Morality of banning based on skill.

[iamnoobie616]

As I had mentioned earlier in the aforementioned forum (refer to OP), simply utilizing ones skill cannot be considered illegitimate and cannot result in a ban or "kicking", regardless of the ire it may cause. Having said that however, players should only play against other players equal to their own skill level.

The Halo 4 battle mentioned earlier was a fair and simple Grifball match, with neither team being intrinsically handicapped. Your Black OPS II example refers to one player dominating, however, this may only be due to one of two reasons:

1) The game is unbalanced, in that it has lower leveled new players battle against experienced veterans.

2) The other players have not gained as much skill and experience despite being at an equal or similar level to the veteran.

Neither of these reasons are grounds for "kicking", much less a ban. A proper skilled player shall never enter a lower level battle due to the inevitable boredom, and thus, banning resulting from great prowess is immoral.

TL;DR : It is immoral to ban a player due to skill level.

Sorry, but this is utter rubbish.
You are working from the assumption that high-skilled players will always seek out an equal challenge, rather than griefing lower-skilled players. This is an almost unbelievably naive position to hold, so much so that I can hardly believe anybody would post it.
The one thing you can absolutely guarantee in any adversarial PvP game is that people will behave like dicks. They will use any glitch available, they'll cheat if they think they'll get away with it, and they will definitely seek out new/low-skill players to humiliate.
Anybody who is doing too well is ruining the game for other players, obviously there can be considerable argument and discussion about what constitutes "too well" but the basic facts remain, if you're doing too well then you're ruining the fun for everybody else.
The decent thing to do upon discovering you are way overskilled for the competition is to leave and find another game, but people will not do this because they are (by and large) scum, so they must be banned so that they cannot return.

I has actually considered that as well. Mind you I simply answered the OP's query in that equally leveled yet more skillful players should not be reported against due to their inability to defeat their adversary. Players intentionally obstructing the gameplay of others, i.e. "Trolling", should indeed be treated appropriately.

Often you will notice that a player shall kick another for defeating a player through skill alone, with no desire to hinder the entertainment of any of the other players, and this I deem unjust.

 

[Windcaler]

This is one of those situation where I would say it depends. You see private servers are basicly private clubs and the owner and admins have the right to do whatever they want with it. This is why we saw a lot of complaints about private servers banning TF2 players that were playing for free but at the end of the day, its a private club and they make the rules. You can either accept that or go somewhere else. The issue is often that owners and admins arent up front about it.

In the case of higher skill players I think its ok to ban if you want to run a newbie or a less skilled server. Again its about being upfront about that. If someone bans a good player with no word and no discussion theyre just a badmin. However if you're upfront about it and explain yourself, even if theyre reasons I dont agree with, Ill have more respect for that person.

 

[DSK-]

As I had mentioned earlier in the aforementioned forum (refer to OP), simply utilizing ones skill cannot be considered illegitimate and cannot result in a ban or "kicking", regardless of the ire it may cause. Having said that however, players should only play against other players equal to their own skill level.

The Halo 4 battle mentioned earlier was a fair and simple Grifball match, with neither team being intrinsically handicapped. Your Black OPS II example refers to one player dominating, however, this may only be due to one of two reasons:

1) The game is unbalanced, in that it has lower leveled new players battle against experienced veterans.

2) The other players have not gained as much skill and experience despite being at an equal or similar level to the veteran.

Neither of these reasons are grounds for "kicking", much less a ban. A proper skilled player shall never enter a lower level battle due to the inevitable boredom, and thus, banning resulting from great prowess is immoral.

TL;DR : It is immoral to ban a player due to skill level.

You don't always have the ability to play with people of the same skill level, nor can you get an appreciation for the skill level of the people in it unless it is mentioned in the server name. Is no one adding up pick up games on IRC? the private servers for competitive play are empty? Do you just want to chillout and blow off some steam?

I feel this is very relevant. It was written in 2004 and gives reference to Unreal Tournament 2004 gametypes/concepts.

http://cluex.org/viewtopic.php?f=54&t=2765


OP: On one hand, I can see the merit it kick banning a player or asking a player to leave based on their skill level and the level of other players in the server. However, to do this I would think that a warning of the aforementioned skill level "cap" in the server name should be given so the good player won't make an honest mistake - however you also run the risk of having a troll playing there anyway.

