Titanfall 2's PC Multiplayer has controller aim assist

[KraQ]

I mean, I think alot of the stuff argued against controllers is subjective bullshit, but if Mouse has controllers beat on accuracy, then controllers got it beat on movement.

While there are games that do take advantage of analogue input (Rocket League immediately comes to mind), most (if not all) shooters generally don't give the player much reason to move any speed other than "full speed" and "silently." What's more, it's physically faster to switch between 'a' and 'd' than it is to move an analogue stick left to right. It isn't always apparent in a game like Titanfall-- a game designed largely with a casual audience in mind and relatively little serious competitive play-- compared to games such as Quake, Counter-strike, or UT-- which all have (or have had) numerous competitions and often require extremely advanced movement at the top level. I'm not aware of a single instance of someone winning or even placing top 4 using an analogue stick for movement.

Bias? Maybe no one has tried it? Doubtful. The reason I brought up competitive play is because it's one of the best ways of objectively gauging what is and isn't advantageous. If there were a significant advantage to analogue input, I'd imagine that people would have found out by now. What's more, I'm exceedingly skeptical that an analogue stick can consistently strafe jump in Quake, properly counter-strafe in Counter-strike, or dodge-chain fluidly in UT.

Does this mean you can't use a controller? No. Many people are certainly more comfortable using controllers and not everyone is concerned with absolute maximum performance. With that said, there are material reasons to use a mouse and keyboard over a controller in a first person shooter.

I personally favor accommodating everyone, but, usually PC elitists make this claim that it can never fairly happen, though Titanfall 2 seems to want to challenge that, and thats fine by me.

Challenge? If anything, this is confirmation. I don't know if you realize, but the way auto aim is implemented in this is completely indistinguishable from a aggressively configured low profile aimbot, something that people get banned from using in other games. It wouldn't be an issue if both KB+M and controller users benefited from the assist, but the controller is being given an artificial advantage over the KB+M user. I'd say that it'd wouldn't be any different if a controller player was given three times as much health and did double damage, but I'm not entirely convinced that this isn't worse. Is it the end of the world? No, but it makes it hard to take the game seriously.

 

[Saelune]

I mean, I think alot of the stuff argued against controllers is subjective bullshit, but if Mouse has controllers beat on accuracy, then controllers got it beat on movement.

While there are games that do take advantage of analogue input (Rocket League immediately comes to mind), most (if not all) shooters generally don't give the player much reason to move any speed other than "full speed" and "silently." What's more, it's physically faster to switch between 'a' and 'd' than it is to move an analogue stick left to right. It isn't always apparent in a game like Titanfall-- a game designed largely with a casual audience in mind and relatively little serious competitive play-- compared to games such as Quake, Counter-strike, or UT-- which all have (or have had) numerous competitions and often require extremely advanced movement at the top level. I'm not aware of a single instance of someone winning or even placing top 4 using an analogue stick for movement.

Bias? Maybe no one has tried it? Doubtful. The reason I brought up competitive play is because it's one of the best ways of objectively gauging what is and isn't advantageous. If there were a significant advantage to analogue input, I'd imagine that people would have found out by now. What's more, I'm exceedingly skeptical that an analogue stick can consistently strafe jump in Quake, properly counter-strafe in Counter-strike, or dodge-chain fluidly in UT.

Does this mean you can't use a controller? No. Many people are certainly more comfortable using controllers and not everyone is concerned with absolute maximum performance. With that said, there are material reasons to use a mouse and keyboard over a controller in a first person shooter.

I personally favor accommodating everyone, but, usually PC elitists make this claim that it can never fairly happen, though Titanfall 2 seems to want to challenge that, and thats fine by me.

Challenge? If anything, this is confirmation. I don't know if you realize, but the way auto aim is implemented in this is completely indistinguishable from a aggressively configured low profile aimbot, something that people get banned from using in other games. It wouldn't be an issue if both KB+M and controller users benefited from the assist, but the controller is being given an artificial advantage over the KB+M user. I'd say that it'd wouldn't be any different if a controller player was given three times as much health and did double damage, but I'm not entirely convinced that this isn't worse. Is it the end of the world? No, but it makes it hard to take the game seriously.

Its not about speed of movement, but ease of movement. Moving AND turning AND staying on point is so much easier in my experience with a controller. Swiping my mouse over and over to turn around is far more cumbersome than just holding my thumb against an analogue stick.

