Slashdot Mirror
Why Online Gaming Isn't As Fun As It Should Be
Thanks to GameSpot for their 'GameSpotting' editorial discussing why online gaming can often be more frustrating than fun. The columnist finds two main reasons for frustration - firstly: "I don't like getting trounced by someone who is either flat-out, hands-down better at a game than I am or has simply invested many more hours in getting good at the game than I have." He also has issues with impolite players: "I think online gaming brings out some really despicable behavior in people, which I don't particularly mind but that I certainly don't like." Some possible solutions are mentioned, such as "effective player-matching services", but what can and should be done to make playing online a delight?
That's ok I like them too and always read all the Gamespotting columns. Check out Alex Navaro's column this week...he is just learning the ways of Microsoft it seems.
But I trendily digress, the article is very true. I picked up Unreal Tournament back in early 2000 and it was my first foray in the online world. It was fun being a newbie playing on Heat.net but soon that went belly up and I had to switch to the in-game server browser. Boy was I in for a surprise with the raw talent at playing UT those guys had! You would think playing everyday for hours on end for many years and you might be able to compete.
Nope. After playing for 3 years I finally gave the game up because I still couldn't compete with the 'elite' guys. Those guys are so insane and rightly called freaks.
I wrote something similar a few days ago.
If tits were wings it'd be flying around.
Well, you're always going to have jerks, whether online or in real life - there isn't much you can do about that except find a group of polite people with whom you have a good game. Hopefully that group of people will also have a comparable level of play and one won't get trounced by the opposition. If they are much better hopefully they'll teach you a trick or two and help you improve your game. Those people may be few and far between, but they're out there.
Futher, if the main point of playing is merely to enjoy the game, does it really matter if you occasionally run into people who are very good at the game? One can't win every time they play, can they? And if everybody is beating you then maybe you just need to practice more. To me the point of playing online is for the comraderie and the competition - the competition adds another level of excitement to the game. It's fun when I do well and when I don't do well it compels me to try harder.
By "you" I mean you in the general sense.
2. Every game needs to have anti-cheating devices that are updated regularly. This not only helps stop cheating, but shuts people up who think they're really good, get their butts kicked and then accuse others of cheating.
3. Easy muting. Many of us have little to no interest in seeing strings of expletives rendered in leetspeak OR plain English. It should take no more than two keystrokes to set someone to /ignore.
3.5. Easy kicking. It should be easy in any game to vote someone off the server, and said vote should result in at least a two-hour ban on that IP returning to the game.
4. Display of average ping rates at server select. In other words, if I'm pinging a game at 80 ms, I'd rather not go into a game where the average ping of the players is 300 or 10. There could even be a feature (server-optional) that only allows people to join whose pings are within a certain percentage of the current average. While I'm sure there are some people who enjoy being the LPB, others get bored if the game's design allows that person to more easily dominate.
Those are the top 4-1/2 off the top of my head.
(Today I lost 1/2 my credits in Vendetta attempting to get to hidden sector 18.)
A firewall can not protect you from yourself. Turn off what you do not need. Do not use the firewall to do your work.
My sentiments exactly. If he can't run with the big dogs, well, that's what "n00b servers" are for. If he's really so sensitive (and such a sore loser) that there're no severs on the net that can accomodate him, maybe he's playing the wrong games.
I don't see why anyone would think playing online games is fun. No nice Game Over screens, no consistant aim; have to spend thousands hours of meaningless labour, not to mention paying forever to keep playing.
Yeah, right...
If you excuse me, I need to make arrows out of the wood I harvested an hour. I kinda need them to fight dragons in dungeon Deceit.
Well, because it's nothing like "The World" of course, though the games are a pale imitation of the game as demonstrated in the shows. The AI's don't even know how to do a good "Attack, dodge heal" cycle.
try orisinal sorry I don't have the direct link right here
My problem with some of these games is some of the people online are so good, pretty much as soon as they see you you are dead. It doesnt give a good chance to get better at the game if you die before you can really do anything.
There are way too many whiny trolling kids on fully public servers, try to find clan servers that are open to public use as they tend to be more actively administrated and have house rules. Be polite with the server admins and make sure you understand the rules of the community. Most admins will listen to input and usually the trolls and lamers find themselves banned pretty quick. There are communities for all types, from no profanities allowed to no racist/sexist talk to everything goes, find one you like and lurk around to try to get an idea of what it's about before approaching admins with issues.
Wax-Museum Fire Results In Hundreds Of New Danny DeVito Statues
Like the author of the article, I tend to get my arse kicked when I play online. But on the other hand, if I have a few mates over with their machines and we have a go at my favourite games on the LAN, I tend to kick arse. It's hard to find a combination of people to play against where I'm vaguely in the same ballpark skill wise, which is why I tend to just play against the bots in UT and crank their skill up if I'm starting to beat them too easily.
I used to play games online on a regular basis, starting with QuakeWorld. Hell, I remember when GameSpy was JUST for Quake. Now I'll rarely play anything online if it's not a game with ONLY friends.
