Freebird Games Community

Community (Misc.) => General => Debates/Serious Discussions => Topic started by: Thunderbird on January 18, 2011, 06:05:04 PM

Title: Competitive games and the rage
Post by: Thunderbird on January 18, 2011, 06:05:04 PM
I'm playing quite some competitive team online games (atm League of Legends) and I've experienced that in all of them a very high percentage of random people you are grouped with are raging with an incredible amount of anger when losing - blaming everyone or just a specific target they think that he is at fault.
Today I had a match where I misclicked one spell and one of my teammates was flaming me like I've just killed his daughter.
That's when I start thinking, am I the only normal one in here? What the *** is wrong with these guys?

How do you think about this? Is it because there are a lot of younger people playing it? Is it due to the anonymity that makes it easy to put the blame on someone else. Or may it be a common problem among humans?
Title: Re: Competitive games and the rage
Post by: mepwnn on January 18, 2011, 08:26:36 PM
I think it's just because it's the internet. The majority of online communities do not reveal the location from which a person is playing/posting from. Nor are they obligated to reveal their true name, age, anything. As a result, this feeling of being anonymous makes a change in people's mentalities, and many people think that it's okay to say whatever they want simply because no one knows them. The person they flame may never know who the flamer is or where they live, only that the flamer is a douche in real life who uses the internet as an outlet for his/her unpopularity in school (an example, I'm not saying that every flamer is like this).

There's also a couple of other factors that come into play here, mainly the portion of "competitive" in competitive gaming. To put it simply, competition causes adrenaline. Adrenaline causes a rise in the "I wanna win" feeling. Said feeling causes them to be a try hard. Said try hard then loses and refuses to take the blame upon him/herself. Not only that, nowadays it feels that humans no longer want to improve themselves, but strive to use other people for their own benefits.

So, my final answer is that it comes down to three main factors: Internet anonymity, human nature, and natural competitive adrenaline. Often people simply don't want to enjoy a game and have fun. They want to justify their playing the game by being competitive.
Title: Re: Competitive games and the rage
Post by: silversun on January 22, 2011, 03:11:00 PM
Please don't blame it on us younger players. I sure as heck don't insult people for mistakes, I do them all the time. I will, however, backlash if someone does something outright rude (the worst thing I've done is quit mid-dungeon,  I'm not the type to go around hacking accounts).

I think that the cruelest people are simply the most vocal. Look around, and you'll see some really awesomely nice people. The fact that it's online and fantasy doesn't help with the bad people though. I just read about a guild which crashed an in-game funeral for someone who really did die, and the overwhelming response was "serve them right it's a game" :/ While irl, if someone crashed a funeral they'd probably be arrested.

My advice, find a good guild. I joined a guild which had no open recruiting, only friends, and it was the greatest in-game decision I made. They are really awesome, and despite having a high level difference between players (from 100 to 3000) everyone still participates and has a good time. It can be hard to find a good one though, it took me 3 tries and the last one was pure luck when a friend invited me.

I generally solo, but when I played Vindictus, a game which makes it pretty easy to party, I started partying. My experience varied widely, from those who ignored me when I asked to complete simple missions and went out of their way to prevent me from completing it, to those who went out of their way to help me to do complex tasks that wouldn't help them at all, only me. I guess in game everything becomes more exagerrated, it's a lot easier to do something good and a lot easier to be cruel.
Title: Re: Competitive games and the rage
Post by: mepwnn on January 22, 2011, 03:41:10 PM
Please note that this problem goes far beyond League of Legends or whatever game(s) you are talking about.

It's not that I don't agree with you, silversun, I really do agree. However, to say that the young ones don't at least contribute to the issue is still wrong. For example, take one of the most popular consoles of our time: XBox 360. Now look up kids on xbox live on youtube. Over 20 pages worth of videos show up (I'm on pg 28 and it's still going).

