Author Topic: Who here DOESN'T like online multiplayer ?  (Read 10608 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline /lurk

  • Dragon Warrior Slime
  • *****
  • Posts: 5251
    • View Profile
Re: Who here DOESN'T like online multiplayer ?
« Reply #30 on: April 04, 2007, 02:10:04 pm »
Woo, hey, no need for such grattitude - I didn't write the thing. I merely discovered it in my travels across this great internet.

But if you still want the babies, I'll have them crated and shipped as soon as I get some stock in.
Not a winner anymore.

Offline Devoid

  • Qix Crazy
  • ****
  • Posts: 849
  • Join the resistance!
    • View Profile
Re: Who here DOESN'T like online multiplayer ?
« Reply #31 on: April 04, 2007, 02:56:28 pm »
Oh, I found that article a while back, too. It's just rare to find someone else who has read it, and even keeps it on hand to post in forum threads. It's so rare, infact, that there should be some babies. When you get stock is fine, just be sure to pack them nice and tight. I'd hate for them to bruise while being shipped.

Offline Uroboros

  • Duck Hunter
  • *****
  • Posts: 3060
  • Am I awake?
    • View Profile
Re: Who here DOESN'T like online multiplayer ?
« Reply #32 on: April 04, 2007, 04:29:33 pm »
Took a brief look at that article, remembered playing in a handful of FPS servers where over 90% of the kills were definately straight spawnkills, and groaned. I thought back to those BF2 servers where the regulars wouldnt just fight without mercy and restraint (which is fine, of course), but capture all but the last checkpoint, surround it in camping positions, and sit there strafing the spawnpoints with endless fire so they could pad their stats, and draw a game out for another 15-20 minutes.

I always attributed the use of hacks to the "Win at all costs" mindset, too. There is simply more to gaming than winning no matter what.

Offline PatMan33

  • Fable Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 28788
  • M I RITE? STICKERS?
    • View Profile
    • DuckDuckGo
Re: Who here DOESN'T like online multiplayer ?
« Reply #33 on: April 04, 2007, 04:34:56 pm »
I like BF2 but would like it more if I had a squad that I knew I could trust.


In other news, the last time I played I got my veteran sniper badge.

Offline Piloteer

  • Ensign Seventh Class
  • *****
  • Posts: 2922
  • We're going to hit the mountain!
    • View Profile
Re: Who here DOESN'T like online multiplayer ?
« Reply #34 on: April 04, 2007, 05:00:53 pm »
That article tries much too hard to look at a very simple issue: People who will use "cheap" tactics to win in a game make the game less fun, both for themselves and for other players.

Most would agree that "snaking" in Mario Kart DS is cheap. What is the counter to that? To snake youself? That's not fun. I don't mind if someone wins because they're simply a better player, but when someone exploits such cheap tactics to win a game, then the game becomes less fun for everybody. After all, don't we play games for fun?

Offline PatMan33

  • Fable Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 28788
  • M I RITE? STICKERS?
    • View Profile
    • DuckDuckGo
Re: Who here DOESN'T like online multiplayer ?
« Reply #35 on: April 04, 2007, 05:39:22 pm »
No, what world are you living in?

I play games to show off my skills and prove to everyone that my bits are bigger than theirs.

Offline Devoid

  • Qix Crazy
  • ****
  • Posts: 849
  • Join the resistance!
    • View Profile
Re: Who here DOESN'T like online multiplayer ?
« Reply #36 on: April 04, 2007, 05:59:24 pm »
Took a brief look at that article, remembered playing in a handful of FPS servers where over 90% of the kills were definately straight spawnkills, and groaned. I thought back to those BF2 servers where the regulars wouldnt just fight without mercy and restraint (which is fine, of course), but capture all but the last checkpoint, surround it in camping positions, and sit there strafing the spawnpoints with endless fire so they could pad their stats, and draw a game out for another 15-20 minutes.

I always attributed the use of hacks to the "Win at all costs" mindset, too. There is simply more to gaming than winning no matter what.

Most games affected by spawn killing now have a few seconds of immunity to prevent that, because it's an annoying tactic. And as for your BF2 example, that's not what the article said at all. Those guys don't play to win, they play to stat pad. If you want to deal with idiots like that (and believe me, I have), what you do is either leave the game or just leave your team and observe until they decide to end it. Get the rest of your teammates to do the same and the game can be over in minutes. It's very simple. Like I said, the easiest way to deal with these idiots is to not take their crap. And hacking? Not even close! You obviously skimmed that article VERY briefly. The idea isn't to win at all costs, it's to win within the construct of the game. Not an imaginary construct, and certainly not the construct granted by another program that wins for you.

And Pilot, it isn't less fun. You don't win by trying to having fun, you have fun by trying to win.

