Competitive Multiplayer Choices That you don't Respect

[OneCatch]

One-class wonders. You know, that guy who "plays sniper". Only.

Amen. I really despise sniper classes in all objective based fps. They really are the shit tier players who don't give 1 fuck about the team, and just camp for kills. As if that wasn't enough already, in many games where snipers are able to camp objectives, it discourages normal players going for them too.

The worst ive had it was Battlefield Badcompany 2. Not only did the snipers ruin hardcore mode entirely, it made playing rush mode of any map as the attackers a chore.

See, I kind of disagree. I think that sniping is a legitimate tactic (especially in stuff like battlefield when it focuses on open-field combat and combined arms). They thin out the enemy team and run interference, which in almost any game type will help the team somehow (unless they're being dicks, but then any class has it's share of dicks)

The problem is when games enable quickscoping which is ripe for abuse, or make snipers acceptably good at short range combat, or allow exploiting to get to stupidly unfair [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iz0weIbNAPg] places on the map.

I personally think a good way of balancing it would be to give sniper rifles their full capacity, rate of fire, accuracy, but configure them in such a way that you had to be stationary to scope at all, and would face an extreme accuracy penalty unless you were prone or at least crouched behind cover.

It wouldn't stop camping, but it would stop one-hit-wondering (which imo is worse) and make it easier to root out people that were camping with a bit of coordination, especially on well designed maps.

"Thinning out enemies" COULD work, the only problem is that these games more often than not employ minute respawn times, and usually the respawn locations are ON the objectives.

Well if that's the case, why is sniping such a problem?
If you spawn near enough to the objective to 'have another go' without traipsing half way across the map, then surely it isn't an unfair strategy - no different to someone going on a muscle-memory rampage with a shotgun.
Or did you mean that it basically results in de-facto spawn camping?

And I still reckon my ideas regarding scoping and movement would stop or at least dissuade the more unbearable sniper playstyles.

 

[A Weakgeek]

One-class wonders. You know, that guy who "plays sniper". Only.

Amen. I really despise sniper classes in all objective based fps. They really are the shit tier players who don't give 1 fuck about the team, and just camp for kills. As if that wasn't enough already, in many games where snipers are able to camp objectives, it discourages normal players going for them too.

The worst ive had it was Battlefield Badcompany 2. Not only did the snipers ruin hardcore mode entirely, it made playing rush mode of any map as the attackers a chore.

See, I kind of disagree. I think that sniping is a legitimate tactic (especially in stuff like battlefield when it focuses on open-field combat and combined arms). They thin out the enemy team and run interference, which in almost any game type will help the team somehow (unless they're being dicks, but then any class has it's share of dicks)

The problem is when games enable quickscoping which is ripe for abuse, or make snipers acceptably good at short range combat, or allow exploiting to get to stupidly unfair [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iz0weIbNAPg] places on the map.

I personally think a good way of balancing it would be to give sniper rifles their full capacity, rate of fire, accuracy, but configure them in such a way that you had to be stationary to scope at all, and would face an extreme accuracy penalty unless you were prone or at least crouched behind cover.

It wouldn't stop camping, but it would stop one-hit-wondering (which imo is worse) and make it easier to root out people that were camping with a bit of coordination, especially on well designed maps.

"Thinning out enemies" COULD work, the only problem is that these games more often than not employ minute respawn times, and usually the respawn locations are ON the objectives.

Well if that's the case, why is sniping such a problem?
If you spawn near enough to the objective to 'have another go' without traipsing half way across the map, then surely it isn't an unfair strategy - no different to someone going on a muscle-memory rampage with a shotgun.
Or did you mean that it basically results in de-facto spawn camping?

And I still reckon my ideas regarding scoping and movement would stop or at least dissuade the more unbearable sniper playstyles.

No. I don't as much mind getting shot by snipers (Although that can be annoying too), my annoyance comes from when I have teammates sniping, instead of actually being a credit to team and doing the objective.

 

[OneCatch]

"Thinning out enemies" COULD work, the only problem is that these games more often than not employ minute respawn times, and usually the respawn locations are ON the objectives.

Well if that's the case, why is sniping such a problem?
If you spawn near enough to the objective to 'have another go' without traipsing half way across the map, then surely it isn't an unfair strategy - no different to someone going on a muscle-memory rampage with a shotgun.
Or did you mean that it basically results in de-facto spawn camping?

And I still reckon my ideas regarding scoping and movement would stop or at least dissuade the more unbearable sniper playstyles.