While it's wrong to blame the kids entirely, omitting them from the problem is wrong as well. The fact of the matter is is that more and more kids are joining in online competitive gaming (not surprisingly in rated M games such as Halo and CoD) and ruining the experience for the people who actually bought the game to enjoy it. It's also those kinds of kids who think they are the best at everything and get mad at people who are better than them, often resorting to mindless swearing and using the word hacker over and over again (you won't believe how many times I've been called a hacker in CoD MW2 PC). Once again, this ruins the online competitive experience and reduces it to having to listen to 10-15 year olds swearing their heads off and making rude comments about your sexuality, race, or religion, regardless if it's true or not. Also, death threats. It also seems if that the kids are the ones who want to abuse game exploits (MW2/BO boosting, 10th prestige lobbies, etc. etc. So far I've been lucky as to not have found any little kids on Starcraft 2)

At this point I've only addressed XBox Live. I'm not sure why, but it seems to be the more popular for little whiners. They are in large number in the PC community, from what I've observed.

It's these kinds of kids who ruin the games we play. While little kids who actually show the above qualities are in a small number in the flaming/trolling community, it only takes one to ruin a game for a thousand people.
Title: Re: Competitive games and the rage
Post by: silversun on January 22, 2011, 03:53:07 PM
I see your point, but I dislike your generalizing. I am 14 and while I get pretty crazy here on the forums, I draw the line at insulting people. If I dislike something or someone, I stop playing and switch to a different server/channel whatever. And I've seen plenty my age or younger who do the same. Yes, there are idiotic kids. But there are also large numbers of idiotic adults. And lots of normal kids, and normal adults.

Also...how do you know they are kids? o.o Perhaps xbox live has a mechanic I am unaware of, but in all the mmorpgs I know of you really can't tell how old people are.
Title: Re: Competitive games and the rage
Post by: mepwnn on January 22, 2011, 04:04:45 PM
I'm sorry about generalizing, since I myself am 15. What I am saying is that there are enough of the "bad" kids to ruin the image of the "good" kids, as well as ruin the experience for the people who are actually old enough to play the game.

On Xbox Live, and, in fact, most competitive games (once again, MW2), has a system of voice chatting. For Xbox Live in particular, you can send voice messages. I think you can tell why it's easy to tell. What's also funny is that quite a few of the people who actually have mics are also little kids :-X As I said prior, no player is obligated to give their real age. In mmos, sometimes players who have really weird handle names/screen names (ex. Hip McChicken) and/or play in a really stupid way can be assumed to be kids.
Title: Re: Competitive games and the rage
Post by: Thunderbird on January 25, 2011, 01:38:06 PM
In a lot of games most of the players are far over your age.
While young age/puberty may explain some cases, this is only a part of it.
I guess it's the human nature that it's easier to blame someone else than to accept your own mistakes and it's even easier if you are teamed up with people you probably never will meet again.

Let's add another question to keep the discussion running:
How would you engage such a rude player (in your team->so you have to play with him or fail)?

Ignore him? Try to convince him he is being rude?
Title: Re: Competitive games and the rage
Post by: mepwnn on January 25, 2011, 07:38:59 PM
I don't try and convince him. This is a normal conversation between me and someone on MW2 (when they blame me for hacking when I'm not)
A: mepwnn u hack
me: you just suck. please, cry more.
A: DUDE STOP HACKING YOU NOOB.
me: Your crying just serves to fuel my sadistic side. Continue.
A: you f**king suck, mepwnn
me: Achievement unlocked: Noobs can only cry 3/10
A: [some sexual joke here]
me: Mature, aren't we?
A: MEPWNN GO DIE IN A F***ING FIRE
me: I think my objective here is complete. But please, keep crying.
A has left the game
I start laughing hysterically.
Later:
A has invited you to become friends
I accept.
A: GET OWNED NOOB
me: get blocked, noob *blocks all communications with A*

But that's only for blame-people-better-than-you-for-hacking people

When it's someone who's being outright rude, I just ignore it. Chances are he's going to send what I said to A right back at me. Also, often times you won't see said rude person ever again.
Title: Re: Competitive games and the rage
Post by: silversun on January 25, 2011, 09:28:35 PM
When it comes to talking, I just ignore it, or if no one but the rude person is talking, turn off the chat channel he's talking on.

