/v/ - Video Games

The other thing those games have in common is that they're shit/very shallow, maybe that's why they are dead.

>>15439112

Shit can apply to many but most beloved games outside the rpg genre can be labelled shallow. I remember a long ass time ago when TF2 wasnt the autistic hat nightmare it is now and it was basically escort the payload or nothing and people considered it amazing.

DBD is simultaneously one of my most loved and most hated games.

I absolutley love the concept and style of the game, but also fucking loathe it because the devs are absurdly incompetent and outright refuse to actually balance it properly.

>>15439139

I blame "mains".

>Survivor main: the game is made for ME and everything the Killer does is cheese!

>Killer main: the game is made for ME and everything the survivor does is cheese!

>>15439149

A lot of anons in a thread about stealth in multiplayer games seemed to all want a game where its two big 32 player a side armies with a base and small camps to patrol and an 8 man team of diamond dogs style operatives that get in and stealth. Only no form of spectator mode. If you are a guy walking around a camp for team A looking for any team B assholes looking to gank you and a team C gets you with a smoke bomb and garrottes you before stealing intel sure you can use some form of voice chat to screech about 'stealthfags in the northern camp' but that doesnt' show anyone where and anyone you send there is people not ready to fight the forces of team B.

Throw in things like sabotaging vehicles and it could get dudebros the shooter experience they need while they pound tostinos and boomerjuice and the stealth fags get their tacticool ops against something better than "huh? what was that noise" AI.

>>15438933

This fucking guy, doesn't even mention Sheep Tag.

>>15439166

Pretty good idea.

God I wish we had a game with Mercenary autism similar to MGSV, but actually finished

would planetside count? that game allowed you to be effective against greater numbers with a squad of people and it was awesome

>fight enemy

>they hold a tech plant that allows them to pull advanced vehicles

>the grunts are having a hard time getting ground

>send a galaxy (drop ship) with a squad to the tech plant

>being sneaky avoiding enemy aircraft trying to shoot you down

>make it to tech plant

>make a rush to the generator with your small squad

>demolish the base's power

>sever tech plant link to other base so they can't pull advanced vehicles anymore

>defend the generator room as dozens try and repair it

>grunts manage to take the base they were sieging

>>15439166

This is a great idea, I've always thought some of the best stealth experiences were in regular shooters that only offered it as an option

But then, stealth is the only genre I can think of where asymmetrical multiplayer is not only workable, but an industry standard, because stealth is pretty self-explanatory as far as mechanics and balancing go, it's easier to pitch and less likely to be fucked up

What's harder is games where both sides are just different kinds of fightbois, it inevitably becomes a clusterfuck of bad balancing and changes where the devs enter a death spiral screwing their game up more and more trying to please everyone until the funding gets cut

It also doesn't help that the devs inevitably try to make these games as simplistic and arcadey as possible to reach a wider audience, despite that making the problems much more apparent and harder to distract from, while also removing other sources of fun the game could have had, the prime example of this being Evolve

>>15439223

Attack/Defense is inherently asymmetrical, but not exactly the kind this thread is referring to

Though I do wish devs would lean into that sort of thing more, rather than going for the MLG crowd

We need to kill matchmaking and esports and return to the days of playing with friends or on player-hosted servers if asymmetrical multiplayer is to exist.

>>15439257

If a game can only work if people agree to only play a certain way, essentially introducing an element of roleplay, and the intention is not for it to literally be a roleplaying game, then it's a bad game

>>15439257

esports has been around since before you were born, queef. so many god damn pussies on /v/ honestly

>>15439275

Dude thats literally hide and seek, which games like Dead By Daylight use as a basis.

its takes an actual team of professionals to balance that and most of the fucks developing these FOTM piles of shit are fresh-out-of-uni zoomers that grew up on fucking League so yeah there you go

>>15439292

>>15439298

The only meta rule hide and seek requires is that the seeker has to stay still and not watch where everyone hides, something that is not an issue in a video game

>>15439293

I'm probably older than you and better at video games to boot. Competing at games is great, matchmaking systems and trying to rank EVERYONE and not just those that self-select into comp autism is cancer, and also makes asymmetrical gameplay harder to sell unless you do something like Counterstrike and have the teams (big assumption, removes the possibility of asymmetry in numbers) switch roles halfway though.

>>15439310

Your argument was retarded and irrelevant because I didn't say anything about self-imposed restrictions.

>>15439327

>I didn't say anything about self-imposed restrictions.

Then you meant to reply to another post, because that's literally the only thing I was talking about

How about just fuck off and do something new instead of riding a fad? The only something like that that ever really held my interest was The Hidden mod.

>>15439336

Can you not read IDs and follow a shallow conversational thread? I am the guy you were originally responding to. I didn't quote anyone.

>We need to kill matchmaking and esports and return to the days of playing with friends or on player-hosted servers if asymmetrical multiplayer is to exist.

Nothing about that mandates self-imposed restrictions. I made that point later but first I had say your argument

>If a game can only work if people agree to only play a certain way, essentially introducing an element of roleplay, and the intention is not for it to literally be a roleplaying game, then it's a bad game

was retareded to begin with

>>15439345

>Nothing about that mandates self-imposed restrictions.

It's the only thing that separates standard matchmaking from playing with a consistent group of christian furries in TF2 in terms of gameplay

>>15438933

You are missing White Noise 1&2 there. Those are basically Dead by Daylight but way less gorier and bigger emphasis on flashlights.

It's kinda neat but not the same kind of appeal.

The reason you see some of these thrive while others die isn't specifically because of the genre itself, but rather because of how it's implemented.

Take Evolve and DbD for instance.

