Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I wasn't too sure what to call this thread and excuse me if it's all a bit rambling, but after playing Dead by Daylight lately and engaging with it's "community" I have been giving a lot of thought to whether people are just bad losers or if there is more to it.

 

Dead by Daylight is a multiplayer online title where one of you picks a killer and tries to stop the 5 survivors by hunting them down and ultimately killing them before they can repair a fixed number of generators and escape. I decided that I quite like playing as the killer and have been having a reasonable success killing people and winning. The problem being when I started to receive messages from people I have just beat:

 

"Nice camping noob"

 

"You are pathetic"

 

etc

 

I decided to look into why this was the case and it turns out that there seems to be a whole host of unwritten rules (which REALLY seem to favour the survivors), such as:

 

  • NO hanging about (camping) once you have hooked a survivor in the period before they get sacrificed
  • Don't kill someone if you catch them near the start of the game
  • No camping when the escape exit opens
  • Respect the pallets (not too sure on this one but I think it's that you shouldn't destroy the pallets which the survivors can use to block the killer when he/she is chasing)

 

Now in my mind I am doing nothing wrong, playing the game as it's made and within the rules set by the creators, but people really seem to take exception to this. Previous games have also had variations of this like Call of Duty and people's dislike of camping snipers, and Street Fighter 4 (seems to be if you play any character out the normal and win then the toys get thrown out of the pram).

 

This link, although old, sums up how I feel and is still relevant to many online games: http://www.sirlin.net/ptw-book/introducingthe-scrub

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I’ve encountered this type of thing before but never bothered to listen to what the community thinks is fair. You have to assume the vast majority of players won’t assume there are more rules to look up on Reddit and will play the game as it’s presented. 

 

The exception I guess is rented Battlefield servers. They’ve gone to the trouble of renting their own instance that anyone could play on, so I generally respect those rules. It does write them on the screen for you though.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This sort of thing is the last refuge of people who are emotionally invested in the game, but just aren't any good at it.

 

I used to play a game called Galcon (I'm sure I've posted about this on here before at some point), across its various different versions. It's an ultra stripped down single screen RTS game where all you can do is capture planets which generate ships, and then order those ships to other planets. It's a flawed game, you can have unlucky spawns and about half the games end up in protracted stalemates, something the developers have tried but never fully managed to solve. But it could also be a tense, cutthroat game with dramatic changes of fortune and potential for bluffing and mind games.

 

If you made a bold move at the start of the game that took someone else out, but resulted in you getting taken out too you were "suiciding", even though a big part of the game was clutch plays in the first 30 seconds of each match. At the same time if somebody attacked you at the start of the match, but you weighed up you had a better chance of survival if you didn't retaliate, and they got taken out by another player they weren't "suiciding", you were  "camping".

 

The other running idea people had was about "stupid play" or making "stupid moves", where you could win the match after being on your back foot for the past 15 minutes but you made "stupid moves" because those moves made someone else lose the match. It felt sometimes like a significant chunk of the player base couldn't comprehend that other players might be trying to win as well, or might be gambling or taking risks, or had plans that just didn't work out. For a game that had a surprising amount of psychology behind it a lot of players couldn't put themselves in their opponents heads.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Fighting games get this a lot with so called "cheap" tactics - low-risk attacks and combos that are easy to pull off, but often a player just doesn't bother to figure out how to stop the "cheap" tactic, because there's often a way. I used to fall for the most basic flowchart shoto tactics until I realised that my character had a slide move that would low profile under the projectile, or a forward that would evade the fireball. Or you'd get shut down by the ridiculous hitbox/priority of Yun's palm in AE but then find that you can bait it out and dodge behind him, or exploit the startup, or force a block with projectiles or whatever.

 

And then when you win, you risk being accused of using a "gimmick" character - Ibuki, Juri, Fuerte - but again, the opponent just hasn't figured out how to deal with the gimmicks. And whilst Ryu-Ryu matchups are excellent for displaying the raw fundamentals of Street Fighter, matches between the "gimmick" characters can force you to rethink how you play.

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

This used to come up quite a lot within the community of a table top game I used to play fairly competitively.

 

You don't have the responsibility to play in a way your opponent chooses. Your opponent's enjoyment of the game isn't your responsibility as long as you're polite, pleasant and play by the rules. Your opponent has no more right to dictate how a game should be played than you do and so If your opponent is unhappy with how the game can be legally played then that's something that they need to take up with the developer of the game.

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Gizamaluke said:

I find this stuff fairly frustrating to be honest. If you use the tools the game provides with no hacks or cheats, any tactic is perfectly acceptable as far as I am concerned. If some angry nerd isn't good enough to adapt to it and wants to message insults then that's on them.

There were elements of this sort of discussion in the BotW thread regarding the use of the status power for high powered enemies etc. I've always thought if it's intentionally part of the game it's a valid tactic.  I suppose there is the assumption that the game has been designed with balance in mind but you can't blame the players. 