How do you guys handle griefing, though? With words, it's more of a sticks-and-stones sort of thing, but when they're actually trying to make you fail? (Even worse when you've just ran an hour long dungeon and he manages to kill everyone on purpose).-has had that happen-
Title: Re: Competitive games and the rage
Post by: Dr. Zooks McCoy on October 01, 2012, 01:40:45 PM
You guys think that's bad, you should see Balloono (http://www.omgpop.com/games/balloono). S*** gets REAL.
Title: Re: Competitive games and the rage
Post by: Ferdk on October 01, 2012, 02:01:22 PM
I hate this and is the reason why I quit League of Legends. Sure I can ignore people, but I'm supposed to be teaming with people to win? seems backwards to try to solo the game. And for the record is not that I sucked, I hated seeing other people who just started the game getting blamed for it. I actually did pretty good for the time I spent on it. Way more wins than losses and always 1st or 2nd in my team. Not bragging since it was at low levels, just for context that I'm not complaining because they blamed me XD

I don't get why people who can't accept others' mistakes want to play team games?

One thing I hate about this is that its contagious. It starts like someone mentioned before, the whiny people are just louder. And then it pollutes the whole community. I say this because I have friends that play this game. They turned into whiny foulmouthed crybabies, just like the rest of the LoL community. When you spend too much time on a community, some things start to look "normal", and b*tching seems to be normal in LoL.
Title: Re: Competitive games and the rage
Post by: Rapture on January 30, 2013, 06:59:24 PM
I quit competitive gaming in general because of this. Especially LoL is full of idiots. I also left certain forums because the tone was that bad. I also think it's mainly the anonymity and safety that makes people loose all their manners on the internet. They would never say all those things if they were face to face. I play co-op and single player now and it's much less annoying.
Title: Re: Competitive games and the rage
Post by: Tumbles on January 30, 2013, 07:24:10 PM
I think that competitive gaming will always have that sense of anger. It's just what competition does to people, it's the same with sport. We just need more online games that aren't competitive.

Seriously, I've made lots of friends in co-op and lots of enemies in deathmatches.
Title: Re: Competitive games and the rage
Post by: Just Lance on January 31, 2013, 11:29:13 AM
DayZ might be considered competitive game. From what I know you can spend hours in fear to move not to be killed 'cause respawn is random AND all your stuff will disappear.
Title: Re: Competitive games and the rage
Post by: Judedeath on January 31, 2013, 03:12:11 PM
Rage at competitive L4D2 is what made me quit it, just cause I would get pretty mad about losing and it wouldn't be fun anymore.
Title: Re: Competitive games and the rage
Post by: HipsterPie on February 03, 2013, 03:35:28 PM
I think it's just because nobody knows who they actually are. Being anonymous really makes the difference in peoples behaviour. They lost, they are upset, and that's why they are raging like wild animals. Because they can't in real life. Because they have a status to hold on to, probably. Just like destroying stuff (griefing) and cyberbullying. They do it, because they can. How do you think 4chan's anons are in real life? Probably not as mean and horrible as they can be on the internet. (Even though some anons are nice people.)
I kinda dislike competitive stuff because people who win tend to overreact about it. I do play Team Fortress a lot, but not free for all or anything. I prefer co-op. (There are less screaming/crying toddlers on MvM than in other game modes)
Title: Re: Competitive games and the rage
Post by: SinnyVic on March 25, 2014, 04:47:34 PM
Lol. Sorry, but I can't really consider League of Legend's yolo queue to be a competitive team game. It's laughable.

It irks me when someone labels random matchmaking as a "competitive team" aspect of the game. It just isn't. Random matchmaking is extremely limiting. What you get is not a team but just a group of random people. You can call it a "team" but there is rarely team synergy with random players. You will not know most of the people you get matched with. Thus, your team composition is often not a top priority in this scenario. Only in the utmost upper echelons of a team versus game is where you will find even a hint of true team synergy and that's only if you get lucky (e.g. hope you don't main a role and four other players also main that role).