Offline Cobra

  • Moderator
  • All Your Base Zero Wing
  • *****
  • Posts: 8951
  • People want ducks.
    • View Profile
Re: Who here DOESN'T like online multiplayer ?
« Reply #37 on: April 04, 2007, 08:41:33 pm »
But there isn't any fun in having everyone pick the same strategy and the winner is determined by who gets the red shell on the last lap thats not fun you might as well go play a game of High Card or other games that rely 100% on chance.

The link lurk posted touched on game breaking elements that are universally banned that character who was so ungodly unbalanced that he is banned from competitive playing is an example show everyone can just pick that character and spam the cheap move and see is lucky enough to be left standing but that isn't fun. Snaking is the same everyone can pick Toad and weave along a track get the better weapon on the last lap for instant win but where is that fun. If you won because you got lucky how is that fun? Winning because you are better then your opponents.

if a cheap move has a counter it isn't cheap it adds depth and strategy if the only counter to the cheap move is to do it right back then the game is unbalanced and to have everyone using the same thing all day is not fun.

Offline Piloteer

  • Ensign Seventh Class
  • *****
  • Posts: 2922
  • We're going to hit the mountain!
    • View Profile
Re: Who here DOESN'T like online multiplayer ?
« Reply #38 on: April 04, 2007, 08:44:50 pm »
And Pilot, it isn't less fun. You don't win by trying to having fun, you have fun by trying to win.

Well you don't have fun when you play against people resorting to such wasteful and cheap tactics such as the ones Uroboros mentioned.

If you find spawn-killing and other cheap moves fun, then knock yourself out. But if that's the case, I think the majority of us here won't be playing online games with you.

Offline Devoid

  • Qix Crazy
  • ****
  • Posts: 849
  • Join the resistance!
    • View Profile
Re: Who here DOESN'T like online multiplayer ?
« Reply #39 on: April 04, 2007, 09:11:26 pm »
First of all, I didn't say spawn-killing was fun. That's a dirty tactic, because the other player has no hope of fighting. That's why most games eliminated it. It's a dead issue.

And no, I don't always think they're fun. Sometimes I play Counter-Strike, and I intentionally use something other than a colt or an AK. Why? More fun. More challenge! But do I whine about people being cheap by using those weapons, or an AWP? Of course not! They want to win, and I want the fun of a challenge where I win by intentionally limiting myself. But if it's my goal to win, I pick up those guns too.

The difference between a scrub and someone who creates a challenge for themself is that a scrub thinks everyone should adhere to their rules, whereas I expect nobody to.

And I do realize I'm contradicting myself a little bit, but the fun in winning is the challenge, and in a game like CS, the challenge left a long time ago, except in a scrim or something, in which case the challenge comes from things other than what gun you're using.

Offline PatMan33

  • Fable Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 28788
  • M I RITE? STICKERS?
    • View Profile
    • DuckDuckGo
Re: Who here DOESN'T like online multiplayer ?
« Reply #40 on: April 04, 2007, 09:40:26 pm »
Do we need to start a BF2 clan or something and show people who's boss?

Offline Uroboros

  • Duck Hunter
  • *****
  • Posts: 3060
  • Am I awake?
    • View Profile
Re: Who here DOESN'T like online multiplayer ?
« Reply #41 on: April 05, 2007, 11:40:53 am »
That article tries much too hard to look at a very simple issue: People who will use "cheap" tactics to win in a game make the game less fun, both for themselves and for other players.
The article seemed to be addressing how if you want to excel, you have to listen only to the rules the game lays down, and not what other people try to lay down. I myself have been called cheap in a number of games, for simply playing it the way its supposed to be played. In City of Heroes, using whatever spare "inspirations" my character is holding during PVP. In CS:Source, using flashbangs along with the pump-action shotgun. In F.E.A.R, using the whole variety of melee attacks when the situation called for it (not just spamming the bicycle kick). In BF2, running over two guys whilst im on a run for their UAV to plant the C4. Or using my Anti-Tank rockets as an improvised way to pick off snipers who are bothering my teammates.

The article itself directly addressed the competitive side of beat-em-ups, and a classic 2D one at that. In competitions, especially those based on 2D beat-em-ups, OF COURSE the gloves are going to be off. Its called a competition for a reason, right? However if its just you and someone else playing casually, you're well within your rights to be pissed off if they spend the entire game blocking, only responding with 'quick jab' every time you try something, EVERY match. Why? Not just because its frustrating, but its boring as hell. Then again, 2D beat-em-ups tend to be more intense in full-on competition, due to the need for razor-sharp reactions.

