On Cheapness


#1

This week’s question touches on the ever-controversial topic of “cheapness:”

Q: “Why is it that you shoryuken foolz seem to think that playing cheap is cool? You should be a man and take a stand against lamerz for honorable play.”

(name withheld out of mercy)

Ah, the call of the scrub. They bleat out something like this to attract others of their sad species (known in laymans terms as “losers”), who will feel sorry for them, and commiserate about the unfair tactics of their shamefully dishonorable tormentors (more commonly known as “winners”). They play the game in a little world of make-believe where they all aspire to earn the respect of their fellow losers, and to play with “honor” (even though no ones quite sure what that means).

We get a lot of stuff like this. I have to wonder- where are all these scrubs coming from? Portland aside, its hard to be sure. I mostly just think of them as the Streetfighter equivalent of the Amish, but sometimes I wonder anyway- how did they get so confused? Why do they hold on to such silly ideas?

The precise contours of “cheap” are pretty mysterious. Far be it from me to actually be able to penetrate fully the dark workings of the mind of a scrub, but in an attempt to get a better feel for what theyre talking about here (if anything), Ill try and analyze some apparent commonalities between the wide variety of things called “cheap”. Something that is cheap:

  1. Wins. Ever notice that no one who just loses all the time ever gets their style called “cheap” (or “dishonorable”) no matter what theyre doing? I start with this because it helps to underscore the generally whiny, name-calling nature of the complaint. No matter how you play, no one seems to care much… unless youre winning. If youre not threatening their (sorry) dominance at the machine, the scrub doesnt care what the hell youre doing. Its only when youre doing something they cant beat that he bothers to drop phrases like “cheap”. How can an innocent scrub tell when hes been scandalized by the dreaded “cheap” play? The easiest way to recognize cheapness is not by looking for certain characteristics to the style of play (that can be confusing, and seems downright impossible since whats “cheap” seems to change all the time!). No- just wait until youre losing a lot. Then, rather than experience the fear that you might have to figure something difficult out, you can rest assured that the reason you were losing was because you were the victim of “cheap” tactics! The advice to aspiring scrubs here should be clear: If you want to ensure that you never accidentally play “cheap” (the precise definition is danged tricky!), just dont win too much. Everyone knows that not winning too much is a proud tradition among all “honorable” players.

  2. “Cheap” tactics violate the sanctity of “blocking”. All scrubs seem to feel that blocking should be some sort of unimpeachable stronghold- a scrub “fortress of solitude”. Apparently the thinking is “When I’m blocking, no one should be able to hurt me, no matter what!”. Where this idea came from is anyone’s guess. Ever hear of blocking in Space Invaders? Could Pac-Man block? Blocked any quad-damage railgun shots lately? No. But the scrub still feels somehow especially violated when he’s hunkered down, jamming the stick into block, and something still disappears off his lifebar. “What the hell! I was BLOCKING!”

Well… so what? What is it about the block that makes the scrub feel he’s entered the magical-happy land of no damage, no worries, and no threats? I have no idea. The fact is, he isn’t in that happy place. It just isn’t true. It was never true, of course, although enough people insisted on playing make-believe for so long that they almost believe it now. And when someone walks up and, say, throws them, giving them the unpleasant reality check that reminds them they were playing make-believe, the poor widdle scwubs get all upset.

The reason the Capcom designers didn’t make blocking completely impervious to damage is extremely obvious- if they had, the game would be reduced to a question of who could hit who first, then block like a madman for the rest of the round. That would suck. Everyone knows this- even the dim-witted scrub- so instead of abandoning the first make-believe rule that led them into this mess, they tack on another make-believe rule. Rule #2: “Too much blocking is also cheap.” How much is too much? “Well, um, you see… it’s not a set amount, exactly- it’s, uh… Godammit- I know it when I see it!” So instead of just facing up to the glorious truth, the scrub has dug himself deeper into a pit of nonsense, trying to cover for the initial nonsense. This is another clear marking of the scrub- when called on their crap- they will never admit they were just wrong- theyll retreat endlessly into as many tacked-on rules as are necessary to get you to quit picking on them, often making desperate appeals to this being their “opinion”, as if that makes what theyre saying somehow less stupid (editors note: it doesnt).

