Poll: "Lack of skill" of other players is not a legit justification for being an asshole

[generals3]

I have been playing GTA:O the last few days and I have come to absolutely loathe it because of all the high level players using tanks and assault rifles in lower level lobbies. Pretty much every lobby I go into has a 100+ level player just driving around in a tank killing everything that moves. Being a lower level, i think my character is 12, I don't have any way to compete with that which makes the game really frustrating and unlikable. So I went online to see what I could do to counter high level players in death matches and tanks using high level weapons and all I see are people on the Rockstar forums talking about how "if you don't have the skill to deal with them, then you deserve to be spawn raped" or "quite wining and get better at the game."

Now, these kinds of comments annoy me greatly. Not only does skill not factor into unlocking more powerful weapons with higher levels, but I, as a student and employee, do not have the time to spend 8 or 10 hours a day leveling up and getting "good." Nor would I want to. Where did this attitude among gamers come from that you have to be skilled to enjoy a video game? You see similar comments on Battlefield and CoD forums where people are asking for nerf'd guns and are shot down by other players who tell them to get better at the game.

I simply want to enjoy the little time I have playing video games and not have to pour 100's of hours into it just to get to a point where I can enjoy it. To me, that's not fun. Getting killed by someone in a tank that I literally have no means of defending against is not fun. Getting killed by machine gunners with the most powerful class weapons in Battlefield is not fun.

I don't get why you have to be "skilled" at the game to have fun, both from a design and a player standpoint.

Am I off the mark here? Am I being a little too sensitive or do you agree?

Well one problem is this new trend among games to have unlockables which is blatantly annoying. I mean, why should new players who are already at a disadvantage due to a lack of experience be even more disadvantaged due to not having access to everything? Let RPG stuff be RPG stuff god damnit...

Anyway, what one has to keep in mind is that on the internet you also have plenty of "noobs" (mind i said noobs not newbies) who are actually constantly bitching about things "being too hard" and pressuring devs to make games piss easy which makes them boring for people who actually have skills. This has caused a very defensive attitude among more "skilled" players towards anything that may look like an attempt to pressure for a game to become "easier". And mind you there are plenty of "noobs" also asking questions like "how do i have to beat X" in a rhetorical manner and sometimes it's hard to distinguish those who are just complaining about them being beaten from those who genuinely want to learn. But overall i'd agree that being rude towards people just asking newbie questions is wrong. Everyone has been a newbie/unskilled at one point and no would have liked to be treated like dirt back than. So why make others go through that? I personally love to help people who want to learn. But those who think it's more constructive just to whine instead of becoming better... well I won't spare them.

 

[WindKnight]

'Just because you can, doesn't mean you should.'

Honestly, leveled load-outs it just makes it easier, not eliminates it entirely. In games like Halo, the right map - and/or the right weapon drops - can turn it into just as unpleasant, either because of a huge skill disparity or lag abuse.

I'm beginning to think online PVP games need to start implementing rules to structure the matches more along sports lines to penalize players who engage in what is either bullying or unsportsmanlike behavior. Turn the playing feild into a sportsfield, not a playground so to speak.

And on the sports field, you use every advantage you have at your disposal. Most of the time these complaints come off as either someone crying that a game some little kid made up on the spot is unfair (well duh it's unfair, go play a real game that wasn't broken by design), or like they're complaining that, say, tackling in football is OP because they don't understand how defense works. Both complaints have a pretty easy solution, and it's not making changes to the current game.

except this is more like camping outside the penalty box and kicking the ball in the goal as soon as it comes out, or having your team push everyone away from the hoop so you can grab the ball as soon it drops down and dunk it straight in again. The kind of thing real sports have rules to prevent.

 

[COMaestro]

Gah, read the subject wrong and voted incorrectly. My no should be a yes.

Sadly there's not much that can be done about this, short of people deciding to not be assholes. Having separate lobbies won't work, as trolling players will continue to troll by going in the low-level games. The only way would be if the game forces people of similar levels into the same games. Even then you can get someone who just wants to screw around killing everybody, while other players want to play the game, though at least they have the ability to fight back somewhat.