No. I don't as much mind getting shot by snipers (Although that can be annoying too), my annoyance comes from when I have teammates sniping, instead of actually being a credit to team and doing the objective.

Ah, ok that makes more sense!
For what it's worth, I also do objectives as sniper, and think it's daft when people don't. At the very least you can help teammates complete it alive by pinning down groups of enemies trying to hit the control point, or focusing on well emplaced enemies when your team is on the attack, or whatever.

 

[A Weakgeek]

"Thinning out enemies" COULD work, the only problem is that these games more often than not employ minute respawn times, and usually the respawn locations are ON the objectives.

Well if that's the case, why is sniping such a problem?
If you spawn near enough to the objective to 'have another go' without traipsing half way across the map, then surely it isn't an unfair strategy - no different to someone going on a muscle-memory rampage with a shotgun.
Or did you mean that it basically results in de-facto spawn camping?

And I still reckon my ideas regarding scoping and movement would stop or at least dissuade the more unbearable sniper playstyles.

No. I don't as much mind getting shot by snipers (Although that can be annoying too), my annoyance comes from when I have teammates sniping, instead of actually being a credit to team and doing the objective.

Ah, ok that makes more sense!
For what it's worth, I also do objectives as sniper, and think it's daft when people don't. At the very least you can help teammates complete it alive by pinning down groups of enemies trying to hit the control point, or focusing on well emplaced enemies when your team is on the attack, or whatever.

Yeah what you described would be the ideal situation. However most of the time I PERSONALLY find that most snipers in games with no class restriction (IE. alot of snipers on both teams) tend to stick to mainly shooting the other teams snipers, because they are a stationary target and many people cant seem to hit a moving one.

 

[Ticklefist]

I believe winners use the best tools available to them and losers cripple themselves with arbitrary rules.

Someone went into much greater detail here: http://www.sirlin.net/ptw-book/intermediates-guide.html

 

[Ninjamedic]

THE HORROR, THE HORROR.

I miss the PS3 days now....

Really though, it makes FAR more sense to just make an alternate sapper that takes far longer to get off but inflicts no damage. It'd counter the Wrangler, and not cripple the engi. Or, a sapper launcher whose sappers can be taken off in two hits. Looks like if I come back, it's Vanilla-Only.

 

[JamesStone]

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.

Sorry, that's bullshit. I know it's an opinion, but it's just flat out wrong.

There are some strategies which are flat out more powerful than others, and using them gives the enemy an advantage that cannot be erased fully. That's overpowered.
I play a lot of League of Legends, so maybe their balance policies are getting in my skin, but I actually was there during Release Xin Zhao. I could pick Jax, I could pick Teemo, I could pick anyone who theoretically could counter him (AA denying/disengaging/lockdown champions) but he would still have the upper hand by being Xin and nothing else. That's overpowered, and claiming you have to deal with it is stupid.

Thing I hate the most? THis guy's attitude.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

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.

Sorry, that's bullshit. I know it's an opinion, but it's just flat out wrong.

There are some strategies which are flat out more powerful than others, and using them gives the enemy an advantage that cannot be erased fully. That's overpowered.
I play a lot of League of Legends, so maybe their balance policies are getting in my skin, but I actually was there during Release Xin Zhao. I could pick Jax, I could pick Teemo, I could pick anyone who theoretically could counter him (AA denying/disengaging/lockdown champions) but he would still have the upper hand by being Xin and nothing else. That's overpowered, and claiming you have to deal with it is stupid.

Thing I hate the most? THis guy's attitude.

Actually, you just agreed with his attitude. The problem isn't with the players, it's with the broken game. Complaining to Riot to fix it was the right thing to do, complaining to the players to stop using it wasn't. Also, at least Riot /tries/ to balance LoL. If you look at Capcom's Vs. series, which is what the OP was complaining about, every last one of those games is horribly broken. It's not just one character that dominates, it's half the roster being useless compared to the other half, and there being tiers even within that top half with characters that are even more broken.

 

[JamesStone]

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.

Sorry, that's bullshit. I know it's an opinion, but it's just flat out wrong.

There are some strategies which are flat out more powerful than others, and using them gives the enemy an advantage that cannot be erased fully. That's overpowered.
I play a lot of League of Legends, so maybe their balance policies are getting in my skin, but I actually was there during Release Xin Zhao. I could pick Jax, I could pick Teemo, I could pick anyone who theoretically could counter him (AA denying/disengaging/lockdown champions) but he would still have the upper hand by being Xin and nothing else. That's overpowered, and claiming you have to deal with it is stupid.

