What annoys you about Multiplayer/Online First-Person-Shooter games?

[Superhal]

I get headaches and nausea. I could play wolfenstein 3-d, but not doom.

[ivan_astikov]

Y’all need some R+R. Go and treat yourself to some prostitutes.

[CutterJohn]

@Lobsang

MW2 and BFBC2 - ‘noobtube’ (grenade launchers)

I believe this is the most common irritation with this type of game, hence the very well known name for it - ‘noobtube’. I’m not sure what to say about this one so I’ll move on.

Quick rundown.

Engineers get to repair vehicles, damage vehicles, place mines, and have the extremely nifty Carl Gustav.

Medics get to revive and heal(MASSIVE points). They get LMGs, specifically the M60, which is the next best thing to an automatic sniper rifle.

Recon gets to toss sensor balls(extremely handy), and can sit back and 1-2 shot everyone else.

Assault gets… what? They reload ammo, which is only somewhat useful, since its easy to die and get full ammo again, which lasts a while. Their primary purpose is assaulting positions, and to do that, they need to kill effectively. With the insane weapons the other classes get, they need something quite insane to set them above the rest.

@Lobsang

Modern Warfare 2 - being thrown into the middle of games in progress

What is so hard about giving the person who paid money to own the game the option of only joining ‘lobbies’ or ‘parties’ that are between games?? It’s frustrating to be thrown into a game where the score is 1350 and there is 1:23 left to play. What’s more it creates a false impression of the achievement of those people who were in the game for the full time - For example a really bad player will not come last because people who joined late won’t have had time to get the same amount of kills in order to rise up the scoreboard. Same for the good players - it makes it seem like they beat more people than they actually did.

Its annoying to get tossed into a game thats almost over, but no big deal. Wait a few minutes, and the game will be over, and you can start a fresh match.

Stop caring about stats, too. Do you need a number to tell you if you are having fun or not? Winning and losing, killing and dying, are all meaningless if you have fun. My suggestion… Stop looking at them.

Modern Warfare 2 - boosting

It annoys me in principle as well as on a basic level. The principal being that the point of boosting seems to be to gain unlocks in order to make your game character better, but surely the obvious way to get better is to play the game properly. You get to gain those unlocks and real actual ability to play the game well through experience. When cage still existed I demonstrated this often. When I was level 38 or so and hadn’t ‘prestiged’ at all I was able to pretty much paint the walls red with players who were level 70 tenth prestige.

If you get real actual ability to play the game better through experience, then why do you need the extra ranks/weapons/unlocks? Shouldn’t you be content that you are capable of playing the game better? Or do you want to have not only the advantage in skill and map knowledge, but mechanic advantages as well, so that you can beat the newbs even more freely?

Progression in FPS games is disgusting, and I violate it every chance i get.

Modern Warfare 2 - auto-handgun or shotgun akimbo

This is probably more a fault of the game than the player but these days it seems like the way to win the game is to be using that setup. “Darn I died… let’s watch the killcam… oh surprise - akimbo g18… ‘pok’ ‘pok’ ‘pok’ dead”. There were days where the winners of games were exclusively the people who used this weapon setup. Therefore implying that what won the game was the weapon, not the player.

So stop complaining that the weapon they used was better, and insisting on using inferior weapons, and use the best weapons for the job at hand. If a weapon is provably inferior, then you have no right to complain if you lose it and fail.

Granted, the devs should balance things if some become all that is ever used, but until they do, you can’t blame anybody for using those.

[AClockworkMelon]

@CutterJohn

Stop caring about stats, too. Do you need a number to tell you if you are having fun or not? Winning and losing, killing and dying, are all meaningless if you have fun. My suggestion… Stop looking at them.

“If winning isn’t everything, why do they keep score?” Vince Lombardi

@CutterJohn

If you get real actual ability to play the game better through experience, then why do you need the extra ranks/weapons/unlocks? Shouldn’t you be content that you are capable of playing the game better? Or do you want to have not only the advantage in skill and map knowledge, but mechanic advantages as well, so that you can beat the newbs even more freely?

Progression in FPS games is disgusting, and I violate it every chance i get.

It’s to reward players and keep them playing. I’ve had a lot of fun chasing that next upgrade or camo scheme or nametag design thingie.

[Lobsang]

@CutterJohn

So stop complaining that the weapon they used was better, and insisting on using inferior weapons, and use the best weapons for the job at hand. If a weapon is provably inferior, then you have no right to complain if you lose it and fail.

Granted, the devs should balance things if some become all that is ever used, but until they do, you can’t blame anybody for using those.

I happened to be thinking about this argument (in its general sense) and I have a slight problem with it…

The implication is that the fact that the game has provided over-powered weapons makes it the game’s fault not the players.