The obvious appeal of this highly stupid approach is that it’s easy. It’s very easy to call things cheap and tack-on more rules (free, actually), whereas learning to, for instance, counterthrow effectively is very hard. Since those in question are scrubs, and not very skilled, they’re very happy not to have to learn anything else. What’s always been so amusing to me was that the scrub actually tries to turn this around to his own advantage, claiming that throwing is “just pushing the stick, and hitting a button! It’s so stupid- I’d rather flex my might with my amazing combos!” (editors note: combos by these scrubs are never amazing) (of course combos aren’t just pushing the sticks and hitting the buttons, right, right?). Its also amazingly stupid in the way it seems to imply that the skill in a game is being able to do a move (or series of moves), rather than understanding that its seeing when to do a move that counts. The scrub, who sees little more to the game than combos, never has to grapple with this- after all- whens the right time to do a combo? All the time! You never even have to think about it!

One response to the hordes of unskilled losers who are most often the champions of crying “cheap!” has been simply to claim “There’s no such thing as cheap”. If the one-word cry of “cheap” didn’t convince anybody by itself, neither should this tough-sounding little catch-phrase. Although it may be surprising, I think it’s pretty obvious that there is, at least hypothetically, such a thing as cheap. Imagine a regular SF game, with joystick and six buttons. Now imagine a seventh button, available on each side, labelled “WIN”. If you hit that button at any time during the match, you win. It would be simple enough to design. If Capcom started releasing their games with that feature, and you were notorious for hitting that button, I’d be perfectly willing to admit that doing so was “cheap”. If enough stuff like that finds it’s way into a game, then it’s just a bad game- you can play as hard as you want, but that simple tactic can’t be surpassed. This emphasizes a third characteristic of “cheap” tactics- that theyre efficient.

  1. “Cheap” tactics kill with minimal effort. In this respect, theyre difficult to distinguish from just plain good tactics, which are aimed at making you efficient, effective winners. Good players play to win- theyre about winning, not whining. But scrubs become edgy and irritable when theyre killed really easily. They know that killing a serious player should be at least a little bit hard, even if he is a scrub. This resistance to extreme efficiency is well-founded, in some respects. A tactic is great when it kills efficiently, but can justifiably be called cheap when it kills too efficiently. In the MVC2 with the “WIN” button, the best tactics are too efficient in just this way- once people catch on, the game just becomes stupid. Its not fun, or entertaining. Its Capcoms job to provide games that are fun for a wide range of playing ability without allowing the game to become transparent, and to degenerate into simplistic routines for winning, incapable of holding a serious players interest.

Some answer cries of “cheap” with a different cute little catch-phrase: “If it’s in the game, it’s in the game.” Well, of course. How could that not be true? That doesn’t really advance the “debate”, except by pointing out that by banning throws (or whatever they’re calling cheap that day), what the scrubs are really doing is just playing a different game. So if MVC2 came equipped with that “WIN” button, it would be fair to say that it’s “in the game”, obviously. But the previous point about actually hitting the button still being cheap also stands. That would just be a really crappy game. Which is what I think it really comes down to: “Cheap” is an aesthetic judgment.

When you claim something is “cheap”, what you’re really saying is that the game would be better without it. In effect, you’re staking your judgment against the combined efforts of the best design team in history. Sometimes people can be right about such judgments, as in the case of obvious bugs/glitches (e.g. resets, L/M-ism A3 bugs, etc). Why are these obvious candidates? Because they weren’t things that were intended or assessed by this designers, so they don’t already have their tacit stamp of approval. And, unsurprisingly, they tend to detract from gameplay (though this isnt always the case, of course- interrupting normal moves with specials for combos wasn’t originally intended in SF2: WW, but turned out to be a happy accident that evolved into the world’s most-loved combo system). The best way to tell whether something helps or ultimately hurts a game is to play the hell out of it. If it really turns out to detract from gameplay, then avoid it- fine. But you’ll never be able to decide that if you don’t play it to the fullest to begin with. - something people fond of denouncing things as “cheap” never seem to do. Does this mean I think that everything that was intended by the designers is necessarily a good idea? No. But it should be a hint to scrubs that maybe they should play around with that aspect a bit more before deciding it’s “cheap”, and writing it off. Especially if you want to have a chance at winning in a tournament, or against real players. Remember- when you claim something is “cheap”, especially if its something the designers clearly intended to be there, youre attempting a very sophisticated judgment. Since most of you are morons, this is usually a very bad idea. Let’s look at examples of things that are most often (and wrongly) declared “cheap” by retards:

-Throwing in general, and the SF2 series especially. Bzzz. Wrong. Very wrong. Yes, it’s difficult to counter at first, but once you do, the game becomes far more complex and interesting, not less. Don’t believe it? Ask anyone who’s any damn good.