Evolve is a game where the big, bad killer monster… starts the game running away from the humans. Sure, you could try to land a few hits now to make the late game easier, but why would you do that instead of feeding, getting stronger and then doing that? You're just risking throwing the game off earlier. There's some meta regarding wounds that makes for counter-intuitive ideas frustrating newer players (also doesn't help logevity) but the biggest issue with it was that the objective of the Monster and the objective of the Hunters did not intersect at all until late game. Avoiding conflict was the best course of action for one side, while the other had almost nothing to do until conflict started.

This would be like playing Left4Dead but zombies and specials only show up behind the players.

Now look at DbD. Despite being so jewish they could had The Kike as a new killer to it's roster, it's gameplay actually works. The Killer has to pursue players that are slower than him and must be stationary in pre-determined locations that the Killer can exploit to find them.

It's not only something that makes a lot more sense from the start, but the objectives don't run parallel to each other as much.

You still have one side having to avoid conflict, but the generators offer the Killer some predictability in the Survivors gameplay and bigger vulnerability to exploit as well.

Both were asymetric games but one failed and the other lives because one understood meta thinking better than the other.

>Hide or Die

The trailers they've shown look horrible. There's plenty of decent ideas there, some of them copied from DbD, but the lighting in the video made it look absolutely atrocious. You're gonna stare at a 85% black screen most of the time and this is supposed to build the scary mood for the game.

>Nosgoth

Nosgoth failed because of the cashop, despite actually being a fun game. It could have been it's own IP and it'd work even better than aping the Legacy of Kain lore, if only it wasn't so terrible in it's "progression".

It sucks when you play a round where someone's using a class you haven't even unlocked yet and he cleans house with it, so you decide to buy it as well only to find the ridiculous grind before you can play with that class.

Then you get to the small passive bonuses you get from equipment crafting, the advantages they can give you, and even if they seem small, whenever you lose you'll always think that it's because the other player had more\better of those advantages than you.

In terms of asymetrical warfare it was still a pretty amazing game, not just because of how differently the humans and vampires played but also due to how the score worked and having to play with both sides alternating to win so you couldn't be just good with humans or vamps.

It's funny but it could actually have become a legit e-sport if only it wasn't so greedy.

>>15439327

>I'm probably older than you and better at video games to boot.

Yeah? Well my dad could kick yours in the ass all day.

>matchmaking systems and trying to rank EVERYONE and not just those that self-select into comp autism is cancer

Pretty much every game with a matchmaking system gives you a Ranked Mode and a Casual Mode.

If you don't want to be ranked, don't go to Ranked Mode.

Unless you're talking about some hidden MMR that even Casual Mode uses to match players with relatively equal skills against each other.

If that's what you mean, let me tell you: actual cancer is a player that ranks 1800 joining matches with players that only rank 1300 because he wants easy wins to feel good about himself, instead of joining matches for 1800+ players so he actually gets competition and chance for improvement at the risk of losing. But hey, you can't keep that 80% winrate if you stop playing with noobs.

Or even more cancer: being a 1500 player saddled with 1200 players on my team against a pre-made stack of 1800 players on the other, simply because they wanted to stop together and I'll have to play with the newbies because I'm flying solo and the other team is full.

No thanks, I'll gladly take matchmaking any day of the week instead of every match turning into a stomp for one team and the top 2-3 players of each team deciding the whole game because they are at a much higher level of skill than anyone else.

>>15439359

>Sure, you could try to land a few hits now to make the late game easier, but why would you do that instead of feeding, getting stronger and then doing that?

Before it went free to play and tried to get mass appeal by restructuring the game to be more arcadey, it was about stealth

The monster's goal was to remain undetected long enough to get swole, and the hunters job was to track the monster down using the environment

Of course, once the game stopped being about that, and without any side objectives to distract from the more simplistic gameplay loop, it just turned into run and chase

>>15439362

>I do not understand the point you are trying to make.

If you say moving from matchmaking to consistent player servers will improve gameplay, then you are inherently saying the games are better with additional RP rules, because that is the only difference between the two as far as gameplay goes

>>15439359

Technically Nosgoth actually died because they fucked the design up. They promised it would have 'evolving lore that fleshed out the future of the world based on player activity' and only added things its users wanted like ranked later, by that point only dividing a dwindling playerbase that only got harder to find matches so it got no good word of mouth to pull in new players.

Not lawbreakers level shitshow but very close.

>>15439370

You have proved my point. Those are problems inherent to matchmaking that didn't exist in the days of personally seeking out opponents and partners.

>>15439374

>that is the only difference between the two as far as gameplay goes

Why do you people feel the need to act like you are older than you are when you clearly don't know anything about pre-MMR AIDS multiplayer?

>>15439395

>You have proved my point. Those are problems inherent to matchmaking that didn't exist in the days of personally seeking out opponents and partners.

You are clinically retarded. Those are issues you get WITHOUT matchmaking.

Back then before TF2 added it's ranking system, you could hop onto a server and that the top 3 players on a team of 12 were the only decent ones and everyone else was fodder. Instead of picking every one of these good players and making a match with 24 of them, they instead get to join teams of absolute noobs and retards to stomp them.

Of course, when a team has 3 of those while the other has only 2, the game is already decided regardless of what the other 19 players do, that's how fucked up this shit is.

Or what about the many matches where on the other side there's a group of 5 players talking and coordinating in a Discord server somewhere, while on yours there's 5 guys also but complete strangers that aren't using any VOIP to talk? Maybe you 5 are better than them at the game, but their coordination will ruin your shit anyway, counterplaying many of the tactics you could use.

Now with matchmaking, every match is a lot more closer. If you are bad, you'll play against bad players, if you're good you'll play against good players.

This is something that COULD happen without matchmaking, but there was no reason why it ever would unless the players themselves wanted to.

>personally seeking out opponents and partners

I want you to re-read this and think for yourself:

Without matchmaking, what's stopping me from avoiding better players and seek exclusively worse players to play against?

