Morality of banning based on skill.

[blazearmoru]

I say that servers are like communities. It is immoral to reject someone from entering your community or worse, exile. It is many times worse to destroy the community and all those inside it. In history we have seen over and over again when a few royalties squeeze the life out of the citizens. This is on a lessor scale but the analogy ought to stand because as I have stated, servers are like communities. Personally I enjoy a game with many communities, most biased on skill level yet others that are open to all skill levels. Imagine being a new player and joining only to be crushed and humiliated all game, scorn from allies and abuse from enemies. Imagine the difficulty of finding a challenging fair game where everyone is around your skill level, for high level players who actively seek a challenging game rather than roflstomping. On many levels this type of thing should be beneficial and effective. I could of course be out of my mind.

 

[Doom972]

I'm utilitarian so if one person playing so well that it ruins the entertainment of other players, then yeah. Not ideal but it sounds like the easiest solution and the high skill player can always go somewhere else. For me, games aren't about skill, they're about entertainment value. Challenges are fun, but being the target or one of the targets of a major beat down isn't fun.

That's very short-sighted, and not very utilitarian. Many people will get good at this game eventually and a server that'll keep banning people for no good reason will eventually be very unpopular and will fail to generate revenue (who will buy a premium account on a server that'll ban them for being too good?).

In Team Fortress 2, there's a function called scrambling. It's usually set to run if the kill ratio between teams is too uneven in a match. When used, it'll scramble the players in the two teams based on their score, to make the teams more even. That's a much more of a solution than just banning everyone good at the game.

Also, I respect your attitude about games being about entertainment and not about skill, but the fact is that competitive multiplayer will always be about skill, since it's competitive.

 

[Saika Renegade]

Talent should not be punished. Simply being good at a game is not a problem.

If it falls into egotism, griefing, or deliberately setting out to ruin a game session for others...that, on the other hand, is what we should aim to identify and punish. A good player going onto a newb server to play is not inherently bad. A good player going onto a newb server specifically to make other people feel bad and demeaning them for a relative lack of skill, on the other hand, should be smacked down the moment such jerk-assery rears its head.

 

[Dogstile]

Its like people here have never been banned five minutes after joining a server because you killed the admin 3 times in a row.

There's no reason to ban better players, since they've done nothing wrong. There are always other servers you can check out if you find the match frustrating.

If you only want to play with people of your own level and never get better, that's perfectly fine - get your own server and host private games with people who are at your level. You can't expect people to play bad on purpose for your sake. I doubt you'd have done it in their place.

I don't necessarily disagree, but I'm of the opinion that playing with players of your skill level is still getting better at the game. Not quite as beneficial as playing against someone only a little bit above your level, but it's still an improvement. It isn't players sulking because they don't want to get better at the game, in some cases it's players not being given the chance to become better because the person/clan is already so experienced at the game people are not even given a chance to improve. Of course this is by a case by case basis.

I used to play on the eurogamers servers on tf2. They had a sniper who would decimate sniper battles while effortlessly cleaning up low health enemies. I bashed my head against him for about half an hour (note, i hadn't played the sniper before) before realizing how he was dodging my shots and how he moved. This is while he was killing me five seconds into every duel.

 

[Griffolion]

-snip-

You make a really good point, here. I remember with the original Black Ops how they totally nerfed quick scoping because Modern Warfare 2 made it so big with YouTubers like Hutch and SmallBeans. It became such a big thing, that was outside the original scope of the multiplayer (but not a cheat, as they were not hacking or anything, simply using the snipers in a way that wasn't the original intent). So they classed it as cheating, because they were seeing all these amazing quick scoping montages from them. But if that was cheating, it would be reflected in the K/D of the people doing it, which it wasn't. For every 20 quick scope games, there would be 19 that wouldn't ever see the light of day because they would barely go positive, or even go negative because of how hard it is.

Anyway, i'm digressing. I think that it's not the player's fault if they are so good at the game. I agree it ruins the fun, but it's an indictment on the matching process of the game, rather than the player themselves. You can't ask them to go, or stop playing the game, or deliberately nerf their own skill for the sake of others. But what should happen is the game should match them with others of comparable skill, where it would be a little more balanced.

 

[Monster_user]

Choose a side and stick to it, either they are allowed to do what they want because its their server, or they are not.

...Sure they do, but I also get the right to think they are assholes for the things that they do.

Okay. Admin's have the right make the rules they want, and you have your right to your opinion of them.
I'm more lenient in my opinion of them, but I too have my limits. It is still my opinion of them, and they still have the right to do as they please.

It is difficult to have fun when your game involves: Spawn, die at spawn, respawn, die at spawn again. One can't learn the map, vantage points, or even figure out where the enemy even is to develop a strategy, because they can't even stay alive for more than a few seconds.

Wtf game allows repeated spawn killing? Sounds like a pretty shitty game. Maybe they/you should buy something better.

Crysis 2. It attempts to avoid this by having spawn points flip from one side of the map to the other, based on percentage of players on each side I think. (Could be based on # of teammate deaths near a spawn point.) Not sure how it works exactly, but it works most of the time. Other times it can be quite annoying.

Yes, I realize that the statistic were nonsensical. My point was that there are a lot of people in the world, and an ever increasing number that play video games. It is entirely possible, though improbable, to run up against a jerk in every match. Thus some kind of enforcement, and rules are necessary.