Back then, it was FUN. A little less fun when you lost, but then, losing BADLY in the team-based mods (mostly Team Fortress, for me) wasn't TERRIBLY common, because people would even up the teams either on their own, or with only a little bit of prodding. Even when you DID lose, the winner was usually very gracious about it. The amount of trash talking was generally pretty low. A little bit of boasting and bragging at times, but not with every kill, or even every win.... and almost no cheating accusations.
The same could be said of Half-Life at first. It wasn't until CounterStrike became huge that things REALLY started to go down hill.
As for strategy games, the last time I seriously played any of them online with the public at large (and not just with friends) was the early days of Starcraft, before everyone stopped playing any map that wasn't either "Big Game Hunters" or one of it's variants.
Warcraft 3 does a pretty good job with skill matching (my record is somewhere around 60% wins, and unless you're at the very top or very bottom of the rankings should level out around 50% for each ideally), but the trash talking and insults are still FAR too prevalent for it to be enjoyable.
Skill matching like in Warcraft 3 can work for some, but not all games, but until there's a consistant and reliable way to keep the level of trash talking morons out of the game (don't say server admins - they can't be there ALL the time, and with many games can't monitor everything) online gaming will just keep getting worse and worse.
Dark Nexus
"Sanity is calming, but madness is more interesting."
http://www.penny-arcade.com/view.php3?date=2003-04 -16&res=l
- 08 -30&res=l
- 07 -19&res=l
http://www.penny-arcade.com/view.php3?date=2002
http://www.penny-arcade.com/view.php3?date=2002
I've played a lot of online games, and there will ALWAYS be someone better than you out there, often times many people. But whenever you see them do a new trick, or watch their response to something and be amazed at how effective it is, you learn something new that improves your skills.
While it may be annoying sometimes, like when you keep getting plugged by the one guy on the server with 50 kills and 0 deaths; other times you will be delighted as that new trick you learned helps you go from being the guy with 0 kills and 13 deaths, to the guy with 25 kills and 10 deaths.
These numbers don't mean anything in specific, I'm just saying....watching the people who are better than you is an excellent way to rate yourself in a game, and is itself possibly one of the best scoring systems ever devised.
Buy Steampunk Clothing Online!
Not really improvements, but general rules an on-line gamer should know ...
1. Play games that are invite only. That way you know who's gonna join.
2. Always tell people you're a "newbie" and kick the crap out of them at the game and claim "beginner's luck"
3. Pick a handle that shows you're a girl and be cute (most users don't like to torch girls that are cute). Then kick the crap outta them.
4. Otherwise, stop whinning, get real friends to play with you because people on-line don't like you either.
If I decide to create an Everquest character and then go around slaughtering newbies, the worst that can happen is that my account is disabled/removed and I'm out about 15 bucks (or whatever the subcription fee is). Then, if I want to, I can create another account and do the same thing until I tire of it or run out of money.
Punishing a player's character is all well and good, but it doesn't carry the same weight as punishing the player themselves (like fining them for stealing something). I don't think having real-world consequences for online actions is a very good idea, nor would it be very easy to do. However, if it were implemented somehow, I'm almost certain that the amount of despicable behavior online would drop significantly.
that that is is that that is not is not
The first online game I played was Doom (with a hack called, I think, Doomgate). It was amazing to us at the time. Can you imagine - playing online with people in other countries!
It was a special experience, and those that played treated it with respect. Some of the first custom maps people made for Doom online play had built-in "typing rooms". If you wanted to talk to your opponents, you popped in there. The walls had a custom texture that said something like "TYPING ROOM - NO KILL ZONE", and it was considered cheating if you hurt anyone in there.
I picture the first propeller-driven biplane aircraft pilots waving at each other in a gentlemanly fashion - when they only dropped bombs on enemy troops, before they strapped a machinegun on the front and started shooting at each other.
For me, online play has gone horribly wrong since then. The floodgates opened, the masses want a jet-fighter with guided nuclear missiles to smash into the bleeding skulls of their enemies. Death-In-A-Box, internet play assumed. Sign Up And Kill Shit. If you're not typing to taunt, go play on IRC. I hate it. I can't play Quake3, Unreal Tournament or Battlefield 1942 online anymore.
Planetside is the closest yet in getting back to that early sensation of getting to know the people I was playing with. Unfortunately it's also a complete failure due to the masses of bugs, faction inbalance (should have 2 sides, not 3), broken rewards system (there's no incentive to defend). There's also a tremendous difficulty in finding other players due to Star Wars Galaxies sucking out the population (and I'm not following them because I prefer my games to not be turn-based, thanks).
Here's hoping that someone at id Software has played Planetside, finds inspiration, can see the problems - and decides they want to blow them out of the water.
...allow me to summarize:
"Waaaaah. Name calling. Waaaah. Too hard. Waaaah. but I'm not a sore loser, honest!"
