Morality of banning based on skill.

[Kopikatsu]

The 'The line between cheating and playing really, really well' thread made me think of something. When someone cheats, most people are not upset over the fact that the other person is cheating (For example, few people get upset over scripts in Team Fortress 2 despite the fact that they are artificially enhancing skill), but that they drain the fun away from other people. Being locked in your spawn because someone is flying around with an infinite ammo rocket launcher minigun is very...anti-fun.

But what of people who are simply immensely skilled compared to their enemies? I watched a video a long while ago about someone going 108-0 in Black Ops 2.(He died once, but it was a suicide via Lodestar by accident) Now, if BO2 had this functionality, would the other players have been justified in kicking him from the game? He wasn't cheating, but he was actively ruining the fun of at least six people, maybe as many as eleven. Arguing that it's fair because the people on the other team could have killed him is like saying that telling someone they can starve in the street or join the military is a choice. Technically yes, but practically no.

It's a bit harsh to say that someone can't play in certain servers because they're too good, but is there a point where it's necessary?

 

[Keoul]

I'd say no.
Since it's not cheating they should know that what the chap is doing is possible for them as well, learn from him and become better players. There's no use babysitting them all the time, people won't improve at all without a challenge and with videogames experience is gained either from reading shitloads of guides or diving right in.

 

[Esotera]

The game should be pitting you against opponents who are roughly the same skill level as you, otherwise it's horribly broken. Dota 2 seems to do this quite well, matches seem to be either equally matched, or a bit harder or easier than usual - and both those are fine. COD however, does not, and that turns every game into a horrible experience as I suck compared to the general population.

 

[Kopikatsu]

I'd say no.
Since it's not cheating they should know that what the chap is doing is possible for them as well, learn from him and become better players. There's no use babysitting them all the time, people won't improve at all without a challenge and with videogames experience is gained either from reading shitloads of guides or diving right in.

What are you going to learn when someone is completing wrecking you with 100+ kills and zero deaths? You're not even alive long enough to tell what the heck just happened.

If said person was using an aimbot, there would probably be no noticeable deprecation in ability. What's the difference if someone is cheating or not if they're completely untouchable?

To use an earlier example, do you feel that using scripts (which artificially raise the skill of the player) in TF2 is acceptable? If so, how do you justify that viewpoint? If someone is being beaten by script-users, is their only recourse to also use scripts in order to match them? If not, then...technically it's possible to reach the level of skill that an aimbot provides. But it's not feasible for 99.9% of people, right? So if someone with aimbot-level skill joins a game and wipes the floor with anyone, what are the other people supposed to learn? 'Aim better'?

I use FPSes for all my examples because they're easiest to make the point with, but it applies to all genres.

The game should be pitting you against opponents who are roughly the same skill level as you, otherwise it's horribly broken. Dota 2 seems to do this quite well, matches seem to be either equally matched, or a bit harder or easier than usual - and both those are fine. COD however, does not, and that turns every game into a horrible experience as I suck compared to the general population.

I just used COD as one example, but it could be anything. Halo, Wolf Team, Team Fortress, etc. Also, the idea is that lower skilled servers ban such highly skilled players to force them to essentially pick on someone their own size.

 

[Keoul]

What are you going to learn when someone is completing wrecking you with 100+ kills and zero deaths? You're not even alive long enough to tell what the heck just happened.

If said person was using an aimbot, there would probably be no noticeable deprecation in ability. What's the difference if someone is cheating or not if they're completely untouchable?

To use an earlier example, do you feel that using scripts (which artificially raise the skill of the player) in TF2 is acceptable? If so, how do you justify that viewpoint? If someone is being beaten by script-users, is their only recourse to also use scripts in order to match them? If not, then...technically it's possible to reach the level of skill that an aimbot provides. But it's not feasible for 99.9% of people, right? So if someone with aimbot-level skill joins a game and wipes the floor with anyone, what are the other people supposed to learn? 'Aim better'?

I use FPSes for all my examples because they're easiest to make the point with, but it applies to all genres.

CoD itself has killcams for that so you can always see what happened.
Also I doubt people can reach aimbot levels of skill, but let's assume they do, it simply means you have to adopt another tactic to deal with this person, if it's in tf2 become spy and sneak attack or even go heavy or pyro. CoD is a joke so just go with a sniper rifle or noobtube and you'll be fine.

Having a "wildcard" thrown in the match forces you to adapt and change tactics to deal with them. But that's assuming you're a good player, idiots would just keep doing the same thing, dying, then ragequit.

 

[Ickorus]

If you're not cheating then you shouldn't be banned, I've had it happen to me before and it seems pretty unfair that I'm not allowed to have fun because the other guys are crap at the game.

 

[Auron]

In most games you can learn something from facing a better opponent, that's less apparent in FPS but valid as well. The enemy team's setup, organization and tactics if any is usually the most important part.

 

[Spambot 3000]

Well, what's the solution for someone who is just too good then? Force them to go easy on everyone?

 

[Smooth Operator]

Well first off the response needs to be proportional, you penalize them on the severity of their transgression not go from zero to "we are taking away your game, possibly Origin account".

So you throw cheaters off the server if cheats are not wanted (many TF2 private servers allow them), and if you have a newbie server going you also don't want that 108-0 guy, back in ye olde days of CoD all custom servers had their rules that got you kicked if you didn't listen, or Jedi Knight 2 where all FFA games were played strictly by an honor code.