I believe that skilled players do deserve some kind of reward. I know that's partly the idea behind the killstreak unlockables in CoD and Battlefield (I assume, I play neither). Do well, and you get a special perk. However, I don't really like it in games where you get to unlock overpowered weapons or abilities just by playing for a long time. Sure, everyone has the ability to eventually get these items, but I am lucky nowadays to get an hour a day of gaming in. I don't have the time to spend 100 hours on one game to unlock a tank (this is just an example, I have no idea how long it takes to get the tank in GTA:O), and don't want to be trolled by other players who do have the time when all I want to do is have fun playing the game. Same goes for any overpowered item or ability. Getting a gun with slightly higher accuracy or damage would be okay, or a speed boost, etc. Something that gives a slight advantage without making the other player invincible to less experienced players.

Basically, I prefer small, one-use perks or items or general equipment that is slightly better than the norm be used as rewards for skilled or long-time players. You'll still get some really skilled players that might end up trolling, but at least they won't be untouchable due to overpowered items.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

'Just because you can, doesn't mean you should.'

Honestly, leveled load-outs it just makes it easier, not eliminates it entirely. In games like Halo, the right map - and/or the right weapon drops - can turn it into just as unpleasant, either because of a huge skill disparity or lag abuse.

I'm beginning to think online PVP games need to start implementing rules to structure the matches more along sports lines to penalize players who engage in what is either bullying or unsportsmanlike behavior. Turn the playing feild into a sportsfield, not a playground so to speak.

And on the sports field, you use every advantage you have at your disposal. Most of the time these complaints come off as either someone crying that a game some little kid made up on the spot is unfair (well duh it's unfair, go play a real game that wasn't broken by design), or like they're complaining that, say, tackling in football is OP because they don't understand how defense works. Both complaints have a pretty easy solution, and it's not making changes to the current game.

except this is more like camping outside the penalty box and kicking the ball in the goal as soon as it comes out, or having your team push everyone away from the hoop so you can grab the ball as soon it drops down and dunk it straight in again. The kind of thing real sports have rules to prevent.

Not really. Part of the rules of this game are apparently "he who has been around the longest has the most powerful weapons." So in the hypothetical, that would only be against the rules for rookie players. That's why I used the example of a little kid making up a game on the spot. It's unbalanced by design, and you're better off complaining about the game itself or just playing something else instead of complaining about the other players making use of the advantage they've gained due to the stacked rules.

 

[GloatingSwine]

GTA Online sounds like a terrible example because there's no inherent skill involved in having equipment your opposition can't and using it to kill them.

I mean great, you have a tank and you can shoot people who haven't. That doesn't mean you've got skill, it means you've played long enough to have a tank.

Go you.



Now, in a game where players are at a relatively level playing field in terms of equipment, especially team based games, you should really be putting some effort into learning how to play the game so you don't drag your team down, and if your team loses you should consider whether you did something wrong before blaming the other players on it.

Don't be that guy.

 

[MeChaNiZ3D]

Depends on a couple of things. The game and the manner in which the other player is an asshole. In a few cases, skilled players give new players a hard time in order to improve them or teach them about the game. Similarly, in co-op games skilled players may hold back in order for the new player to improve. In other cases, new players put themselves in a crucial role despite knowing they are not suited to it, and skilled players who may lose because of it berate them. These two are justified and dubious respectively in my opinion.

But other than that, no. Especially in games where progression is based on time spent and you can get straight advantages and still be fighting new people with nothing.

EDIT: By the way, this is one of the reasons I didn't take to RDR's online. It's a bunch of mean-spirited pricks with fucking Zebras grouping up and screwing with anyone who hasn't grinded their way to that dubious honour.

 

[Vale]

True, but I still flame the fuck out of anybody that annoys me by being incompetent.
Because I am a horrible worthless shit with no self-control whatsoever.

 

[TrevHead]

True, but I still flame the fuck out of anybody that annoys me by being incompetent.
Because I am a horrible worthless shit with no self-control whatsoever.

Grilling noobs online is all fine and dandy if you take the trouble to tell them where they went wrong and give them hints in how to improve.

 

[Vale]

True, but I still flame the fuck out of anybody that annoys me by being incompetent.
Because I am a horrible worthless shit with no self-control whatsoever.

Grilling noobs online is all fine and dandy if you take the trouble to tell them where they went wrong and give them hints in how to improve.