 

I find camping snipers a bit boring/frustrating but I've always been bemused when players hurl abuse at them. Why would a sniper ever not camp?!  But it does need balance - early versions of CS (I've only played up to source really) I felt lacked balance with snipers as they always seemed too quick to draw down the scope compared to other short range weapons (AWP....grrrr). However, it's in the game so can't complain* by my view. 

 

*Not to the player anyway. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah I used to get abuse on deathmatches on RDR2 Online because I:

 

- Used cover

- Used the varmint rifle

- Used Slow and Steady + the perk which stops headshots against you being instakill while in Deadeye

- Dived

- Used dynamite

- Used revolvers and shotguns in the Name Your Weapon matches instead of crossing my fingers with Tomahawk kills

 

I absolutely dominated and no one seemed to work out that everyone can do these things

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, bridger said:

This used to come up quite a lot within the community of a table top game I used to play fairly competitively.

 

You don't have the responsibility to play in a way your opponent chooses. Your opponent's enjoyment of the game isn't your responsibility as long as you're polite, pleasant and play by the rules. Your opponent has no more right to dictate how a game should be played than you do and so If your opponent is unhappy with how the game can be legally played then that's something that they need to take up with the developer of the game.

 

On the flip side, In tabletop RPGs there were always the 'munchkins' who min/maxed the mechanics to make some internally inconsistent but immortal death machines who could destroy planets and the roleplayers who created single parents with issues, whose only weapon was a picture of a baseball bat they found in an argos catalogue.

 

Those two types of players can ruin the game for each other, but both 'experiences' have their values. It's the GMs duty to articulate what the game is. In on-line games it's the developers.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Gizamaluke said:

I find this stuff fairly frustrating to be honest. If you use the tools the game provides with no hacks or cheats, any tactic is perfectly acceptable as far as I am concerned. If some angry nerd isn't good enough to adapt to it and wants to message insults then that's on them.

 

I agree with you, but playing devils advocate, I remember snaking in Mario Kart DS. I could do it, & I would win, but god it was tedious. Sometimes high-level play is deathly dull. Nowadays If it's not patched out, you've either got to a) repeat the boring strat endlessly or b) be happy to lose  or c) find a subset of people who all agree to 'play nice' or d) find a different game.

 

For some reason, people addicted to certain games refuse to do any of them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It can be frustrating when players are not playing to the objectives of the game. So, in Battlefield, when attaching forces are largely made up of snipers on a hillside near the down with very few players taking objectives.

 

Other than that, anything goes. All players have the same opportunities, and if the game is so unbalanced that a core set of tactics can win every time then I will probably just play something else.

Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, LaveDisco said:

 

On the flip side, In tabletop RPGs there were always the 'munchkins' who min/maxed the mechanics to make some internally inconsistent but immortal death machines who could destroy planets and the roleplayers who created single parents with issues, whose only weapon was a picture of a baseball bat they found in an argos catalogue.

 

Those two types of players can ruin the game for each other, but both 'experiences' have their values. It's the GMs duty to articulate what the game is. In on-line games it's the developers.

 

Yeah 100% definitely. A co-operative game like D&D is completely different to a competitive game (especially one in a proper competitive environment where you’re often playing strangers). 

 

I totally think that players should work together to make an experience enjoyable for all in an RPG. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Skull Commander said:

I wasn't too sure what to call this thread and excuse me if it's all a bit rambling, but after playing Dead by Daylight lately and engaging with it's "community" I have been giving a lot of thought to whether people are just bad losers or if there is more to it.

 

Dead by Daylight is a multiplayer online title where one of you picks a killer and tries to stop the 5 survivors by hunting them down and ultimately killing them before they can repair a fixed number of generators and escape. I decided that I quite like playing as the killer and have been having a reasonable success killing people and winning. The problem being when I started to receive messages from people I have just beat:

 

"Nice camping noob"

 

"You are pathetic"

 

etc

 

I decided to look into why this was the case and it turns out that there seems to be a whole host of unwritten rules (which REALLY seem to favour the survivors), such as:

 

  • NO hanging about (camping) once you have hooked a survivor in the period before they get sacrificed
  • Don't kill someone if you catch them near the start of the game
  • No camping when the escape exit opens
  • Respect the pallets (not too sure on this one but I think it's that you shouldn't destroy the pallets which the survivors can use to block the killer when he/she is chasing)

 

Now in my mind I am doing nothing wrong, playing the game as it's made and within the rules set by the creators, but people really seem to take exception to this. Previous games have also had variations of this like Call of Duty and people's dislike of camping snipers, and Street Fighter 4 (seems to be if you play any character out the normal and win then the toys get thrown out of the pram).

 

This link, although old, sums up how I feel and is still relevant to many online games: http://www.sirlin.net/ptw-book/introducingthe-scrub

 

 

 

 

 

In the past, there was the annoying kid who used to "goal hang" in a kickabout in the park.  Now there's this.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. Use of this website is subject to our Privacy Policy, Terms of Use, and Guidelines.