The personal restraint people have in reality comes from a fear of getting beat up? What the hell is he talking about? If you've ever, like the author, allowed another player to beat you because he was bigger than you in real life, guess what? You're a coward and a wimp. Sorry, I'm not just another anonymous ghost flaunting the vocal freedoms of the internet. It's just real simple. You're a wuss.
Personal restraint comes from respect not fear. When you have a face to the player your up against it recieves an instant amount of respect. Maybe not much for some, but enough for most to only make a few simple cracks and leave it at that if anything. The abusive behaviour by the cyber athletes is no different than that trash talking on the football field. If you're not an athlete, get off the field or petition for these game developers to setup a heirarchy for amateurs like yourself.
-Rabbit
Problem with "n00b servers" is in many cases, hardcore players go on them just to get the "thrill" of bagging someone who has never played online before.
A BIG part of the problem with stuff like Blizzard's matchmaking on Warcraft 3 is you get wankers with multiple accounts posing as "n00bs" so they can beat the living hell out of you.
Nothing is going to fix online gaming and make it fun for all until we can personally track down and beat the living shit out of the griefers.
if the only people you play against are approximately equal in skill level with you, how are any of you going to ever get better?
Pet peeve: people who think that the amount of fun you have in a game must be directly proportional to how good you are at the game. Why should I have to devote myself to getting better at a game in order to have fun?
I'm a moderately good chess player. I enjoy playing chess. It's fun. I could be a hell of a lot better if I were to take the game more seriously, but I want the game to be fun, not a job.
I'm a poor Q3 player. But I enjoy playing regardless, even if I usually do wind up in the lower half of the scores at local LANfests.
Nobody should have to get better at a game as a prerequisite for having fun.
Period.
And people who don't understand this simply don't understand the most important thing about game design. Namely--it's not whether you win or lose, or how skilled or unskilled you are. It's about fun. Everything else is just candy.
This guy needs to grow a backbone; if he wants a game where completely new players have a fair shot against experienced ones, he should go into the alley behind where he works and shoot dice. Games of skill and strategy are always going to reward those who have spent more time studying the game. A ranking system works nicely when communities are small and individuals know one another, but in the largely anonymous online communities that form around your average game, the ranking system breaks down as griefers enter the system.
A prime example of griefing in this fashion is the latest batch of RTS's: C&C Generals and Warcraft 3. Both games have a tiering system, and both systems are liberally abused by individuals who prop up their egos by tearing down the newbies. Just sit down, find a game you won't get sick of in a month, and play.
My personal recommendation for this is Go. Simple rules, simple play, a polite online community and nobody's marketing department is promoting it.
Weapons of Mass Analysis
You'd think this same spirit of competition would draw me right into competitive online games like Counter-Strike or Warcraft III. And, to some extent, it does. But for all the hours I've spent playing shooters and real-time strategy games over the years, and despite how authoritative I try to be about these types of games, I know full well that I'm simply nowhere near as good at them as a lot of people are out there. It would be easy for me to make excuses about how I don't have as much time as some people to play Counter-Strike for eight hours a day, or whatever. But I'll admit it straight-up: Even if I did do nothing but play Counter-Strike (or insert_game_here), I'm quite sure I'd never have the skills to be considered a truly competitive player. Which is fine.
This isn't so much a problem with online games as it is with the types of games that are played online. Awhile ago I used to play Garou: Mark of the Wolves, a fighting game for the NeoGeo, on MAME w/Kaillera online. Yeah, I got my ass kicked a lot, but in about a month I was as good as most of the better players on the servers from North America, Europe, and Asia. They kicked my ass, but I learned from the ass kicking that I got. When some guy started really stomping on me with Hotaru Futaba, I picked Hotaru and kept playing against him until I knew the character roughly as well as he did, and my next opponent got royally stomped by my Hotaru.
Warcraft III does not play like this. Warcraft III obscures what the enemy is doing, encourages absolute silence aside from "gl hf" and "gg", and only shows you the absolute crux of the enemy's larger strategy. The only way to learn the game is to either observe games, watch replays, or spend hours being taught by someone. In other words, the absolute WORST way to learn the game is by actually playing it. That's the worst type of online game for anyone but dedicated fans of the genre, but it seems to be the prevailing trend in online games. Counter-Strike, Tribes, and Return to Castle Wolfenstein work pretty much the same way. When someone shoots you in the head from two hundred feet away, you haven't learned anything. You've gotten your ass kicked, but haven't learned from it, and that means you will probably get your ass kicked again in the same way a couple minutes from now because you don't understand the mechanics of your ass-kicking. Again, the game encourages learning the tricks of the game by reading websites and FAQs, observing games, etcetera... everything but playing the game.
These styles of play are completely contrary to the refined genres of multiplayer arcade games. Arcades have fighting games that let you learn from your opponent and dancing games that allow you to see your opponent's physical technique as he kicks your ass, but explicitly restricts games like light gun shooters and four player brawlers (like TMNT or X-Men) to cooperative human vs. computer play. This is because they simply realized that everything that can be multiplayer should be, but that not every type of game is cut out for it. The PC industry hasn't really caught onto that yet, but you can't really blame them when most of the games that are really conducive to competitive multiplayer would require peripherals like gamepads, dance pads, and other things that guarantee that you won't sell more than five copies of your PC game.
