Competitive Multiplayer Choices That you don't Respect

[Cabisco]

I don't like anything that prevents the opponent from even having the opportunity to react. I've seen combos in Magic: The Gatering, YuGiOh, PoxNora and various other competitive games that just completely lock out an opponent. While it may a strategy, I believe it's one that detracts from the game and entertainment it's supposed to provide. What was supposed to be a contest is one no longer, and you're effectively just running through a checklist.

Also I don't like people that bandwagon onto whatever they research to be the most powerful strategy or figure out what the top competitive players are doing and just mimic it. I've seen that aspect in DotA, LoL, HoN, Warhammer 40K tabletop, as well as Magic too.

I agree on both accounts, I don't quite get the appeal of a system in which you do the same thing over and over, it's more akin to flipping a coin than a strategic game, no adapting to a changing scenario etc, just waiting to do the same exact thing every time.

I understand why people would just copy the best thing out there (it's the best, and I want to be the best and this is the best way to be the best) but again I've never got the appeal, I love tailoring something to my needs and figuring things out as a go. Sometimes I loose sometimes I win, but it's always my way and not what a website told me to do.

To add my own thing which is linked: People on your team who judge/condemn your choices because they read on the internet the best builds and you're not adhering to them, maybe I want to do things my way and have fun through my own choices :/

 

[MagnumOsprey]

I find it really difficult to take people seriously when they tell me that they're a "competitive player" of any fighting game that's come out since 2008 or so(with the exception of the newer Tekken games). Street Fighter IV and Marvel vs. Capcom 3 in particular have little to no competitive value since they reward the losing player with overpowered gimmick mechanics. The same holds true for any shooter that's on a console. Yes, dear, I'm sure you do think you're very skilled at this game that aims the guns so you don't have to. That's how the game wants you to feel so you'll give it money.

You do know that this doesn't apply to EVERY console shooter right?

 

[Raika]

I find it really difficult to take people seriously when they tell me that they're a "competitive player" of any fighting game that's come out since 2008 or so(with the exception of the newer Tekken games). Street Fighter IV and Marvel vs. Capcom 3 in particular have little to no competitive value since they reward the losing player with overpowered gimmick mechanics. The same holds true for any shooter that's on a console. Yes, dear, I'm sure you do think you're very skilled at this game that aims the guns so you don't have to. That's how the game wants you to feel so you'll give it money.

You do know that this doesn't apply to EVERY console shooter right?

I do know that, and I suppose I should have clarified to that end. I did say "any shooter that's on a console", and I shouldn't have. Sorry about that.

 

[Inquisitor Slayde]

I don't like anything that prevents the opponent from even having the opportunity to react. I've seen combos in Magic: The Gathering, YuGiOh, PoxNora and various other competitive games that just completely lock out an opponent. While it may be a strategy, I believe it's one that detracts from the game and entertainment it's supposed to provide. What was supposed to be a contest is one no longer, and you're effectively just running through a checklist.

Yeah, this was my first thought too. It drove me out of competitive Magic: The Gathering and more recently Duel Of Champions.

I just kept running into people playing decks where the whole strategy was to stop me from doing anything while they set up their win. I don't mind losing but I want to still be playing the game, not just drawing and ending my turn. I don't even care if their deck requires skill to play or not, I don't care if they pulled their deck list from a website, I just want to enjoy the damn game and their strategy is designed to stop me from even playing it.

I have no respect for you if you care more about some easy, empty win than the enjoyment of everyone involved in the game. You get what you want so, screw everyone else right?

 

[Phrozenflame500]

I think my example would have to be the StarCraft 2 Mothership. Especially in Heart of the Swarm.

Dude, you complain about UP Protoss units and and you don't mention the Carrier?

I mean seriously, even in troll games nobody uses it due to its awfulness.

OT: In general I don't get angry at other players for exploiting design decisions, since it's the dev's fault for being bad at game balance.