And gaming shouldnt be solely defined by competitive gaming. I find competitive gaming, as a hardcore competitive gamer, really dull. I used to play in Call of Duty clans, but my refusal to solely use the "best loadout" and accepted gear kept me from ever even tempting actual competitive play beyond makeshift clan battles. But hey, I got a nuke in MW3 with a M16, so theres that.

Smash Bros is the best example of competitive boringifying a game, but thats not an FPS, or a PC game, so perhaps not too relevant, but still.

And I hold to the idea that true competition should be a test of skill and adaptability. Maybe its unfair for casual players just enjoying their weekend, but in a competitive match its more a show of skill to overcome disadvantage I think. Arent upsets more notable than predictable outcomes?

As for auto-aim. I would be fine without it, but again, many PC people claim that controllers NEED all these aids to compare, so according to them, deal with it. If auto-aim gets removed, I wont cry about it, but I also honestly, have a sense of smugness for any PC elitist who gets upset at this.

 

[one squirrel]

Sounds beat. Though I'm not totally surprised. The first game had that SmartPistol that had lock on targeting.

I was playing Gears 4 on my PC the other day and this guy was saying how he was playing on his Steam controller because it's so much better than a regular controller. I couldn't understand why you'd use any controller at all in a shooter. Sounds like Titanfall is so aggressive with the aim assist that a controller might give you an advantage. Pretty disgraceful for a PC version of the game.

Disclaimer: I liked Titanfall 1 and am intersted in the sequel. Not trying to be anti-console or anything.

Movement. I mean, I think alot of the stuff argued against controllers is subjective bullshit, but if Mouse has controllers beat on accuracy, then controllers got it beat on movement. I can move around easily and keep shooting with a controller (I aim fine too, but few detractors like to acknowledge the human element). I know playing Counter-Strike my biggest issue is feeling too stationary most of the time, and a sure way to kill me is to run around me, cause I cant turn for shit with a mouse, since ya know, I might as well be checking the price of a scratched bar code at a check out line.

Certainly a game like Titanfall, movement is very much a major part of it too. Not that Im getting it on PC, but I assure you, there is no way Id play that game with anything BUT a controller.

There have been trials with PC to console crossplay, where mediocre mouse+keyboard users wrecked even the best controller users:

http://www.techspot.com/news/39738-microsoft-killed-cross-platform-project-because-pc-gamers-wrecked-console-gamers.html

Do you have any evidence to support your claim that a controller isn't a subpar input-device for playing FPS, besides your personal experience?

 

[KraQ]

Its not about speed of movement, but ease of movement. Moving AND turning AND staying on point is so much easier in my experience with a controller. Swiping my mouse over and over to turn around is far more cumbersome than just holding my thumb against an analogue stick.

Why does your personal experience matter here? You claimed that arguments against controllers are subjective. I gave you objective examples.

And gaming shouldnt be solely defined by competitive gaming.

Did I claim that? The reason I brought up competition is because everything else is anecdotal. Saying "my aim is fine" means nothing. Saying "I had 80% lg in a $10,000 tournament" means that your tracking aim is in a very high percentile.

As for auto-aim. I would be fine without it,

I'd love to see proof of that.

but again, many PC people claim that controllers NEED all these aids to compare, so according to them, deal with it.

If I claim that weight categories matter in boxing, it doesn't mean that I think people in a lower weight class should be armed with a cudgel and placed in matches with people in a higher weight class.

 

[Saelune]

Sounds beat. Though I'm not totally surprised. The first game had that SmartPistol that had lock on targeting.

I was playing Gears 4 on my PC the other day and this guy was saying how he was playing on his Steam controller because it's so much better than a regular controller. I couldn't understand why you'd use any controller at all in a shooter. Sounds like Titanfall is so aggressive with the aim assist that a controller might give you an advantage. Pretty disgraceful for a PC version of the game.

Disclaimer: I liked Titanfall 1 and am intersted in the sequel. Not trying to be anti-console or anything.

Movement. I mean, I think alot of the stuff argued against controllers is subjective bullshit, but if Mouse has controllers beat on accuracy, then controllers got it beat on movement. I can move around easily and keep shooting with a controller (I aim fine too, but few detractors like to acknowledge the human element). I know playing Counter-Strike my biggest issue is feeling too stationary most of the time, and a sure way to kill me is to run around me, cause I cant turn for shit with a mouse, since ya know, I might as well be checking the price of a scratched bar code at a check out line.