Your point didn't exist, which is why you had to try and make up statistics to support it. If they supported it in the first place you would be in the position you are now. You can't just make stuff up and then go well in my fantasy world I totally made a great point!

I wasn't saying I made a great point. >.>
I was saying I attempted to make a point. I've stated my piece on the matter, and will argue no further about statistical analysis.

For me personally, a lot of my lack of skill is due to the frame-rate handicap I suffer. I consider 30 FPS to be good, but I average 22 FPS. If there is a lot of action, shadows, or explosives, then my frame rate drops into the teens, or even single digits.

Then you're probably playing a game you shouldn't be playing and either need better hardware or to change your settings to lower end graphics. I don't see how that's anyone else's problem. They should be banned because you insist on playing games your computer can't handle?

They shouldn't be banned. I should have removed that from my post, it is irrelevant to the thread, as it isn't anyone else's problem. It was supposed to be the start of an explanation that even with low FPS on Crysis 2, I play against those pros to get better. So that was a fail on my part, and should have been deleted.

Crysis 2 has an Official Crytek/EA server for "New Recruits" server that "bans" any player above a certain level. There is a clear seperation in skill, and ability, that should be recognized when gaming online. The old days of hard core gamers competing against other hard core gamers is over. There is a larger player base out there of gamers who DO NOT want to improve, and I can't fault them.

My Rules for Online Gaming.

1. Ownership. The server is run by the following heirarchy.
A: The Admin lays down the rules, follow them or be banned.
B: Majority Rule. If the majority determines that you are too skilled for this tier, then find more skilled opponents. This should be evaluated through more than a single match, to ensure it was not luck, or unintentionally stacked teams.
C: Squatter's rights. The first four players on the server, if they can be determined, can set the rules if a majority cannot be reached.

2. If playing against much less skilled opponents, dial it back a notch, and teach them better techniques. Observe their weaknesses and point them out, rather than exploit them.

3. If joinng a server full of higher tier players, do so at your own risk, or to guage your skill.

 

[Bat Vader]

I think it becomes cheating/griefing when a person who is very skilled at the game joins a server for new players just to make the game unfun for them. I'm not talking about a player that is new but is good at the game. I'm talking about a player who has played it for a year or more and specifically joins New player or introductory servers just to make everyone else mad. I think at that point the person doing that should be banned not because of their skill level but because they are using their skill level to grief/harass other players.

 

[Connor Lonske]

because the different to being immensely good at a game and using cheats is the difference between being a man who has earned his money and being a thief who only keeps for himself.

nether are likeable figures but denying it's more fair to become skilled than to cheat to get skill is just plain wrong.

however, people who dumb down their abilities to make the game fairer or work as good team players who are gentleman/lady like to their enemies are pretty much agreeably cool dudes.

 

[MeChaNiZ3D]

Where do you get that from? I'm upset when people cheat online because they have an unfair advantage. They're ruining fun in a way that I, playing within the limits of the game, can't. Abusing overpowered mechanics/weapons is voluntary and I can't really say anything against that from a fairness standpoint if I can access it too, but cheating is not.

 

[Bocaj2000]

If someone is too good or bad, then matchmaking should take care of that. If it doesn't then improve your matchmaking.

However, the answer isn't always that simple. Sometimes it's because of a flaw with the game. In my opinion, unbalanced benefits based on one player being better than another is a broken design choice. All it does is beat down one's superiority over another. This is the fundamental flaw with CoD and LoL. Contrast that with helping a player whom is loosing. This makes the match closer and more noob friendly.

So, in games that punish noobs, yes, having bad/pro players spoils the game and is worthy of a ban, but that's not the fault of the player- it's the fault of poor game mechanics.

 

[Mycroft Holmes]

Not sure how it works exactly, but it works most of the time.

Then players 'not having time enough to learn the map and its vantage points' because of spawn killing, is not true.

The old days of hard core gamers competing against other hard core gamers is over.

Uh, when the hell was this? Because I have played videogames from the days of telnetting doom, connecting over phone lines and there were always plentiful casual players.

There is a larger player base out there of gamers who DO NOT want to improve, and I can't fault them.

Then they should go play singleplayer or stop whining when players at a game they 'don't want to be good at,' are better than them.

 

[Monster_user]

that's not the fault of the player- it's the fault of poor game mechanics.

I agree on that point. I will add my viewpoint, that if the game mechanics do not handle this problem, it is up to the players to work out a solution. Kicking players that are in a higher tier of skill seems a valid solution. Gauging skill levels by disproportionate K/D ratios is also valid.

There is a larger player base out there of gamers who DO NOT want to improve, and I can't fault them.

Then they should go play singleplayer or stop whining when players at a game they 'don't want to be good at,' are better than them.

I don't like whining either, nor hearing some n00b cry hacker every five minutes. Just as bad as the griefers,...

One would expect that a pro gamer would know the ins and the outs better than the casual gamer. Also, pro gamers tend to spend more money on their gaming hobby. Thus the pro gamer would be more likely to know somebody with their own server, or be willing to rent their own server.

Don't get me wrong, a challenge is not the opposite of fun. Competing against a master player is not bad, in and of itself. However, such a fun challenge must be voluntary, not forced.

It is the responsibility of the more experienced player to ensure that the experience is enjoyable for all gamers.