-As for keepaway tactics being “cheap” in MVC2- please. This only reveals how little most of you understand not only MVC2, but SF in general. Historically, the greatest dynamics in SF games have always come from the opposition between keep-away and up-close characters. One side tries to keep the other out, the other pushes constantly to get in to the sweet, sweet chewy center. In MVC1, the majority of matches were completely dominated by up-close tactics. In MVC2, the balance has shifted, apparently favoring keep-away tactics. All this means is that you have to think about what you’re doing for half a second before going into your same old dial-a-combo routine that you think looks so cool. The fireball (beam/projectile) is the key feature behind all high-strategy in SF games, and one that’s been sorely missing from most of the Versus series. Complaining about it’s return in MVC2 only shows you to be the arch-scrubs you are. It also completely fails to appreciate any real character variety. Was Dhalsim cheap for trying to keep people out in the old Streetfighers? Was he a scrubby character? Should he rush in with a bunch of chain combos in MVC2 to avoid playing “cheap”? Or would that make you dishonorable for picking the pixies that are so much better at that type of game as to make Dhalsim look like a joke? What the hell. So stupid.

Also, Scrubs: do not give yourself the undeserved break that comes with thinking “keep-away players only play that way because they’re not good enough to do combos!”. That is simply a dud. The timing and precision involved in a really good keep-away trap is typically far in excess of all but the most difficult trick-shot combos. Also, since there are no air-tight keep-away games, you have to be on your toes to play that way. You must think dynamically, and react to the adjustments your opponent tries to make. In a combo, once you start, you can virtually go on auto-pilot. Finally, players good enough to execute the best keep-away traps also have great combo skills- they’re just not naive enough to try and use them all the time. Now what’s up, combo-boy?

-Block damage: Busting somebody out for 50% damage even while they’re blocking seems more impressive than doing the same thing in a combo, doesn’t it? Which one is harder to do? Which one takes more resources? What percentage of characters can do it? Of players? Is it harder to hurt the opponent while they’re blocking, or while they’re not blocking? Then how can you say dealing out major block damage isn’t skilled, if it’s harder to do? The ability to deal substantial amounts of block-damage is critical in a game with as much play-area to hide in (re: turtle) as you have in Versus games.

So the surprise conclusion is that there clearly is such a thing as “cheap”, but history (throwing is cheap!) and the current batch of whiners (keep-away is cheap!) show us that, apart from painfully obvious glitches, most people are too stupid to be able to determine just what that is. Instead, it gets used as a crutch for players too weak to play the game seriously in the first place.

– Seth Killian


MVC Infinite Lounge: DLC Characters and Costumes launch Dec 5th
The Street Fighter V Lounge: We all gotta chill 'til the end of April
CA chip kill is unfair to grapplers!
Rising Thunder - FIGHTING ROBOTS
SFxT General Discussion Thread rev.B
UMVC3 OTT I am here in the shadows
No one to train me
What does "fraud" mean?
Cheap tactics
Skullgirls GD, Keepin' It Classy In Medici -- Now out in EU/AU!
Anti ryu the church of hate
Calgary Thread 2012
What makes you salty?
Blanka or Akuma
"Main-ing" vs. "Match-ing"
Yes.. there is actually a noob out there that still has the balls to play
Scrubquotes is back!
Ono = King of Trolls
SSF4 Tier List Thread REBOOT Super + AE (Updated: 02-01-09)
Calgary Thread 2012
#2

I’m not sure about the rules in this section and the like, but I do not completely agree with your opinion in its entirety, and want to contest it.

Majority of this post is just an over-generalization, greatly over emphasizing the term “scrub.” A day to day term we use all the time, no matter who you are. It seems to be too much of a one size fits all kind of idea that has alot of differing features, does it not?