Certainly a game like Titanfall, movement is very much a major part of it too. Not that Im getting it on PC, but I assure you, there is no way Id play that game with anything BUT a controller.

There have been trials with PC to console crossplay, where mediocre mouse+keyboard users wrecked even the best controller users:

http://www.techspot.com/news/39738-microsoft-killed-cross-platform-project-because-pc-gamers-wrecked-console-gamers.html

Do you have any evidence to support your claim that a controller isn't a subpar input-device for playing FPS, besides your personal experience?

Because I find that if you do something, and get a result, its not illogical to think the result is true. And I mean, some article claiming other's personal experience doesnt seem really more valid than my own.

And I think alot of critics themselves LACK any personal experience to support their own claims. Whenever PC gamers go "I dont get how people can use controllers" it shows a lack of understanding.

Its not about speed of movement, but ease of movement. Moving AND turning AND staying on point is so much easier in my experience with a controller. Swiping my mouse over and over to turn around is far more cumbersome than just holding my thumb against an analogue stick.

Why does your personal experience matter here? You claimed that arguments against controllers are subjective. I gave you objective examples.

And gaming shouldnt be solely defined by competitive gaming.

Did I claim that? The reason I brought up competition is because everything else is anecdotal. Saying "my aim is fine" means nothing. Saying "I had 80% lg in a $10,000 tournament" means that your tracking aim is in a very high percentile.

As for auto-aim. I would be fine without it,

I'd love to see proof of that.

but again, many PC people claim that controllers NEED all these aids to compare, so according to them, deal with it.

If I claim that weight categories matter in boxing, it doesn't mean that I think people in a lower weight class should be armed with a cudgel and placed in matches with people in a higher weight class.

Why doesnt my personal experience matter? Thats a stupid response. The human element is a major thing. We arent robots with exact specifications. Get 100 people to do the same exact thing and they wont all do it exactly the same.

As for proof, well, that requires gaming actually be willing to test this stuff in actual gaming. But everyone is so ready to assume it wont work that it is taking this long to give a real try. We wont know if we dont try.

Again, it was more smugness. As I said, I personally am fine without these aids. I think I can stand against the "bigger guy" and hold my own. Its just up to games to give me the opportunity to do so.

 

[KraQ]

Why doesnt my personal experience matter?

Because it means absolutely nothing when determining the objective. If you're wondering why that matters...

I mean, I think alot of the stuff argued against controllers is subjective bullshit,

...you're either being disingenuous or hypocritical. You've dismissed arguments against controllers as subjective (while ignoring all evidence the contrary), but want to claim that your subjective experience is somehow more pertinent to this conversation.

Because I find that if you do something, and get a result, its not illogical to think the result is true. And I mean, some article claiming other's personal experience doesnt seem really more valid than my own.

And I think alot of critics themselves LACK any personal experience to support their own claims. Whenever PC gamers go "I dont get how people can use controllers" it shows a lack of understanding.

What exactly gives you credibility? Simply saying "I did good once" doesn't add anything to the conversation. Do you have any actual measure for how well you did? Something that can be compared to our own experiences in a way that is concrete?

As for proof, well, that requires gaming actually be willing to test this stuff in actual gaming. But everyone is so ready to assume it wont work that it is taking this long to give a real try. We wont know if we dont try.

No one is stopping you from booting up CS:GO or Quake Live and using a gamepad on PC. Hell, don't even jump online, just download an aim training map and show us all some sick footage.

Again, it was more smugness. As I said, I personally am fine without these aids. I think I can stand against the "bigger guy" and hold my own. Its just up to games to give me the opportunity to do so.

You feel smug for standing up to an bigger guy while holding a weapon? Very brave of you.

If you think this is about whether or not it's ok to use a gamepad to play video games on the PC, you've misunderstood why people are upset. No one cares if you handicap yourself. What matters is that the game developers are rewarding people for handicapping themselves. What's more, it's rewarding people in a way that makes the game less fun for everyone else. You can't juke aim assist. Any time someone hits you while you're blazing across the screen, you don't know if it was sick aim or the computer aiming for them.

