Poll: The Multiplayer Dilemma

[Catalyst6]

There has been something of a debate between two schools of thought when it comes to what is allowed in multiplayer gaming. I thought that I would ask you lot what you thought of it as well.

Now, I think that we can all agree that there are certain items/abilities/tactics that are looked down upon in multiplayer games. "Noob tubing" is an obvious example for FPSes, while other "cheap" or "cheesy" tactics come into play in competitive RPGs and RTS games.

For the sake of simplicity, let's break the schools into two. I'm loosely borrowing the names for the people off of the tropes; they are not meant as the insults that they are, only names.

"Munchkin": This is the player that believes that anything in the game is fair to use, or perhaps is even better than the standard set of tactics because it requires a bit of thinking to come up with the first time you use it. This person believes that a sniper rifle is close-range weapon and spam is your only friend, because these tactics are both effective and present in the game without modding. Yes, it might kill some of the competitive spirit, but hey, you play these games to WIN and anyone that doesn't use the system to its full capacity is an idiot.

"Scrub": These players want to play with limitations instead in order to foster what they consider to be a "fair game". Certain things just aren't competitive, so they would rather have it gone so that everyone can have a fun, fair game instead of falling victim to unavoidable traps. What constitutes a "fair game" can vary from person to person, but there are some points in consensus, and if you don't like how we do it then you're free to leave the server. These players would rather cut back on the abilities that they have at their disposal in order to give their opponents a fighting chance.

Of course, both of these viewpoints have benefits and flaws. The Muchkin might consider the fact that since you can run along the 1mm-width top of a fence and jump into a well-hidden spot (one that clearly isn't meant to be used for anything but decor) then it's a legitimate strategy since it's *in the game*. Scrubs, on the other hand, can have a mountain of complaints about what's fair for you to do, every one of which evaporates when they do the deed themselves. EDIT: These guys are usually calling out for nerfs on the forums.

In my opinion? I'm really undecided on the point. I've leaned towards the Scrub in the past, but perhaps it's time for me to open up to the Munchkin mindset more.

What do you think?

EDIT: You're probably both of these groups in some fashion or another, and the degree that you're one or the other will probably depend on what game type you're playing. That's understandable!

 

[Rylot]

If it's in game, it's fair game. If the developer didn't want you to be able to do something, they should have programed it better.

 

[Aris Khandr]

Of your choices, I'd lean more toward 'scrub'. Mostly because I believe that multiplayer should be fun for everyone, not just for the person winning. Ideally, there should never be a sense of "what's the point, I'm going to lose anyway". If something is clearly unbalanced, it improves everyone's enjoyment to avoid it.

 

[PlasmaFrog]

Most players will compensate for their lack of experience/knowledge by forming terms of derogatory, spite, and intolerance. This is commonly seen when the player begins to become much more immersed into the game than they actually should in which they disregard an original incentives for playing. These include their K/Dr, streaks, or anything else involving the competitive edge. Worsening conditions involve belligerent behavior, tunnel-sighted thoughts, and general douchebaggery.

So, I vote neither. I refuse to be generalized as some common opinion.

 

[Catalyst6]

Most players will compensate for their lack of experience/knowledge by forming terms of derogatory, spite, and intolerance. This is commonly seen when the player begins to become much more immersed into the game than they actually should in which they disregard an original incentives for playing. These include their K/Dr, streaks, or anything else involving the competitive edge. Worsening conditions involve belligerent behavior, tunnel-sighted thoughts, and general douchebaggery.

So, I vote neither. I refuse to be generalized as some common opinion.

While I fully agree with you for the casual gamer, I did mean this in the context of a competitive gamer, the person that really cares how well they did and whether his team won in the end. Not to say that they're not having fun, of course (unless you're THAT guy, but we don't talk to him. He only speaks in code and racial slurs).

 

[Saelune]

A game should be fair. Because the devs failed to make the game fair doesnt make it fair to use cheap tactics. I sure as hell hiope Infinity Ward did not intend for Quick Scoping, cause its not cool. (I admit, I slip up when paniced, but I dont use it as a tactic of choice)
Somethings are over-powered and not thought out. Most of the shotguns in MW2 for example. (particularly teh Stryker, AA, and Akimbo Models)

Also, in Fighting games cheap tactics pop up too much. Infinite Combos, over powered moves, the E.Honda thousand slap slide....

I wouldnt want it done to me, so why would I do it to you? (Hell, I back off or jump over people in corners in fighting games to stay fair)

 

[Bon_Clay]

I guess it depends on the game. In Super Smash Bros people would refer to those who use items as scrubs, as basically everyone who wanted to play competitively thought it was best to keep them off. It was fun to use once in a while but they really made skill less important to who won.