When its a new player complaining, they could be a scrub? When its a veteran upset about changes to the system (Think SF2 or 3 guys playing 4) they can also become scrubs. If its just a straight up loser, they can be scrubs too. Its not as if there is a true border that defines what is a scrub, or what isn’t, it just seems like we’re able to sit back and line up the idea of a scrub and misconstrue it as many times as we do this very concept of cheapness.

In the very begining of your post, you mention that honorable tactics are just a hallow bastion for losers to better define why they should limit their own playstyle, but aren’t you just demeaning good intentions and the idea behind good play? Its easy to say “Oh, well only scrubs like to hold onto honor. Play to win.” But isn’t it good to encourage a player to look for ways to challenge and change himself and come up with ways he finds honorable to win?

There is no way to pretend and say that every person who used the phrase “I play with honor” is or is not full of it, but I see no reason why to completely dismiss the concept because its usually losers who cry out about it. If someone is willing to hold back on doing the easiest, simplest things to win and actually challenge themselves to succeed then whether or not it works is alot less important then the act of doing it themselves. There should be no cookie for playing well, no honor points to compile and hold onto because you didn’t do this bread and butter at this moment in time to give your opponent a fighting chance.

But I hardly see anything wrong with promoting good, challenging, and constantly improving play from everyone. Because while its the competition that brings out the best, its the civility that makes the game last longer. This is not enough for me to try and pretend that this honor is any less of a crutch then it currently is, but moving closer to perfection means promotion through civility and sportsmanship.

Let’s take football for example:

Slidetackling is legal in some cases, from certain sides, from certain positions. But if everyone ran around slidetackling one another then the game wouldn’t be fun, it’d be dangerous and not even worth it. There are obvious limitations, rules, guidlines, borders. Just like how in every fighting game, there is a limit to how much you can do, and cannot do.

Moving to the middle of your post, you make mention of this. How certain tactics that are in the game are typically viable tactics flamed and frowned on by the weaker side of the community. Highlighting that because its in the game, isn’t an excuse for certain errors, or oversights. I want to take it a step even further by saying, that in a game like this, its even harder to try to rule out or defend the concept of cheapness because there is no jury, or group willing to punish or outlaw such errors.

If you slide tackle too many times, you get ejected. But if you repeat the same two combos which are particularly difficult to defend against, and safe, then what is the fine? There is none, because it isn’t illegal, but here’s where the failings of your argument come into place, because despite having close if not the same level of competitive drive, and ambition as a sport, a fighting game lacks a true jury, rulebook, or even an introductory sense strong enough to eliminate these misconceptions.

There is no perfect filter, there is no constantly reinforced system of promotable play, there is simply what the developers decided to add, and what they see as appropriate. If using MVC2 as an example, and it makes quite a perfect one, there is no way to regulate whats going to lead to the best kind of play, and what isn’t. The developers allowed infinite’s, but regardless of whether or not they were at a point to stop it, nothing was done to protect newer players from falling prey to it. There is no system that keeps newbies from running into a match with someone who knows how to do the infinite’s. Arcade is a nice mention, but the computer doesn’t do that, and even with the knowledge that its going on, there is no video or tip included in the game to actually block it. There is simply the school of hard knocks retardation that says “Oh well, now you know not to get hit by that. Hope your attitude stays positive.”

I applaud the player with enough skill to learn how to do, if not how to keep himself from doing the infinite. As players who have no power over the game itself, we cannot change what is in the game, we can only learn it and choose what we want to do with it, and whether they (and this leads to a further portion of your post) choose to play Dhalsim and keep-away, or Iron-man and his infinite combo is completely up to them. As players, we’re forced to cope with whatever we want to allow ourselves to stomach to keep playing the games. Personal opinions aside.