Maybe it's not a problem for you, but it's a problem for the sort of people that put thousands of hours into a games. You know what happened to the first Titanfall on PC? It died after a few months, precisely because it didn't attract the sort of people that put thousands of hours into the game. There are other reasons for it, but this doesn't help.

 

[Saelune]

Why doesnt my personal experience matter?

Because it means absolutely nothing when determining the objective. If you're wondering why that matters...

I mean, I think alot of the stuff argued against controllers is subjective bullshit,

...you're either being disingenuous or hypocritical. You've dismissed arguments against controllers as subjective (while ignoring all evidence the contrary), but want to claim that your subjective experience is somehow more pertinent to this conversation.

Because I find that if you do something, and get a result, its not illogical to think the result is true. And I mean, some article claiming other's personal experience doesnt seem really more valid than my own.

And I think alot of critics themselves LACK any personal experience to support their own claims. Whenever PC gamers go "I dont get how people can use controllers" it shows a lack of understanding.

What exactly gives you credibility? Simply saying "I did good once" doesn't add anything to the conversation. Do you have any actual measure for how well you did? Something that can be compared to our own experiences in a way that is concrete?

As for proof, well, that requires gaming actually be willing to test this stuff in actual gaming. But everyone is so ready to assume it wont work that it is taking this long to give a real try. We wont know if we dont try.

No one is stopping you from booting up CS:GO or Quake Live and using a gamepad on PC. Hell, don't even jump online, just download an aim training map and show us all some sick footage.

Again, it was more smugness. As I said, I personally am fine without these aids. I think I can stand against the "bigger guy" and hold my own. Its just up to games to give me the opportunity to do so.

You feel smug for standing up to an bigger guy while holding a weapon? Very brave of you.

If you think this is about whether or not it's ok to use a gamepad to play video games on the PC, you've misunderstood why people are upset. No one cares if you handicap yourself. What matters is that the game developers are rewarding people for handicapping themselves. What's more, it's rewarding people in a way that makes the game less fun for everyone else. You can't juke aim assist. Any time someone hits you while you're blazing across the screen, you don't know if it was sick aim or the computer aiming for them.

Maybe it's not a problem for you, but it's a problem for the sort of people that put thousands of hours into a games. You know what happened to the first Titanfall on PC? It died after a few months, precisely because it didn't attract the sort of people that put thousands of hours into the game. There are other reasons for it, but this doesn't help.

My point is that the whole issue is subjective. Whats best for one person isnt best for everyone, so why force people to one way?

My main personal comparison was playing Call of Duty on PC. Played it with Keyboard and did awful, played it with controller and did as good as I usually do on console. Blacklight is another example, where I did awful until I used a controller. I also like using a controller on TF2. Even i forget that controllers and M&K have intermingled plenty already, so why we dont have console/PC crossplay yet is even more perplexing.

I feel smug that PC people claim controllers need all this aid to be an even match, so when a game tries to BALANCE THE GAME, they throw a fit. According to their own words, its just balancing.

All I ask is the opportunities. That you and so many seem so keen on pulling the plug before its even started is annoying.

 

[KraQ]

My point is that the whole issue is subjective.

Spoiler: Oh yeah?

Well, this clearly isn't going anywhere and I'm pretty sure you're more hellbent on the magic internet points that come with getting 'The Last Word' than I am, I guess this is where I have to get off.

 

[Saelune]

My point is that the whole issue is subjective.

Spoiler: Oh yeah?

Well, this clearly isn't going anywhere and I'm pretty sure you're more hellbent on the magic internet points that come with getting 'The Last Word' than I am, I guess this is where I have to get off.

Now is the dilemma. Do I respond, thus supposedly proving you right? Or do I potentially fall for some reverse psychology trap? Really though I just try to not let trivial things get to me.

Ofcourse its my opinion! My issue is how people take opinion here as fact, as objective, infallible fact. Particularly without actually putting it to the test. Lets have crossplatform gaming for awhile, see how it goes. We can fix the problems along the way, whatever they might be.

 

[RedDeadFred]

My point is that the whole issue is subjective.

Spoiler: Oh yeah?

Well, this clearly isn't going anywhere and I'm pretty sure you're more hellbent on the magic internet points that come with getting 'The Last Word' than I am, I guess this is where I have to get off.