Thing I hate the most? THis guy's attitude.

Actually, you just agreed with his attitude. The problem isn't with the players, it's with the broken game. Complaining to Riot to fix it was the right thing to do, complaining to the players to stop using it wasn't. Also, at least Riot /tries/ to balance LoL. If you look at Capcom's Vs. series, which is what the OP was complaining about, every last one of those games is horribly broken. It's not just one character that dominates, it's half the roster being useless compared to the other half, and there being tiers even within that top half with characters that are even more broken.

I don't agree with his attitude, because it implies people aren't allowed to complain about blatanly overpowered things which ruin the fun of the game. Of course pros could play without Release Graves or Pre-rework Jax. To them, it's all about the Teamcomp and sometimes those guys didn't fit (although if they did fit, they would usually dominate). The lower tier guys, the soloque and duoque saw themselves fucked by these champions because they were simply more powerful than others.

I don't agree with his attitude because it's almost like saying we should accept that overpowered things will exist. No we freaking shouldn't. Of course true balance is never achieved in any game. But there's absolutely no truth whatsoever in claiming that it's the gamer's problems they can't counter a broken mechanic/strategy/unit in a game, even when the counters are still in a disadvantage.

 

[Naeras]

Sorry, that's bullshit. I know it's an opinion, but it's just flat out wrong.

There are some strategies which are flat out more powerful than others, and using them gives the enemy an advantage that cannot be erased fully. That's overpowered.
I play a lot of League of Legends, so maybe their balance policies are getting in my skin, but I actually was there during Release Xin Zhao. I could pick Jax, I could pick Teemo, I could pick anyone who theoretically could counter him (AA denying/disengaging/lockdown champions) but he would still have the upper hand by being Xin and nothing else. That's overpowered, and claiming you have to deal with it is stupid.

Thing I hate the most? THis guy's attitude.

See, that's why I pointed out that, I quote, "Discussing balance is one thing. Complaining about someone using a strong strategy, on the other hand, is just dumb". There's a difference between pointing out that a strategy is more powerful than others, and complaining about the fact that other people are using this strong strategy. One is overall beneficial towards the balance of the game and the game community, the other is directly counterproductive towards your development as a player. If you constantly blame balance for your losses, rather than focusing on your own flaws as a player*, you won't be getting anywhere. Knowingly handicapping yourself and then complaining about losing is even worse, yet a lot people seem to do it, because think it gives them moral high ground, or gives them an excuse if they don't win, "because at least I'm not using overpowered bullcrap and can win with SKILLZORZ".

Just as an example you're bound to recognize: you know how every single pub player complains about Darius "being OP" because he's wrecking their shit? These are the guys who don't realize that Darius a) has no inherent escape options and autopushes lanes, making him a very juicy target for ganks, and b) has no sustain, meaning he can be counterpicked by champions that can out-harass or out-sustain him. These people are content with complaining about him rather than getting their shit together and finding ways to deal with him.

Now, if something is blatantly overpowered, pointing it out and asking for rebalancing is okay. But complaining that other people are using this overpowered thing is dumb.

*let's just be clear on this: unless you're a top player, there's always, always something you could have done differently or better in a game that you lost, and you're always better off asking yourself what went wrong as the first thing that happened. You probably did mistakes, and identifying them will make you a better player regardless of what strategy you're using. If you are a top player, however, you're most likely abusing the hell out of top tier strategies, simply because you're in for it to win.

 

[drivebymessiah]

I'm surprised it hasn't been mentioned.

How about actual cheating? Aim bots, wall hacks, map hacks, drop hacks, network hacks that make targeting the other player difficult / near impossible.

If it falls within play within the game as designed I can't really knock it, but every internet multiplayer game I've played has had a varying degree of cheating.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

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.

Sorry, that's bullshit. I know it's an opinion, but it's just flat out wrong.

There are some strategies which are flat out more powerful than others, and using them gives the enemy an advantage that cannot be erased fully. That's overpowered.
I play a lot of League of Legends, so maybe their balance policies are getting in my skin, but I actually was there during Release Xin Zhao. I could pick Jax, I could pick Teemo, I could pick anyone who theoretically could counter him (AA denying/disengaging/lockdown champions) but he would still have the upper hand by being Xin and nothing else. That's overpowered, and claiming you have to deal with it is stupid.

Thing I hate the most? THis guy's attitude.

