Okay, so we both seem to agree that being a baby about unbalanced gameplay isn't a good approach, but then you turn right around and advocate the imposition of extra restrictions so you don't have to deal with the unbalanced gameplay.

The difference is that one side is opposing the implementation of artificial changes to the rules of a game to fix a perceived imbalance while the other side apparently doesn't see a problem with it.

I think there's also the issue of how people tend to perceive competitive gamers - as a ruthless bunch of elitists who will employ the most cutthroat of tactics just to win. I'm not going to pretend there isn't a certain amount of truth to that view, but at the same time, the competitive mindset is just as much about having fun as the casual one. However, why I tend to lean more toward the former is because rather than complaining that the other group's playstyle is ruining their fun, they either change their attitude and deal with the parts they don't like, or they play another game.

My philosophy is that I need to worry about my own attitude and play the game to its fullest; to pull no punches and expect no punches to be pulled in return. I know I wouldn't want people to hold back against me - even if it means I lose sometimes - so I don't hold back against them.

Quote :

Okay, so we both seem to agree that being a baby about unbalanced gameplay isn't a good approach, but then you turn right around and advocate the imposition of extra restrictions so you don't have to deal with the unbalanced gameplay.

No.
I'm not sure if you just misread what I wrote, but that's not what I said at all.
I agree that complaining about gameplay that ISN'T unbalanced and calling it so is wrong. You will hear people complain about every aspect of a game and call it overpowered just to give themselves an excuse for why they're losing. The people that do that don't care about game balance in the least. They only want to blame their lack of ability on something else.
Sneak up behind someone with a perk that quiets your footsteps? "It's OP." they yell.
Shoot them with X gun? "X gun needs to be nerfed!" comes the cry.

That's NOT what this is in the least.

What I'm advocating is the correction or removal of things that are truly unbalanced or overpowered. Things that take away from the game by badly limiting what can be done to only using them. Anything that chokes off a large part of the game like that is bad.
You say anything can be overcome with skill, and most of the time that's right. But, as much as I wish it weren't the case, sometimes design is just bad enough that skill is no longer a factor.

Quote :

while the other side apparently doesn't see a problem with it.

Yeah, it's funny how the side with the I Win button don't have a problem with the way things are, huh?

I just don't get how you can't understand that unbalanced gameplay is a bad thing. This is a fundamental truth. It applies to all games, not just video games.
As a kid, would you have played Tag if you had to touch someone, but they only had to get within ten feet of you?
If everything is stacked in the favor of one side, one playstyle, one

Quote :

I think there's also the issue of how people tend to perceive competitive gamers

This has nothing to do with casual or competitive. It wasn't just the competitive or just the casual gamers using OMA. People on all sides were using it. Some because they just wanted the easy button, some because they just wanted to stop only losing to it. Short of the matter is, no other play style was allowed to be viable.
Wanna snipe? Too bad.
Wanna run and gun? Too bad.
Melee? Nope.
OMA? Okay, now you can break even.

CobaltMonkey wrote:

What I'm advocating is the correction or removal of things that are truly unbalanced or overpowered. Things that take away from the game by badly limiting what can be done to only using them. Anything that chokes off a large part of the game like that is bad.

But that's not right. Either you accept the game in spite of its flaws or you don't (see a bit farther below). Also, unless literally everyone voluntarily gives up One Man Army or Situational Awareness or [controversial mechanic], then no amount of "correction" is going to fix the issue. If there is even one person who still uses those kinds of tactics, then not only is it not balanced, but it's even less balanced than if everyone would just stop worrying about it and play how they like. In this way, this sort of mindset is really only worsening existing balance problems.

CobaltMonkey wrote:

Yeah, it's funny how the side with the I Win button don't have a problem with the way things are, huh?

I just don't get how you can't understand that unbalanced gameplay is a bad thing. This is a fundamental truth. It applies to all games, not just video games.
As a kid, would you have played Tag if you had to touch someone, but they only had to get within ten feet of you?

You say that like you don't have the ability to use the same weapons and tactics as they do.

CobaltMonkey wrote:

This has nothing to do with casual or competitive. It wasn't just the competitive or just the casual gamers using OMA. People on all sides were using it. Some because they just wanted the easy button, some because they just wanted to stop only losing to it. Short of the matter is, no other play style was allowed to be viable.
Wanna snipe? Too bad.
Wanna run and gun? Too bad.
Melee? Nope.
OMA? Okay, now you can break even.