Now is the dilemma. Do I respond, thus supposedly proving you right? Or do I potentially fall for some reverse psychology trap? Really though I just try to not let trivial things get to me.

Ofcourse its my opinion! My issue is how people take opinion here as fact, as objective, infallible fact. Particularly without actually putting it to the test. Lets have crossplatform gaming for awhile, see how it goes. We can fix the problems along the way, whatever they might be.

I don't think people are understanding that a person can do a lot better on a controller if that's what they are most experienced with. Now I'd say that keyboard and mouse has a substantially higher performance ceiling than controller, but when it comes to these types of games, matchmaking ensures that even if you're playing with a controller, you'll still face opponents who are approximately as good as you.

In short, you're right in the sense that playing with one setup is not inherently better than the other since you can still have a good experience and do well either way. If however, you were arguing that the average controller player is just as competitive than the average keyboard and mouse player.... well I don't really see how you could be anything but false. The reaction time, speed, and precision are more important than the slicker movement that a controller offers. Obviously, those aren't the only things that matter. I'd say that map knowledge, positioning, and just general game sense will allow a player to have a more meaningful impact than simply having good aim (obviously I'm assuming some kind of minimal skill in that department).

So ya, play how you want. I think people get way too hung up over the comparisons. Both have their strengths and weaknesses.

OT: I suspect this is simply due to lazy design. It's like how Fallout 4 and Skyrim both require you to go into the fucking ini files to get rid of mouse acceleration. It's a shame since it's basically like having a mild aimbot that's legal. Wouldn't surprise me if it gave a significant edge. Wasn't planning on getting the game anyway, but this kind of seals the deal (or lack thereof).

 

[Saelune]

My point is that the whole issue is subjective.

Spoiler: Oh yeah?

Well, this clearly isn't going anywhere and I'm pretty sure you're more hellbent on the magic internet points that come with getting 'The Last Word' than I am, I guess this is where I have to get off.

Now is the dilemma. Do I respond, thus supposedly proving you right? Or do I potentially fall for some reverse psychology trap? Really though I just try to not let trivial things get to me.

Ofcourse its my opinion! My issue is how people take opinion here as fact, as objective, infallible fact. Particularly without actually putting it to the test. Lets have crossplatform gaming for awhile, see how it goes. We can fix the problems along the way, whatever they might be.

I don't think people are understanding that a person can do a lot better on a controller if that's what they are most experienced with. Now I'd say that keyboard and mouse has a substantially higher performance ceiling than controller, but when it comes to these types of games, matchmaking ensures that even if you're playing with a controller, you'll still face opponents who are approximately as good as you.

In short, you're right in the sense that playing with one setup is not inherently better than the other since you can still have a good experience and do well either way. If however, you were arguing that the average controller player is just as competitive than the average keyboard and mouse player.... well I don't really see how you could be anything but false. The reaction time, speed, and precision are more important than the slicker movement that a controller offers. Obviously, those aren't the only things that matter. I'd say that map knowledge, positioning, and just general game sense will allow a player to have a more meaningful impact than simply having good aim (obviously I'm assuming some kind of minimal skill in that department).

So ya, play how you want. I think people get way too hung up over the comparisons. Both have their strengths and weaknesses.

OT: I suspect this is simply due to lazy design. It's like how Fallout 4 and Skyrim both require you to go into the fucking ini files to get rid of mouse acceleration. It's a shame since it's basically like having a mild aimbot that's legal. Wouldn't surprise me if it gave a significant edge. Wasn't planning on getting the game anyway, but this kind of seals the deal (or lack thereof).

All I care about is letting people have the opportunity to prove themselves, thats it. If every competitive MLG player uses keyboard, fine, I dont care. I just care that -I- get to enjoy the game the way I am most comfortable with.

 

[Foolery]

Water is wet. It's a PC port of a game primarily geared towards consoles, no one should be surprised.

 

[Infernal Lawyer]

Now, you may call me PC-Elitist or a Casual-hater (especially seeing how this thread have gone) but I can't for the life of me understand how console controllers even got a foothold in the PC games market..
I blame the Steam DRM..

I would agree that 'to each their own..' if only the playing field was maintained instead of slanted in the favor of controllers wherever I look. This...this..Invasion, has left me completely unable to enjoy genres I used to play.
'ports abound and even PC-Exclusive titles gets to be to the detriment of KB/M users.