For player choices though, people who take gaming too seriously. Like people going crazy if you DARE use a slightly less optimized build or you use a "n00b character/race". I always love to taunt people who do this either through chat or through in-game actions.

 

[CrazyCapnMorgan]

I think my example would have to be the StarCraft 2 Mothership. Especially in Heart of the Swarm.

Dude, you complain about UP Protoss units and and you don't mention the Carrier?

I mean seriously, even in troll games nobody uses it due to its awfulness.

I've used it in games and lemme tell you, just half a dozen of those can be quite the handful if you're not prepared. If you get to late game and you've gotten yourself to the point where you're full blown air-Toss, Carriers can be right bastards to deal with. Air Protoss with some Chargelots can be quite a force to be reckoned with. Though, I will make the argument that Carriers should at least have equal armor rating compared to the Battlecruiser and perhaps a similar build time. I would like to note, however, I do not play ladder and very rarely play against others on-line unless they're known friends.

With the Mothership, you can ONLY have one. And it's supposed to be the ultimate Protoss vessel. As it stands, it's the ultimate Protoss paperweight. And as I mentioned previously, at least the Carrier has some viability. The Mothership doesn't even have that.

 

[Legion]

Natural Selection 2 is a game with no kill or time limit, the match is over once the enemy command structure(s) has been taken out.

In a lot of servers you will spend a fair amount of team getting the teams balanced, convincing people to choose to play as the commander (they don't fight in FPS, they control construction like in an RTS) and eventually get the game started.

Then one team decides to suicide rush the enemy base to end the game within less than two minutes.

I don't mind the tactic itself, I just despise spending more time in the lobby than actually playing the damn game. I don't see how it is fun, especially considering it happens a lot on "rookie friendly" servers.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

When it comes to videogames, I'm of the firm opinion that there are no cheap shots, just bad game design. Basically if a game is well designed, exploiting the rules in whatever way possible is part of the fun, because there will be a counter for everything and who wins will come down to knowledge and execution. If it's poorly made, then there might be things that can't be countered. If the game has that kind of balance flaws, just play it for fun or don't play it at all. Getting truly competitive over a game like that is just going to be an exercise in frustration.

 

[TheYellowCellPhone]

I dislike having a duel or a one-on-one face off in multiplayer games where the 'honor' rules are broken.

This is mainly my experience in TF2 talking.

Having a melee fight and pulling out your gun when you're about to lose, grabbing a health pack in the middle of the duel, or running away. Having someone else come in and kill you or injure you is also an offender, but that's out of anyone's control.

It's just bad sportsmanship. You're not telling me you don't have the same skills as I do, you're telling me that you don't want to try to measure up your skills. No personal improvement for you, because you can't fathom losing. One-on-one should be fun no matter if you win or lose, but using bad sportsmanship is guaranteed to make someone not have fun anymore.

 

[Vivi22]

When it comes to videogames, I'm of the firm opinion that there are no cheap shots, just bad game design. Basically if a game is well designed, exploiting the rules in whatever way possible is part of the fun, because there will be a counter for everything and who wins will come down to knowledge and execution. If it's poorly made, then there might be things that can't be countered. If the game has that kind of balance flaws, just play it for fun or don't play it at all. Getting truly competitive over a game like that is just going to be an exercise in frustration.

This. I couldn't possibly agree with you any more than I do.

If a game has legitimately broken strategies which can never be countered then it's not worth playing, and I'd argue it's not even a real competitive game since the competition aspect is completely gone. You can either choose to play something else, play it professionally where certain things may get a soft or even hard ban, or you can just dick around and have fun and shrug off the odd match where someone uses the broken stuff. Anything else is just silly and a waste of time.

I dislike having a duel or a one-on-one face off in multiplayer games where the 'honor' rules are broken.

This is mainly my experience in TF2 talking.

Having a melee fight and pulling out your gun when you're about to lose, grabbing a health pack in the middle of the duel, or running away. Having someone else come in and kill you or injure you is also an offender, but that's out of anyone's control.