Actually, you just agreed with his attitude. The problem isn't with the players, it's with the broken game. Complaining to Riot to fix it was the right thing to do, complaining to the players to stop using it wasn't. Also, at least Riot /tries/ to balance LoL. If you look at Capcom's Vs. series, which is what the OP was complaining about, every last one of those games is horribly broken. It's not just one character that dominates, it's half the roster being useless compared to the other half, and there being tiers even within that top half with characters that are even more broken.

I don't agree with his attitude, because it implies people aren't allowed to complain about blatanly overpowered things which ruin the fun of the game. Of course pros could play without Release Graves or Pre-rework Jax. To them, it's all about the Teamcomp and sometimes those guys didn't fit (although if they did fit, they would usually dominate). The lower tier guys, the soloque and duoque saw themselves fucked by these champions because they were simply more powerful than others.

I don't agree with his attitude because it's almost like saying we should accept that overpowered things will exist. No we freaking shouldn't. Of course true balance is never achieved in any game. But there's absolutely no truth whatsoever in claiming that it's the gamer's problems they can't counter a broken mechanic/strategy/unit in a game, even when the counters are still in a disadvantage.

No, it's not saying that you should accept that overpowered things will exist. It's saying that you should direct that anger at the /game/ for being poorly balanced, and not at the /players/ for using the optimum strategies with the game as it currently exists. A balanced game will have a counter for anything. That is a fact, and there are tons of games -- even videogames -- that are properly balanced like that. If you find you can't counter something, the first step is to find out if it's possible and you just don't know how. The second step is either to learn the counter strategy, or if there is none, to figure out whether it's worth either playing the game as-is or petitioning for the developers to alter the balance to make things more fair. Particularly in a game like LoL, where it's constantly getting updated and re-balanced, that kind of complaint will be listened to if it comes from enough people. And even if it's not, there's plenty of games that are, in fact, balanced. It's not a MOBA, but for example TF2 even at a middling level of skill is a sight to behold, let alone high level.

 

[JamesStone]

Sorry, that's bullshit. I know it's an opinion, but it's just flat out wrong.

There are some strategies which are flat out more powerful than others, and using them gives the enemy an advantage that cannot be erased fully. That's overpowered.
I play a lot of League of Legends, so maybe their balance policies are getting in my skin, but I actually was there during Release Xin Zhao. I could pick Jax, I could pick Teemo, I could pick anyone who theoretically could counter him (AA denying/disengaging/lockdown champions) but he would still have the upper hand by being Xin and nothing else. That's overpowered, and claiming you have to deal with it is stupid.

Thing I hate the most? THis guy's attitude.

See, that's why I pointed out that, I quote, "Discussing balance is one thing. Complaining about someone using a strong strategy, on the other hand, is just dumb". There's a difference between pointing out that a strategy is more powerful than others, and complaining about the fact that other people are using this strong strategy. One is overall beneficial towards the balance of the game and the game community, the other is directly counterproductive towards your development as a player. If you constantly blame balance for your losses, rather than focusing on your own flaws as a player*, you won't be getting anywhere. Knowingly handicapping yourself and then complaining about losing is even worse, yet a lot people seem to do it, because think it gives them moral high ground, or gives them an excuse if they don't win, "because at least I'm not using overpowered bullcrap and can win with SKILLZORZ".

Just as an example you're bound to recognize: you know how every single pub player complains about Darius "being OP" because he's wrecking their shit? These are the guys who don't realize that Darius a) has no inherent escape options and autopushes lanes, making him a very juicy target for ganks, and b) has no sustain, meaning he can be counterpicked by champions that can out-harass or out-sustain him. These people are content with complaining about him rather than getting their shit together and finding ways to deal with him.

Now, if something is blatantly overpowered, pointing it out and asking for rebalancing is okay. But complaining that other people are using this overpowered thing is dumb.

*let's just be clear on this: unless you're a top player, there's always, always something you could have done differently or better in a game that you lost, and you're always better off asking yourself what went wrong as the first thing that happened. You probably did mistakes, and identifying them will make you a better player regardless of what strategy you're using. If you are a top player, however, you're most likely abusing the hell out of top tier strategies, simply because you're in for it to win.

Ok fair enough. I see your point now. Still, although complaining gets you nothing, one really should be on the lookout for things behind his reach. Losing against Darius once is one thing. Losing against Darius every single time, with every single matchup, with every single play, means it's not so much as your problem, as it is Darius (not saying Darius is/was OP, just using him as a placeholder for my example).