I don't use it as an excuse for losing, but I can also see how sometimes the amount of work I have to put in to win compared to my opponent is completely lobsided. If this game were perfect, everyone would play differently but have the tools to deal with whatever strategy people are throwing at them (zoning, rushdown, teleports ect) without having to severely outplay their opponent to get the win.
Changing your character doesn't make you adapt though... If I play Bane and lose... then choose Superman and win... I am not adapting. I am just picking a better character. I guess that would be adapting in a more meta-physical sense... but that is stretching it.
Sorry... I thought we were talking about competitive gaming. I have fun by winning. You can play for whatever you want. Just don't complain about balance then.
no game will ever be perfect.
I personally don't see how that's not an adaptation. I mean whatever you can use whatever words you want because at the end of the day the only two words that matter are "win" and "lose"
Okay I retract my statement, you can talk about balance, but don't use it as an excuse. Also, sorry I don't have fun losing for the sake of being stubborn. If you do, that's fine. Don't tell me how I should have fun though.
Reason=Excuse just like Adapt=Choice.
I was the better player because I was smart enough to pick kenshi abd he was dumb enough to pick jade. The better player in that situation always wins
No. The reason you lost was your refusal to use all the tools at your disposal.
That is still a reason and not an excuse...
No, this is stupid. Tom Brady is a better player. Playing to win is fine but don't think it means low tier players are automatically bad because they play bad characters. Some if us like a challenge.
Dude why do you care so much about the exact words? Lol. They literally have almost the same definition in this context. I just used excuse because it has a negative connotation.
Dude why do you care so much about the exact words? Lol. They literally have almost the same definition in this context. I just used excuse because it has a negative connotation.
Maybe I love definitions?
Im a jade main and If I was ever in that situation in a tournament, I'd still use her because I'd be dumb to pick anybody else just because everyone and their mother thinks it's a 10-0 for kenshi. I don't use characters I have no interest in.I guess Im supposed to pick Lao or Kabal which I probably have 5 minutes of experience using since the game came out over Jade who I have a years worth of experience with. Im pretty sure that I'll be much better off with a character that I know inside out rather than one I never even touch nor intend to.
Actually, it does mean I'm the better player in that situation, because I put myself in a position to win and he didn't. Of course in real life that situation wouldn't occur, and Tom is in fact a better player than myself. Low tier heroes is a whole different argument, but it certainly doesn't use the play to win style.
You don't make sense. Everyone doesn't play well with the same char. If that was the case every single MK player would main Kabal. Diff people play their best level with diff chars that suit THEM.
Maybe you should have put that time into a character that doesn't get bodied 9 1, or trained a counter pick. It's no one else's fault but your own that you won't play someone else.
I'm saying that you should play a character that is a balance of your strengths and viability. If your strengths are weak in the game, level up your own skills to match what is good in the game. If your only good at one thing then you are limiting yourself. Maybe youshould've prepared a character to throw those rockets yourself if it's such a big deal.
No but it does stop me from being limited by the character I choose. It allows me to be the most successful.