What's stopping me from getting 5 friends, all joining one team and stomping and everyone else flying solo?

Every genre can be valid but most of them simply hasn't had a good game representing it in a long time

>>15439434

>Back then before TF2 added it's ranking system, you could hop onto a server and that the top 3 players on a team of 12 were the only decent ones and everyone else was fodder.

Because you played on Valve servers.

TF2 matchmaking courtesy of b4nny was far more broken than even valve servers btw

>Or what about the many matches where on the other side there's a group of 5 players talking and coordinating in a Discord server somewhere, while on yours there's 5 guys also but complete strangers that aren't using any VOIP to talk? Maybe you 5 are better than them at the game, but their coordination will ruin your shit anyway, counterplaying many of the tactics you could use.

This is a matchmaking problem. If you didn't form a team through matchmaking you would either already know each other and already have VOIP set up, or it would be a semi-casual game where you most likely know the people on the other team and nobody is trying to bend the rules.

>Without matchmaking, what's stopping me from avoiding better players and seek exclusively worse players to play against?

There was no point in doing so. You could pubstomp for fun but there is understanding in the word "pubstump" itself that you aren't challenging yourself, aren't really playing the game by doing so. Literally the only reason to seek out worse opponents, other than the occasional fun of stomping, is inflating your gaymer rank.

You people are so seriously fucking retarded that you don't realize that your motivation for playing games is to make a number go up. You don't understand that defeating a worthy opponent is its own reward without the epic gamer EXP carrot on the stick.

I miss Zombie Master.

i miss left for dead 1 and 2

totally dead now at least in aus but back in the day the vs modes where fun asf

>>15439479

It was but shit even 7 or 8 years ago in the eu servers it was streamergirls and drunk/stoned wiggers and nobody else.

>>15439456

Jesus man, I get your point about how matchmaking rank and associated stats can be cancereous, but you are free to ignore that and just enjoy the benefits of being matched with equal skilled players. I reckon plenty of players greatly enjoy besting their peers, with or without ranked matchmaking. Given that you had to choose a matchmaking system, I suppose you would prefer a matchmaking system with all related numbers hidden from the players?

>>15439456

>Because you played on Valve servers.

I have no garantee that other servers would be better in this regard, that there wouldn't be players at different skill levels playing there.

Just because Valve servers were bad, it does not make the alternatives automatically good or even better, especially if you're talking about low-pop servers that don't even fill the 24 slots, where of course you're more likely to get evenly matched players.

>This is a matchmaking problem. If you didn't form a team through matchmaking you would either already know each other and already have VOIP set up, or it would be a semi-casual game where you most likely know the people on the other team and nobody is trying to bend the rules.

Are you being obtsuse on purpose? You form a team outside the game by calling friends over discord or other services and coordinate using that as well. You do not need matchmaking for this, matchmaking at best just ensures you're also play against a pre-made team to make things fair.

>No Matchmaking:

Go to Discord, call 5 friends to play [GAME], tell them what server and what team you're in, they join you, you all stomp the other team.

>Matchmaking:

Start the game with a pre-made team, be paired with other pre-made teams instead of only solo players.

>There was no point in doing so.

Oh gee, thank you captain obvious for pointing out that "you could just not do it!" as if that somehow means that it did not happen, that you didn't had scrubs looking for worse players because they QQ anytime someone decent pushes their shit in.

If you're gonna look for players that are just as good or better than you, what's the difference between manually having to browse servers, join, play for a while to gauge them and leave if you're winning too often instead of having a ranking that can be used for comparison and the game itself handling that for you?

Don't you end up getting exactly what you wanted in the end? Joining a server with equally strong players to play with and against? What exactly does matchmaking add or remove that you miss so much and is actually something good?

>You people are so seriously fucking retarded that you don't realize that your motivation for playing games is to make a number go up.

Nigger, shut the fuck up, I'd rather lose against someone better than me than winning against someone worse than me. I want fair fights that I can win, not be placed on a server with someone that has 3000+ hours into the game than me, at which point I'll barely even be able to learn anything from it or be given unbalanced teams that will be an exercize in frustration the whole time.

I played TF2 for far too long to know how much shit these moments are and how they ruin the goddamn game.

Your utopian fantasy of "just, like, join server!" works perfectly well for Deatchmatch and 1v1 but for team-based games it sure as shit doesn't.

>>15439484

>but you are free to ignore that and just enjoy the benefits of being matched with equal skilled players

People have claimed that these systems don't match you with equally skilled players, just match you up so you will win and lose roughly 50% of the time. I'm not sure if I believe that 100% but it feels like it often, like neither my wins or losses are deserved.

>I suppose you would prefer a matchmaking system with all related numbers hidden from the players?

I think humans are meant to forget things that don't matter and learn from things that do, and matchmaking minimizes learning and maximizes caring about unimportant shit. MMR is kikes trying to process organic human interactions into crack cocaine for normalfags, to the detriment of the experience.

>>15439512

gay idiot

>>15439518

I ain't advocating for Discord, you retard. If anything, all that shit did was take people away from the game, using it instead of the game's VOIP itself.

It's fucking creepy to see a team of several players all perfectly coordinating but you don't hear them say anything or type anything when you're on the same team as they are.

Discord will also fuck them all up in the end once it soft-monopolizes that niche in the market, just like Facebook fucked everyone that thought they could use a closed-garden platform for free advertizement forever.

>>15439529

>these systems don't match you with equally skilled players

>just match you up so you will win and lose roughly 50% of the time

Maybe one is a natural consequence of the other? If you're playing against someone that's just as good as you are, wouldn't you win roughly half the games?

Or in other words, people are complaining that matchmaking actually works.

>matchmaking minimizes learning and maximizes caring about unimportant shit.