I don't understand his point about people acting like assholes online, though. If some thirteen year old typing "0WN3D!!!!!" in Counter-Strike really bothers you that much, I suggest that you find a cave in the woods to hide in, because someone honking their horn at you on the freeway just might give you a heart attack. It's true that there's a certain detachment from natural social behavior when you're online, but for most of us it works both ways. Someone mocking you online isn't like a real person standing next to you harassing you. It's just background noise. It's no different than the sound of cars and people passing by as you play a game of basketball outside. There
Apparently I can't spell.
that that is is that that is not is not
If you're new and get killed all the time, you need to get into a scenario where you have better chances. One good way is to play a team-based game where friendly fire is disabled - then half of the players won't be trying to kill you!
Another big factor is ping. My accuracy is much better at 80ms than at 130. Analogue modems really do suck. ISDN is good, as is DSL if your provider hasn't enforced the extra error checking. This is one reason why real LAN gaming is popular - no latency problems.
Try using traceroute to check the number of hops to various servers. It's not the exact same thing as ping response time, but fewer hops are better. The more hops, the more likely you are to have your data rate upset by something else.
Although it has less effect than high ping times, optimising your hardware can help. That doesn't so much mean getting the latest greatest, it means making the most of what you have. I know it doesn't look as good as higher resolutions, but 640x480x16bit may well help. Winmodems (software control/compression etc) also mean a performance hit.
-- Steve
I used to play Quake 3 a lot, particularly the Space CTF map. For the uninitiated, the Space map is a platform that is hovering the middle of nothingness. Fall off the platform, and you go screaming to your doom. It's out in the open. You can see the enemy's flag from your flag. Right above the flag, there's a levitating platform that has a railgun. Picture this for a moment. From your base, you can snipe somebody at the other base as they try to plant the flag. Unfortunately, I've been called a 'faggot camper' a number of times for using that element in the map. You see, sometimes people get damn good at using the railgun, and it can be very difficult from one end of the map to the other.
Camping in general can be a problem. I've personally witnessed somebody really ruin a level doing that. He waited in front of a respawn point and *blam* was killing everybody that freshly materialized. Thus, he was always racking up the points. In this particular map, sometimes the teams are so imbalanced that 2-3 people from one team can completely supress the other team, thus ruining the fun.
You know, I can see the complaint. Control that platform, and you control the game. However, what people often fail to see is that the platform was placed there with a railgun on purpose. If somebody's sniping you, take them out!
I've had some not so fun nights because of this. Not because somebody was better than me with a railgun, but because people would start bitching and moaning anytime used a railgun in that map. Eventually it'd turn into a flame fest, and I don't mean with rocket launchers. *blip* YOU FAG! *Blip* STFU *Blip* Nice little tent you have up there! *blip* You suck!
Sad thing was, there was no way to ignore it. Bitch bitch bitch. Eventually vendettas would form and instead of capturing the flag, people would get angry with each other and either take up 'camping' or worry too much about taking out the 'camper'.
My point? Frankly, skill is only a factor in it. There are a lot of people out there who deseperately need a lesson in tact. If I'm up on the sniper perch and you can't get past me, what's wrong with politely asking me nicely to ease up? When somebody says "YOU FAGGOT CAMPER!", I just keep shooting them. Never once has somebody said "Hey man, could ya lighten up there?", if they had I would have been happy to comply.
Yeah, I know, I'm an asshole. But I don't think it's unreasonable to be polite. I'm just there to have fun.
"Derp de derp."
Gotta love games like Counterstrike and Team Fortress which have gameplay that stresses the importance of team play filled with people who are lone guns. Can you imagine a real life counter terrorism squad running around trying to outdo each other, every member of the team having a sniper riffle, occasionally shooting their own teammates in the back and having a good old chuckle about it back at the base?
How we know is more important than what we know.
He's getting old. I find that the older I get, the slower my reflexes are and the less I am able to learn to play an action game. I doubt I'd be able to pick up Super Mario Bros the way I did about 15 years ago...
These problems do not come up as much over there, partly because it is a closed server, only for paying subscribers (10$/month with free game download), but also because of the in game support provided. There are training classes for new players to teach them the basics and rooms limited by in game rank so you can fight players of a similar skill level. There is also good in game monitoring to remove anyone who is ruining the game for others plus its easy to gag anyone if there are no sysops/admins about. All this and up to 200 people dogifghting in a room make for a good online game.
Game info here
I didn't read the entire article (skimmed it), and I'm only 19, but I've been playing online games for probably 7-8 years now (started with Doom, which I guess was very basic, but still had multiplayer, nonetheless). I think that it is the communities that online games have to offer.
