^this could grant the benefit of the awareness of whether a CT member can afford a defuse kit if the CT player exposes himself with a certain weapon.
But is it fun? How much are we expected to keep track of, in addition to playing?
If we accept that we can gain an advantage by simply following statistics, is this something that each player should be obligated to do if he/she wishes to perform at the peak levels? Become a master statistician in addition to being a cunning strategist and perhaps a performance artist? Is this all a part of the notion of 'being' in the moment? Is playing the game about being present or about knowing what's going on? Or is it both?
I'm not sure, but if we can get information simply by recording it from ALL that is available and perhaps even going so far as to carry it on and make charts, graphs and spreadsheets... could we sell them? Can someone be responsible for exposing the patterns in the minds of top players by revealing tendencies? Can we predict what someone is going to do simply by watching them?
I feel this practice puts an unnecessary strain on Play itself by imposing strict limitations on the purpose of playing a game in the first place. But can effective preparation be overcome by pure brilliance in performance? Individual talent/ability which surpasses and indeed proves any calculated effort to be futile? I think such a thing depends on the complexity of the game itself. And Urban Terror is certainly, to me, a game which is complex enough such that a thing like this could occur.
This being said, however... I wonder. Is stats a real part of the competitive CS 'behind the scenes' scene? After all, Rank S IS broadcasted, as are matches and in the case of Mythic, scrims and practice (for the benefit of all players). So because it's allowed, because the information is being 'put out there', is it to be viewed by all players as 'a necessary evil' to record information? To effectively 'keep tabs'? Is it an adoptable practice only for those who feel so inclined? Those who are 'hardcore' enough? Those who are willing? Is it a methodology which provides a needed 'edge' for some players? I think it's a matter of preference, it's a decision... So. How far are you willing to go in this direction to get a win? And would you still feel the same about it?
Does the game become less fun when we focus on something intently? Like seeing a forest for the texture of the trees, examining the topography of the bark rather than appreciating the nature of the forest as it is... I imagine this kind of attachment could cause un-happiness for anyone, which would present as an illness associated with a noticeable (and perhaps manageable) distraction from the game itself. Why? Because as we recognize that increasingly, our play becomes less about the childhood ideal or dream of performing at the highest level and experiencing like-minded individuals in the free-spirited high-level sensibility of play, challenging and daring each other to go further and to reach higher, and more about developing the greatest and most-rigid deterministic mentality of all... Well, I can't speak for everyone, but for me, this, in turn, causes a sensation of internal opposition and conflict which upsets me to the point where I want to stop and grapple with whether or not playing the game itself is even worth my time, or anyone's time for that matter. If it's just a matter of memorization...
It kind of makes you wonder, in the end, is there play? Or is everything deterministically quantifiable to the extent that such a thing could never be possible?
Is it all simply a matter of the breakdown? Creating logistical sense of it all, and then capitalizing on the information you've recorded and 'learned'?
Many games which are included in the sphere of gambling exist due to set 'odds' or statistics which are determined by the nature of the game itself... but, even in D&D, there is always a 'game-master' or someone who is secretly running the operation from a hidden-vantage point as players come and go and ultimately serve them in a beneficial way while enjoying their experience. Is it possible that individuals who desire to win and to be the best would go so far as to adopt the ideal of reaching such a vantage point?
In the case of a hierarchical structure, or in an oligarchy, the 'game-master' receives tangible empowerment which he/she then (ideally) uses for the good of the other players in exchange as he/she manages his/her time and resources to produce more 'goods' which are really only material and serve no purpose beyond fulfilling basic needs... so, essentially to provide for his/her community...
But is anyone going to point out that by placing one person on a pedestal and allowing this to occur, we have effectively accepted a natural dominance which indeed should exist, but in addition, we have bought into an ideology in which we have to accept a confused duality and to see it as absolutely necessary rather than striving for pure being.
Duality is fine, in the case of gender for instance, when it would seem that there truly is the presence of polarity, of 2... but in the case of good/evil, there simply is no evil. Ideally, evil needn't ever be acknowledged. So why do we sense it? Because of consequential disorder... because of WRONG action, and of course, nature tells us when we're doing something wrong.
So where and how can we do wrong? Perhaps, in this case, it may be when someone decides to adapt the role of the provider only to use his 'advantage' in being able to see things which others do not for his/her own personal benefit (and for those who can benefit him/her in exchange), effectively birthing and representing 'the dark side' by stockpiling or hoarding information which is seen as 'exclusive' or 'lucrative'... holding some imagined value for the purpose of further exchange or personal gain.
^this is effectively turning the ladder into an impositional structure of unnatural hierarchy which presupposes the necessity to 'beat out' someone else. Which, is accomplished not so much by proving oneself via natural ability, but rather by having access to information.
This is how any state is run, ultimately by those who are before us. It is perhaps neccessary in the case of irl, where we can easily sense whether a decision is good or bad simply by examining it and using our capacity to feel how close it truly is to a natural order... but in a game, in the microcosm, is there room for 'good and bad'? Or should it be all good? Is such a thing possible with competitive play, or is competition itself the real issue?
I believe competition serves a grand purpose and fulfils many people as players actively strive toward the ideal of perfection in harmony with one another by sharing the same tradition or sport. Personally, I feel my tendency is to believe that the issue lies with the indivudal players who, unlike in the case of a sprint at the Olympics which is based purely in physical ability, have the capacity to use numbers in a wieldable way.
So why do we see evil when we look at the numbers? Why are we tempted to do something with them?
Is nature trying to tell us something?
Ultimately, I think there is a proper, fun and orderly way to break down the game which depends on personal experiences, preferences and creativity... maybe for instance, using a temporary system which incorporates 'cards' which show an image (of the strategy employed) which belong to a deck which belong to a set... so I think there are likely 'fun' ways to imagine the unfolding of a round which are totally based in what is metaphysically permissbale rather than reliance on numbers themselves in a statistical way. Which is weird, and perhaps unreliable in the context of the present moment where information is created to begin with.
My point is, simply, that we shouldn't have to worry. Right?
I think, perhaps, that for many reasons, Money adds unnecessary complication, certainly... even if only in a metaphorical sense, but again, I ask: Is money the problem? Or are we the problem?
PS: I think Urban Terror sells itself.
This post has been edited by Vortex2: 09 March 2017 - 04:51 AM