As for cheap tactics, if you're playing online your best bet is to just learn them. You can't make an agreement to play fair with someone who isn't in slapping distance, so if you can't beat them join them. Its the developers fault for not having a balanced game, or still their job to patch things they missed that people can exploit.

 

[Wuggy]

I guess I fall into the "scrub" category. I don't play a whole lot of multiplayer games, but when I am playing Black Ops, I never use 'noob-tubes', second chance, etc. I don't have problem with other people using them however. I just want succeed in my own merits, not by using overpowered things.

 

[mikev7.0]

The way you define it I suppose I am a Street Fighter "Scrub" since I play with what a friend of mine calls "scripts" kind of like what you said in your post. I play with different rules which I feel make the game more fun and friendly rather than win at all costs. Which, as my friend rightly points out, is just fine so long as I don't demand any one else follow my script, which I don't. The only rules I even have for myself really are that I don't play bosses and I don't corner trap. Literally though the munchkins are right. The games rules already exist and you can't break them.

 

[SammiYin]

I believe heartily in fair play, but not to the games shitty unbalanced standards, I go by my own code which eschews all twat strategy [Hiding in glitches? Not for me good sir!] so I will use guns that I find are fun and which I believe to be balanced or even under average, because then when I destroy everyone there's no doubt I'm the mofoing best.

 

[Kapol]

I think that, if it's added to the game intentionally, such as second chance or the 'noob tube,' then it's fair game. That said, the developer did a bad job in my opinion if they make those sorts of easily exploitable methods. 'Noob tubes,' for example, are really bad for this since it's obvious that such a powerful weapon would be exploited. 'Noobish' strategies are also fair game, and I don't really blame the dev for them as it's not possible to foresee what every player is going to do. If it's possible in the game without glitching, then it can be exploited fairly.

Glitches, on the other hand, are not fair game. Things like getting to parts of the map you shouldn't be able to access, or using small glitches to get kills when you shouldn't, shouldn't be used at all. They should also be patched to make sure they don't happen. So I have to say neither of the two you listed are what I belong to.

 

[Aeonknight]

Munchkin with some Scrub on the side. It depends on the situation. Example in FPS's: I hate noob tubing, and I hate people who do it. But it's not the end of the world when one player does it, and there are ways to work around it. It's lame. But it's part of the game.

Stuff like quick scoping/firing the sniper rifle like a friggin uzi, also lame. Should be removed not because I can't handle people who do it, but because it defies the physics of the gun itself. When a FPS is going for realism the least they can do is make sure the gun behaves the way it does in reality. And any guy trying to fire off a .50 cal sniper rifle from the hip is asking for a broken bone or two.


I don't cry for nerfs, because generally in multiplayer, there shouldn't be a gun/class/whatever that beats all the rest. If there is, then your game has serious balance issues and it may be time to switch games. At least till the developers patch it.

 

[KarmaTheAlligator]

I'm more of the munchkin attitude from your choices, with a side helping of scrub, since I don't always play to win. And, well, I'm not good enough that I can afford to limit myself too much most of the time, however if I find I'm dominating a particular game (I'm thinking about Halo 2 playing with my friends, where I somehow manage to win an awful lot) then I will limit myself (Halo 2 again where I'd play only with whichever weapon the game spawned me with).

 

[Catalyst6]

Glitches, on the other hand, are not fair game. Things like getting to parts of the map you shouldn't be able to access, or using small glitches to get kills when you shouldn't, shouldn't be used at all. They should also be patched to make sure they don't happen. So I have to say neither of the two you listed are what I belong to.

Eh, I was going to say "no glitches" in both cases since it's literally outside the game, but I more considered "glitching" as hiding inside walls, superjumping, etc.

So, "no glitches", I guess.

And yeah, like I said, the two groups is for simplicity sake. Everyone is probably going to be at least partly both, and it'll vary depending on what game they're playing as well.

 

[StriderShinryu]

I think beyond certain often glaring and obvious exploits, if it's in the game it can and should be used. It's up to the players to find ways around what they consider to be cheap tactics and, if the game is a well designed one to begin with, there are going to be ways around the so called "cheap" tactics. I'm thinking more along the lines of fighting games as that's where my experience lies, but I don't see how that would not apply to other genres as well.

It shouldn't be up to me to intentionally play the game wrong just so you feel it's fair. Regardless of how it makes you feel personally, the fact is playing in that manner is what is not fun. If you can't enjoy playing a game the way it's designed to be played then it's not that others are doing something wrong, it's that you're playing the wrong game.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

Neither. Good online games should be properly balanced.

