Too scared to play online!

[michael_ab]

Personally my major online experience I sometimes have problems with is black ops. I love playing online but I agree with the idea of some kind of sorting system theres 15 prestige levels it could have lobbies set up where all players are 1 or 2 prestiges apart then another just for everyone I think it would make it a lot more enjoyable for new/casual players who want to play with players around there own skill level

wait hold on isnt that the whole point of prestiging? to seperate the gamers so it has tournament-esque tiers? why should anyone who hasent prestiged yet see ANYONE who has? make it into tourny teirs and all of those problems will be solved. you have enough players in each tier now to fill them

actually yeah isnt that the point of ranks at all?? NO ONE IN ANY GAME should be more than 3 ranks apart, if your playing with a buddy tough shit dont play ranked. you dont play like that in tournaments, you dont match like that in tournaments. stop making the ranking system an e-peen (look it up turn off image search) and acutally MAKE IT a TOURNY. this will solve all the matchmaking problems ever

and before you mention lobby fullness, extend it to 5 ranks apart, but id take a well matched lobby over a full one

 

[Distance_warrior]

I thnk this is definitely something that needs to be addresses. yes i am aware that the smart thing to do is suck it up it doesn't change the fact that the noob unfriendliness of games is a bad thing.
you restrict the market for these titles. if you have a friend over and they play an online game and don't have fun because they go home carrying their arse in their bag they are not going to get into online games.
it is work to get to the stage where you can have fun in some games. I never got into call of duty because of it while I play halo, brotherhood and TF2 every day. Now im not sure if TF2 or brotherhood is easier than CoD but in both of these you can still have some sucess when your a noob. i dont think it is a matter of matchmaking or dumbing down the game (no never ever dumb down games) its just a matter of telling the player its ok and having a good community in tf2 you are compared to yourself there is no KD ratio it just hay you lived longer or hey you did more healing. in cod a single kill doesnt feel spectacular and a death is frustrating as the game shoves that kill cam in your face going through how exactly you died and how much better your opponent is. And halo a kill feels like you did something right where as in cod it just feels like you were in the right spot. I think that all you need to do is just smooth the progression from noob to pro make it quicker with hints less arduous with feedback and more fun with smaller more manageable goals like say in cod have an accuracy statistic that comes up in a prominat position at the end of the match and compares it to the rest of you matches cause at the end of they day you look at your KD and see less than 1 below average.

Disclaimer (didnt think i would need one but people have been agressive higher up)
These are my opinions and as i have said i never got into cod so i am not the expert so if you decide you dont like it... i dont care

 

[ott615]

Actually I agree that matchmaking in fps games could be better. In any FPS game an skilled player can ruin a low-level match. I think FPS games should have 2 seperate matchmaking systems. 1-st is by k/d and second is one that anyone can join.

Stop right there.

k/d is a very poor indicator of player skill in FPS games other than FFA deathmatch.

The problem is that it's pretty hard to develop a reliable single indicator for skill in team-based games like Battlefield 2142. I'm not sure it's even possible - someone may pop headshots like an aimbot but otherwise be oblivious to things like tactics, teamplay, coordination and so on. Then again subtle changes like language can make a great difference. The person may be an awesome player overall but if he can't understand English then what good is that?

And i lost my cool head i used to have while gaming, now i panic as soon as something doesent go my way, im not realy much of a competetiv player anymore.

Damn you're right. I didn't even think about that. But you gotta admit that mmofps games are more about k/d than tactics. Team-based multiplayer fps are rare beasts nowadays.

 

[Blackpapa]

Damn you're right. I didn't even think about that. But you gotta admit that mmofps games are more about k/d than tactics. Team-based multiplayer fps are rare beasts nowadays.

No.

The whole point of MMOFPS games is that they provide an additional challenge and level of metagaming/gameplay above your standard FPS ego-shooter. If you'd ask me to put a cap on how many players I can engage at once I'd say 6. Beyond that adding more players to a SIMPLE SHOOTER doesn't add anything. In fact, it removes convenience, adds ping, technical complexity, ect.

In short: if your MMOFPS is just a Q3A FFA deathmatch then you'd be better off doing it with 6-person arenas instead and you're clearly doing something very wrong.

And no, MMOFPS aren't that uncommon. A lot of upcoming PC exclusives are MMOFPSes in fact. All hail the master PC race, by the way.

 

[SilentCom]

There are skilled players out there and if you want to compete with them online, then you got to become skillful as well. You shouldn't expect the developer to hold your hand and help you defeat other players. If they beat you (legitimately) then it is very obvious that they are better. Not very complicated.

Also, some games have more hardcore gamers than others. When in doubt, if you don't want to compete against the hardest of the hardcore, try arranging a friends game of similarily skilled players.

