Professor Beef
Banned
Silky learning from Smedwicks on how to duck.
Dual modding doesn't cost too much. With next-gen consoles you can, or will soon, be able to mod it to work on a next gen console.
I think Mad Catz is having a sale as well.
Cthulu the most popular option? I'm not familiar with this kind of thing at all.
Hmm, for some reason I can't create an endless or ranked lobby. Keeps telling me the session failed. Anyone else having similar problems?
PS360+
I tired just rebooting the game instead and that did it. Thanks. Wonder why that happens. Never had a problem like that in the 360 version.Usually the solution is to reboot the PS3.
Why the $25 price difference? Can I get the job done with the cheaper one?
Why the $25 price difference? Can I get the job done with the cheaper one?
The Cthulhu piggybacks on an existing 360 PCB. If you don't have one, you can't use it on 360.
Being able to play legacy consoles with my TE sounds appealing, but at most a novelty since there isn't a serious scene for old games around here and obviously there's no online. Playing fighting games against the CPU doesn't appeal to me very much.PS360+ is the best value for the dollar, IMO.
If you just want one that works. Then I'd get a 360 base stick with a Cerberus.
http://www.phreakmods.com/products/cerberus
http://www.focusattack.com/phreakmods-cerberus-ps3-pc-joystick-pcb/
So if I'm modding a 360 stick, Cthulhu is what I want?
Are there any planned solutions to make PS3/360 sticks work on the current gen consoles? The cost of a third stick is going to hurt.PS360+ is the best value for the dollar, IMO.
If you just want one that works. Then I'd get a 360 base stick with a Cerberus.
http://www.phreakmods.com/products/cerberus
http://www.focusattack.com/phreakmods-cerberus-ps3-pc-joystick-pcb/
If you know how to solder, sure.
The reason people are telling you to get a 360+ isn't because they want to make you spend more money. They're telling you because it's the easiest install and best bang for your buck.
I disagree with you. Everyone is competitive, but some people shy away and compete in small ways they know they can win in. Others work hard to compete at things they lose at to get better. The real difference is that most people do not have the courage to voluntarily place themselves in a failing position for learning. Too many fragile egos that want to play and win on scrubby terms.To be completely honest, most people who don't want to try a tournament because they might go 0-2 are not actually competitive people to begin with. Unless you can show them some value in an event outside of losing to better players (very high value for someone competitive, very demoralizing for someone who isnt), this isn't likely to change.
And this is not a knock on people who are not competitive. Not everyone is, and not everyone should be. Everyone plays for their own reasons, and some people are just not wired to be competitive.
I disagree with you. Everyone is competitive, but some people shy away and compete in small ways they know they can win in. Others work hard to compete at things they lose at to get better. The real difference is that most people do not have the courage to voluntarily place themselves in a failing position for learning. Too many fragile egos that want to play and win on scrubby terms.
One day I'll have my rocket wheelchair and go to tournaments.
My point is that no one avoids competition entirely. Some people just avoid competition that scares them. They go for small, guaranteed, and/or petty victories.Well that's just semantics really but within the meaning of what this is about it would be weird to call competitive someone who would precisely avoid competition.
My point is that no one avoids competition entirely. Some people just avoid competition that scares them. They go for small, guaranteed, and/or petty victories.
Broke my heart to see Cano go.
FGW | Decapretated expectations
Stay and talk to people next time. Find hotel room or BYOC casuals to play or just go out to eat with someone and make new friends
My contention is that the second person does not exist. Everyone cares about winning, which is why the people you call non-competitive tend to hate competitive people. They are made uncomfortable by their skill level and aggression because it highlights how mediocre they are. Thus the invention of the Sirlin definition of "cheap". It makes them feel better about their weakness.How about this:activelyetitive person seeks out competition.
A non-competitive person doesn't necessarily try to avoid competition, but also doesn't go out of their way to seek it. They don't care about (winning, being the best, self improvement in the activity). [choose one]
Does that work better for you?
I disagree, the multiple assumptions you make in this post really hurt your argument as you're throwing every non-rabidly competitive person under the bus. I could give a fuck less about winning if I still get a good match out of it, and I don't necessarily have to resort to a defence mechanism because I lost a particular match.My contention is that the second person does not exist. Everyone cares about winning, which is why the people you call non-competitive tend to hate competitive people. They are made uncomfortable by their skill level and aggression because it highlights how mediocre they are. Thus the invention of the Sirlin definition of "cheap". It makes them feel better about their weakness.
I would way that a courageous person actively seeks out competition. Competitiveness is a core part of human nature.