You don't learn anything from those that have a difference in skill too great from yours. They'll do things you can't even understand yet so it's pointless. You learn more from being stacked with and against someone near your rank.

You're also forgetting about making matches fair. Having unbalanced teams with really good players on one side makes for boring games for both sides. MMR and similar systems exist primarly to ensure you don't play one-sided matches all the time, not to grind those numbers.

>gay idiot

<I have no argument but I must sperg

>>15439370

>If that's what you mean, let me tell you: actual cancer is a player that ranks 1800 joining matches with players that only rank 1300 because he wants easy wins to feel good about himself

They do that anyways. From experience, in games without any form of matchmaking you'll usually have teams full of players with varied levels of skill. Only in dead games or in rare cases do you end up with a pro on one team and nobody with any skill on the other, and as long as the games use servers that can be joined on a whim, which 99% of them did, this won't last for very long.

>Or even more cancer: being a 1500 player saddled with 1200 players on my team against a pre-made stack of 1800 players on the other,

This happens anyways. Match making services aren't that great at pairing people in the first place. With games that are 12v12 or even smaller like 8v8 you would almost never end up with a team being mostly filled with an overwhelming number of friends or teaming pros outside of hardcore competitive shit since nobody is going to have 7 or 8 pals to bring along in random games out of nowhere.

>every match turning into a stomp for one team and the top 2-3 players of each team deciding the whole game because they are at a much higher level of skill than anyone else

If this happens the game is shitty and unbalanced. As an example of a recent game that is, actually, somewhat close to dead and thus more susceptible to the problems you've listed, that being Pirates Vikings and Knights 2, this rarely happens. The team with a pro or two and a bunch of unskilled players will lose to a team with mostly moderately skilled players. The pros will get singled out and gang raped by everyone else because they understand the threat they pose, and then the trash players get mopped up afterwards, because no matter how skilled you are it is very difficult to win in a 2v1 against people who aren't retarded and practically impossible in a 3v1 since you simply cannot outmaneuver and outdamage that many people.

The same is true for a far more lively game with a greater focus on shooting people as opposed to shanking them, such as TF2. Top-tier pros would get focused down by people taking classes that directly countered them because the only way to gain the upperhand against them was numbers.

There are two kinds of asymmetrical games.

The ones that generally tend to work are the ones like Counter-Strike where, despite the fact that the objective is different for both teams and their arsenal of weaponry has some differences both teams are largely doing the same shit (shooting dudes) with the game built around a tried and trusted formula (shooting dudes) which can have a bit of depth to it. As a result CS is probably the best example of a asymmetrical game being both popular and succeeding as an e-sport.

The ones that can feel like "memeshit" are the kind of asymmetrical games where the two sides differ so much they might as well be playing two different games and the gameplay of either side doesn't necessarily have any depth to it (even shooting dudes can be lacking in depth if the dudes aren't shooting back). These are the ones that typically do the "monster(s) vs humans" thing. The result is something that could be a bit of a laugh to play at first but won't have any lasting appeal and certainly won't work as an e-sport (trying to push Evolve as one was an incredibly dumb move).

>>15439648

counter strike works because you eventually play both sides and the duration of a single round is short

>>15439648

The trouble is the bad devs will always point to aliens vs predator for why they can never fail.

>>15439658

>you eventually play both sides

A lot of the "monsters vs humans" variety of games do that as well in a vain attempt to seem more "competitive". Which is part of their failing since they work far better being played for a laugh as opposed to anything that should be taken seriously.

>>15439645

>in games without any form of matchmaking you'll usually have teams full of players with varied levels of skill

But that's my point of contensio, this should not happen. Players should be paired with and against those with similar skill levels.

>Match making services aren't that great at pairing people in the first place.

You should try more games with match making, they are pretty good at it now. Not even just one year ago for instance, they wouldn't even take into account that someone was going pre-made with friends, but now they even show you during loading who the premades are. If you try Heroes of the Storm, for instance, a lot of games will have both teams composed by a duo and a trio of friends on both sides.

>nobody is going to have 7 or 8 pals to bring along in random games out of nowhere

Which is likely why most competitive games with matchmaking restricts themselves to 6-5 players only, but even then you don't need a full team. What you'll see if you group up with 2 other guys is that on the other team there will always be a premade trio as well to "counter" yours, and they'll often be roughly as good at the game as you are.

>The same is true for a far more lively game with a greater focus on shooting people as opposed to shanking them, such as TF2. Top-tier pros would get focused down by people taking classes that directly countered them because the only way to gain the upperhand against them was numbers.

This would be true if they weren't mostly Soldier mains, since countering Soldier would take being even better than them at the game.

>>15439648

>CS is probably the best example of a asymmetrical game being both popular and succeeding as an e-sport

Being popular or succeeding as an e-sport is no badge of honor nor does it prove it's a good design, otherwise Fortnite would be even better.

The differences between Ts and CTs are so minimal that it's a hard stretch to call it asymmetrical as well, especially when it's just the parameters of a few guns and you can even pick those and use them as well.

>>15439658

Evolve would still be a terrible concept even if everyone rotated the Monster for 5 rounds. Meawhile Nosgoth was pretty great because you rotated sides.

If the base gameplay is terrible, having the other team use it instead doesn't make it any better.

>>15439715

>But that's my point of contensio, this should not happen.

Congratulations, your opinion is shit.

>Players should be paired with and against those with similar skill levels.

Why? You are not going to learn anything new by playing people who are the same as you. You are not going to see anything interesting this way. You are going to have extremely repetitive games this way because everybody has the same skill and your input means fuck all, while still getting the completely unsatisfactory win or the rage inducing loss from some smurfing fuck who lands in your match and throws everything out of order.

>You should try more games with match making, they are pretty good at it now.