 

[Collins254]

i have to be honest when i started playing online, especially on COD i sucked big time, but i played some games alongside my mates who didnt suck and have moved my Kill/death ratio into positive which i consider a result, i know i dont play enough to be in the top slice of gamers, but i try to pick a specilisation(i am aware thats probably spelt wrong) like sniper or LMG or shotgun and stick to that for a while, see how it pans out, then if it works great, if not, try a different one.
With halo there is a beginner area for people new to online multiplayer, and with most games i assume there is a ranking system for fighting players on a similar skill level, i know COD doesnt but if you dont have a team of mates to play with, dont start with hardcore, so atleast you have kill cams to help.
With fighting games and strategy games i have a general rule of thumb if i lose alot online, go back to fighting ai, but make sure difficulty is on max and if there is a handicap put it asmuch against you as possible, thats what i did for naruto ninja storm 2 and now i can beat any of my mates no problem, but i havnt had a chance to try it online yet, i once was 411th on C&C red alert 3 from lots of practice and a well devised strategy, then i lost a load of games and the only people on the servers countered my strategy easily or had better ones lol, so now im nowhere near

sorry for the long post but the general jist of it is, try and find a new player friendly area or a different game in the same genre with one, to atleast get you used to online play =] good luck with your online gaming experiences, i one day hope to meet you online on XBL. May your skills stay sharp, and your enemies stay dead.

 

[Wolfwind]

I've never felt a game is too much work to play online, because I feel that the second I start looking at a game as work, I shouldn't really be bothering with it.

The way I approach games when I play them online is, I'm probably gonna get my ass beat. There are too many games out there for me to commit to one, so obviously I'm going to lose to the people who main that one game or genre.

BUT, games are this wonderful medium where we get to live forever. I can get shot, I can get my face kicked in, I can crash in a horrible wreck, and the only thing that might get hurt a little is my pride. With such small consequences though, I can still even enjoy a losing match, because I know I'm learning and getting better.

So my thoughts? Don't take it seriously. If you love a game, just keep playing it and don't let the curve bother you so much. You'll start winning eventually. I don't think it's hurting the medium though. People who put in the work get good at what they do. Isn't that how it should be? I feel it would be unfair if someone who commits himself to getting good at MK comes in and gets beaten by someone who just started playing that day.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

Wow can't believe the hate the OP's getting here. He's not saying games should be simpler or easier, just that matchmaking should be better so new players, especially ones new to the genre, don't get scared off.

You should absolutely have to spend a lot of time learning how to play properly to compete at the mid/top levels. If you could just jump in and play at lower levels though it would help introduce others to the multiplayer aspect of a game, then they can decide if they want to learn how to be better through youtube videos and the like.

Oh and before people start moaning that I'm a casual who's ruining gaming - I've been playing games a long time and hate the influx of casual games in recent years. I also don't play online so maybe it's already balanced, which is the only argument I can see against the OP's argument.

The point is, why not let the casuals/newbs play against each other. Then those that have the ability can move up to the stiffer competition.

EDIT: Also, lose the arrogance people. You were shit at games once too, and all this elitist attitude does is scare others away from our medium.

Frankly, the honest to goodness pros don't play public games. They stick to private matches and LAN parties. What the OP is complaining about is the fact that the other amateurs are better than he is, to which those of us who play online and take our lumps say "suck it up," especially because doing nothing but playing against low level players will not help you improve; a tier based matchmaking system is an easy way to make players stop improving at a low level, whether they want to or not. As for stacked teams, there is a very simple solution; scramble. It's been a part of PC games pretty much since they first started being team based, and what it does is completely randomize the teams, which puts an end to the game being stacked. Of course, if you implement that in console games, I could see people complaining about not being able to play with their friends -- but they're going about it wrong. If you want to play with your friends, throw a LAN party. Online multiplayer is and always has been about trying your skill against people all over the world.

 

[proandi]

The first time I tried to play online was Rainbow Six with a 56k modem. My ass got so bummed I was scared to try again until all my mates forced me onto Team Fortress. I got bummed then too but I blame aim bots, LAG, wall hacks and all that other hacking BS that went with that game.

 

[Caliostro]

It's called depth, and it's the mark of a good game. If you can jump into a game with practically no knowledge or experience (real experience, not arbitrary variables in the game determined by how long you've played) and are immediately the best at it, then it's probably a very shallow game (i.e.: most CoDs, DoA, etc).

A good game will be easy to get into, hard to master. Mortal Kombat is a good fighting game for beginners. It's deep enough that it's more than button mashing, but not too deep that it won't scare off people who are insecure about it. MvC is another good example. If you want to get better at it you just gotta learn... Like everything else in life. Practice, practice, practice. Like anything else that involves any level of skill, the more you learn and practice the better you become.