But overall I don't like the idea of kicking/banning because of skill level. You can always ask them to show you stuff in the game and if you're polite a lot of people will gladly do so - at least that was the case for me on multiple occassions.

 

[NightmareExpress]

Depends on the server parameters.
If it wasn't specified, then it's bad.
If it was, it's okay.

Otherwise, it's fair game.

 

[Evil Smurf]

Servers should be balanced with similar skill level players.

Like others have said, ranking systems and private servers/games tend to solve this problem. Smurfs will always exist.

OT: Its funny you mention COD. I always thought the main point of COD multiplayer was pub stomping.

what about "Evil Smurfs?"

 

[The Lunatic]

IF you're good at the game, to the extent you're making the game awful for everyone else, they hold a vote, and eject you from the game.


Yeah. That's fair.

Just the game saying "You're too good, go away" that's unfair.

But, people removing you because you're too good isn't too dissimilar from choosing not to invite your profession footballer friend to a friendly 5 a side match.

 

[Doom972]

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.

 

[Combustion Kevin]

thing is, though, where do you draw the line?

If you are having a great run, way better than usual, should you be banned based on that while you would be above average any other round?

 

[Monster_user]

Each server sets their own limits. If there is a rule, no more than 20+ or 40+ over second best, the pro gamer should sit out a few rounds, or scale it back a notch. If the gamer cannot play by the rules of the server, the player should be kicked.

The rules are set by:

A: The Server Admins
B: The first four in the server, if no admins are on.
C: Majority rule.

As I had mentioned earlier in the aforementioned forum (refer to OP), simply utilizing ones skill cannot be considered illegitimate and cannot result in a ban or "kicking", regardless of the ire it may cause. Having said that however, players should only play against other players equal to their own skill level.

The Halo 4 battle mentioned earlier was a fair and simple Grifball match, with neither team being intrinsically handicapped. Your Black OPS II example refers to one player dominating, however, this may only be due to one of two reasons:

1) The game is unbalanced, in that it has lower leveled new players battle against experienced veterans.

2) The other players have not gained as much skill and experience despite being at an equal or similar level to the veteran.

Neither of these reasons are grounds for "kicking", much less a ban. A proper skilled player shall never enter a lower level battle due to the inevitable boredom, and thus, banning resulting from great prowess is immoral.

TL;DR : It is immoral to ban a player due to skill level.

Sorry, but this is utter rubbish.
You are working from the assumption that high-skilled players will always seek out an equal challenge, rather than griefing lower-skilled players. This is an almost unbelievably naive position to hold, so much so that I can hardly believe anybody would post it.
The one thing you can absolutely guarantee in any adversarial PvP game is that people will behave like dicks. They will use any glitch available, they'll cheat if they think they'll get away with it, and they will definitely seek out new/low-skill players to humiliate.
Anybody who is doing too well is ruining the game for other players, obviously there can be considerable argument and discussion about what constitutes "too well" but the basic facts remain, if you're doing too well then you're ruining the fun for everybody else.
The decent thing to do upon discovering you are way overskilled for the competition is to leave and find another game, but people will not do this because they are (by and large) scum, so they must be banned so that they cannot return.

I has actually considered that as well. Mind you I simply answered the OP's query in that equally leveled yet more skillful players should not be reported against due to their inability to defeat their adversary. Players intentionally obstructing the gameplay of others, i.e. "Trolling", should indeed be treated appropriately.

Often you will notice that a player shall kick another for defeating a player through skill alone, with no desire to hinder the entertainment of any of the other players, and this I deem unjust.

If it is a single individual, then don't kick. If multiple individuals are not enjoying the game, then kick.

This is especially true if the game has a level cap. Once the cap has been reached, the level is practically meaningless.

Sports generally have different tiers, pro ball players generally do not play kiddie ball. Pro Gamers should not just jump into a backyard football game, and just run over everybody. People play games to have fun, not to be the best in the world. Games are not always a competition.

 

[zidine100]

... i grew up playing unreal tournament and quake 3 multiplayer, im sorry but yeah, skilled people are skilled, that was the norm, it was expected that people would kick your ass until you enjoyed it, no they should not be kicked unless they are cheating, it just stifles competition, any server that bans someone because there better than most people isnt a server i want to be on.

Watching skilled players makes you want to get better, getting your ass handed to you makes you try harder. Whining about how someone just killed you over and over and we should ban the haxzor makes you look like a idiot. Simple really.