Nah, I just tell 'em they should fuck off the edge of my dick and uninstall the game because they are worthless shit.
See, I told you I don't deserve sympathy.

 

[katsabas]

I agree to a certain point. That point being, rookies trying to get into the big leagues on day one and get their asshole ripped apart at their expense and the expense of their team should be discouraged from doing that.

 

[SonOfVoorhees]

Being killed by a higher level guy in a tank sucks. But fine. It happens. But if it happens again and again and again and no matter how you try and get around them. They still get you. Then that is really sucky. I except this stuff happens in online games, but when its continuous then it makes the game unplayable and you have every right to have fun with a game you bought. How are you meant to have fun and skill up when you get killed by a griefer as soon as you poke your head round the door? Granted you can turn off and try back in an hour, but thats not the point. Im thinking GTA:O shouldnt have the leveling up and just let them play the game as the single player. Do missions, make money and buy whatever weapons you want. If you find a helicopter or tank, then you can use it. Can you save those vehicles? Because i bet it will get annoying if as soon as you kill the tit in the tank, he just gets another one from his garage. Ends up as a cheat code in a way.

Now this happened to me in WoW. When you play in pvp you might meet a higher level character that will kill you on his way to some where else. This is a one off, and while annoying, is fine. One time a guy killed me and stood near where my body was waiting for me to respawn. After two more deaths i ended up doing the major slog to get re-spawned else where. Now thats annoying.

 

[lunavixen]

There is no reason to be an asshole in online gaming at all, there is no excuse, and being an asshole in return only begets more name calling and poor behaviour which brings down the tone and happiness of everyone. Most people that are trolling seem to forget that they were new at the game at one point too.

 

[Rylee Fox]

Most people that are trolling seem to forget that they were new at the game at one point too.

This reminds me of something I read once.

Give a man a fish, he will eat for a day. Teach a man to fish, he will instantly forget he ever didn't know how to fish and call people noobs on the fishing forums.

It's due to the kinds of people this topic is about that I stopped playing mmos. People like that should be banned forever, but the GMs never get around to doing that so the bad players are still in the game. I could nearly write a book about my experiences in mmos so I'm not going to post it here.

 

[Loonyyy]

I'm gonna have to agree with the people who pointed the blame at Rockstar. What the OP is describing isn't bad /players/, it's a terribly designed /game/. This isn't a case of skill vs. skill, where the better player wins. That can be less than fun for the wrong kind of gamer, but at least it's fair. Instead what we've got is a case of account vs. account, where the account that has been used the longest has the advantage. These "high level" players would be getting their asses kicked by other high level players, if they had to start a new account for some reason. In a properly balanced game, that won't happen -- the best player wins, regardless of whether they're even playing on their own account or not.

Basically, don't hate the player, hate the game.

Hate the player too, they're assholes.

Game developers should do their best to make things work, and prevent people from being assholes, and the blame is entirely on them when it happens, and they're the only ones with the power to fix it... but if you need to sit in a tank waiting to prevent noobs from playing at all to get your rocks off, you're an asshole.

 

[Loonyyy]

As far as GTA:O goes, I agree with you. When you're level 12, with hardly any weapons or money, then taking out tanks or even guys with long range weapons who hunt you down is basically impossible, certainly in a 1v1 situation.

I'm going to take you to task a little on the Battlefield thing though!

Firstly, I agree 100% that most of the denizens of the Battlelog forums are pretty toxic and hostile. They tend to be utterly stat obsessed (in a game where stats aren't that important!) and pretty unpleasant. That said, when it comes to people complaining that gun X, Y or Z needs a nerf, I believe that 9/10 times, the complainer hasn't seen the bigger picture.

I'm going to go ahead and assume that the "most powerful class weapons" you refer to are the LMG's. I run the support class a lot at the moment - mainly because now that ammo boxes aren't mandatory for support, too many players don't carry them any more and ammo is much harder to get. I run the LMG a lot (specifically the M240), and LMG's are simply *not* the wonder gun people think.

