Too scared to play online!

[Jaloopa]

This thread has reminded me why I don't do competitive multiplayer. A good proportion of you come across as elitist knobs (even if you aren't that's the impression I, and other people inexperienced in online gaming, get). Even if it's only a minority, the dickheads are the loudest.

Also, this talk of examining the kill cam, or reading FAQs on advanced tactics, or even looking through the lists of special moves in Street Fighter, doesn't sound like fun to me at all. If that's what it takes for me to not get annihilated every time I try to have a bit of fun, I'd rather play the offline mode. Hell, I'd take farmville over that. To me, it sounds too much like work.

Difficulty curves are hard to get right in a single player game, where the designer can ensure you meet challenges in some sort of order. From what I've read here it sounds like you have no idea if your next opponent will be a day 1 noob or a l33t expert who's been playing 10 hours a day since the game came out. Call me old fashioned but I'd rather have a bit of consistency.

So, in conclusion: Play online all you want, I won't judge you for it. But it'll be a cold day in hell before I'm one of the noobs yo're pwning in MW3 or SF5

 

[DesiPrinceX09]

This is exactly why I don't play call of duty or any other fps online. I am not much into fps games to begin with but the multiplayer definitely makes me even more glad I don't play it. However I got assassins creed brotherhood and I must say the multiplayer mode is very fun. It's different from an fps because it's played differently; it's not just point and shoot at your enemies, it's find your target among a crowd of npcs and kill them in the most efficient way possible to get the most points. That is a game got into and now I am the highest level and I have gotten very good to the point where i can get first place 3 or 4 times in a row in a free for all match full of good players. But still, fps multiplayer is a lost cause to me so I agree with you that they should do better matchmaking.

 

[D-Pad]

I think that one of the main things that people have said over and over in this thread is that there is a big AI vs Human difference. Personally I find that 90% of multilayer grievances simply occur because people do not plan for this.

Here's a personal example: Someone thought it would be funny to take the energy sword and camp a corner outside our base in Reach. He had Evade on as an armor ability (basically a double-use dodge roll that takes you forward about five feet or so), and killed me the first time. I simply put Evade on along with a DMR (long range headshot weapon) and simply rolled backward when he did. I took his sword and got a streak with it afterward, while he started complaining about how unfair his death was.

What people don't seem to realize is that online anything is 90% planning and 10% action. CoD players pre-equip their custom classes, Halo players learn where all the vehicles and power weapons are on a map, as well as what armor abilities work well on certain maps, and MK / SF players learn what characters suck against other characters, and what combos to use when you're in different situations. MMO Raiders go to great lengths to make sure they're spec'd and geared correctly before they even think about grouping. Heck, I even have two friends who discuss how to adapt common military operations into Starcraft formats.

Yes, there is a learning curve factor, but it really isn't that much of a factor as many people think. I've seen someone fail in the past five games, then pull themselves together because they know where the Rocket Launcher spawns on the next map. In short, two points: One is that the learning curve and skillset of players is not as big a factor as you might think (excluding the noobs against all pros scenario, as that is an extreme case), and Two is that if you don't like planning before jumping, then you have two options: Stay away from multiplayer, or prepare to search for all your missing body parts when the match is over.

And dude, come on. Raging over the fact that people are giving you ADVICE just makes you look like an ass. It's really not cool. No one claimed to be better than any one else on this thread. You asked for a discussion, and you got one. Getting free advice with it doesn't hurt. Telling someone to eff-off doesn't help them, yourself, or the topic.


EDIT: Just two other points that I didn't address: How fun the planning is depends on personal tastes as well as how you do it. I never really did that much WoW raiding because I feel that getting the gear for it is excruciatingly boring. I did it a few times then stopped. Planning in Strategy Games is something that I do enjoy. Other things, such as finding out where all the weapons are, is something that you can do on the fly. Just make a little mental note of where all the good guns are. Same thing with racing games; a simple thought such as "Wow, I like his engine and tire choice, I should try that combination," can lead to a change or two that grant you more wins. Not everything requires a strategy guide. In terms of move lists, I'm a little mixed, as I'm really not a fan of consulting it every few seconds, but at the same time I don't want Dragon Ball Z simple controls.