Of course house rules first require a house/servers, which almost no modern game allows without paying extra subscription fees and in most cases you don't even get that, so it's all a wild jungle and every man for himself.

 

[The Wykydtron]

I have to go back to the BlazBlue corner locking bullshit. It's not even fun to do if I'M the one DOING the locking somehow. I've heard people say it's inherantly in the game's mechanical design, could even be considered as a flaw.

I know there are apparently ways unknown to me to get out of it, the fact is anyone could very easily drop the game entirely after a few weeks because it's so anti-fun before you get a good grasp of the basics. So yeah ban Arcsys for anti-fun :3

More on topic I wouldn't *ban* a guy for being good, that's just fucking stupid. Kicking him from the lobby for ruining other people's fun is fair game though. Oh no what's he gonna do? Effortlessly join one of the countless other servers? Shock horror.

 

[krazykidd]

Why the fuck should someone be punished for being good at a game?

This . How do you get better if you don't play against good people . I know winning is fun but this is pushing the limit . It's like your saying , you only want to play against prople worst than you so you'll win . The irony is you might ge banned using that logic .

 

[Elegy of Fools]

It's a split question -- if it's a dedicated server service like Black Ops where the matchmaking is handled by the game, then there needs to be effective matchmaking protocols to keep players evenly matched as much as possible. If it's a personally hosted game that people just join, that truly is up to the person hosting the server who they decide can or cannot stay for their own reasons.

Honestly I'd say that the person playing the game ultimately should not be penalized if they are simply too good at it, but they should also be encouraged, either through matchmaking or other player intervention, to play elsewhere. XBox Live has a review service that allows you to avoid certain players, and you can choose "Is too fucking good" as one of the options. It doesn't affect their rep, just your likelihood of being matched with them.

But more specifically, to all the people who say "You can still learn from them, stop complaining," you obviously don't understand skill-growth very well. Think about anything else you learn in the world. Math -- you start with fundamental processes like addition, division, multiplication etc. then you build into more complex ideas such as solving for variables with algebra, and you work your way through geometry and so on and so on. Starting right at Calculus saying "you'll learn!" is a bit absurd. When you start learning chess, you play against an easy computer or another new player, not a High Grand Master. When you start learning guitar, you play scales and chords, not "Through the Fire and Flames"

Yes, you CAN learn by something leagues out of your skill level, but it will be frustrating and highly ineffective. You do your best learning with something slightly higher than your own skill level.

TL;DR Version: Skilled players shouldn't necessarily be penalized, but they should be encouraged to find more skilled opponents - less skilled players should not be subjected to impossible challenges as they have the same right to enjoy the game as more skilled players do, and any practice that allows for more even matchmaking should not be frowned on (except cheating, that's still lame).

 

[Coppernerves]

I think that instead of kicking people who do really well, you should give them a challenge.

So for example, in Counter Strike, you could make your server communist (ie everyone gets an equal share of all the money each player gains.)
Is your health at the beginning of the next match the same as that at the end of the current one? It should be.

In COD, you could remove kill streaks, and introduce penalties to load outs with equipment/buffs and so forth which require greater XP to unlock, (preferably in ways which make it easier to die rather than harder to kill).

 

[WanderingFool]

Why the fuck should someone be punished for being good at a game?

I think its not a matter of penalizing the other player for being good, but making them play against other players that are as skilled as them. If said player is really good, putting him/her against novice/amiture players would be unfair to the novice/amitur players. So it more about making him/her play against players that are at their skill level.

Gamers are not saiyans, they do not magically get better at a game by getting pounded into the ground.

 

[Elijin]

If its a private server, and someone's skill level is so out of sync with the server that they're actually killing the session, then it could be argued it was acceptable. Though I think that maybe discussing it with them to see if they can scale back or leave on their own is a better option. However unlikely that is.

If it was just someone doing well, and killing the admin a lot, no.

Also if they're doing well enough to win the game, without destroying the experience for everyone, also no.

 

[Yopaz]

Why the fuck should someone be punished for being good at a game?

And never before had such a sensible post been written on the internet. Tis was a glorious event.

OK, going to be serious, punishing someone for being good is just stupid. We shouldn't praise mediocrity just because most of us are mediocre. Now it is annoying to be killed like that by someone with superior skills, but perfectly fair.

 

[Brainwreck]

I think the term is 'Tall Poppy Syndrome'.

But yeah, it's reasonable to have a system in place that pits players of roughly equal skill against one another. From a gameplay perspective. From a tecnical one, the implementation of such a system is really only possible in competitive (ie. Ranked) environments. The pub guys just gonna have to deal with getting pubstomped every once in a while.

 

[Zenn3k]

If there is someone on a server whos K/D is excessively lopsided. They are either:

A: Cheating (likely these days really, how much effort does it take to get an aimbot? $15 and google?)
B: Too good to be playing against "pubs".

In either case, I'd vote to kick that player from the game in order to improve my own game experience. Playing against an "MLG Pro" really isn't much different than playing against an aimbot, either way you aren't getting kills, aren't having fun, and probably losing the game as well.

 

[klasbo]

All I can tell you is that being banned from a server simply because you're "too good" is equally (if not more) frustrating than being roflstomped.

If you're playing a game that values individual skill, and you don't have that skill (yet), then you need to keep playing against better players to become a better player yourself ("more gg, more skill" -WhiteRa)
If you're playing a game that values teamwork and coordination, you need to find a bunch of friends, or at least find out how to work with people in the most efficient way possible.

It's like banning a football player from a league because they're "too good".