It's up to the developer to balance everything out and make sure there is a counter to every tactic and that nothing is overpowered or underpowered. Everything in the game is fair game. I don't get into many multiplayer games because not many of them are balanced; Metal Gear Online and Warhawk are the only 2 games I've played a lot of online because of the balance and that they're both great games. And, I just love when someone is using what the game community calls a "cheap tactic" and I know the counter to said tactic and just own the guy the rest of the match; fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me. Or I love the other way around when I'm using said "cheap tactic" and tell them after the match how to easily counter it. In Metal Gear Online, every so-called "pro" bitches about auto-aim but the mechanic is perfectly balanced; firstly, you have to be within about 5 feet for auto-aim to work (so auto-aim in MGO is like the equivalent to shooting from the hip in a FPS), and the other player is just mad that he missed his headshot or started auto-aiming too late. To me, auto-aim makes close quarters shooting non-cumbersome so you don't have to aim a reticule when someone is literally right in front of you. Plus, in real life if someone is right in front of you, they are really easy to hit.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

Neither. Good online games should be properly balanced.

It's up to the developer to balance everything out and make sure there is a counter to every tactic and that nothing is overpowered or underpowered. Everything in the game is fair game. I don't get into many multiplayer games because not many of them are balanced; Metal Gear Online and Warhawk are the only 2 games I've played a lot of online because of the balance and that they're both great games. And, I just love when someone is using what the game community calls a "cheap tactic" and I know the counter to said tactic and just own the guy the rest of the match; fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me. Or I love the other way around when I'm using said "cheap tactic" and tell them after the match how to easily counter it. In Metal Gear Online, every so-called "pro" bitches about auto-aim but the mechanic is perfectly balanced; firstly, you have to be within about 5 feet for auto-aim to work (so auto-aim in MGO is like the equivalent to shooting from the hip in a FPS), and the player is just mad that he missed his headshot or started auto-aiming too late. To me, auto-aim makes close counters shooting non-cumbersome so you don't have to aim a reticule when someone is literally right in front of you. Plus, in real life if someone is right in front of you, they are really easy to hit.

This, with the exception that I would place myself in the munchkin category. This all ultimately flows from Sirlin's Playing to Win. While everyone who reads that gets the idea that it's okay to use whatever is available within the rules of the game to your advantage, they often forget that he always followed that up with the caveat that a broken game really isn't worth playing to win. A well balanced game won't have any strategies that unbalance it, and therefore, they're all fair game. A poorly balanced game isn't worth playing, and if you do decide to play it for some reason, you can't really complain about the way people are playing it. If it sucks, it sucks.

 

[andreas3K]

In multiplayer, you and the other player(s) are there to give yourselves and eachother an enjoyable gaming experience, so you need to play by whatever set of rules you all find agreeable (if possible), to try to make sure everyone has a good time. That, I think, is the whole point of multiplayer gaming. But some people just want to win and have their own fun without regard for others. Those people are selfish assholes.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

This all ultimately flows from Sirlin's Playing to Win. While everyone who reads that gets the idea that it's okay to use whatever is available within the rules of the game to your advantage, they often forget that he always followed that up with the caveat that a broken game really isn't worth playing to win. A well balanced game won't have any strategies that unbalance it, and therefore, they're all fair game. A poorly balanced game isn't worth playing, and if you do decide to play it for some reason, you can't really complain about the way people are playing it. If it sucks, it sucks.

I couldn't agree more. In any competitive game, people are going to use whatever they feel gives them the best chance to win. So, if the game is unbalanced, then you going to run into a pretty much everyone using that one tactic that has no counter to it or some overpowered weapon or whatever. Since almost every game has matchmaking and no lobby system or game rooms (Metal Gear Online and Warhawk do though), you can't really run a game with custom rules because you always have those couple of assholes no matter what.

 

[Catalyst6]

This all ultimately flows from Sirlin's Playing to Win. While everyone who reads that gets the idea that it's okay to use whatever is available within the rules of the game to your advantage, they often forget that he always followed that up with the caveat that a broken game really isn't worth playing to win. A well balanced game won't have any strategies that unbalance it, and therefore, they're all fair game. A poorly balanced game isn't worth playing, and if you do decide to play it for some reason, you can't really complain about the way people are playing it. If it sucks, it sucks.

I couldn't agree more. In any competitive game, people are going to use whatever they feel gives them the best chance to win. So, if the game is unbalanced, then you going to run into a pretty much everyone using that one tactic that has no counter to it or some overpowered weapon or whatever. Since almost every game has matchmaking and no lobby system or game rooms (Metal Gear Online and Warhawk do though), you can't really run a game with custom rules because you always have those couple of assholes no matter what.

That's not necessarily true. Well, okay, it's completely true on consoles, but PC games are filled to the brim with servers limiting what you can/cannot do. It can be simple as "We kick for rifle grenades" to as complicated as "No running, everyone has to stay crouched, no grenades, rifles only". Yes, the latter example does exist.