But its not the idea thats wrong, its the system by which new players are introduced and indoctrinated into this stupid ideal. Learning from hard knocks, taking licking after licking against better players who are looking for ways to simply be bottom feeders leads to the general saltiness for some of the “cheaper” tactics. Much like most of the fighting game community, a frustrated player who could have trouble adapting is just a scrub who isn’t playing seriously enough to not get killed by Dhalsim’s keep away. The obvious way to get better is to lose and pick yourself up off the ground and learn, but it isn’t like there is a way to give everyone a starting chance to succeed. Just as much as we mistake cheapness, and scrubs, we overlook the fact that losing to a Daigo, and a Justin Wong, still has the same result as losing to a Zangief who did nothing but Lariat. You still lose the match, because what to do at the time wasn’t known to the player. And depsite having message boards, and the like to help newer players, the game itself lacks any and all means to teach players how to improve straightforwardly, but instead just keeps the “Hope you figure it out next time, when you sew your ass back on,” mentality and keeps on rollin. Too much emphasis is put on figuring things out, when not enough available research and resources are out there from the get go for the newer players.

Cause not everyone who plays, or even wants to improve, is going to know to go to SRK and read up.

Do not misunderstand, as a fighting game enthusiast, I’ve already been indoctrinated into the “hard knocks” way and accept it. I improve by losing, and I get mad for allowing myself to lose to certain things, and try to improve. But my purpose isn’t to point out why this idea behind cheapness exists, but why it will continue, and that it only comes from the community in which the game promotes. Hopefully, you can understand what I’m getting at, and while constantly improving (The replay system in Super) will take a large amount of time and effort to legitimately change. So, the correct things about your post, are falling on mostly deaf ears, while the incorrect ones are just incorrect.

To conclude,

The cheapness, the honor, the lack of moderation, all of this is a result of community itself, and the lack of limitations allowed in the game. I can understand both sides, as should everyone, and to commit to playing the game, in time everyone should as well, but your post completely disregards the fact that if you aren’t taking the hard knocks to improve, then your doing it wrong. When in reality, the only reason you yourself think that, is because you have no choice but to do so. Not because you actually chose it.

The most competitive things in the world have judges, and they have coaches. A game where its simply 1v1 “beat that other guy up” can’t realistically have judges and coaches to deal with them, but without a system friendly to beginners (I.E Pop-Warner > JV > Varsity > College > Pro), all it does is cause a rift between sides unable to stomach the hard knocks at first, and sides that were. Making many normal players apathetic towards people that share the same damn interest. Its ridiculous why the fighting game community can be one fourths helpful & good players, nearly seventy five percent apathetic beginners and scrubs respectively, and a tiny percentile actually being elite. Its as if there is a reward behind a door, but you can’t get behind it through the front door very easily, but instead have to jump through the window and roll around in broken glass before you can actually get inside and reap the benefits and obvious fun. Later to find out, the people inside work harder to add another lock on the door, then they do opening it.

I just can’t help but fault both your logic, and your argument when you express complete disregard for the system in which these “weak players” aren’t given much choice of progress. It isn’t weak players who complain, because even the best get salty from time to time, its just players who have yet to do things the only way they have to at this point in time: Shutting up and dealing with it.

Until you at least recognize that the system involved in the fighting games, in the players that play the games, in the players that try the games, and the community which is created in correspondence is far from perfect, I can’t help but think you too carry the same “Get over it, or get out” mentality. Despite clearly seeing that there is just as much “honorable” play, and “cheap” play, as there is playing to win and improve, or legitimately being a crybaby over losing.


Excessive zoners pissing me off
SF5 Etiquette
SFxT General Discussion #3 - Still Alive
How do you execute charging moves properly?
#3

^@Dogma
I’m sorry, but that is a very long and hard to read post. I don’t really grasp the main point. Is it that you think scrubs should be eased into the community better instead of shunned?

Anyway, this post by S-Kill is pretty old I think. Even though it says “2010”, I’m very sure this is some sort of repost since SRK was remade and this post has been here for as long as I can remember. It’s possible that this thread is from way before SFIV online, from the time of arcades. So take that into consideration.

And personally I love the “it’s in the game”-mentality because it has no gray areas and leaves no room for personal interpretation. Even though the game might be flawed, the rule is “perfect”. Player made rules is a huge turn off because of the inevitable bickering and subjective opinions. If that makes sense.


#4

Nvm


#5

dbl post :frowning:


#6

Damn, thats one hell of a rant against the “cheap players” ranters.


#7

If something works well and frequently, it’s only reasonable for a player to do it as often as he or she can. But if something’s working too well, then it’s cheap. This isn’t any player being cheap. This is bad game design (or an imbalanced fighting game).