They fall into two basic type - high rate of fire/low damage/poor accuracy, and low rate of fire/fair damage/decent accuracy. The pros and cons kinda balance out and basically the LMG will compete with most assault rifles at mid-long range in the hands of a capable user. Short controlled bursts are the key but you still need to be able to control the recoil. At short range, a PDW or shotgun will beat an LMG most times, unless you get the drop on the other guy. The biggest advantage to the belt-fed guns is the massive mag size, and the stupid amount of suppression you can lay on the other guys.

All the weapons have their pros and cons. Some are very scenario-specific (shotguns and PDWs are only good for small maps and short range engagements), some are good all rounders (Assault rifles and LMG's - but those are carried by primarily anti-infantry classes), and to be fair the carbines are pretty capable in most short-mid range situations and any class can carry them.

Personally, my biggest "grief" about Battlefield at the moment is the number of Assault players who don't revive and only drop combat med packs for themselves while they sit in one spot with the M320, and Support guys who don't carry ammo boxes. It's a team game, increasingly being played by lone wolves.

As one of those assault players who can't revive, I'll have to let you know my biggest grief: The damn hitbox for the defib is broken as fuck, and with the latency and rego issues, getting a revive is hit and miss. I've only ever gotten one charged revive, you're better off spamming, since if you spam you can get three in before you lose them. Aiming for the spot they were standing when they died (Usually where their legs are) helps a little, but it's a nuisance.

Damn shame too, since it worked better in BF3, and really well in Bad Company 2. Being a suicidally brave medic has always been my favourite thing to do in those games, especially when you can keep a whole squad alive while taking ridiculous amounts of fire and defend ground or objectives.

Also, what's withe the MG hate Jacco, it seems misplaced. Yes, there's always the assholes (And Battlefield has to have the most toxic community I've ever played in) saying get better etc, but there actually have been some serious balance issues in the past *cough* USAS-12, Explosive Ammo *cough* that've been dealt with because when enough people complained, DICE changed it. And the problem is very rarely people saying that someone's unlocked a great machine gun (Which tend to fit in well in the scheme of things[Although they're going to have to come for my P90 soon, it's just tearing through people]), it's usually more along the lines of something actually broken, like the constant back and forth on the suppression effects, and the explosive rounds. I dunno, this complaint doesn't really fit like the other. I completely agree that having to unlock things over a long period is annoying, and limits the options a new player has, but except in the cases of say, a few vehicle perks, most of these really don't hurt balance.

 

[Trippy Turtle]

I think if its a multiplayer game you should get good honestly.
There are options for private lobbies I think, you could also use them.

I was going to agree with you based on the title, and figured it was something along the lines of you shouldn't have to be good to be allowed to play the game. But at the same time, the game shouldn't be changed in order to please those who are not good at it.

In a singleplayer game, it depends on the target audience. Something like mario kart is a good example of a game that wouldn't work if you needed a high skill requirement. Dark Souls would lose all its appeal if you made it easy though.

Multiplayer games though (Mainly competitive non-co-op ones) would lose their purpose if they took no skill. What would be the point of being good at the game if you still had no better chance at winning then a monkey holding a controller? GTA's case is a little different and it should match you with similar level players but that's not a great difference. The high level players had to go through it as well.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

I'm gonna have to agree with the people who pointed the blame at Rockstar. What the OP is describing isn't bad /players/, it's a terribly designed /game/. This isn't a case of skill vs. skill, where the better player wins. That can be less than fun for the wrong kind of gamer, but at least it's fair. Instead what we've got is a case of account vs. account, where the account that has been used the longest has the advantage. These "high level" players would be getting their asses kicked by other high level players, if they had to start a new account for some reason. In a properly balanced game, that won't happen -- the best player wins, regardless of whether they're even playing on their own account or not.

Basically, don't hate the player, hate the game.

Hate the player too, they're assholes.

Game developers should do their best to make things work, and prevent people from being assholes, and the blame is entirely on them when it happens, and they're the only ones with the power to fix it... but if you need to sit in a tank waiting to prevent noobs from playing at all to get your rocks off, you're an asshole.