And that's the point where it's a good idea to put down the game and play something else. If you really feel like you have to enforce restrictions in addition to the ones already in place, then it's quite likely the game is simply not worth your time to play.

...but I digress, mattmo is probably right.

Quote :

Also, unless literally everyone voluntarily gives up One Man Army or Situational Awareness or [controversial mechanic], then no amount of "correction" is going to fix the issue. If there is even one person who still uses those kinds of tactics, then not only is it not balanced, but it's even less balanced than if everyone would just stop worrying about it and play how they like.

Except they can't play how they like if an imbalance has made their style no longer viable (See above.)
If we work to make ourselves heard to developers, and it does get corrected (as is the case with MW3 no longer having OMA), then no one can use it or they'll have to use a version that doesn't unbalance the game.
Not using it ourselves in the meantime is just us holding ourselves to a higher standard. Trying to encourage balanced play through example.

Quote :

You say that like you don't have the ability to use the same weapons and tactics as they do.

Doesn't matter if that's not how I want to play, does it?
And lest we forget, this whole discussion was sparked by an ability that (we believed) was not available to everyone. It almost did happen in BF3, with the exclusive guns and accessories.

Quote :

And that's the point where it's a good idea to put down the game and play something else. If you really feel like you have to enforce restrictions in addition to the ones already in place, then it's quite likely the game is simply not worth your time to play.

People don't buy games to not play them. Further, when I put down my money for a multiplayer game, I'm being sold what is supposed to be a balanced game. No one play style should have inherent superiority. If I wanted a game that could only be played one way, I'd stick to Hangman.

Quote :

But that's not right. Either you accept the game in spite of its flaws or you don't (see a bit farther below)

Or you work to see them fixed.
I could just give it up for lost. Or I could try to do something about it. I choose the latter.


If we haven't convinced one another of anything by now, then I doubt we're going to. I'm not sure either of us can state our cases any more clearly. If you'd care for the last word, you're welcome to it. I know that I hate it when people insist on having it. I mean, that belongs to me! Um...er...

If you truly do have a problem with the clan rules, then by all means, put it before the council. Everyone in our clan has a voice, and we encourage them to use it.

Even though the topic is fairly stagnant with no new news of U3 beyond the preorder bonus announcement, I suppose this doesn't strictly belong in here.
Spam? From Axis members? Why, that's unheard of!

CobaltMonkey wrote:

Spam? From Axis members? Why, that's unheard of!

I know, right? Good to know I'm apparently not the only stubborn guy here.






>_>

...what? It's a compliment! :^P

Here's an unbeatable game plan for UC3. Turtle and CobaltMonkey continue their debate in the middle of UC3 multiplayer....... Other team gets very dizzy and confused, their ears start bleeding , some assume a fetal position while they are sobbing and babbling uncontrollably , the still standing teamates grenade them to put them out of their misery, others who had the 'Creepy Crawler" kickback use that on the last surviving members of their team.........Victory !

j/k

Don't make me talk at you.

I'll do it! I'm crazy like that!

You is all crazy like that.

Good discussion, I thought, kept on topic by random, intermittent mentions of the thread title.. Noice.

The blue dude wrote:

But if your "skill" consists of exploiting poor game design, then you're playing without honor.

^ This bit I particularly liked ^

And Rwatch gets a too.

Carry on.

rrwatch wrote:

Here's an unbeatable game plan for UC3. Turtle and CobaltMonkey continue their debate in the middle of UC3 multiplayer....... Other team gets very dizzy and confused, their ears start bleeding , some assume a fetal position while they are sobbing and babbling uncontrollably , the still standing teamates grenade them to put them out of their misery, others who had the 'Creepy Crawler" kickback use that on the last surviving members of their team.........Victory !

j/k

This is ingenious, you guys should totally do it! and of course record it and put it on YouTube lol

Vrals597 wrote:

rrwatch wrote:

Here's an unbeatable game plan for UC3. Turtle and CobaltMonkey continue their debate in the middle of UC3 multiplayer....... Other team gets very dizzy and confused, their ears start bleeding , some assume a fetal position while they are sobbing and babbling uncontrollably , the still standing teamates grenade them to put them out of their misery, others who had the 'Creepy Crawler" kickback use that on the last surviving members of their team.........Victory !

j/k

This is ingenious, you guys should totally do it! and of course record it and put it on YouTube lol

I would pay to be in that party when they lay down that strategy.

I wish they had combat training like Black Ops. Learn the game... maps, weapons,kickbacks and practice techniques on AI . It levels the field a bit. Just some wistful, wishful thinking aloud.