 

[Generic4me]

Well, to a certain extent, you just have to deal with that fact that some players are better than you, or you're a noob, or whatever.

BUT, I also feel that it is unfair to pit a team of 32 noobs against 32 level 100 MLGL3G1TPR0 gods, being unfair to the noobs. You're not going to learn anything. You're not going to have any fun. You're going to die 40 times in a row and then lose the match. You can try any strategy, any tactic, you'll still get curbstomped, and possibly basetrapped (where if you go outside of your protected zone you're dead within 5 seconds). At that point, the noobs should be able to kick the far-better players from the game.

Yes, they ARE in fact, being punished for doing well. However, I feel that it is the game, not the players, that is at fault. The game should be able to match teams and players to create an environment where anybody (with practice) can succeed, and if it fails to do that, the players should be allowed to take matters into their own hands.

If one person goes 98-0 and has called in 10 pavelows and it's gotten to the point where the game is basically unplayable for everybody else, they should be able to kick him, majority rules.

 

[Elfgore]

Now I play BF3 every now and again and I'm pretty damn good, maybe sometimes to good. Me and my friend usually play together and we usually get MVP 1 or 2 and in a 200 ticket TDM match average 30-40 kills. Me and him have gotten banned for "Cheating" multiple times. To me, this is bullshit. Just because I'm better than you're pathetic clan doesn't mean you should be allowed to ban me and my friend.

Now on the other hand if we decide to be idiots and try to revive people with them having a 0% percent chance of surviving that revive, then yes you have all rights to ban me.

 

[V da Mighty Taco]

If someone's immensely capable at a game and they're wiping the floor with everyone with little effort, then I don't believe that person should be playing on that server. Play with people your own level. Someone with an aimbot level of skill shouldn't be fighting people that are nowhere near that capable. It ruins everyone's fun and the one with that level of ability is doing nothing more than boasting about it.

I don't think it's a matter of being punished for being good. I think it's more a matter of deliberately playing MUCH less skilled players for the sake of stroking their e-penis and boasting. They should be fighting people more along their own skill level. They can still have fun being good at the game, but not at the expense of players much less skilled than they.

You're not taking into account two very important things:

- Many FPS's like CoD use random matchmaking that makes it impossible to know who you'll be matched up against. There is no server-selection in those type of games. Should one be punished for the game itself making it impossible to avoid joining a lobby of far less skilled players?

- On games with servers, players often play on a select few favorited servers where they know a good deal of people that frequent the lobby and are essentially there to have fun with them. Banning them because the teams got stacked or she / he is just too good is inadvertently punishing a lot more than just that person, especially if the ban is for multiple days or more. Such a thing would actively hurt the sense of community that many servers provide.

 

[Exius Xavarus]

Brevity!

There's a reason why games like CoD have a level system. The better you play, the higher level you become. The worse you play, your level drops. So you're most often pitted against players of the same average skill level. So unless they're deliberately losing to drop their level, a lowbie is never going to compete against someone extremely skilled(unless they do that whole rebirth thing I keep seeing happen, then the lowbies have to deal with it until they're back up to level).

My statement wasn't targeting people that are playing for fun. If they're really good then great for them. I could've been clearer initially, but my statement was more directed at the people that insist on taking down lowbies for the sake of asserting their dominance. Not to have fun, but to boast and show off their skill to the point of the victim party's chagrin. Of course, you can't always predict who's going to be on what server at what time and naturally super good people will be paired with or against people not so skilled. I'm not for kicking out people from a close community of people simply trying to have fun. I am for kicking out the people that play for the sake of ruining everyone else's experience. If they aren't there to have fun with good natured competition, I don't personally think they should be there.

Also, I never said anything about banning people. Not particularly sure where that came from.

 

[lacktheknack]

This is why we have matchmaking.

If we're talking dedicated servers, then there's going to be a few downsides.

 

[gmaverick019_v1legacy]

depends entirely on the server and how bad they are stomping and why they are stomping


if someone is doing great (50-2) i'm perfectly fine with them staying on the server, provided they aren't using some broken ass combo that basically is insta win if you show an inch of skin on their screen, then that pisses me off and they are just going out of their way to win for the sake of winning, not because it is fun or they are winning with skill. (remember the good ole socom days of insta kicking I-dub and noobtube users, they literally would be insta kicked most the time. kept everything fun and for the most part balanced, unless you really were that hell of a good player.)

but if it truly is 108-0, then yeah that's probably not fun for anyone, and they should probably find a better server, provided they aren't a jerk i'd just ask them to kindly leave, but if they are a jerk, then they are about to get the biggest boot in the ass.