The player who takes advantage of it may be an asshole, but the player that complains about it is an idiot. Twice over, in fact -- once for buying such a broken game in the first place, and twice for continuing to play it after they've realized it's terribly designed. Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go play some Star Wars: Battlefront II, a game that's actually balanced[footnote]For the most part. I avoid Hero Assault because the hero characters are designed for mowing down grunts and turning a battle around, not for dueling each other, which makes a game mode based around heroes dueling each other decidedly broken, with some units being straight up better than others. But instead of complaining about that, I just enjoy the Conquest, CTF, and Hunt maps, all of which are fun and, if not perfectly balanced, balanced enough that it's still up to player skill more than anything else.[/footnote].

 

[srm79]

As one of those assault players who can't revive, I'll have to let you know my biggest grief: The damn hitbox for the defib is broken as fuck, and with the latency and rego issues, getting a revive is hit and miss. I've only ever gotten one charged revive, you're better off spamming, since if you spam you can get three in before you lose them. Aiming for the spot they were standing when they died (Usually where their legs are) helps a little, but it's a nuisance.

Damn shame too, since it worked better in BF3, and really well in Bad Company 2. Being a suicidally brave medic has always been my favourite thing to do in those games, especially when you can keep a whole squad alive while taking ridiculous amounts of fire and defend ground or objectives.

Also, what's withe the MG hate Jacco, it seems misplaced. Yes, there's always the assholes (And Battlefield has to have the most toxic community I've ever played in) saying get better etc, but there actually have been some serious balance issues in the past *cough* USAS-12, Explosive Ammo *cough* that've been dealt with because when enough people complained, DICE changed it. And the problem is very rarely people saying that someone's unlocked a great machine gun (Which tend to fit in well in the scheme of things[Although they're going to have to come for my P90 soon, it's just tearing through people]), it's usually more along the lines of something actually broken, like the constant back and forth on the suppression effects, and the explosive rounds. I dunno, this complaint doesn't really fit like the other. I completely agree that having to unlock things over a long period is annoying, and limits the options a new player has, but except in the cases of say, a few vehicle perks, most of these really don't hurt balance.

I feel your pain re: dodgy revive mechanics. Whenever I run assault, I spec as a combat medic. I don't often charge the paddles, simply because there's no way of knowing how long you have to do the revive in many cases. Quick revive, then throw down the medic bag is my preferred M.O. If you have two or three guys close together it works too, because the box has a range of about 4-5 metres. Forget reviving anyone who falls on stairs, rubble or too close to a bro box though. I still feel that if you really want to take a launcher then ditch the box and take the paddles - they're more valuable to the team, and the game is a team game. Especially in rush, where games can go right down to the last few tickets.

I think the biggest cause of people deciding a gun is OP is because they get killed by it a lot. That doesn't mean it's actually OP, it just means lots of people are using it. Ironically this is often because it's gotten a reputation as being OP. It's a vicious circle, but often wrong. Take the MTAR-21 for example. It's not a bad gun by any stretch of the imagination, but it's not the uber-cannon that lots of players seem to think it is. It rivals a PDW in close range situations but at mid to long range it's utterly awful. The recoil and drift are massive, and you basically have to fire in one or two round bursts. But guys like Matimi0 and LevelCap did a couple of vids where they hailed it as the best thing since sliced bread and suddenly everyone is running it. I've gone back to the SG-553 though, because it seems to suit me better.

In keeping with the original point of this thread though, with the recent influx of christmas noobs I have actually tried to give pointers to players who are clearly new and haven't a clue. Admittedly usually after getting a comedy kill on them, but that's pretty much a given...

 

[RJ 17]

As far as GTA:O goes, for the most part anyone can kill anyone else, regardless of their weapons or levels...it mostly depends on who sees who first and who has the better aim. That said, there is indeed very little one can do to stop someone going on a rampage with a tank. I admit that I was one of the players that used the "replay mission" exploit to get a ton of cash, fast. There was a mission where you basically just blow up everyone and everything in a parking garage and get 20K. This could be repeated over and over again with each run taking no more than 30 seconds (if you have the right set-up), allowing you to make boatloads of cash and experience points. As such I was able to power-level up to getting a tank. But even so, I didn't use it for griefing...but rather as an anti-griefer measure. If there were a bunch of people just out being random jackasses (which is pretty much the entire point of open lobbies in GTA:O) and just gunning down other players, then I'd bust out the tank and put them in their place.