Personally I'm a much bigger fan of SF and BB. BB is quite complex from the get go so it tends to alienate a lot of newplayers. The layout alone has 50 million things you need to understand and keep track of. When you DO get into it though, it's an absurdly beautiful, original, deep and solid fighter to the point of being playable poetry. If you saw EVO this weekend you'll understand.

SF, on the other hand, remains my favorite, and the benchmark for all other fighting games. Every noob can hop in and start pulling hadokens and shoryukens after 5 minutes (half an hour if you're REALLY inexperienced in this type of games in general). Mastering the game? Get ready to spend years on it and never be done. It's the epitome of "easy to pick up, hard to master". 2 newbies can pick up the game and in a couple of hours start having actual fun using special skills, maybe pulling basic combos, etc. But the more you play the deeper you go, the more depth you find. Combos, frame data, hitboxes, match ups, FADC, canceling, frame traps, resets, kara throws, setups, option selects, linking, plinking, input buffering, negative edge... it goes on.

Yes, in those games, a pro will absolutely DESTROY a newbie. I'm talking, and to use SF terminology, "double tokyo bananaed", "completely bodied", levels of trashing. But... Isn't that true for any other decent game (videogame or otherwise) ever? Experience beats inexperience? Knowledge beats ignorance? That's what separates good games from bad games: The skill roof. The potential of a player to grow and attain better results based on his own skill.

 

[Dagda Mor]

The best prep to play online is to play online. In every game.

Hence the "hours of practice". Agreed, although still laborious especially for games like Star Craft 2 and League of Legends.

League of Legends seemed pretty natural to me,personally.

 

[Fishyash]

Meh, your main point didn't seem that obvious in the OP but I get your argument now.

I don't think what you are asking for is even possible for competetive games that aren't easy to get into and play at a competetive level. There isn't a way (even in a matchmaking system) to completely seperate noobs from good players.

IMO, it's not that much of a concern really. At times you will get smurfed in LoL or get owned in street fighter. I don't think there really is a way to prevent that except by playing with your friends. Fortunately games like CoD are just plain easy to play, there really isn't much you need to do to play at a decent level against whoever you fight.

Also I don't agree with the "prepping" thing. I think it only really applies if you want to play at a competetive level. When games feel like work, there better be money involved or you are definately wasting your time.

 

[Legion IV]

My friend keeps telling me to play the new street fighter but I'm playing MK9 at the moment and the thought of memorizing and practicing a new set of characters seem exhausting to me. I've already poured a number of hours into honing my skills for MK9, watching videos and all that jazz. It was fun but I'm still getting nowhere in online multiplayer.

Despite the great Yahtzee saying that fighting games struggle for relevance these days, they still seem to be cranking out new games all the time at $60 a pop. It might be that fighting games has gone over to the hardcore niche side and my days are over.

Face palm. Am sorry o bag on you as i don't even know you but your statement IS SO INCORRECT. Fighting games have only gotten easier and further dumbed down. SF4, Blazblue? all made easyier and dumbed down. Its depressing. I wish they catered to the hardcores like me.

Oh well i still have my guilty gear.

 

[Mute52]

I'm not afraid to play online in any game.

Except SC2, i tried playing that online and got defeated horribly.

I'll stick with bots

 

[Azure-Supernova]

I think the best way to get into a game and get good online is to play with friends. For example I started trying to play Uncharted 2's multiplayer solo and just enter into games randomly and just got my ass handed to me time after time. However once I'd got two or three friends to play with once or twice a week just for a casual session I noticed that I was not only having more fun but that I was getting better because of it.

 

[aescuder]

My friend keeps telling me to play the new street fighter but I'm playing MK9 at the moment and the thought of memorizing and practicing a new set of characters seem exhausting to me. I've already poured a number of hours into honing my skills for MK9, watching videos and all that jazz. It was fun but I'm still getting nowhere in online multiplayer.

Despite the great Yahtzee saying that fighting games struggle for relevance these days, they still seem to be cranking out new games all the time at $60 a pop. It might be that fighting games has gone over to the hardcore niche side and my days are over.

Face palm. Am sorry o bag on you as i don't even know you but your statement IS SO INCORRECT. Fighting games have only gotten easier and further dumbed down. SF4, Blazblue? all made easyier and dumbed down. Its depressing. I wish they catered to the hardcores like me.

Oh well i still have my guilty gear.

All a matter of perspective I suppose. Either way I might be totally done with the genre altogether. Unless it reinvents itself somehow which is unlikely (the new Soul Calibur game seems exactly like the last one). Keep on fighting the good fight though, these games were obviously made for you not me.