As far as a ranking system, it just doesn't work. There's too much variance for a system like that to be effective. You can't do it based on the amount of games played, as some people might not be able to properly learn and adapt. There was an Multi-FPS on the iPhone called Eliminate that I played for a while, and they had a ranking system based on the average amount of credits you picked up each match. Griefers simply refused to take their credits, their average went down, and they griefed 'till the cows came home. You can't do it based on kills, as that is just as exploitable as the Credit scenario. There is no consistent and non-exploitable factor that you can base an effective ranking system on.

The Halo: Reach Beta had a ranking system if I remember correctly. They scrapped it because it just wasn't working.

 

[The Hero Killer]

I think that the main problem is that the games dont provide a proper way for you to learn how to get better. Take Super Street Fighter IV and Marvel vs Capcom 3 for example, they only have a bare bones practice mode and a challenge mode. That wont teach you how to properly use assists in the middle of combos, or links, or FDAC, or anything that advanced players do online and you cant just gradually learn how to play by being beat by things you dont even know how to do or wont learn how to do unless you want to go on youtube or go to a website like shoryuken.

Not everyone cares to follow the community like that and while I understand and am a firm believer that the person that plays and trains for several hours a day should always beat the guy who only picks up the game once a week, but fighting games alienate the common gamer to the point that if you dont follow the community you wont ever win a match no matter what because you simply wont have a way to learn all the mechanics. I say games need to teach you everything you can do in the game instead of just the basics then you go online to learn how to apply everything you have learned that way you will actually be able to get better.

As for shooting games I never really met anyone who I could say had more skill than anyone else. In my opinion its all about learning the maps, taking advantage of the predictability of your opponent, good communication and teamwork.

 

[aescuder]

I think that one of the main things that people have said over and over in this thread is that there is a big AI vs Human difference. Personally I find that 90% of multilayer grievances simply occur because people do not plan for this.

Here's a personal example: Someone thought it would be funny to take the energy sword and camp a corner outside our base in Reach. He had Evade on as an armor ability (basically a double-use dodge roll that takes you forward about five feet or so), and killed me the first time. I simply put Evade on along with a DMR (long range headshot weapon) and simply rolled backward when he did. I took his sword and got a streak with it afterward, while he started complaining about how unfair his death was.

What people don't seem to realize is that online anything is 90% planning and 10% action. CoD players pre-equip their custom classes, Halo players learn where all the vehicles and power weapons are on a map, as well as what armor abilities work well on certain maps, and MK / SF players learn what characters suck against other characters, and what combos to use when you're in different situations. MMO Raiders go to great lengths to make sure they're spec'd and geared correctly before they even think about grouping. Heck, I even have two friends who discuss how to adapt common military operations into Starcraft formats.

Yes, there is a learning curve factor, but it really isn't that much of a factor as many people think. I've seen someone fail in the past five games, then pull themselves together because they know where the Rocket Launcher spawns on the next map. In short, two points: One is that the learning curve and skillset of players is not as big a factor as you might think (excluding the noobs against all pros scenario, as that is an extreme case), and Two is that if you don't like planning before jumping, then you have two options: Stay away from multiplayer, or prepare to search for all your missing body parts when the match is over.

And dude, come on. Raging over the fact that people are giving you ADVICE just makes you look like an ass. It's really not cool. No one claimed to be better than any one else on this thread. You asked for a discussion, and you got one. Getting free advice with it doesn't hurt. Telling someone to eff-off doesn't help them, yourself, or the topic.


EDIT: Just two other points that I didn't address: How fun the planning is depends on personal tastes as well as how you do it. I never really did that much WoW raiding because I feel that getting the gear for it is excruciatingly boring. I did it a few times then stopped. Planning in Strategy Games is something that I do enjoy. Other things, such as finding out where all the weapons are, is something that you can do on the fly. Just make a little mental note of where all the good guns are. Same thing with racing games; a simple thought such as "Wow, I like his engine and tire choice, I should try that combination," can lead to a change or two that grant you more wins. Not everything requires a strategy guide. In terms of move lists, I'm a little mixed, as I'm really not a fan of consulting it every few seconds, but at the same time I don't want Dragon Ball Z simple controls.