I won't deny I got a sadistic kick out of the fact that I clearly made three different people rage-quit from a lobby in the course of 10 minutes. First was a sticky-bomb bandit going around blowing everyone up, until I blew him up a couple times. The next one was in a jet just bombing and gunning every player he could...until I shot him out of the air. And the last one was in an attack chopper who felt like harassing me while I was hunting down the guy in the jet. He left after I proved 3 times that Tank Beats Chopper.

So I liked to consider myself more of a policing force rather than a griefer.

Now, with regards to the general idea laid out in the topic's title, I think it can be viewed from the other perspective. No, I don't think that being stuck on what I like to call "The Shit Team" is an excuse for someone to act like an asshole...that said, I do think it's a perfectly valid reason to get pissed off if your teammates are quite clearly utter crap. You're playing CoD and going 15 and 3. You're having a pretty good match, but then you check the scoreboard and see that you're team is getting smashed. Why? Because you've got three people going 2 and 8, 4 and 17, and 7 and 19. You're not failing, your TEAM is failing due to the lack of skill of your teammates. As such you come to realize "I'm on the Shit Team". And no one likes being on the Shit Team.

It's sad, really, but I made a joke with some of my friends back when we actually played CoD that "If a Green Arrow" meaning a random teammate not in your party "is behind you, you're about to get shot in the back" poking fun at the fact that random people out there aren't dependable and chances are they're not going to take out the guy that just turned a corner behind you and is about to shoot you from behind. The sad part is that when I actually started implementing this joke-motto...my game improved very noticeably.

So yeah, do I think that other player's lack of skill is cause to be an asshole? No. Not everyone is going to be god's gift to that game and have a natural in-born talent to be awesome at it. Still, it can be incredibly frustrating when you come to find that you're stuck on the Shit Team.

 

[Loonyyy]

I feel your pain re: dodgy revive mechanics. Whenever I run assault, I spec as a combat medic. I don't often charge the paddles, simply because there's no way of knowing how long you have to do the revive in many cases. Quick revive, then throw down the medic bag is my preferred M.O. If you have two or three guys close together it works too, because the box has a range of about 4-5 metres. Forget reviving anyone who falls on stairs, rubble or too close to a bro box though. I still feel that if you really want to take a launcher then ditch the box and take the paddles - they're more valuable to the team, and the game is a team game. Especially in rush, where games can go right down to the last few tickets.

Yep, that's pretty much how I run it too. I always go with the box and paddles, since not only do they do the most for your team, but you can rack up some great stacks of points if you revive a couple of people and throw them a medic box. I just wish they'd fix the registry on it so that there was more of the medic team work that previous games had. It scares people off using the paddles, and reviving is one of the best parts of being a medic.

I think the biggest cause of people deciding a gun is OP is because they get killed by it a lot. That doesn't mean it's actually OP, it just means lots of people are using it. Ironically this is often because it's gotten a reputation as being OP. It's a vicious circle, but often wrong. Take the MTAR-21 for example. It's not a bad gun by any stretch of the imagination, but it's not the uber-cannon that lots of players seem to think it is. It rivals a PDW in close range situations but at mid to long range it's utterly awful. The recoil and drift are massive, and you basically have to fire in one or two round bursts. But guys like Matimi0 and LevelCap did a couple of vids where they hailed it as the best thing since sliced bread and suddenly everyone is running it. I've gone back to the SG-553 though, because it seems to suit me better.

Yep. I'm forever being killed by low level unlock primaries, but I don't think they're overpowered, and indeed, I tend to prefer later ones, but the amount of people you see with them influences what you think of them. That's the other thing that's important, the weapons all have vastly different effective ranges, and if you get the wrong gun, you're going to have a bad time. Operation Locker in particular (So many 24/7 locker servers) would make you think that accurate or stable weapons were useless, and what you needed was a high rate of fire with high damage, unless you wanted to hide behind everyone and make one kill with a sniper rifle per round, but most of the bad guns are just in the wrong range. Even the damn .44 works if you pretend it's a sniper rifle and put it on your engineer class.

In keeping with the original point of this thread though, with the recent influx of christmas noobs I have actually tried to give pointers to players who are clearly new and haven't a clue. Admittedly usually after getting a comedy kill on them, but that's pretty much a given...

Got to get the necklace of dogtags somehow, amirite?