The first online (truely online) game I got involved in was Quake II, which was badass. People were friendly, there was a great community, id is just a cool company, etc. Then I had a little hiatus, and came back in the Unreal Tournament days. Again, another incredible game with an incredible community. I joined a clan with an average player age or 35. Obviously, a bunch of adults playing a game makes it *much* more enjoyable than a bunch of 13 year olds. Adults can get stuff done, pay for stuff, and instill a sense of maturity in all the players. I also thought the UT community was really friendly as well. Tons of maps being made, we had *many* friends in other clans, Epic, again, is a cool company that supports the community (see the 1 million dollar contest they are supporting right now).
However, after that, it started to decline. The UT community pretty much stayed the same, but I started to play other FPS games, like Soldier of Fortune 2, and Return to Castle Wolfenstein, and a few others. The communities for these games were horrible. Just a ton of whiney, immature, 13 year olds who cause a ton of trouble in servers. Clans don't work (my friends started one and it failed miserably whereas the UT clan I'm in has been around for more than 3 years).
So...when the communities of games improve, the online games will improve. (Also, in case you couldn't tell, this is entirely from playing FPS's since thats all I play, but I hear its the same for RPG and RTS games).
-Vic
The most important thing, however, is to find a handfull of servers and stick with them. Back in the Quake 1 days, there was a server called quake.nye.net that ran a DeathMatch + Mod that added a whole bunch of crazy things to the game like grappling hooks and homing missles. However, I stuck around, and I soon came to be friends with a lot of the other server regulars, such as people from the DMPC clan (I stil don't know how BattleCruiser got so good...), and almost every time I joined that server, I knew I was in for a good time. (And by the way, my nickname was KiLlJoY, if anyone was on that server too).
Most in game server browsers have a favorites list. Gamespy does too. Shop around, and find a server that contians people that you like playing with. Then hang onto that server for dear life. Your online experience will get much better if you become a regular at a server.
Also, Xbox Live has a number of awesome features that can halp you weed out the bad players. When you first get the game, shop around on different servers. Once you find a game that you enjoy playing in, send friend requests to all the cool and kickass players that you have fun playing with (since servers are rarely around for more than a few hours at a time), and whenever you see them online, join them or invite them. The friends list is a gift from god, and in my opinion is one of the best features of Xbox Live.
Hopefully, my few rambling paragraphs has some insight. May your games be happier and more fun.
I'm the guy with the unpopular opinion
I've found that I really dislike online gaming, even when it's a genre I'm really good at. I love RPGs and I'm not a horrible shot in Counter-Strike. However, there are issues at stake.
First off is the situation in which all the little kids are online and being obnoxious. You know (and I hope a gaming service takes the hint), I'd be willing to spring a couple of bucks a month just to make sure that if some jerk comes on and is abusive, he gets nailed and banned. I don't mean laughing or when someone sucks saying they suck. I mean really being obnoxious about it. If people had to link their real life personality with online games they might think twice.
The other issue is how some of these games are really just twitch and shoot. No real-life anything. The "bull-rush each game until you finally get the right way" approach sucks. In reality, you die, you're dead. Also head shots don't always kill, despite some cheap games that think that. Yeah, you can incapacitate someone, but good grief, it'll usually take another shot or two to do them off. If their buddy can snag and patch them, well, they've learned. Any game that improve skill based on not just your twitch-and-shoot capability, but also survivability would be good.
Maybe it's just me, but a frag-fest isn't all that interesting. It was cool when I was, um, 15. Now I'm far more interesting in using good tactics and lining up a good shot.
(I love taking out snipers by returning fire with a pistol.)
In so far as RPGs go, someone should really build in some social repercussions. Yeah, you can slaughter all the villagers, but someone's bound to notice and try to arrest or kill you. Even in pen-and-paper RPGs, players seem to think they'll get away with everything forever. It doesn't occur to them that eventually someone will try to poision them, kill them in their sleep, or otherwise.
The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it. - G.B. Shaw
that sounds like a lot of fun, dude.
There are extremes to everything. If I played in a basketball league with Jordan, Kobe, etc, I'd quit. No amount of play on my part is ever going to put me into the same league as them.
That's why leagues in real life tend to segregate based on skill. That's why online games should as well.
-Jeff
P.S. Actually, if I ever had that opportunity I would grin and deal with the humiliation, because the one day I ever actually scored, or blocked a shot, or stole the ball, would be a day I'd never forget. But it's a good analogy anyway.
Please learn the difference between a dissenting opinion and a troll before you moderate.
Zenkai?
when it comes to multiplayer, I've discovered recently I'd rather hang out on the couch with a few friends in front of a console, then secluded in my room fragging people I don't know and will never meet. whether we pass wavebirds back and forth playing soul calibur 2, hangin out for 10 minute smash bros. matches, or invite a bunch of friends (and a few extra xboxes and tv's) over for a massive 16 player halo game, I'd much rather play with people I know. he mentions something about "reaching out and punching someone," and frankly, thats not it. its the fact that you're all there. its very social... you take a break, gather round the pizza box and congratulate each other on good frags or whatever...
when we play halo, we do a few matches of ctf.. and we set it up so that everyone on one tv is up against everyone on the other... and that way, we can lean forward, point at each other's screens, say "hey, sneak up this way, I'm going to go in over here, and..." its just a lot more social, playing together in the same room.