As far as a ranking system, it just doesn't work. There's too much variance for a system like that to be effective. You can't do it based on the amount of games played, as some people might not be able to properly learn and adapt. There was an Multi-FPS on the iPhone called Eliminate that I played for a while, and they had a ranking system based on the average amount of credits you picked up each match. Griefers simply refused to take their credits, their average went down, and they griefed 'till the cows came home. You can't do it based on kills, as that is just as exploitable as the Credit scenario. There is no consistent and non-exploitable factor that you can base an effective ranking system on.

The Halo: Reach Beta had a ranking system if I remember correctly. They scrapped it because it just wasn't working.

Your response seemed a bit of a mixed bag... but if I could just clarify one thing is that I am NOT looking for advice to play online multiplayer. I know how to and I'm rather good at FPS games. Like you, I'm pretty good at a lot of online games save a few genres because those particular ones start to feel like work. I'm assuming I'm getting a lot of douchy "l33t" player feedback is because they like to jump on ANY opportunity to feel superior, or it may have been that I didn't present the problem clearly. (truth be told I could prolly beat half the people here in a game of MW but not the issue)

Whichever the case, I wanted to have a discussion about the APPROACHABILITY of some online games and how much of a missed opportunity it is. Why do games hold your hand, annoyingly so, in single player and leave you to the sharks in multiplayer? If matchmaking doesn't work why hasn't anyone designed anything better? Why alienate a host of potential "core" gamers? Why is there a tutorial to do retarded single button moves and not moves that can save your life in an online match? (looking at you MK9)

As the Extra Credits episode of "easy games" said, better approachability does not mean dumbing down your games nor does it inhibit depth. And telling people to "suck it up" is a piss poor attitude in marketing your games, if you truly want other people to experience the fun your having and you want developers to keep making the games you like then I don't see why they don't make every conceivable effort to provide a better online experience. I think FPS games might be at an advantage but complex RTS, fighting, and strategy needs to drastically improve. the tutorial systems in LoL is a step in the right direction. (IMO)

 

[ott615]

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.

Aww you must have misunderstood me. What I meant by "Team-based multiplayer fps are rare beasts nowadays" was that almost every mmofps focuses on YOU. Only thing that matters is your k/d. I'd like to see more "team-based" games AKA games that give team members individual roles like medic, sniper, maybe a pilot that can offer air support(given that game has vehicles ofc), etc. Only recent mmofps that offers team individual roles that actually matter is Battlefield Play4Free.

 

[D-Pad]

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.

Aww you must have misunderstood me. What I meant by "Team-based multiplayer fps are rare beasts nowadays" was that almost every mmofps focuses on YOU. Only thing that matters is your k/d. I'd like to see more "team-based" games AKA games that give team members individual roles like medic, sniper, maybe a pilot that can offer air support(given that game has vehicles ofc), etc. Only recent mmofps that offers team individual roles that actually matter is Battlefield Play4Free.

And Team Fortress 2. But I assume that you already knew that.

Blah blah blah

Snip

The closest thing that I can think of in terms of approachability would be Crysis 2. The entire single player basically is just preparing you for the multiplayer (which sucks, unfortunately).

The other thing (which surprised me, actually) is that people aren't fans of tutorials. People who actually enjoy them or are willing to do them are the minority. More and more games streamline their tutorials, such as Half Life 2 / Portal (in which buttons telling you what to do are simply displayed, allowing you to do the action yourself), Crysis as I mentioned, Assassin's Creed, and others. I have not seen an actual tutorial in years. Apparently, some titles don't even have anything resembling a tutorial at all (although I've never seen one of these).

 

[theSHAH]

Here's your problem. You tried playing a fighting game online. I bought Soul Caliber 4 awhile back for my PS3 and soon learned to stick with playing against friends only as in any hopes of winning an online game is futile. All other games I have easily gotten through the learning curve for online including, WoW, Borderlands, Starcraft (This one was very difficult in the beginning), all the call of duties and several other games.

 

[EcoHulk]

The idea of going onto a online match of Starcraft scares me...

I tend to stay clear from online shooters or strategy games that have been online for a long time, people can master those games quickly.