 

[aescuder]

Easy Games

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/extra-credits/2454-Easy-Games

Approachability does not equate easier/dumbing down games, nor does it inhibit depth. Extra Credits had it covered all along. Ream em' and weep you hardcore fanatics!lol juz kidding I'm really done with the thread, too many people with a superiority complex as per usual. good convo tho, thanks!

 

[Turing '88]

Frankly, the honest to goodness pros don't play public games. They stick to private matches and LAN parties. What the OP is complaining about is the fact that the other amateurs are better than he is, to which those of us who play online and take our lumps say "suck it up," especially because doing nothing but playing against low level players will not help you improve; a tier based matchmaking system is an easy way to make players stop improving at a low level, whether they want to or not. As for stacked teams, there is a very simple solution; scramble. It's been a part of PC games pretty much since they first started being team based, and what it does is completely randomize the teams, which puts an end to the game being stacked. Of course, if you implement that in console games, I could see people complaining about not being able to play with their friends -- but they're going about it wrong. If you want to play with your friends, throw a LAN party. Online multiplayer is and always has been about trying your skill against people all over the world.

Well while the real pro's may not play public servers, there is still a massive difference in ability between the players online.

Also not everyone wants to be the best. Some are very happy to stagnate as it were and never better themselves. For example my brother is a good Starcraft 2 player. He reads the guides, watches the videos...etc so he can play very well. I'm shit. Maybe I could learn to play better but I would just want to have fun, and not have to spend time learning the strategies and counter strategies, or maybe I can't learn due to ability.

I do love a challenge, anyone who knows BG2 and the Tactics mod will know how hard that is but I beat it and loved the accomplishment. My first BG2 playthrough though I unashamedly played on easy, and loved it to bits despite that.

I guess I don't like/understand this idea that fun has to be earned. Give me a FPS I want it to be hard because I'm quite good at them. Give me a RTS I want it to be easy because I'm shit. There needs to be levels for everyone IMHO. To me, casual games = evil, casual players = fine. The depth should be there for those that want it, but be ignorable for those that don't.

The only excuse for unbalanced games should be if there literally aren't enough players at similar levels.


I would like to stress here I may be talking shit because, as I said before, I am trusting the OP that matchmaking services still leave a lot to be desired or are not present in many games. That was certainly the case from my limited experience but maybe it's just the games I chose.

 

[Leviathan_]

The most popular online games are already casual as they are. Just look at the CoD series and WoW, simplified games to please the casual crowd.

Honestly, a hard learning curve is a good way to filter the morons and retards from games. Unfortunately this also means a quicker death for the online scene of a game.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

Frankly, the honest to goodness pros don't play public games. They stick to private matches and LAN parties. What the OP is complaining about is the fact that the other amateurs are better than he is, to which those of us who play online and take our lumps say "suck it up," especially because doing nothing but playing against low level players will not help you improve; a tier based matchmaking system is an easy way to make players stop improving at a low level, whether they want to or not. As for stacked teams, there is a very simple solution; scramble. It's been a part of PC games pretty much since they first started being team based, and what it does is completely randomize the teams, which puts an end to the game being stacked. Of course, if you implement that in console games, I could see people complaining about not being able to play with their friends -- but they're going about it wrong. If you want to play with your friends, throw a LAN party. Online multiplayer is and always has been about trying your skill against people all over the world.

Well while the real pro's may not play public servers, there is still a massive difference in ability between the players online.

Also not everyone wants to be the best. Some are very happy to stagnate as it were and never better themselves. For example my brother is a good Starcraft 2 player. He reads the guides, watches the videos...etc so he can play very well. I'm shit. Maybe I could learn to play better but I would just want to have fun, and not have to spend time learning the strategies and counter strategies, or maybe I can't learn due to ability.

I do love a challenge, anyone who knows BG2 and the Tactics mod will know how hard that is but I beat it and loved the accomplishment. My first BG2 playthrough though I unashamedly played on easy, and loved it to bits despite that.

I guess I don't like/understand this idea that fun has to be earned. Give me a FPS I want it to be hard because I'm quite good at them. Give me a RTS I want it to be easy because I'm shit. There needs to be levels for everyone IMHO. To me, casual games = evil, casual players = fine. The depth should be there for those that want it, but be ignorable for those that don't.

The only excuse for unbalanced games should be if there literally aren't enough players at similar levels.


I would like to stress here I may be talking shit because, as I said before, I am trusting the OP that matchmaking services still leave a lot to be desired or are not present in many games. That was certainly the case from my limited experience but maybe it's just the games I chose.

Well, what I'm saying is, if you don't want a challenge, don't play online. Those matchmaking systems have a nasty side effect of forcing the ones who do want to get better to stagnate, and frankly, they're the ones who the game companies need to attract if they want their game to have any sort of long term appeal. If you can't take the heat, play with bots.