I'd say only League of Legend's Ranked Teams has the capability to be a competitive team game.


Note: Edit may occur later when I get home if there is no post after this one to avoid double posting.
Title: Re: Competitive games and the rage
Post by: Merlandese on March 25, 2014, 05:29:28 PM
I don't see how quickly adapting to a team of unknown people--a type of environmental adaptation--and trying to create team synergy wouldn't be another part of the skill involved in the game. The opposing team has the same limitations, so everyone is on equal ground. If everyone in a randomly chosen team has played enough to be able to quickly adapt team synergy in an effective way, that sounds like a skill that can't be dismissed.

Military operations run like this. You can be in the field with people on your same team that you've never met, and the ability to quickly work together and find your roles is something that takes a lot of skill. Unprofessional members will butt heads or lose sight of what they should be doing, and the synergy would be non-existent. So to accomplish that Random Team Task requires you to know a greater variety of skills than you would need to know being with the same team every time.
Title: Re: Competitive games and the rage
Post by: Just Lance on March 25, 2014, 06:56:15 PM
I always liked to be a kind of a detached person in any competitive games... like sniper or machine gunner... A person with clearly defined role. Also lately I found out that I am pretty comfortable with role of Medic in ArmA 3. Just don't give me the ***** command. If I play with a people I know in a scenario I am familiar with I might be semi-efficient commander. I am way more comfortable with reviewing battle tactics and making notes that actually making those.
One thing in which I am kind of used to be "the one in command" is the Dungeon Master position because in the end I have the ultimate power and I don't really mind if my monsters or my heroes wins but in sake of game play I prefer my heroes (players) to survive.
If I play online I rather want to play with people I know rather than some strangers I know nothing about or their capabilities. Not only we usually have skype on it can lead to some darn good moments.
Title: Re: Competitive games and the rage
Post by: Ferdk on March 25, 2014, 07:38:13 PM
I don't see how quickly adapting to a team of unknown people--a type of environmental adaptation--and trying to create team synergy wouldn't be another part of the skill involved in the game. The opposing team has the same limitations, so everyone is on equal ground. If everyone in a randomly chosen team has played enough to be able to quickly adapt team synergy in an effective way, that sounds like a skill that can't be dismissed.

This is a fair point, but after watching Valve's documentary "Free To Play" (it's free on steam, and I think it's on youtube as well) about Dota, one of the players reaches a fairly good conclusion: He used to be a jack of all trades. Most people who play online become this, by necessity. Since you don't know who you're going to play with and against, it's imperative that you have a well founded knowledge of every role to be able to deliver on whatever the team needs. That's if you care about winning at all, obviously. You can be one of the 12 year old trolls who main a single character and force you to adapt to them everytime and most of the time losing because the opposing team has all the quirks of how to deal with such a character/player. So, going back to this guy from the movie, he used to play most characters, and later decided to focus on a role and learn to play well the characters that fit this role. The reason he says is because "you're better off with a team that are really good at specific roles, than a team of 5 jack of all trades". In this kind of competitive games, the saying is even more true: "master of none", that's what you become if you try to learn every role. You simply don't have enough lifetime to master any of them.
Title: Re: Competitive games and the rage
Post by: Merlandese on March 25, 2014, 11:52:09 PM
I don't see how quickly adapting to a team of unknown people--a type of environmental adaptation--and trying to create team synergy wouldn't be another part of the skill involved in the game. The opposing team has the same limitations, so everyone is on equal ground. If everyone in a randomly chosen team has played enough to be able to quickly adapt team synergy in an effective way, that sounds like a skill that can't be dismissed.