You know what's funny... ...the fact that there's so many of you whining about the non-sensical banter of teenagers. If you don't like it, don't play the fucking game...it's quite simple really ;-)
Do something you enjoy.
Life is short but sweet for certain.
Eat drink and be merry for tomorrow we die.
Lights down you up and die.
These are the same problems that have plagued people with sports.
I play basketball regularly with some friends of mine at a local court, and that court is pretty much known as the place for people of "medium" ability to play. No one there is joining up with the NBA anytime soon, but no one sucks either. Occasionally really good or really bad people come, but eventually they leave because it is either not as challenging or too hard.
Likewise, about a mile down the road is a court that is known to have really really good players. When you want a real challenge you go there.
It is the same with online games. Why not have some sort of tiered league? You could give people the ability to kick off someone who obviously belongs in a different league.
Or some sort of ebay like system for rating people..rate them as "good" or "fair" or "only looking for an ego boost". I don't know.
It seems to work for basketball.
As for bad language, well, what can you do? People say what they say.
-- bearclaw
"I don't like getting trounced by someone who is either flat-out, hands-down better at a game than I am ". Sheesh, play a game that isn't as heavily weighted towards individual skill. Or play one with handicaps.
I don't mind if people are far more skilled than I am. Coz I usually play a team game - Custom Team Fortress. Maps typically have team objectives so a game is usually less of a deathmatch.
What ruins a game is:
1) People who cheat.
2) Arseholes - people on the same team but play against you - shoot you, get in the way of everyone. Or just be a general nuisance.
Often it's not easy to tell the difference between extreme skill and someone who cheats. I usually assume they are skilled.
BUT sometimes a cheater is so obvious that it's disgusting.
That way you can aimlessly walk around massive world, interracting with next-to-nothing, and raising your experience level just by staying logged in.
Aside from that MMORPGs are completely fair because even a novice can level cap eventually, these games are less RL skill and more even in nature. Also I enjoy the fact that their are griefers in MMORPGs, it helps me RP because there would be jerks if you actually lived on Tatooine too.
Trust Your Technolust
I tried the free demo of E&B and I didn't see any player vs player combat, not even between beginners with somewhat equally feeble ships.
I didnt see anyone flaming anyone else either.
I did also get bored of playing before my demo time expired.
Seems like even games focussed on cooperative exploration and "hunting evil aliens" would need something else to make them more engaging, at least for beginners (I'm not sure if it is for advanced level people), because obviously you want beginners to stick around a long time in a pay-per-month game.
IMO, E&B should've been a single player game, as it seemed to me like it was a space-based version of those RPG item collection platform games... (at least for the 3-day period I played it).
Also, I was a late-comer to Unreal Tourn. 2003, and while I stumble on the odd server full of foul-mouths, generally I find mostly players who seem to just want to enjoy the game. IF they are too good for me, then I just find some other server to play on. It's not like there's just a couple of them. There's tons to choose from.
So I'm really eager to see how UT2004 will play out in terms of "sportsmanship", given the large vehicle battles that will be waged.
Some possible solutions are mentioned, such as "effective player-matching services", but what can and should be done to make playing online a delight?
It's actually hard to believe there is not a good system in place for ranking... it would make the games fun, too, assuming you didn't have assholes joining lower ranks to clean up on the n00bs.
I'm an OK FPS player. At my college, I was one of the better people on campus, and could routinely trounce everyone I know (it's way more satisfying to frag someone you know from down the hall) but when I went online, I sucked horribly.
These games are NOT fun when you are loosing constantly. I've quit games out of frustration before because I'll spend 30 minutes just getting killed before I can even grab a descent weapon. In fact, I rarely, if ever, play games like this anymore.
A ranking system would get me back into them, but only if it's built in. I've become a casual gamer, and it's not worth it to me to have to set up a 3rd party program to play ranked games. I want it to be a standard part of the game, automatic.
It could make things really, really fun this way.
Or, I'll just play Uru.
Most massive online games like everquest require very little real skill to become good at. I could teach my grandmother how to play, and in a few months, she would be as good as anyone else. Games like quake and warcraft take hundreds or thousands of hours to develop skills, memorize maps, and develop strategies. Most importantly is that you have to have real talent. I will never be as good at golf as tiger woods, even if I had been trained from birth. The same holds true in video games, like it or not.
I *do* like Planetside, so let me take this chance to defend it.
;)
A patch going onto the test servers this week (should have been last weekend, but wasn't) addresses a number of things.
They're making a nearly all-encompassing 'balance pass', where they're tweaking the stats of just about every weapon and vehicle in the game. Whether or not this actually FIXES the faction imbalances (perceived or real), remains to be seen.
The bug count was never as bad as I've heard about some other MMO games... the release was actually playable. I heard a number of other players saying that it "wasn't nearly as bad as X when they first released it". None the less, the PS devs continue to fix (and yes, introduce) bugs.