 

[The Unworthy Gentleman]

There's a point where this sort of thing needs a line. Two lines in fact: the first is rookie games where only certain people can contend, the newcomers; and the other is league games where skill level is a necessary component of the tournament (you can't exactly have heavyweight's fighting featherweights). That's it, all other games are for everyone else's fun and enjoyment. If you can't beat the other team then tough, push through or quit.

 

[V da Mighty Taco]

Brevity!

There's a reason why games like CoD have a level system. The better you play, the higher level you become. The worse you play, your level drops. So you're most often pitted against players of the same average skill level. So unless they're deliberately losing to drop their level, a lowbie is never going to compete against someone extremely skilled(unless they do that whole rebirth thing I keep seeing happen, then the lowbies have to deal with it until they're back up to level).

My statement wasn't targeting people that are playing for fun. If they're really good then great for them. I could've been clearer initially, but my statement was more directed at the people that insist on taking down lowbies for the sake of asserting their dominance. Not to have fun, but to boast and show off their skill to the point of the victim party's chagrin. Of course, you can't always predict who's going to be on what server at what time and naturally super good people will be paired with or against people not so skilled. I'm not for kicking out people from a close community of people simply trying to have fun. I am for kicking out the people that play for the sake of ruining everyone else's experience. If they aren't there to have fun with good natured competition, I don't personally think they should be there.

Also, I never said anything about banning people. Not particularly sure where that came from.

The level system doesn't mean much. One-sided pubstomps are extremely common in all of the post-CoD4 games, to the point that I honestly think it's completely broken if it's suppose to match up people of similar rank. This is just my personal experience with the past 6 CoD games, of course, but honestly I don't think it's ever done a good job at all of doing this.

I understood that you were talking about those who play solely to stroke their e-peens in easy matches, of course. However, the OP was talking about banning good players in general for being too good and that's what I'm addressing. Most of the time these pubstompers aren't there solely to make everyone else miserable by drilling them into the ground; but are just trying to relax, play the game, and have fun with other people. Banning them because of unintentionally stacked teams (which is usually the case) or because some people are getting annoyed at losing to them just isn't right imho. It's why I like a "team scramble" option, as it's a much fairer way to counter pubstomps without removing people from the game.

As for the banning thing, it's in the title of the thread and what this discussion is all about. The OP may have worded it wrong (kicking is not the same thing as banning), but either way I disagree with it.

 

[Ambitiousmould]

I don't think that banning someone from games because they are better than you is something that should be done. It happens to a friend of mine on BF3 all the time (not to me because I suck) so it isn't fun for him as he can't even play in games anymore.

I was also playing Red Dead Redemption earlier today and me and a friend were being destroyed by a guy who kept one-shotting us instantly at 500 yards with a bolt-action. that gun takes 2 shots and players don't actually render that far away, so we figured foul-play. I think he should be banned. however, the people that wiped the floor with us later on were legitimatley good, and we ended up getting our arses kicked again, but didn't mind. (we even ended up joining their party and sharing a few laughs as we were brutally cut to ribbons by them)

basically, cheating is foul, playing well should be admirable, and banning someone because they are better than you is not only bad sportsmanship but is also just plain morngy and mardy.

 

[rapidoud]

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.

There's a difference between letting someone roam in the kiddy pool and throwing them in the middle of the the English Channel, wouldn't you say? Black Ops 2 is hardly a game people (especially older people) sit down and say 'okay I'm going to make my strats for every map and refine them every game'. This isn't Dark Souls/IWBTG/a Street Fighter tourney. These people just want to play.

As an Aussie too we have very few servers for games as it is, and it wouldn't be surprising to find someone like that kicked as chances are they're abusing certain 'features' of a game with things the developer didn't intend. I played AvP 2010 the other day (on one of 2 servers, both unfortunately American) and the admin kicked someone who was doing too well as the ping difference was killing most of us from across the globe, and they were abusing the plasmacaster which is an easykill weapon.

If you're playing that much anyway if you're not going pro then quite frankly it's an unhealthy obsession too.