No. I have tried plenty. I have tried Dota, League of Legends, Team Fortress 2, Overwatch, Starcraft 2, For Honor, and CS:GO. And I am happy to say I never spent a shekel on any of these worthless games And the matchmaking is the same shit. Even at its peak, the problems are inconsolable, because you will always have a boring game when everyone is of the same skill level, when there's nothing interesting going on. Compared to a server select based system like you used to have where you'd begin to notice certain players as being more skilled, you'd note who was shit and who was good, you'd have a certain awareness and engagement that helped you figure out who to fight and how so you could win, it's simply far more boring, and the focus on 'Muh balance' leaves more and more control out of the players hands the bigger the match becomes.

>Not even just one year ago for instance, they wouldn't even take into account that someone was going pre-made with friends

Alot of them still don't, and alot of them can't pair pre-made groups against pre-made groups due to their matchmaking services being garbage or player counts being too low.

>Which is likely why most competitive games with matchmaking restricts themselves to 6-5 players only

No, that doesn't really have anything to do with it.

>but even then you don't need a full team

If 3 or 4 guys coordinating well in some cucked chat service on a team of 12 is going to give them a landslide victory, the game is simply poorly designed. Though it's worth mentioning that this doesn't prevent people from doing it in matchmaking games anyways.

>What you'll see if you group up with 2 other guys is that on the other team there will always be a premade trio as well to "counter" yours

I dunno about heroes of the storm, and I'm not downloading any more moba garbage so long as I live to find out, but this isn't the case in alot of the games I just mentioned. There is a limit to how specific matchmaking can go because there aren't an infinite number of players, and there's a reason that games often have to separate people into a handful of categories which it usually designates them by (IE your usual Bronze/Silver/Gold/Plat shit).

>This would be true if they weren't mostly Soldier mains

While soldier's a bit unbalanced it's not really important when you have 3 or 4 people focusing on them. It doesn't matter how good they are, when you have a third of the enemy team gunning for your ass, you're either going to be forced to fuck off to safety and be defanged, or you'll die. This is an old and stupidly common and stupidly simple strategy, but it is very effective.

>>15439758

This is the third time I said this to you, format your posts better. Empty lines before a quote!

>your opinion is shit.

It's not an opinion, it's a fact. There's no good reason to put bad players and good players on the same server when the difference in skill between them is too high. The bad players aren't gonna learn anything from that, they'll just get frustrated and leave. The good players aren't gonna enjoy stomping for long, they'll get bored and leave.

>You are not going to learn anything new by playing people who are the same as you. You are not going to see anything interesting this way.

A completely new player to TF2 will see pro Soldiers rocketjumping around. He can try to do the same but he will likely fail and not do it as well as they do, obviously. He'll lose far more health, move far more slowly and he'll lose a lot more, not just because he's handicapping himself but because he's playing against someone using rocketjumps to it's full potential.

Now put the player on server where nobody is using rocketjumps and he can play "default Soldier" without it as well. But he is also free to experiment and figure out rocketjumping, where failed attempts aren't gonna be punished so severely. Once he gets the hang of it, he'll join the better players instead.

>You are going to have extremely repetitive games this way because everybody has the same skill and your input means fuck all

What do you mean, your input means fuck all. If you have the same skill level, you're input is just as important as everyone else.

It's when you're too good or too bad that you're input doesn't matter at all. If you're too good, just about anything you do will win the game, if you're too bad anything you do will fail.

You get far more boring and repetive games with different skill levels.

>you will always have a boring game when everyone is of the same skill level, when there's nothing interesting going on.

If that is happening, maybe the problem is with the game and not with the players? You're not gonna tell me that, the second you're playing against equally skilled players, they just stand around doing nothing? Unless that's how skilled you are?

>Compared to a server select based system like you used to have where you'd begin to notice certain players as being more skilled, you'd note who was shit and who was good, you'd have a certain awareness and engagement that helped you figure out who to fight and how so you could win

So you'd be playing on a server with teams of 12 players, but only 3-4 would matter. Isn't it grand, when you have a huge section of the playerbase you can just ignore and then claim this is actually good?

Wouldn't it be better that those players you could just ignore where playing somewhere else so you could stick strictly to playing with those you considered good?

>Alot of them still don't, and alot of them can't pair pre-made groups against pre-made groups due to their matchmaking services being garbage or player counts being too low.

Overwatch does it, so does HotS and I'm assuming Starcraft 2 since it's from the same devs.. LoL also does it and I think Dota 2 too by now. Even then, this isn't a good argument against matchmaking, but rather against the games that don't implement it well. You have nothing against those that do it properly.

>this doesn't prevent people from doing it in matchmaking games anyways

It does if the matchmaking makes sure that on the other team there's going to be another premade of 3-4 guys to balance things out, especially if it prevents players from joining the same server without pre-making a team before joining.

>While soldier's a bit unbalanced it's not really important when you have 3 or 4 people focusing on them.

If we are gonna theorycraft here, you have 4 players focusing 1, which means there are 3 free to do as they please. This is also assuming the Soldier doesn't use superior mobility to avoid ganks and bad positioning or that he doesn't get a Pocket Medic.

>>15439747

Didn’t jewwire kill that game for being too superior to anything they put out?

>>15439223

>planetside 2

>"grind for 6 million years to get weapons on par with others"

Fuck that.

Evolve could have been good if the gunplay wasnt consoleshit, the maps werent so small, and the players could turn on each other or werent forced to work togheter

>>15439908

>doesn’t name them

doubt.png

>>15439955

>the maps werent so small

Giving the monster even more oportunities to avoid combat and stall the game? And increasing the mary-go-around that goes on until someone spots the Monster?

>the players could turn on each other or werent forced to work togheter

That's the last thing you need when hunting a large Monster, that your own party can turn on you. The point of the Hunters was to work together and complement each other's skills, not compete or outright act as a third party in the game.

