentence.
--- End quote ---
My dictionary includes slang. I like to use slang sometimes because it makes me feel like less of a robot and more of a person.
--- Quote ---But in the eyes of the pimped player, the losing player is just some loser.. Am I right?
--- End quote ---
Nnnnnnnnope. See, when someone is good at a game, they know they're better than almost everyone else. That means that they know that just because they beat another player, that doesn't make that player any worse at the game. Even so, when did we decide to start talking about how conceited a more experienced player is?
--- Quote ---Actually it does. The losing player begins to realise that he/she isnt as good as he/she thought he/she was.
--- End quote ---
Uh... What? When did we decide to talk about the player's mentality, too? I'm talking about what IS, not what each person thought there was.
--- Quote ---A player's only as good as his/her last match
--- End quote ---
Oh, so if I get five hundred straight wins, but then I lose to someone, that means I suddenly suck?
--- Quote ---and luck decides a players worth at that point in time.
--- End quote ---
...So then why would we make the pokemon stop trusting the player, if the fact that he lost was based entirely on luck?
--- Quote ---To be blunt and make mi point, claiming to be "good" (anything more than experienced) is fairly conceited.
--- End quote ---
Oh, so it's okay for YOU to call OTHER players LOSERS, but if THEY call THEMSELVES GOOD, then they're conceited? If there's no good, then there's no bad, and you don't get to call players losers anymore.
ghostman50:
--- Quote from: Frenchfry545 on July 23, 2010, 04:16:39 PM ---
--- Quote ---Oh God, you completely missed mi point.
Side note: We must be using a different dictionary because pimped does not make any sense in that sentence.
--- End quote ---
My dictionary includes slang. I like to use slang sometimes because it makes me feel like less of a robot and more of a person.
--- End quote ---
So, the massive use of misnomers makes a person a person and not a robot (really? I could have sworn it was breathing.) Thanx for the insight. :o
--- Quote from: ghostman50 ---But in the eyes of the pimped player, the losing player is just some loser.. Am I right?
--- End quote ---
Nnnnnnnnope. See, when someone is good at a game, they know they're better than almost everyone else. That means that they know that just because they beat another player, that doesn't make that player any worse at the game.
Uh... What? When did we decide to talk about the player's mentality, too?
Ill let you think about the above quotes...and give you a second to connect the dots....
Alright, dont knowing that you're better than someone count as a player's mentality?
hmmm. Just making sure...
Even so, when did we decide to start talking about how conceited a more experienced player is?
Im sure that we can both agree that a player that loses 15 games in a row has just experienced 15 loses. In your world, that player can still be "good".. in mine, that player can be among the worst to ever walk the Earth.
The grey area between good and bad isnt "pimped" or "guitar bashing" or "trashcan eating" (see how ridiculous this "slang" is).. I believe that the grey area is experience.
Actually it does. The losing player begins to realise that he/she isnt as good as he/she thought he/she was.
Uh... What? When did we decide to talk about the player's mentality, too?
I'm talking about what IS, not what each person thought there was.
Isnt perception the universal scale to gauge good or bad? You dont know that you're good unless you think that you're good. But a player can still be completely horribe.. even whilst thinking he/she's good.
You arnt making any sense... or I may have read that sentence wrong.. i dont know.
I'm talking about what IS, not what each person thought there was.
Aye aye aye!!
Your argument.. You can lose 5 games in a row and still be good. (okay..)
Mi response... to others (especially the ones that dominated) the 5 game loser isnt good.
Other than the few blind optimists, it's safe to assume that the player isn't any good. Yes, he experienced 5 amazing (earth shattering) losses.. but can anyone honestly point to hard-core evidence and say he's good..... no.
Can anyone trick themselves into thinking he's any good... sure.
A thought (or perception) has everything to do with status.
A player's only as good as his/her last match Oh, so if I get five hundred straight wins, but then I lose to someone, that means I suddenly suck?
Find someone that's maintained a streak of 500+ in anything legitimate and come back to me with that one.
and luck decides a players worth at that point in time....So then why would we make the pokemon stop trusting the player, if the fact that he lost was based entirely on luck?
No idea.
Wasnt mi idea. (jerry's, and it isnt a bad idea)
I went with it because everyone hated mi idea.
What was your idea?
Oh, taking away any and all challenges in the game... great idea!
Ah, but seriously, it's a simple concept... win you dont lose anything, lose and anything should be up for grabs.
Which is fairly reasonable.
To be blunt and make mi point, claiming to be "good" (anything more than experienced) is fairly conceited.Oh, so it's okay for YOU to call OTHER players LOSERS, but if THEY call THEMSELVES GOOD, then they're conceited?
It's simple... If you and Mr_Dark battled... fought.. dueled (whatever) one time.. and one time only. And Mr_Dark dominates the chansey out of you, are you not a loser?
If you happen to battle him 30 more times and sneak in One or Two wins, are you really any good? Calling yourself good in that scenario is conceited (even we can agree to that right?)
You can change the scenario to battling 30 different people and only winning one or two. No reasonable person will ever claim to be "good"... (we can also agree to that right?)
If there's no good, then there's no bad, and you don't get to call players losers anymore.
So what will a player that loses be called? winners?
I never said that there is no good. It's just that your idea of good is skewed, especially if you think that sucessive losses can still mean that a player can be good. Which is absurd. Sure, he may be experienced.. or even talented... but is he really any good?
Quick question, what does it take to be a bad player? From all of your responses, anyone can be good no matter how much fail is involved.
Mr Pokemon:
Although there are lots of factors when it comes to deciding if someone is good or not, the main thing is who tje person is being compared to, or who is saying they are good or bad (Or pimpin) For example, if someone wins a tournament, they might consider the people they beat bad, and the people who lost would probably consider the winner good. However, if somebody beats the person who won the tournament, they might consider them bad, and so on.
Crow:
Don't forget the fact that someone is only good if they effort to be BETTER each time. One days loss can be another day's victory. I know when I lose to anyone, I train, improve and consider a new strategy to take the next victory. After I claim such victory, I try to improve myself to make sure no one can find a sure-fire system to use to beat me (that's why I love training a Gardevoir. hahaha) ;D ;D
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version