I woulnd't say it's a complete failure at all. If Sony thought it was, they wouldn't be continuing to sink money into developing more content for it. They're about to start a beta on the first expansion pack.
They're also about to introduce one of the feature's thats been hinted at (even showed up in an old screen shot) since beta, "Platoons". If that doesn't mean anything to you, oh well. Means a lot to me. Yes, they did take their time in actually getting it released (should be available on test server this week), but at least they're actually getting it out.
So I think there's still a lot of milage left in planetside.
But....
Savage looks pretty cool too. I'll definitely give the demo a shot when it becomes available.
Fooz Meister
Just having one or two friends on with you can make the online experience better. You don't feel quite so vulnerable when a friend is near.
/squelch or /ignore) and help (not do everything for them, make them learn how to do it themselves too) the less powerful then you can create camaraderie with the people that happen to be in the game.
I have also found that if you refuse to join into screaming matches (via
Doing this, I have on-line friends that I trust like physical friends and I have never met them physically.
You can lose something that is loose, so tighten the loose item so you don't lose it.
I find that one of the stronger reasons I haven't played on BNet lately (aside from shortage of time) have been the impolite if not completely idiotic players. Warcraft III has a useful "Skill Matching" system, which means that after awhile if you get good you can go being the usual trolls and idiots. However, I would propose that games also include a small "Attitude Matching" system.
How to do it? After a game, you get the screen displaying player stats as usual, with a "Attitude" selection beside each. Vote them from "+5 friendly to -2 Troll." Then, you could blacklist players with a crappy rating (somewhat like Slashdot Karma system). Perhaps players could also leave comments,and Blizz or whatnot could check into players with a really bad rating and nuke their associated CD-key off the network for a period of time.
How about in-game mechanisms like:
a) Award 1.0 frags for killing a player of the same ranking of you. Award more for killing someone better than you. Award less for killing someone not as highly-ranked as you. Below a certain point, the reward for killing a player actually goes negative - lose points for killing newbs (unless you are a newb)
b) Rewarding highly-ranked players if they 'rescue' a newbie by killing any other highly-ranked players who were attacking the newb. (hmmm. perhaps not much window of opportunity for anyone to earn this one)
For extra incentive, 'reward' and 'punish' don't have to be restricted to points/frags. They could involve the gaining of powerups or powerdowns. (eg. Lose the use of a weapon? Slow running?)
was when i was just logging in various non-standard custom map servers out of exploratory curiosity, and i find this relatively square, near-featureless CTF map.
I had just one opponent, presumably the owner of the server.
I think he had an aimbot or something, since he had 100% one-shot kills on me for every shot he fired.
So i just stood still at my respawn point. BLAM, respawn, BLAM, respawn, BLAM, respawn, etc.
Every time I was killed, I typed : nice! GG! wow! your good! and various other sarcasms.
eventually the server disconnected.
You wouldn't normally want to kick somebody off, as you suggest, but rather punish them for their behavior in an attempt to prevent it in the future.
I seem to remember it was under 'punishing cheaters', and even had ways to fight back in 'punishing the punishers', but what you describe could be melded in with that. I thought when I read it, and still believe, that it would be interesting to have some of the more visible studios implement this type of system.
For a short game like CS or UT, keeping their handicap stored locally would probably be a good thing. Some specialized NPCs would give a good basis for comparison. Disguising the NPCs as regular players would be a little work, but do-able. Since these games are either individually competitive or group competetive, you could have a per-game 'team handicap' that is dynamically updated mid-game, and a per-player handicap that is updated at the end of each round. Even if you have extremely good or extreemly bad players on your team, the combination of the two would make both teams nearly equal. Unrated players would have to play on special 'rating servers' that would continually balance both the players and the teams until they reach a fairly steady state.
In each game, the handicaps could be normalzied so that the median-skilled player gets to have the default stats. The dynamic balancing would prevent a skilled player from playing a few rounds as a punching bag (getting their handicap set to a bonus) and then going on a sniper spree. It might send out a notice to the team "Player X on team Y is performing unusually well [or poor]. Your [or Their] team's abilities are being adjusted to keep the game balanced."
When a balancing message comes out, if the change has been extreme (probably cheating) then team might be given a chance to boot player X from the game rather than be adjusted. Otherwise, players might go help him out if he was performing poorly. If a player was doing extrememly bad, the system might give them a targeting system or aimbot or something. In either event, everybody would know that player X was a better/worse player than them, but they wouldn't care since the game would still be challenging to both sides.
As a side benefit, having dynamically balanced teams might mean that you have 9 really bad players and 1 really good player who was using an aim-bot, but it would be quickly obvious to the other 9 on the team who the cheater is. They could tag his account as a potential cheater, which would show up on the team selection screen (maybe show both a "Handicap" and "Cheater Warning Level" field, and let the other players vote to let them play.) Having the handicap level visible would let you see in advance how skilled a player is compared to the other players.
