Author Topic: Competitive games and the rage  (Read 10285 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

HipsterPie

  • Tier 6
  • *
  • Posts: 437
  • Gender: Female
  • I euh...
  • Current Mood: happy happy
Re: Competitive games and the rage
« Reply #15 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)
Well, gorsh.

SinnyVic

  • Tier 4
  • *
  • Posts: 123
  • Gender: Male
  • Current Mood: thoughtful thoughtful
Re: Competitive games and the rage
« Reply #16 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.

Merlandese

  • 静態の遊子
  • *
  • Tier 7
  • **
  • Posts: 5095
  • Gender: Male
  • ---
  • Current Mood: happy happy
Re: Competitive games and the rage
« Reply #17 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.
« Last Edit: March 25, 2014, 05:33:00 PM by Merlandese »

Just Lance

  • 狼と冒険家
  • *
  • Tier 7
  • **
  • Posts: 18635
  • Gender: Male
  • Commodore of Freebirdia Orbital Defense Fleet
  • Current Mood: perverse perverse
Re: Competitive games and the rage
« Reply #18 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.
Quote
"God, it's so hard to be a smartass nowadays." Dr. Neil Watts (To the Moon)

Ferdk

  • *
  • Tier 7
  • **
  • Posts: 766
  • Gender: Male
  • Nothing is true, everything is permitted
    • My YouTube channel
  • Current Mood: thoughtful thoughtful
Re: Competitive games and the rage
« Reply #19 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.
My YouTube channel (VG Covers and stuff):
http://www.youtube.com/ferdk16

Merlandese

  • 静態の遊子
  • *
  • Tier 7
  • **
  • Posts: 5095
  • Gender: Male
  • ---
  • Current Mood: happy happy
Re: Competitive games and the rage
« Reply #20 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.

Kyo

  • no title at all
  • *
  • Tier 7
  • **
  • Posts: 1264
  • Gender: Male
  • Current Mood: evil evil
Re: Competitive games and the rage
« Reply #21 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


Spoiler: show

Ferdk

  • *
  • Tier 7
  • **
  • Posts: 766
  • Gender: Male
  • Nothing is true, everything is permitted
    • My YouTube channel
  • Current Mood: thoughtful thoughtful
Re: Competitive games and the rage
« Reply #22 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.
« Last Edit: March 26, 2014, 10:12:09 AM by Ferdk »
My YouTube channel (VG Covers and stuff):
http://www.youtube.com/ferdk16

Merlandese

  • 静態の遊子
  • *
  • Tier 7
  • **
  • Posts: 5095
  • Gender: Male
  • ---
  • Current Mood: happy happy
Re: Competitive games and the rage
« Reply #23 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.
« Last Edit: March 26, 2014, 01:01:43 PM by Merlandese »

Ferdk

  • *
  • Tier 7
  • **
  • Posts: 766
  • Gender: Male
  • Nothing is true, everything is permitted
    • My YouTube channel
  • Current Mood: thoughtful thoughtful
Re: Competitive games and the rage
« Reply #24 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).
My YouTube channel (VG Covers and stuff):
http://www.youtube.com/ferdk16

Merlandese

  • 静態の遊子
  • *
  • Tier 7
  • **
  • Posts: 5095
  • Gender: Male
  • ---
  • Current Mood: happy happy
Re: Competitive games and the rage
« Reply #25 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.

Ferdk

  • *
  • Tier 7
  • **
  • Posts: 766
  • Gender: Male
  • Nothing is true, everything is permitted
    • My YouTube channel
  • Current Mood: thoughtful thoughtful
Re: Competitive games and the rage
« Reply #26 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.
My YouTube channel (VG Covers and stuff):
http://www.youtube.com/ferdk16

Unimaginative Username

  • Guest
Re: Competitive games and the rage
« Reply #27 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.
« Last Edit: March 26, 2014, 08:48:53 PM by The-PurpleOrange »