Personally I've generally preferred controllers for action games (with the exception of the Arkham series since I camera swivel like crazy to watch out for incoming attacks), M+K for everything else. Controllers have less buttons to worry about, and they're in convenient spots on the ergonomic design... but I've NEVER been able to aim a crosshair with the fucking things.

As for the "invasion", well, I wouldn't know: I only really only play two multiplayer games: one is an ancient PC FPS (TF2), and the other is an RTS that has gone on record as a game you can "definitely play with a controller, but never win" (Dota 2).

 

[Laxer]

Its not about speed of movement, but ease of movement. Moving AND turning AND staying on point is so much easier in my experience with a controller. Swiping my mouse over and over to turn around is far more cumbersome than just holding my thumb against an analogue stick.

If you ever give mouse and keyboard FPS gaming a chance again you should try to condition yourself to play with higher mouse sensitivity. In Overwatch I do a complete 360 degrees turn in about 1-3 centimeters of mouse movement depending on my mouse configuration which is in turn decided on what type of FPS I play and how fast it requires me to be. That half to one centimeter of movement to do a 180 degree turn is very fast and allows for fluid movement in all directions.

 

[Saelune]

Its not about speed of movement, but ease of movement. Moving AND turning AND staying on point is so much easier in my experience with a controller. Swiping my mouse over and over to turn around is far more cumbersome than just holding my thumb against an analogue stick.

If you ever give mouse and keyboard FPS gaming a chance again you should try to condition yourself to play with higher mouse sensitivity. I do a complete 360 degrees turn in about 1-3 centimeters of mouse movement depending on my mouse configuration which is in turn decided on what type of FPS I play and how fast it requires me to be. That half to one centimeter of movement to do a 180 degree turn is very fast and allows for fluid movement in all directions.

I, unlike many PC gamers (from what I have seen anyways), am more adaptable, in so far that I do play with mouse and keyboard often, just not when I dont have to. But CS:GO has never fixed their controller support and doing so manually isnt simple. But I will try this advice when I can.

 

[Laxer]

I, unlike many PC gamers (from what I have seen anyways), am more adaptable, in so far that I do play with mouse and keyboard often, just not when I dont have to. But CS:GO has never fixed their controller support and doing so manually isnt simple. But I will try this advice when I can.

Changing my sensitivity from "slow and easy" to "quick and initially jerky but finally precise" was a major game changer for me in FPS games. I still play many single player games that do not require me to be "competitive" with a controller just because it's comfortable and I can see your point about easier fluid on-point movement with two analog sticks but it'll be even easier with mouse and keyboard if you practice it. Of course, if you mainly play for recreation without a thought for maximizing skill this is wasted practice. I still have my controller lying next to my computer for when I multiplayer games with a heavy vehicle component. I just swap to controller when I enter a vehicle if I have the time- in these I don't need to do a mid-air 180 degree turn to nail a headshot in a split second.

Good luck with the sensitivity training!

 

[Saelune]

I, unlike many PC gamers (from what I have seen anyways), am more adaptable, in so far that I do play with mouse and keyboard often, just not when I dont have to. But CS:GO has never fixed their controller support and doing so manually isnt simple. But I will try this advice when I can.

Changing my sensitivity from "slow and easy" to "quick and initially jerky but finally precise" was a major game changer for me in FPS games. I still play many single player games that do not require me to be "competitive" with a controller just because it's comfortable and I can see your point about easier fluid on-point movement with two analog sticks but it'll be even easier with mouse and keyboard if you practice it. Of course, if you mainly play for recreation without a thought for maximizing skill this is wasted practice. I still have my controller lying next to my computer for when I multiplayer games with a heavy vehicle component. I just swap to controller when I enter a vehicle if I have the time- in these I don't need to do a mid-air 180 degree turn to nail a headshot in a split second.

Good luck with the sensitivity training!

Well, in Call of Duty, on console with a controller, I am good at the game, atleast enough to get invited to wanna-be MLG clans (I just like having people to play with) but they would all bump the sensitivity to the highest. I gave it a try, but I didnt much care for it, atleast not to their degree. For a time Id have it a bit higher than standard, but I did fine without it...but I didnt have the problems I do with a mouse.

If this works, good. Im atleast competitive enough to want to suck less, especially cause everyone in the ranked mode of CS:GO are total tools. (Seriously, remove the kick function for that mode)