For longer games, tiers of players could face varying levels of law by an in-game police service -- you start abusing your position and you get jailed or fined. In one game, it might be okay to take advantage of people in your same class, but not below your class, or whatever social rules the game makers want. Perhaps you don't get punished immediatly, but when you get back into town, you find a sherrif, guards, knight, police-mech, or whatever, ready to meet you at the gate. It would not prevent you from these 'crimes', but it would limit your ability to do them AND stay near society. A group of these rougues could build their own towns (maybe even game-sancioned gangs) so that novice players can still enjoy the game, and if they stray to far from civilization they might fall prey to the crime rings. When they get back to the town, they can report it to the police, who will send out a posse or something. [That's the 'punishment' side] Enough gang members could beat the punishers, and even perhaps steal their stuff [punishing the punishers], but at some point,
//TODO: Think of witty sig statement
When I started reading other posters about this, what came to my mind was net news. Same thing happened.
Is this the way of everything on the Internet?
1) It is introduced, brand-spanking new
2) It has it's heyday as people are open, friendly, learn the environment and get to know other users, commands, etc.
3) Everyone else crashes the party and makes it so bad the people from the beginning either bow-out or try keeping a corner of the world for themselves.
Is this how every new environment will develop when introduced to the Internet?
8-PP
...causing all the problems.
"He also has issues with impolite players"
Cause I've never met a football player who was rude because he thaught he was better than me.
I currently have no clever signature witicism to add here.
What about dynamic handicapping? I have seen Unreal Tournament servers with a mod I think was called "Fatboy". Basically, the game calculated your kill/death ratio and made you skinny if you were bad, fat if you were good. The dominant person looked like a big fat sphere, the bad players were thinner than skeletons. This made the good players easier targets, the bad players were harder to hit. It didn't work as well as you would think, weapons like rockets (splash damage) and flack cannons worked almost as well on either.
I'm sure with some imagination somthing like this could be developed, e.g. where extremely dominent players would have a maximum of 10 health, and the bad players respawn with 1000 health or something. At least the noobs would have time to learn and get good weapons instead of dying instantly every time they spawn.
I think online gaming brings out some really despicable behavior in people
Keep talking, it'll give me more time to frag you...
Business \Busi"ness\, n.;
A scam in which all people involved perceive as beneficial...
I've played Diablo online alot, and I've played fighting games in the arcade alot. I really didn't enjoy Diablo much, but I enjoy the arcade games immensely. In Diablo, it took me THREE WEEKS to find a single game with 3 players that I could trust not to shoot me in the back. Shooting someone in the back IS NOT CHALLENGING. Anyone that says it is needs to be mugged. In real life.
Now, at the arcade, it's a fair shake. You have all the tools he has, and you're playing by the same rule book. That's fun. If you give me a fair shake, I'll happily lose 10 times in a row just because there's the chance that I can beat someone much better than I have. Hell, I managed to play Duc at MvC2 during E3 one year. Yeah, I got wasted. But it was fun. (he perfected the guy I went with).
One thing that WASN'T fun, even though it was a fair shake was when I was trying out a networked NASCAR Heat game, iirc it was for the xBox. I don't know if the other players thought that I was a computer opponent or what, as I was the one taking a perfect racing line and easily catching up and passing. But every time I got in the lead, one of the other players would send me into the wall in a suicidal move like thier car was a Patriot Missle and I was a SCUD. I've played the same game on a PC with friends and it's always fun though. We're both going for it.
So the big thing to make it fun is for both players to enter the game with the same intent, and playing by the same rules. That makes it fun. When the other player has a big sword of bashing +9999999999 and is out to kill another player then take off, it's not fun.
How can this be forced? In some games it's simple, when you create a game in a RPG/action/adventure game, have the ability to turn PvP OFF.
If you think education is expensive, you should try ignorance -- Derek Bok, president of Harvard
That's because of the important fact that you can't punch someone in the face over a modem.
HOWEVER - I have had the chance to meet a few jeering Internet bullies in real life and they always turn out to be cringing little shits.
It's Christmas everyday with BitTorrent.
...was intended to do the exact opposite of what Greg was talking about. The people who created it thought that Q3 was too newbie oriented with the way it handled its armor and health (counting back down to 100 anytime it went over 100) and weapon switching delay. It's interesting that the creators of CPMA take pride in the fact that CPMA can heavily segregate people based on skill.
Just thought I'd mention that it goes the other way as well, and clearly some people want it that way.
I too am a not exceptional player, but neither am I bad. I love to play and do have those moments of greatness... I was also hooked on Doom/D2/Quake/Q2/TF and lastly CS.
;-)
Hunt for a clan (regular team) that you fit in with. You'll find one, but it may take a couple of weeks of sparse play/searching. Once you find one, you'll find you fit in and enjoy it.
For me being a casual player now, I hang out on servers with clans that are a bit better than me, so I have room for improvement. Plus when you have a really good day they don't instantly ban you for cheating if you've been around while.
Implement a rolling Elo system - get points for frags like in chess - the more you outrank your opponent - the fewer points you get !
It's Christmas everyday with BitTorrent.