There's some many different ways the game could have been better, why would you post any of these shit changes?

>>15440010

MGO2 is alive and runs from a private server

>>15439955

So you want Hunt: Showdown then?

>>15440009

Larger maps would have been great if the game had other shit to do and they kept to their stealth/hunting goal

Man, why the fuck can nobody seem to make a game that's actually about hunting monsters and not just chasing or fighting them

>>15440018

Oh really? How does it work?

>>15440027

>play free weekend

>go solo because let's snake eater this bitch

>sneak over to graveyard

>Another team already fucking killed the prey

>we've been spotted.jpg

>dodge shitty sniper's rounds

>almost make it back to boat

>fucking pack of hounds gangrapes me

I wouldn't mind the game if they'd just put the cursor in the middle of the screen and if it didn't leech computer information from you

>>15439512

Anon's fantasy land:

>No Matchmaking:

>Go to Discord, call 5 friends to play [GAME], tell them what server and what team you're in, they join you, you all stomp the other team.

>Matchmaking:

>Start the game with a pre-made team, be paired with other pre-made teams instead of only solo players.

Reality:

>No matchmaking

5 retards get together while in a voice communication of some kind, join the same server, 3 get onto the same team while the other two can't, but try to switch over eventually, one of them eventually does but then the teams get scrambled at round end and they end up on different teams again, they then give up and simply play for fun against each other, the communications channel is sometimes used to co-ordinate but since they're all in the same channel but on different teams, they use in game chat to co-ordinate team based things, bringing the rest of the team in on the discussion as well.

>Matchmaking

5 retards are always on the same team, immediately leaving and re-queuing when they are not since they can guarantee when the next game starts they'll be on the same team again, the other team is a random bunch of retards the system brings together to go up against them with no co-ordination so obviously they get rolled. In game chat is never used by the group playing together since they have no reason to, resulting in a less cohesive team that is made up almost entirely of the 5 retards playing as a unit (who still stomp because they're communicating much better than your average pub player with lower latency communication and already have an understanding of each other's playstyles). When these 5 eventually do leave for whatever reason, they leave all at once, massively unbalancing and stacking the teams in the opposite direction because they were all on the same fucking team, and since autobalance has been neutered, every single fucking game is a roll in one direction or another.

I really like the concept, but I've never played one.

>>15439223

>tfw holding down a room with 3 other guys

>we're all rolling at like 3-4 kills per minute and getting fan mail

the game has it's moments

>>15439899

>bring this bad

>>15440155

>Defending PS2's grind

Fucking kill yourself my man

>>15440155

>Skirting around enemy territory in an ant gathering materials is comfy as shit

>The actual base building mechanic is garbage

Everything that could be good in this game has massive downsides

I wish they'd bring back PS1's need for supply chains

>>15440146

It's more like:

>No matchmaking

5 retards join a server and try to stick to the same team. Whenver they can't, they'll trigger kick votes for players in that team at the lower of the table, claiming they are AFK and creating a slot for whoever is on the other side.

Whenever someone votes for auto-balance and it puts some of them on the other team, they resume that shit or change server.

Alternatively, they'll wait for the map to change, announce a team in whatever voice communication they are using and try to join it right at round-start (this actually works really well and you'll get them all on the same team right from the start)

>5 retards are always on the same team, immediately leaving and re-queuing when they are not

When the game lets them queue together, making sure they will ALWAYS be on the same team? Just what game do you even see this happen these days? All matchmaking lets you queue with your friends, you moron.

>the other team is a random bunch of retards the system brings together

Every game with matchmaking now always takes premades into account. If you go with 2 friends, there will always be a trio waiting for you on the otherside.

Seriously, are you talking about 2001 matchmaking or something? You really shouldn't be running your mouth about shit you haven't tried in over 10 years.

>When these 5 eventually do leave for whatever reason, they leave all at once, massively unbalancing and stacking the teams in the opposite direction

If they leave before the match is over, that's just the usual problem with players dropping the game, you had this even before matchmaking existed.

However some games now try to put players looking for a game into yours, using their rank to make sure they are an even match, solving the problem too.

>since autobalance has been neutered

The funny thing about is is that the only reason you can even autobalance is because players are ranked anyway. Congrats, retard.

>>15438933

Team Fortress 2's vs. Saxton Hale was an absolute blast. I used to play it before TF2 went Free to Play.

>>15440227

>5 retards join a server and try to stick to the same team. Whenver they can't, they'll trigger kick votes for players in that team at the lower of the table, claiming they are AFK and creating a slot for whoever is on the other side.

>Whenever someone votes for auto-balance and it puts some of them on the other team, they resume that shit or change server.

Except the game automatically scrambled the teams after a few rounds anyway (more often if one team won several rounds in a row), meaning at most you get rolled two rounds then the retards have to spend half a fucking hour getting a couple people kicked so maybe they can play together just to have it happen again 5 minutes later, it's fighting a losing battle every fucking time and tons of people will just vote no once they clue in on what's going on, preventing them from doing it more than maybe once or twice.

>When the game lets them queue together, making sure they will ALWAYS be on the same team?

This is my fucking point you retard, it forces them onto the same team every fucking time, resulting in very unbalanced games. If for any reason one of them is not on the same team, the entire group will leave to force themselves back onto the same team again (this can happen if one disconnects and reconnects due to the party system being fucked)

>Every game with matchmaking now always takes premades into account. If you go with 2 friends, there will always be a trio waiting for you on the otherside.

Seriously, are you talking about 2001 matchmaking or something? You really shouldn't be running your mouth about shit you haven't tried in over 10 years.