A really theoretical example would be if Ryu from SFII had an instant kill move available to him from the beginning of any round. All you had to do was press two buttons at once and the other player would die instantly. Full screen hitbox. Unblockable. I wouldn’t blame anyone for signing up for a tournament as Ryu. They pay money to enter and they want to win it back and more. The player isn’t cheap. The character’s move is cheap.


Scrubquotes is back!
#8

If something works well and frequently, it’s only reasonable for a player to do it as often as he or she can. But if something’s working too well, then it’s cheap. This isn’t any player being cheap. This is bad game design (or an imbalanced fighting game).

A really theoretical example would be if Ryu from SFII had an instant kill move available to him from the beginning of any round. All you had to do was press two buttons at once and the other player would die instantly. Full screen hitbox. Unblockable. I wouldn’t blame anyone for signing up for a tournament as Ryu. They pay money to enter and they want to win it back and more. The player isn’t cheap. The character’s move is cheap.


#9

hey, read this

they sound similar imo


#10

Honestly, I used to think the same way (I think we all did when we first started playing). But as I got better, I learned that not everything is cheap and cheesy. Some things are though… but at the same time, like mentioned in this article - if you can’t figure out how to get around it, it isn’t your opponent’s fault, it is yours. They just know something you don’t and you need to figure it out quick or you are going to the end of the line again.


#11

Tier whores


#12

I think the topic of the scrub and cheapness/honor is an interesting one…

There is a series of semi-serious videos on YouTube about “how to play Brawl like a man”- they’re an interesting match. Essentially, the videos encourage users to use less-than-great characters (instead of top-tier characters), not to use cheap tactics, etc- essentially play in a way that limits yourself so as not be seen as “Cheap”- but it asks you to do it with honor. Don’t whine if you lose. Don’t blame X or Y. Just accept it.

I think playing with honor is a perfectly legitimate practise. There is nothing wrong with that. But someone who plays with honor doesn’t brag or whine. Scrubs do. Big difference.

For example, I like to play TvC with honor. I do so by picking the characters I want to play as (as in, I like the characters due to history, tv series, etc). I pick Joe and Casshern- two characters in the mid-low to mid tier section of the game. I do this to challenge myself (it is much more satisfying to win with these two characters for me) and to be more “honorable” as I could probably cheese at least 80% of the n00b players by mashing out a simple but decent Zero/Ryu/Blade or PTX game. It is tougher to win against most opponents with Cassh/Joe than those others, yes, but that’s the path I chose and I don’t whine about it. I don’t say “I only lost because I picked Cassh/Joe- you only won because you picked high tier characters” I just play. If I lose I do so with honor. (note: I am not dissing Zero/Ryu/Blade/PTX players- there is some great high level play from those guys (snd others) I’m merely speaking of the volumes of n00bs who learn one combo and mash falchion, etc)

Same as how I play as King in CvS2 even though she sucks because I love the character. Or Captain Falcon in Brawl even though he got nerfed to high hell and back.

However, we get into problems when we step into MvC2. Its a nice game to bring up. While TvC has a clear but tight knit tier list (iow its pretty well balanced and even characters like Roll and Frank can do decent competitive play) MvC2 doesn’t. That’s a fact. So while scrubs are being scrubs if they pick a bottom-tier team of Zangief, Roll and servbot and whine about it, they really don’t have a chance in competitive play. Unless they are playing against similarly idiotic character choices and worse players they don’t have a chance with those characters. So while they are still being scrubs, I do feel somewhat sorry for them- they are forced to move up the tier list and pick characters they may not even remotely like. But alas, that is how the game is. They have to either evolve or cope with defeat… and lots of it.

I think this type of situation really made the scrub a much louder and annoying being in the fighting game community. unbalanced games. They pick who they want to play as but who they want to play as sucks- so they blame the opponent for being cheap and the game for being broken. The game being broken is somewhat legitimate… but still is just whining instead of evolving.

Our only hope is that games grow more and more balanced and thus people can’t use the old “you’re a cheap ass hole because you spam hadoukens!” line.


#13

Honorable play = practice. Simple as that, if you want to become good at the game, you can pick the worst character and master him, you could pick every character, just press random every time, and try to do all of the most complicated combos and moves.

I agree with Seth’s philosophy entirely, maybe they should put this in the game under ‘tutorial’ lol.