It's just bad sportsmanship. You're not telling me you don't have the same skills as I do, you're telling me that you don't want to try to measure up your skills. No personal improvement for you, because you can't fathom losing. One-on-one should be fun no matter if you win or lose, but using bad sportsmanship is guaranteed to make someone not have fun anymore.

I don't understand this mentality at all beyond being on a server or with friends where specifically dicking around by having some one on one duel is considered acceptable.

TF2 is not a one on one game, and expecting anyone to just automatically play by whatever rules you have in your head which have nothing to do with the actual game seems silly to me. Getting the kill and helping your team is the thing that matters. "Honour" shouldn't even enter into it.

 

[EyeReaper]

Milling, milling, milling. If you use a mill deck, i will refuse to play you, and then probably insult your mother as well. For those who don't know, milling is a "strategy" In tcgs that builds your deck solely around making your opponent discard cards from the hand/deck to go for the automatic lose when you run out. this is especially infuriating in Magic: The Gathering, as there's some really bs cards made for doing this. (Mind Funeral and terrorize anyone?)

Also, tiers. I don't care about tiers at all, and i don't need to be reminded that I'm not using the top tier, or that i should be doing a different strategy because "all the pros are doing it." for example, i have never used stealth rock in pokemon, and many that i use don't have good personality types or high speeds, so i avoid "pros" like the plague. I don't give a shit about EV training, and i won't ever think you're the superior player because you farmed lvl 1 ratatas for hours for those extra speed points.

 

[Hawk of Battle]

I don't like anything that prevents the opponent from even having the opportunity to react. I've seen combos in Magic: The Gatering, YuGiOh, PoxNora and various other competitive games that just completely lock out an opponent. While it may a strategy, I believe it's one that detracts from the game and entertainment it's supposed to provide. What was supposed to be a contest is one no longer, and you're effectively just running through a checklist.

Also I don't like people that bandwagon onto whatever they research to be the most powerful strategy or figure out what the top competitive players are doing and just mimic it. I've seen that aspect in DotA, LoL, HoN, Warhammer 40K tabletop, as well as Magic too.

Funny you should mention MtG. I literally just came out of the most rage inducing game I've played on the new Planeswalkers. 4 player FFA, 1 guy playing black pulls out a card that causes any creature that dies that isn't his, to become his. He then immediately plays a card that kills about 10 creatures amongst the other 3 players, then starts pulling out insta-kill spells that even my 19/19 Eldrazi can't survive, basically taking away nearly every creature on the field and giving them to him. Oh and the all become zombies and get counters on them, to make them more powerful.

Next time it's his turn, because he now has so many creatures, they're all zombies, and he already has another card out that gives him half as many more zombies, he's basically unstoppable.

Now, what's even more annoying is I actually have a counter for this situation, All is Dust, which destroys all coloured permanents. Unfortunately, despite being a card that nearly always turns up when I need it, neither of the ones in my deck are anywhere in sight, and nor does the other player who's using the same deck as me seem to have it either. Cue 2 players with nearly full life being killed in the same turn.

And yesterday I encounted one of the new lockdown deck stategies, due to the promo cards now being unlocked, one of which basically taps all your creatures, and somehow has endless flashback, meaning it can be cast every turn without fail so even the deck with the weakest creatures can proceed to constantly attack you until dead, whilst still having the mana left to mill your cards into your graveyard. Not that playing any creatures would help of course, since they all just get tapped immediately.

Sorry, that turned into more of a rant than I expected there...

 

[Bocaj2000]

When a player uses exploits instead of skill, I generally don't enjoy playing with that person. What I usually do when I have a friend who does that is play as random as possible.

With that said, if the game allows massive exploits, then it is probably a shitty game.

For example, I consider MvC3 a low tier fighting game because of how easy it is to get juggled until you die with no way of defending yourself after the first hit. Yes, the winner earned the win, but it doesn't feel like the looser deserved the loss.