My contention is that the second person does not exist. Everyone cares about winning, which is why the people you call non-competitive tend to hate competitive people. They are made uncomfortable by their skill level and aggression because it highlights how mediocre they are. Thus the invention of the Sirlin definition of "cheap". It makes them feel better about their weakness.
I would way that a courageous person actively seeks out competition. Competitiveness is a core part of human nature.
My contention is that the second person does not exist. Everyone cares about winning, which is why the people you call non-competitive tend to hate competitive people. They are made uncomfortable by their skill level and aggression because it highlights how mediocre they are. Thus the invention of the Sirlin definition of "cheap". It makes them feel better about their weakness.
I would way that a courageous person actively seeks out competition. Competitiveness is a core part of human nature.
That's true, it must be tough trying to find the right balance to find what can appeal both to the young guys and the older getting-too-old-for-that-shit crowd. Or just separate attractions that appeals to one group or the other.The other dimension is the age of the competitors. What appeals to a 16 year old isn't necessarily going to keep a ... something something person like me around. Nor do I necessarily want to get bodied by somebody who has school the next day.
It isn't the biggest barrier, but I believe it is one that exists if you don't already have friends or people you know in the event scene.
I am not making assumptions, I am making claims based off of universal experiences I have with humans. All dichotomies have gray areas. You define the extremities to understand the dichotomy. I am not into vehaviorism, and I am not a believer in rationality.I disagree, the multiple assumptions you make in this post really hurt your argument as you're throwing every non-rabidly competitive person under the bus. I could give a fuck less about winning if I still get a good match out of it, and I don't necessarily have to resort to a defence mechanism because I lost a particular match.
Sure, a W is a W and that's definitely a positive reinforcer, but that doesn't mean everyone is necessarily salivating for it, or the drive or whatever part of human nature you presuppose that is pushing it necessarily means they will throw everything else aside like rationality to be at peace with their competitive spirit.
I don't care for your definition, since it adds a new level of needless complexity. Now we have to consider how often a person goes after new things as part of calling them competitive. This also does not mesh with my notion of competitive. I will use my dad as an example. He is over 50, a smart guy, but does not do a lot of new stuff. I won't play games, etc. But he does regularly attend pinball tournaments and talks a ton of smack during them. He did the same when we played the few games he liked enough to face me in, like Red Alert 2.I'm willing to agree that most people care about winning in something that matters to them. However, I'll extend my definitions! Competitive people find new things to care about winning in to scratch their competitive itch. Non-competitive people don't have that itch, and only care about winning if they care or if the result affects their lives.
I have a non-competitive friend who will gladly play competitive games with me. He does not care if he wins or loses. Most of the time his goals in a game are to upset another player, rather than win himself.
If you don't agree with my new altered definition, then I am willing to concede this semantic discussion and agree with you.
A lot of people like to compete in the stuff surrounding fighting games. For example, some people like to win bets. They might suck at the gake, but they sure are boss at picking a winner in Marvel. Maybe they like being the person who discovers new tech. Maybe they like being part of the group that shouts down a game or helps make one popular. The person might get some depraved joy out of watching others win after emotionally investing in them (see: sports).I'm not that competitive, I just really like fighting games. I play too many to ever master any of them anyway. I do enjoy learning new things by playing people much better than myself. I'll enter the random tournament here and there but that's mostly a social thing rather than a competitive drive.
Assumptions that that do not well argue for a universal basis and are better defined as anecdotal/situational:I am not making assumptions, I am making claims based off of universal experiences I have with humans. All dichotomies have gray areas. You define the extremities to understand the dichotomy. I am not into vehaviorism, and I am not a believer in rationality.
The first two and the last I described as tendencies, not rules. It is certainly not the courageous person who is a scrub, it is the coward. Hence there is a relationship, and a tendency there.Assumptions that that do not well argue for a universal basis and are better defined as anecdotal/situational:
- If you do not actively seek competition, you are inclined to develop hate, by definition a strong emotion, towards people that are
- If you do not actively seek competition, you experience discomfort and insecurity because of the presence of comparison
- Aggression is inherent to competition
- If you do not actively seek competition, you develop a persecutory response to comfort yourself
Just play BBCPI'd like to play a new fighting game. Fuck you capcom
When's the new GG?
I'd like to play a new fighting game. Fuck you capcom
When's the new GG?
Just play BBCP
I play too many to ever master any of them anyway.
That's not the same thing though
I have a non-competitive friend who will gladly play competitive games with me. He does not care if he wins or loses. Most of the time his goals in a game are to upset another player, rather than win himself.
But I don't have the time to be a jack-of-all-trades kinda guy, as much as I admire Chris G's ability to play AE and KOF and Marvel I don't think I've got it in me