#14

I really enjoyed reading this because it reminded me of a situation I encounter a month ago over the very issue of"cheapness". This situation began when a abel player by the name if Sakiedo (who is mainly a online player) complained that the only reason I bodied him was because of latency and the abuse of Fei Long’s CW which he claims is impossible to punish online. Now the match is in Fei’s favor which I wont deny and I wont pretend we have a clear connection, however in this situation his decloration of"cheap"is invalid because he is deliberately stepping into a situation that he knows wouldn’t favor his chances of winning.

Aside from the fact that I have beaten top players in person (air,mike ross,) and that im using a counter character, he believes that im being cheap and thusly only winning on the account of the latency which causes the inability to punish Fei Long’s as a direct result. I think in this case we can just classify this as a player who can’t accept his loses and must immediately go with any alternative explanation…thats why im very cautious over throwing the word"cheap" because in most situations the people who use it are the same people who cannot handle losing.


#15
  1. Wins. Ever notice that no one who just loses all the time ever gets their style called “cheap” (or “dishonorable”) no matter what they’re doing?

Sup, El Fuerte.

Win or Lose when I use El Fuerte I get called cheap all the time. good for a laugh.


#16

There’s a couple things to keep in mind though… what exactly considers yourself to be a scrub? Just because player A is a much more advanced player than player B, and Player B always loses, does he deserve to be called a scrub? Even if he doesn’t whine about cheapness or complaining?

I was playing MvC3 the other day and ran into a guy online picking Sentinel, Chun Li, and Akuma. All three of those characters have been called “cheap” or “broken” lately so would it be fair to say that the player is being cheap intentionally, win or lose?


#17

LOL scrubs are always complaining.


#18

In my view, there is an important difference between being a scrub and being a noob / less skilled. I stick by the scrub definition of a player who doesn’t want to understand the game more deeply than he already does.

Therefore, anyone can have a scrub mentality regardless of how well they play at their own level. It’s rarer as you progress upwards, since knowing more about the game does require more devotion to learning. But people can still cry, whine, and fall back on their inner scrub regardless of their overt level of ability.

Real scrubs are people who accuse others of “only” winning because of a trick, or cheap tactics, or exploits - so long as we’re not talking about actual mechanical issues in the play mechanics such as a glitch that both players don’t have access to, or a particularly awful infinite combo that takes little skill and can be done at any time, basically turning it into a win button.

There is “scrubby” playing style, and even good players can fall back on this in the heat of battle if they crack and panic; I don’t think there’s any shame in that, so long as the player admits what he did with humility even if it allowed him to win. Even so, people shouldn’t really judge it harshly, because the other player did still fall for the so-called “scrub tactics” - so the blame is partially on them.

Generally, I subscribe to the anything goes mentality and that you just can’t complain if someone used the game mechanics to beat you - your opinion on which mechanics are “advanced” and which ones are “noob” is irrelevant to the fact that you lost. You were outwitted. Defeated. Get over it! Try again.

This is, at the moment, the common whine you see among people with scrub mentality online; ragemail usually revolves around accusing the winner of using “lame” tactics or the now popular “gay youtube combos” to win. Usually, raging scrubs are angry over the fact that their understanding the game was revealed to be terribly limited; it’s a resurgence of the ancient “throws are cheap” mentality.

To speak about MvC3 specifically, I wouldn’t consider someone who picked Sentinel or Akuma to automatically be a “scrub”. The sheer amount of whining over characters like Sentinel is just creating an ambient excuse for people to invoke when someone beats them with an “unfair” character.

The anger that most people feel when a character like Sentinel beats them is at themselves; it reveals they don’t really know as much about counter strategies as they should, or they’re still weak under fire and lose their cool. There’s no shame in that; but we tend to externalize blame and take it out on anything we can pin it on, such as the other player or his characters.


#19

I have a question is it considered cheap to move spam? I know it’s probably a dumb question but for example:

Sentinel sits in corner and spams H attack, Ryu sits in corner and hadoken spams

Now granted i’ve seen Daigo use hadokens a lot but it’s for spacing but what i’m confused about is what’s the difference in projectile spacing and projectile spamming?


#20

No, if you’re opponent can’t deal with it, then spam away. Play to win.