I gave up on collectable card games because deck building matters more than player skill. Contrast that to living card games which provide all the cards in an easy manner and provide a more controlled match up.

Yes, I'm aware that both of these points are rendered obsolete in tournaments and professional play... but I'm not a professional and none of my friends are either. As far as I'm concerned, the games are broken by design.

EDIT: Having tiers is a broken system to begin with. If there is a weapon, card, or character that is inherently better or worse than the rest, then balance your fucking game or take it out.

 

[DaWaffledude]

Using the gun in Assasin's Creed. So freaking cheap.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

When it comes to videogames, I'm of the firm opinion that there are no cheap shots, just bad game design. Basically if a game is well designed, exploiting the rules in whatever way possible is part of the fun, because there will be a counter for everything and who wins will come down to knowledge and execution. If it's poorly made, then there might be things that can't be countered. If the game has that kind of balance flaws, just play it for fun or don't play it at all. Getting truly competitive over a game like that is just going to be an exercise in frustration.

This. I couldn't possibly agree with you any more than I do.

If a game has legitimately broken strategies which can never be countered then it's not worth playing, and I'd argue it's not even a real competitive game since the competition aspect is completely gone. You can either choose to play something else, play it professionally where certain things may get a soft or even hard ban, or you can just dick around and have fun and shrug off the odd match where someone uses the broken stuff. Anything else is just silly and a waste of time.

I dislike having a duel or a one-on-one face off in multiplayer games where the 'honor' rules are broken.

This is mainly my experience in TF2 talking.

Having a melee fight and pulling out your gun when you're about to lose, grabbing a health pack in the middle of the duel, or running away. Having someone else come in and kill you or injure you is also an offender, but that's out of anyone's control.

It's just bad sportsmanship. You're not telling me you don't have the same skills as I do, you're telling me that you don't want to try to measure up your skills. No personal improvement for you, because you can't fathom losing. One-on-one should be fun no matter if you win or lose, but using bad sportsmanship is guaranteed to make someone not have fun anymore.

I don't understand this mentality at all beyond being on a server or with friends where specifically dicking around by having some one on one duel is considered acceptable.

TF2 is not a one on one game, and expecting anyone to just automatically play by whatever rules you have in your head which have nothing to do with the actual game seems silly to me. Getting the kill and helping your team is the thing that matters. "Honour" shouldn't even enter into it.

What I said is basically what that Playing To Win book over at sirlin.net would boil down to if it was written by someone who was capable of not coming off as an asshole XD

As for the other post, since when has not getting a health pickup been part of playing fair in a duel anyway? Even in 1v1 quake matches, people don't do that. In fact taking the pickups and keeping your opponent from getting them is a part of the game. And then there's the issue with this being TF2, where the classes aren't exactly balanced for one on one fighting. Even if you can safely ignore your team mates (which in TF2, you really can't), there's games better suited to that sort of thing.

 

[Not G. Ivingname]

Dead Ringer Spies. They just will NEVER die. >_<

They are not even that dangerous because most of the people who use it don't know the first thing about being stealthy. The Dead Ringer is one big crutch.

The red tape recorder, however, is so dangerous for an engineer. "Spent minutes building up your position to defend your teammates, and went away to get metal 20 seconds away? Lol, nope, level ones."

Level ones can be take down by just about every class even if you are hammering it, so your nest is now useless until you build it up again.

 

[Ninjamedic]

The red tape recorder, however, is so dangerous for an engineer. "Spent minutes building up your position to defend your teammates, and went away to get metal 20 seconds away? Lol, nope, level ones."

Level ones can be take down by just about every class even if you are hammering it, so your nest is now useless until you build it up again.

Seriously? I stopped last year since I thought it was broken THEN, this is what players can do now!? I remember when player skill and teamwork was the main factor in winning...