Are you retarded? Nothing in valve's current matchmaking tries to match groups to other groups, the only sorting beyond specific maps is a "Glicko skill rating system behind the scenes to better create balanced matches and group players by skill level" (actual quote from a patch in march of this year) which doesn't actually do shit when teams are stacked as fuck because one team consists of 6 players playing together and the other is random retards with two "higher rank" players to "even the odds"

>If they leave before the match is over, that's just the usual problem with players dropping the game, you had this even before matchmaking existed.

No you fucking didn't because the game did a much better job of separating groups to both teams or otherwise balancing the teams faster when people left.

>using their rank to make sure they are an even match, solving the problem too.

>rank

I sure fucking hope you mean this invisible glicko system that has only existed since march 28th of this year because if you don't you are all kinds of retarded. From the Official Wiki:

>In Casual Mode, you aesthetically level up, gaining experience points from victories and points scored in-game, of any type

>aesthetically

>your "rank" means literally nothing

>The funny thing about is is that the only reason you can even autobalance is because players are ranked anyway. Congrats, retard

>"rank" is aesthetically

>nothing preventing you from basing autobalance on score on the server, K/D/A ratios, or simply fucking numbers (which the system does not do in matchmaking currently, instead trying to sort in players who will join a losing game on round 2 of 3, likely to immediately leave because they're getting rolled, or at the end of a match where the feel cheated, potentially swapping to a map they don't want to play, causing them to leave as well)

>>15439899

>>15439468

>>15440155

you fucking niggers are making my blood boil. did i god damn say planetside 2? PLANETSIDE 2 IS NOT FUCKING PLANETSIDE. I'M TALKING ABOUT PLANETSIDE

planetside 2 is an abomination and nothing more than a glorified battlefield

>>15439885

>Third time

No, it isn't because you haven't replied to me more than twice, you dumb reddit using fuck.

>It's not an opinion, it's a fact.

Facts cannot be objectively wrong.

> There's no good reason to put bad players and good players on the same server when the difference in skill between them is too high.

Incorrect see the above.

>The bad players aren't gonna learn anything from that, they'll just get frustrated and leave.

Wrong. Multiplayer games before matchmaking were just fine and did not die off as you would expect; You see, the average person did not get pants shittingly frustrated because they died to someone who was better than them. They will also learn from this, because they have the chance to directly compete with someone superior. Vidya skill is a matter of mostly systems knowledge and how to apply that knowledge effectively. A Newfag can learn alot, and rather quickly, merely by observing a more skilled player and losing to them. This is how you get good at games mind you, you casual shitter: You lose and try again.

>The good players aren't gonna enjoy stomping for long, they'll get bored and leave.

This directly contradicts your implication of pros 'dominating' each game. A complete 24/7 stomp wouldn't occur if this is the case.

>A completely new player to TF2 will see pro Soldiers rocketjumping around.

This is how I learned it was a thing in the first place. Same with stickyjumping, trickstabbing, bunnyhopping, and what have you. Seeing the tricks put into place by someone who is more skilled and knowledgeable is one of the most practical ways to learn how to use them.

>He can try to do the same but he will likely fail and not do it as well as they do, obviously.

That's why you keep practicing and get good, retard. If you use a mechanic poorly and you don't figure out how to do it right, you'll get shit on for it.

>But he is also free to experiment and figure out rocketjumping

If you want to get good at any of the more advanced techniques in a game, it's usually recommended that you use some dedicated map made for practicing it or you practice offline, and you're hardly likely to get punished less in any game that's competitive for fucking around and doing poorly.

>What do you mean, your input means fuck all.

That's what happens when you get games constantly trying to scale you into equal matches. It doesn't matter how good you are or how much you've practiced, your opponents will (Ideally, although the way matchmaking works its rarely ever truly balanced) match you beat for beat. You'll be contributing as much in a high-tier platinum v platinum game as a bronze does in a bronze v bronze game, and the larger the game is the less that matters relative to your skill.

>It's when you're too good or too bad that you're input doesn't matter at all.

This is completely retarded and contrary to the way games work. The worse you play, the more you contribute to losing, and the better you play, the more you contribute to winning.

>If you're too good, just about anything you do will win the game, if you're too bad anything you do will fail.

Yeah, I forgot, if your elo is above 2000 you can stand in a corner and shitpost in chat and still win, and if it's below 1600 you can capture points all day and still lose. Applying skills is irrelevant, according to you.

>>15439885

>You get far more boring and repetive games with different skill levels.

Sorry pal, saying this doesn't make it true, and you have done nothing to assert this nor refute what I've said.

>If that is happening, maybe the problem is with the game and not with the players?

No. While I question the design philosophy of anyone who adds in matchmaking and genuinely thinks it will improve the average player's game-to-game experience. In cases I have referenced the games largely use or used a server browser before switching to matchmaking, and were considered highly superior before switching to the god awful automated services they currently use. While a game can be boring and uninteresting by design, this is a clear fault due to the inclusion of matchmaking, where the static skill levels result in repetitive gameplay.

>You're not gonna tell me that, the second you're playing against equally skilled players, they just stand around doing nothing? Unless that's how skilled you are?

Weak strawman, see the above.

>So you'd be playing on a server with teams of 12 players, but only 3-4 would matter.

This isn't what happens though. This is what you imagine happens since you obviously never played server browsing games.

>Isn't it grand, when you have a huge section of the playerbase you can just ignore and then claim this is actually good?

If you're able to completely ignore another player, he better be AFK, suffering from down syndrome, or so shit he had to get someone else to install and start the game for him because he can't hold a mouse still for more than a half a second. In most of these cases, the more skilled players had a greater influence on the outcome, which is as it should be. The better you are, the more influence you have, no boring lets make everyone equal and punish good players bullshit that you see in modern games and matchmaking. As said, worse players would have to adapt to this, or get stomped. They either had to simply git gud, learn to work together and gang up on the better players so as to make them inefficient, or they'd lose because they failed to do this. This is far more complex than having two teams of the exact same skill level who make the exact same plays and use the exact same tactics.