Well, that is partly true, but if you take that logic into real life, it’s like saying

“In real life it’s possible to play a ghetto blaster very loudly on a train, so it’s not my fault for doing it, it’s life’s”
If you take advantage of an unfortunate imbalance in a game you aren’t completely innocent of being thought of as a bit of a dick. Take the commando lunge for instance. There are ‘good’ players who refuse to use it because it is ridiculous, and prefer instead to play well using their own abilities, and there are ‘bad’ players who will use it and gain an ‘unfair’ advantage. Unfair because they will beat players who are better than them in real terms, but refuse to use a ridiculous ‘ability’ that the game has provided. When I get killed by commando or auto pistols akimbo I don’t think “Wow this guy’s good” I think “There goes someone who needs the crutch of the overpowered ability/weapon… probably not very good at the game”

I refuse to use commando, I refuse to use automatic pistols with (or without) akimbo. I think you get a better feeling of having achieved something if you play the game without using the well-known ridiculously imbalanced parts of the game (in MW2’s case - the auto-pistol-akimbo combo, and the commando perk’s lunge)

[ponzicar]

I’m surprised that nobody has mentioned the excellent playing to win article: Playing to Win — Sirlin.Net — Game Design

It really helped change my attitude when it comes to competitive games.

[Least_Original_User_Name_Ever]

@Lobsang

I happened to be thinking about this argument (in its general sense) and I have a slight problem with it…

The implication is that the fact that the game has provided over-powered weapons makes it the game’s fault not the players.

Well, that is partly true, but if you take that logic into real life, it’s like saying

“In real life it’s possible to play a ghetto blaster very loudly on a train, so it’s not my fault for doing it, it’s life’s”
If you take advantage of an unfortunate imbalance in a game you aren’t completely innocent of being thought of as a bit of a dick. Take the commando lunge for instance. There are ‘good’ players who refuse to use it because it is ridiculous, and prefer instead to play well using their own abilities, and there are ‘bad’ players who will use it and gain an ‘unfair’ advantage. Unfair because they will beat players who are better than them in real terms, but refuse to use a ridiculous ‘ability’ that the game has provided. When I get killed by commando or auto pistols akimbo I don’t think “Wow this guy’s good” I think “There goes someone who needs the crutch of the overpowered ability/weapon… probably not very good at the game”

I refuse to use commando, I refuse to use automatic pistols with (or without) akimbo. I think you get a better feeling of having achieved something if you play the game without using the well-known ridiculously imbalanced parts of the game (in MW2’s case - the auto-pistol-akimbo combo, and the commando perk’s lunge)

Nope. By not employing those same techniques, you make yourself weaker. You become the liability. Modern Warfare is an interesting example, because for as overpowered as Commando is, it’s use is situational. Really, it’s the same for the auto pistol akimbo guy, too… The key in FPS is to keep your opponents at range and dispatch them before you can, using your superior accuracy, map knowledge, and tactics to beat them. That’s not quite the case in Modern Warfare, because everything is so lethal. You don’t recharge shields. You simply go down and respawn. Because of that, connections can mean a lot.

[EllisDee]

Camping is fine as long as you don’t camp a spawn point. That’s ultra-cheese.

[Red_Barchetta]

@Palooka

The problem with Halo was that it was three years behind the genre and lacked the polish and incredibly tight and fast gameplay of the genre leader: Quake 3. No one wanted to play a floaty shooter with weapon balance issues that was further mired by console port issues.

“No one” being the millions of people who made Halo one of the top videogame franchises of all-time?

You’re whooshing us, right?

[Least_Original_User_Name_Ever]

@EllisDee

Camping is fine as long as you don’t camp a spawn point. That’s ultra-cheese.

You shouldn’t be in that position. You should have the ability to try and fight out of it, but if the other teams beats you so badly you’re being spawn trapped and you don’t have control over it, hat’s off to them.

[in_hiding]

I hate, HATE, HATE people who stack teams. I like to play some Counterstrike from time to time (I know, i know. stupid. but i like the scout). Recently, it’s virtually impossible to get a game going. Enter the server, join the smaller (and usually losing) team. Get beat up every round, wipeout in ~30 seconds. Whine enough some good player join our Team and try to get some actual gameplay going. Watch how immediately half of the other also joins our Team - which becomes the monster-stacked-team-from-hell. Any middle ground? Interesting, close matches? Impossible. Worst community i’ve ever seen. I just bought TF2, that seems to be a little more relaxed.

The Other thing is - Stats are EVERYTHING. If your k/d is anything worse than 2, you are a noob and deserve to die. And be insulted. Never mind that this is actually a zero sum game, as for every kill someone has to die, and the average by definition is 1. Probably lower, including self kills.