Raist, I would definitely do the same. Rrwatch, I would totally like that as well, it would also really help for people like me who take breaks from games and then decide to pick them up again on some random day, that way we aren't getting dumped in games against full 80 parties on our first game back

Hopefully the Uncharted 3 matchmaking is good and balanced. I remember when in Uncharted 2, I would be minding my own business as a level 30- and then all of the sudden, me and some other random schmoes are put against a full fledged party of level 50+'s. After a very unpleasant few minutes the game would finish 50-15 with have of my team quit out and the rest with negative K/D's.

Please Naughty Dog balance things out!

I had situations like that but I was by myself, in the low-mid 40s, and everybody else was in the mid-high 50s, that game of plunder was absolutely insane!

Pheonix343 wrote:

Hopefully the Uncharted 3 matchmaking is good and balanced. I remember when in Uncharted 2, I would be minding my own business as a level 30- and then all of the sudden, me and some other random schmoes are put against a full fledged party of level 50+'s. After a very unpleasant few minutes the game would finish 50-15 with have of my team quit out and the rest with negative K/D's.

Please Naughty Dog balance things out!

Amen!, fellow 6th nation N00b. Once in a great while tho the tables get turned and its so sweeeeet ! If ND can't improve the ranking one thing I would love is if they only let players of a certain level or time played use the"easy" setting. I can understand if high ranked players cant get a match on "normal" setting jumping into the "easy" mode but, once you hit a certain level...... maybe high enough to use negatives or something akin to that, you would graduate to "normal". This would let people play against more evenly matched opponents until they had more skills. Beginners would still learn tactics from their teamates and foes especially those who are about to graduate to "normal". Low level players could choose the higher skill setting if they want to. Incentives like more money or quicker kickbacks could be used to make higher level players glad to graduate. I never understood what the challenge is for someone who has 300 hours of playing time to blow the crap out of someone who has 2 hours playtime 20 times in 10 minutes. Its like beating up a 2nd grader. I know some don't like a challenge but personally I do. Maybe it would keep the game fresh. Gamers who start over with a new account would quickly graduate because of their higher skill. Just some wishful, wistfull thinking aloud.

Rrwatch, I have to say that I'm not 100% what you're talking about, are proposing a new idea in U3 or are you stating something about U2? Because I don't think you can choose the level of players you play against, all I notice in matchmaking is that first they try to get you the Optimal game, against players of your skill level, then they go to a close game, for players around your skill level, and then they go to any game and "searching for players", in other words trying to just get you a game

Vrals, In UC2 you can pick your skill level "easy' or "normal". Im imagining UC3 will be the same. I guess I would like the change in UC3

rrwatch, You can only pick the difficulty for co-op, in competive games you couldn't choose whitch levels to play against; it was you vs. The world. Maybe for UC3 they could have an option to only put you in a game with certain skill levels ( like ranked in UC2).
It might take longer to find people but they would be closer to your level

Pheonix343 wrote:

rrwatch, You can only pick the difficulty for co-op, in competive games you couldn't choose whitch levels to play against; it was you vs. The world. Maybe for UC3 they could have an option to only put you in a game with certain skill levels ( like ranked in UC2).
It might take longer to find people but they would be closer to your level

Exactly. I forgot the terminology they used. I'd like to see something like that in regular matches. Thanks.

Raistlin wrote:

Vrals597 wrote:

rrwatch wrote:

Here's an unbeatable game plan for UC3. Turtle and CobaltMonkey continue their debate in the middle of UC3 multiplayer....... Other team gets very dizzy and confused, their ears start bleeding , some assume a fetal position while they are sobbing and babbling uncontrollably , the still standing teamates grenade them to put them out of their misery, others who had the 'Creepy Crawler" kickback use that on the last surviving members of their team.........Victory !

j/k

This is ingenious, you guys should totally do it! and of course record it and put it on YouTube lol

I would pay to be in that party when they lay down that strategy.

Vrals597 wrote:

Raist, I would definitely do the same.

The bidding opens at $10. Slots are limited, so act now.

Haha, our evil plan is working

I'm not evil. Just...opportunistic.

like every company in a Capitalist or Semi-Capitalist Economy lol

Pheonix343 wrote:

rrwatch, You can only pick the difficulty for co-op, in competive games you couldn't choose whitch levels to play against; it was you vs. The world. Maybe for UC3 they could have an option to only put you in a game with certain skill levels ( like ranked in UC2).
It might take longer to find people but they would be closer to your level

Exactly. I forgot the terminology they used. I'd like to see something like that in regular matches. Thanks.