This is a fair point, but after watching Valve's documentary "Free To Play" (it's free on steam, and I think it's on youtube as well) about Dota, one of the players reaches a fairly good conclusion: He used to be a jack of all trades. Most people who play online become this, by necessity. Since you don't know who you're going to play with and against, it's imperative that you have a well founded knowledge of every role to be able to deliver on whatever the team needs. That's if you care about winning at all, obviously. You can be one of the 12 year old trolls who main a single character and force you to adapt to them everytime and most of the time losing because the opposing team has all the quirks of how to deal with such a character/player. So, going back to this guy from the movie, he used to play most characters, and later decided to focus on a role and learn to play well the characters that fit this role. The reason he says is because "you're better off with a team that are really good at specific roles, than a team of 5 jack of all trades". In this kind of competitive games, the saying is even more true: "master of none", that's what you become if you try to learn every role. You simply don't have enough lifetime to master any of them.

But those aren't comparable. Having a Master Class Whatever may be highly valuable in situations where you need it, but being a Highly Adaptable Master of None also has its place and its roll. There's just no way to say that one is better than the other. Everything you mentioned is true except for the implication that the specialist is inherently better than the adapter.
Title: Re: Competitive games and the rage
Post by: Kyo on March 26, 2014, 08:05:32 AM
I just went across a common drama thread in one of competetive games' forums.

Brought you guys some souvenirs:

Spoiler: show
(https://freebirdgames.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FiOHjZpk.jpg&hash=6c2fc418c5ddcb71527794cf4ca9609c)


Spoiler: show
(https://freebirdgames.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcomtempimg.memecdn.com%2Fdp5314a8a14d1880.30301995.gif&hash=e0acfcda62c5131eab95bf6eae57e181)
Title: Re: Competitive games and the rage
Post by: Ferdk on March 26, 2014, 10:07:25 AM
But those aren't comparable. Having a Master Class Whatever may be highly valuable in situations where you need it, but being a Highly Adaptable Master of None also has its place and its roll. There's just no way to say that one is better than the other. Everything you mentioned is true except for the implication that the specialist is inherently better than the adapter.

In competitive gaming the specialist IS better than the adapter. Unless it's a one on one game. In team games, you're much better off with specialists than jack of all trades. That being said, noone is a one-track mind specialist, everyone knows the basics. The point is not focusing on playing equally good at every role, because that's not going to be competitive level. I'm talking in world tournaments perspective, if we talk in casual online play then the adapter has its role, as I already mentioned.
It's not a matter of saying who's the best individual player, it's about who's the most beneficial in a competitive team. And that is without a doubt a specialist.
Title: Re: Competitive games and the rage
Post by: Merlandese on March 26, 2014, 12:58:56 PM
It's not a matter of saying who's the best individual player, it's about who's the most beneficial in a competitive team. And that is without a doubt a specialist.

But that's not true in the Random Colleague Team Competition thing he mentioned.

What you're saying is that in a context that tests for specialization, specialists are better. And of course they are. But in a context that tests for adaptation, like that random teammate competition, adapters are better. Now your implication is that the value of the "specialist test" is higher than the value of the "adapter test." Actually, it's not so much your implication as it is Sinny's assertion that the latter test--the one that tests for adaption over specialization--is a meaningless test. XD

Maybe it's not as popular a style of play, because we all like to watch specialists more, but it's definitely valuable and worth testing. That Random Team thing tests that skill.
Title: Re: Competitive games and the rage
Post by: Ferdk on March 26, 2014, 02:24:10 PM
The thing is, Random Teammate competition is the casual online play. If you go to a tournament with no team rules, and you decide you'll play with random people, how do you think you'll fare?

Specialists aren't only the best choice for a premade team competition, they're also the best choice if random teams are allowed. Adapters are ONLY good in random team competitions (casual play, no tournaments are held in this format) because in the hybrid "no team rules" noone in their right mind would go without a premade team. They'll get crushed.

That's the difference I was trying to account for when I mentioned "competitive vs. casual" gaming. Competitive would be premade teams, because it's the best, and casual would be what you can work with, oftentimes, random matchmaking (though you can still go premade teams and roflstomp the adapters).
Title: Re: Competitive games and the rage
Post by: Merlandese on March 26, 2014, 06:55:30 PM
Specialists aren't only the best choice for a premade team competition, they're also the best choice if random teams are allowed.