Over all, it helps to simply gauge the attitude/seriousness of the server, and the level of your opponents. You dont necessarily have to hold back, but in gaming, some of your strongest cards simply dont need to be played in casual gaming. Besides this, I believe every game has its own scope

Quote
it's to win within the construct of the game. Not an imaginary construct, and certainly not the construct granted by another program that wins for you.
Those guys don't play to win, they play to stat pad.
Comparatively, in BF2, some people see having higher stats as winning. Stat-padding is just one such 'viable' game mechanic. You can swap a friend onto the enemy team to play as a medic. You and your friend find an isolated member on his team, and kill him. You stand over the corpse with your knife, and recussitates him, and then you knife him before he can even move or pull out his weapon. Repeat until you have your knife and pistol medals. What about swapping to the enemy team, taking off in their attack chopper, then hiding it intact and keeping it repaired so they cant use it? After all, its only the "made up rules and false sense of honor" that keeps you from doing it. There is definately such a thing as being cheap. Again, the scope of being cheap changes greatly depending on the game in question.

Quote
Like I said, the easiest way to deal with these idiots is to not take their crap.
Server-bouncing when someone makes a server stink, tends to just yield a different problem in a different server. Online gaming really suffer from the sheer abundance of morons, but besides having an attentive admin on standby at all times, what can really be done? Observing and similar things is a good idea, but this requires your teammates to actually follow suit, which is rare.

Quote
And Pilot, it isn't less fun. You don't win by trying to having fun, you have fun by trying to win.
I tend I have fun by competing, but its not very fun if there is no competition to be had. If im ahead by a huge margin, or someone else is devestating everyone beyond a hope of fighting back, whats the point? I do agree that besides the people who like to piss on the bonfire, there is also a good body of whiners too, but at least whiners can be disregarded, or game allowing, muted, which ends the problem on the spot.
« Last Edit: April 05, 2007, 12:03:30 pm by Uroboros »

Offline Devoid

  • Qix Crazy
  • ****
  • Posts: 849
  • Join the resistance!
    • View Profile
Re: Who here DOESN'T like online multiplayer ?
« Reply #42 on: April 05, 2007, 04:36:38 pm »
Your BF2 example is another case of leaving the player who is getting knifed constantly as completely unable to do anything, not unlike spawn camping, so I would consider that a dirty tactic. And I think that crosses the oh-so-fine line between "using the constructs of the game" and "exploiting." And I very much agree with your statement about judging the seriousness of the situation. Like I said before, in CS, I avoid the best guns in pubs, and flock to them like everyone else in a scrim.

It's also true that you may end up in another crappy server if you bounce, but some problems are easier to avoid than others. There isn't a hacker in every game. And in BF2, games can get so huge that it would be a little difficult to convince everyone on your team to switch into observer mode unless it's extremely blatant that the other team is stat padding, and everyone is just boxed into a corner. In other games where something like this can happen, it can be very easy. I'll give you the example of Natural Selection, where it is very easy for the winning team to kind of lose interest in finishing off their opponent, and will instead just kill them for the hell of it (no stats to pad, but it still happens surprisingly often). In that game, teams communicate constantly, and they usually don't go above 10 or 12 per side, so it's pretty easy to say "Guys, this sucks, let's switch to observer," and the game can end within 30 seconds of that decision.

Overall, I think you and I are on the same page, Uro. You've got some good points there.

And the more we talk about this stuff, the worse Battlefield 2 looks. I always knew that game had ridiculously sloppy multiplayer with bad lag and buckets full of exploits, but it just seems like there are a whole lot of ways to ruin that game. I'm glad I don't play it anymore. Although I will say that the squad combat is some of the best multiplayer gameplay around. Nothing beats an organized squad unleashing hell on a map.

Offline Luminar

  • Gyromite Gyro
  • *****
  • Posts: 4332
  • i'm losin' it
    • View Profile
Re: Who here DOESN'T like online multiplayer ?
« Reply #43 on: April 05, 2007, 04:45:22 pm »
Hmm, that one pointer on stealing vehicles reminds me of Renegade where I considered it an entirely viable tactic.. it counts towards their cap so they can field less and less vehicles the more you steal and hide away. The thing was, against a player that knows what he's doing, it is VERY tough to take an enemy's vehicle from under their nose since no player with half a brain repairs it anywhere near the front line.

Actually stopping the enemy building vehicles by stealing 6 of them and stashing them in your base was a spectacularly rare occurance, though.. only ever seen it pulled off once. Plus, in the event of an attack on your base, if they get to the vehicle stash it can be very, VERY quickly and effectivley turned against you.

Offline skateboarding118

  • Atari Combat Vet
  • *
  • Posts: 14
    • View Profile
Re: Who here DOESN'T like online multiplayer ?
« Reply #44 on: May 21, 2007, 01:57:13 am »
Personally, I like multiplayer. But I absolutely HATE online achievements. I could list a couple of reasons off the top of my mind. One, there may be some lag (like gears of war) and that enough could screw you over when you're trying to get a headshot, two, if a game becomes old, not many people will be playing it. And last but not least, if there is a game that is unpopular (like quake 4 for the 360), then not many people would be playing it at day one. THIS IS EVIL I TELL 'YE >:(