OT: The choice to consider winning more important than enjoyment, its what drives most of the "top-tier" builds in games and results in the stagnation of multiplayer in a game that has a tournament scene unless you have to vast amount of time required to get past a skill-gate that only exists because of most players playing for 5+ years.

 

[Naeras]

When someone cries "OMG OVERPOWERED" at any point in time.

No, really. I was active as a strategy specialist(basically someone who reviews replays and answers player questions in regards to strategy) in the old Company of Heroes-community, and a lot of the time I'd see people react with "X is overpowered omfg" when their response actually should have been "okay, how do I deal with this?". It is always your own fault if you lose, and rather than venting to other people about that, you should take a look at what made you lose and try to fix that rather than wasting your time whining. Not only is it annoying for others, it's flat-out counterproductive, because you'll be telling yourself "I only lost because X is overpowered" rather than "if I had done Y rather than Z, I'd be in a much better position in that game I just lost".

..and speaking of which...

I've always love Fighting Games, so it goes without explanation that I love fighting against a human opponent. I like to test my skills against them, and see what skills they have.

But you always come across that one person who always picks the cheap stuff. The One Shot Cannon, The Broken Character, The stage that they know they can exploit the most. So, I'm asking you what are some of the choices that a competitive player makes which causes you to lose respect for them instantly.

In Ultimate Marvel Vs Capcom 3, it seems like Balance was never apart of the game design from the beginning, and I get that. Some things are questionable to me (Like Why isn't Spiderman top tier given that his power set puts him light years above some of the Top tier cannon power sets, like Wesker and Spencer), but I know what I'm getting if I play a match.

However... I will never respect Zero May Cry players. Zero May Cry is a name of a team, which is Dante from Devil May Cry (with some of the best assists for locking the other player down), Vergil (who is a bit broken) and Zero, widely accepted as the most broken character in the game due to his giant hit boxes for attacks and infinite loops. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wwXDw0IrvwQ is an example of a typical Zero May Cry match up

I find nothing high level about taking the most broken characters in the game and treating yourself like you're an elite player. Due that shit with Hsein-Ko, and then we'll talk. A lot of people say 'Learn to play' when you get bodied by the team, as a long time fighting game player I get the response. But picking nothing but high tier makes me feel like you can't play, only exploit. So I will always hate on a Zero May Cry choice.

What are some of the choices in Multiplayer that when selected, you just lose all respect for that player?

..yeah, about that. Discussing balance is one thing. Complaining about someone using a strong strategy, on the other hand, is just dumb. Purposefully using a weak/overly risky strategy for the sake of being original is okay, but if someone beats you with something cookie-cutter, you've made your own bed and have no business complaining about losing. This goes for every game, not just fighting games.

Also, with the specific case of Marvel, that game is broken beyond belief anyways. It's a game where being bottom-tier essentially means "you can't touch-of-death-combo everyone in the cast with ease". High/top tiers are mainly up there because of their neutral game and their assists, meaning they have to take fewer risks than a lower-tier character to get their game going.

 

[natster43]

1. People who smoke bomb and poison in Ass Creed. I hate those guys.
2. Newer Yugioh in general. Oh look in two turns I can make a synchro that destroys everything on the opponents side of the field and can be removed from play for 1 turn to negate any ability then return him to the field, wiping your side again. Fuck you synchros, you make the game not fun.
3. My friend considering any level that is not Final Destination to not be worth playing as it doesn't take skill if it isn't there. Also him getting annoyed when I play Diddy Kong.

 

[Not G. Ivingname]

The red tape recorder, however, is so dangerous for an engineer. "Spent minutes building up your position to defend your teammates, and went away to get metal 20 seconds away? Lol, nope, level ones."

Level ones can be take down by just about every class even if you are hammering it, so your nest is now useless until you build it up again.

Seriously? I stopped last year since I thought it was broken THEN, this is what players can do now?

Spoiler: Gaze in the nightmares of all engineers.