>Wouldn't it be better that those players you could just ignore where playing somewhere else so you could stick strictly to playing with those you considered good?

This isn't what you've proposed nor what matchmaking does. Matchmaking matches the shit against the shit, the decent against the decent, and the good against the good. There is no mix of player skill in teams nor variety, no asymmetry that must be overcome by players making unusual plays to get around such disadvantages, and so on. The shit will play against the shit, and because that is all they know, they will stay shit. The good will play against the good, and stay good until they quit the game because it's about as fun for them as it is for everyone else despite having put in far more effort into getting good at the game.

>Overwatch does it, so does HotS and I'm assuming Starcraft 2 since it's from the same devs.

Most don't, though, and starcraft 2 doesn't.

>Even then, this isn't a good argument against matchmaking, but rather against the games that don't implement it well

The unnecessary convolution and need to spend time on a system that will, naturally, break to pieces once the player count has fallen significantly is a bad thing for matchmaking, yes.

>You have nothing against those that do it properly.

Yes I do, read the above you mindless retard.

>especially if it prevents players from joining the same server without pre-making a team before joining

No, this is another fault of the system that can't be fixed since it is also necessary to maintain the "Balance", preventing players from joining and punishing them for leaving. If you got three plastered russians screaming in your ear in a game of Dota, get fucked and learn to shut up and deal with it because you can't sit back and say 'Holy fuck, this is cancer, I'm out' and leave the game since that'll get you punished.

>If we are gonna theorycraft here

This is not theorycrafting reddit, it's game mechanics. You are not going to be able to outmaneuver and outdamage four other players who have the wit to focus you down. This also won't distract them for very long nor prevent them from still remaining a threat to other players, who are not 'free to do as they please'.

>>15439166

I thought about spectators being apart of the gameplay once. Like a group of civilians with always recording phones that stream their perspectives online that both team A or B can use to their advantage. Of course if you don't want civilians to stream, you kill them. However, too many dead civilians will engrage the governments to nuke your battleground and kill both sides. Not a good idea but interesting I hope.

Multiplayer itself is memeshit

>>15439930

Everyone forgot about NS2. Even the Devs did for a period of time. I want to like that game, but I keep finding new things that just ruin the experience for me.

Making it impossible to join a server for instance, due to server validation failures sealed the deal.

reminder that 40k Eternal Crusade was supposed to be asymmetrical - whales would play as extremely small teams of Space Marines vs. the slavering f2p niggertide of Orkz. Instead we got the monstrosity we have now.

>>15438933

You forgot l4d.

Asymmetrical can work as long as the "weaker" side can hit harder.

>ctrl+F "The Hidden"

>only one result

For shame lads. It's a fantastic 1vMany game that Evolve wishes it could be as good as.

>>15438933

Did someone just shopped Gondola in a Simon Stålenhag pic?

>>15448379

>someone remembers War Wind

I love you.

>>15438933

>Asymmetrical multiplayer

I thought this applied not only to uneven numbers on teams, but where each team is vastly different in what the players can do like marines vs. aliens, like in AvP or Natural Selection.

>>15438933

Broodwar's Cat & Mouse is a good argument for asymmetrical multiplayer. I used to love that game.

does attack/defense count as asymmetrical? because that's a tried and true method that's still popular

Literally the best time I've ever had playing games was the insurgency gamemode for Arma 2.

Basically, one team was the US (1-60 slots) who had to hunt down caches by finding intel around towns. The opposite team was primarily bots EXCEPT for 1-4 slots for insurgents. Insurgents could spawn on bots.

Basically, you could hide among civilians and play as an insurgent sneaking around while US forces tried to do their job. Playing either side was fun.

>>15442837

Game and Wario also had asymmetrical games like Fruit (in this video as played by Iwata).

>>15449038

No because both sides are still functionally the same except one is now defending a point.

>>15454634

>I want games to be creative and different!

>Well I'm sorry that games have optimal strategies that both kill the game's creativity and defeats the whole idea that made it different, clearly vidya isn't for you!

Fucking hell anon.

>>15454634

>>15439726

>a asymmetrical game mode doesn't count as asymmetrical

You faggots need to come up for a better word for what you want this thread to be about.

>>15454634

>I'm still waiting for a game where a tactical shooter team has to fight someone controlling an RTS game.

Shit anon why did you tell me about this now I'm waiting for that.

>>15440224

> I'm still sad about that.

I'm still mad about that.

>>15443550

>>15455299

Yeah this is usually the death of these games for me. Shit gets stale and no one wants to deviate at all from the "winning" strategy because they are clearly allergic to the unknown. Then add in all the sever niggers who ban/kick people instantly for attempting to make things fun again, and you have the perfect recipe for me never returning.

>>15454634

>NS2 failed miserably because no one knew how to play the commander, and no one wanted to completely throw a match for some dude to learn it.

This was the best part of watching the chat turn rabid. Most bad games I was in, players would all leave the chair empty because no one wanted to deal with it. Eventually someone gets annoyed enough to step up and was instantly bombarded and shit on as if this match (which was fucked already) was exclusively the commanders fault (despite them taking over not even a minute or two ago).

>>15455461

That's not a metagame, that's a retarded fanbase.

>>15455494

I've seen is tried in source mods in the past but I've never seen it be close to good. The two fanbases for those games are way too different. The only way I can imagine doing it is literally selling them as two different games, with an RTS game and a tactical shooter game, with cross-"platform" play.

>>15455521

There was a ton wrong with NS2 but it honestly all pales in comparison to the fact that people are retarded. The biggest issue the game ever faced was it's player base.

>>15448843

this is a post I can get behind, brilliant use of the platform

Asymmetry simply means that even the biggest tard can bumble his way into the occasional win due to imbalances. It doesn't foster developing skill or real competition.