I don't think that's true, though. If you randomly have two or more specialists, the team immediately suffers unless one specialist is actually highly capable of adaptation, at which point that person wouldn't be a specialist.
Title: Re: Competitive games and the rage
Post by: Ferdk on March 26, 2014, 07:51:41 PM
Specialists aren't only the best choice for a premade team competition, they're also the best choice if random teams are allowed.

I don't think that's true, though. If you randomly have two or more specialists, the team immediately suffers unless one specialist is actually highly capable of adaptation, at which point that person wouldn't be a specialist.

You didn't get my point. If random teams are FORCED, then yes, obviously, adapters have the best chances. If teams can be premade OR random made, then premade teams of specialists will clean the floor with the adapters. There's just no way around it. The only way for adapters to be better is to FORCE a situation in which they're better (forcing random teams). Specialists, on the other hand, are better unless you force a situation against them. A team of specialists is the best choice for premade teams vs premade teams, and it's also the best against a random team (that is, specialists premade team vs. random adapter team). Specialists *only* fail if forced to random teams, while adapters fail if either forced to premade teams, or if it's free for all where anyone can pick whether they want premade team or not.

Also, as I said, competitive gaming is made with premade teams, which is my whole point. Under that circumstance, a specialist is much more valuable. Random matchmaking for online play with 200ms ping is casual stuff, not competitive gaming.
Title: Re: Competitive games and the rage
Post by: Unimaginative Username on March 26, 2014, 08:35:36 PM
Here are my thoughts on the argument of specialisation versus adaptability from someone who plays, probably a bit too much, online team games:

I think that "proficiency" is a better word than "specialisation" in this context - most of the time really good players that take part in clan wars for World of Tanks (which is what I play), whilst being proficient in a certain role, are still more than capable of playing other roles if needed (at least more so than your average random player).

Spoiler: show
For example:
In clan wars your clan will end up pitted against another one in a battle - you do not know what vehicles they are bringing to the fight and they don't know what you are bringing. You will have people on your team that have different proficiencies, be it auto-loading heavy tanks, standard heavy tanks which act as a backbone of your team, tank destroyers and so on. Now what makes these people exceptional in their roles, and the best at what they do, is not so much the fact that they can play a specific style really well - it is the ability to adapt their playing style with their certain type of tank to meet all possible threats and scenarios.

What I am trying to say is that the best players at a game are the ones that have a proficiency in a certain area but then can adapt their play to how the game is going and the different situations that they land themselves in. They are both useful in competitive play and random public games as they are proficient in a certain role filling an otherwise empty gap in their whole team (therefore making the team more adaptable and so more likely to win), and they are also brilliant in random games as they can use their countless hours of experience in that class to adapt to any situation and then outperform their opponents due to their high skill in their chosen area.

A player that becomes so highly specialised is useless in both competitive and random games as the game has to be playing out to their exact playstyle. For example, a person who specialises as a defensive sniper is no longer proficient in sniping all-round as they cannot adapt to playing aggressively - they are therefore easy to beat as you have the initiative and so can force them out of their specialist playstyle.I have played against a lot of people who are quite good, but once you force them out of their specialist playstyle they can no longer adapt and so are not useful to their team and become a liability.




Save yourself some time and just read this - it gets enough of the general idea across:

TL;DR: The best players are people who have proficiencies in specific areas but can also adapt (rather than being solely specialised). They can both act as a unit in a professional team with different roles, adapt if it doesn't go to plan - therefore they are also better in random matches as they can adapt their proficiency to their team's specific needs depending on the current situation. The very best players are a hybrid of both specialisation and adaptability as they can adapt their proficiency.

There is a reason why you barely ever see professional players lose in random games because they couldn't adapt enough.

It's nearly one in the morning and I apologies for any incoherence in what I am saying. I think it makes sense and if it doesn't then there's not much I can do about it as I am currently unable to gauge that.