Really, I agree with hotflungwok. Most gamers are asshats. There should be age 25+ servers for every game, that would weed out most of the worst, i guess… no offense intended for people here who are younger ;), i guess i’m just frustrated. So many nice games with tactics, good engines, a lot potential - and a bunch of sociopaths as a userbase. grmblgetofmylawngrmbl

@ponzicar

I’m surprised that nobody has mentioned the excellent playing to win article: Playing to Win — Sirlin.Net — Game Design

It really helped change my attitude when it comes to competitive games.

This applies to Tournaments and Clans and ladders and such, i agree with him there. If you apply all that stuff in casual public server gameplay, though, you’re… well, kind of a dick. I mean, yeah, sure, as long as you don’t cheat technically everything is fine, but online gaming is still a social thing. It’s more abstract, sure, but if you’re a dick in an online game you’re still a dick. I don’t think that Sirlin guy can understand that people play games just to unwind and have fun.

[ponzicar]

@in_hiding

This applies to Tournaments and Clans and ladders and such, i agree with him there. If you apply all that stuff in casual public server gameplay, though, you’re… well, kind of a dick. I mean, yeah, sure, as long as you don’t cheat technically everything is fine, but online gaming is still a social thing. It’s more abstract, sure, but if you’re a dick in an online game you’re still a dick. I don’t think that Sirlin guy can understand that people play games just to unwind and have fun.

I agree that there’s no reason you have to play to win in a non tournament public game, and I often try weird things in games just for the sake of variety. Still, even in a casual public server, winning is still a goal that’s present. If there’s one thing to take away from that article, it’s to not be angry at the people who do play that way. In my opinion, if a weapon or camping spot is ridiculously overpowered, you should blame the people who made that part of the game instead of the players who are using what they were given.

[EllisDee]

@Least_Original_User_Name_Ever

You shouldn’t be in that position. You should have the ability to try and fight out of it, but if the other teams beats you so badly you’re being spawn trapped and you don’t have control over it, hat’s off to them.

I was thinking more about FFA.

@in_hiding

This applies to Tournaments and Clans and ladders and such, i agree with him there. If you apply all that stuff in casual public server gameplay, though, you’re… well, kind of a dick. I mean, yeah, sure, as long as you don’t cheat technically everything is fine, but online gaming is still a social thing. It’s more abstract, sure, but if you’re a dick in an online game you’re still a dick. I don’t think that Sirlin guy can understand that people play games just to unwind and have fun.

Far too many gamers never learned the lessons of playing sports, including the guy who wrote that article. It’s really too bad; if people treated tournament play like organized sports and casual gaming like pick-up games, the experience would be much better.

[Face_Intentionally_Left_Blank]

@CutterJohn

Quick rundown.
Progression in FPS games is disgusting, and I violate it every chance i get.

I want a game where everyone starts out with everything, and for every level you advance, you are forced to pick a weapon or piece of armor to discard. As time goes on and you improve, you are denied more and more weapons and armor. If, at some point, you are running around a map and spot a guy in a tightie-whities wielding only a KA-BAR, RUN*!

I want teamwork in teamwork-oriented games. That’s why I play them, and not something else.
*- Not just good gaming advice, good LIFE advice.

[Least_Original_User_Name_Ever]

@EllisDee

I was thinking more about FFA.

Far too many gamers never learned the lessons of playing sports, including the guy who wrote that article. It’s really too bad; if people treated tournament play like organized sports and casual gaming like pick-up games, the experience would be much better.

Ideally, people in FFA shouldn’t have the opportunity to camp a spawn point because there should be shit going on. I agree with you, though.

I agree with the second point. Man, when I get a room full of folks to play Halo, we swap teams around every game (unless we’re scrimmaging with another team).

[Zeriel]

Basically, the entire persistent progression system needs to die.

I liked in-match progression in Wolfenstein: Enemy Territory, where you leveled up in the course of a six-round match but everyone started equal.

I don’t mind it if the unlocks you get are cosmetic in nature, like new skins or camo or whatever.

But god damnit, I can’t play CoD4 anymore. I unlocked a bunch of stuff when it first came out, got my multiplayer rank relatively high. Got very used to a specific combo of perks and weapon that fitted my playstyle. Enjoyed the hell out of it.

Lost my profile in a computer crash and reinstall. Not so much fun–I knew how I WANTED to play, but I couldn’t–I had to grind back up using weapons and perks that weren’t so much inferior as things I didn’t personally enjoy playing with. Still, I did it.

Lost it again. Fuck it. Haven’t even installed the game. Haven’t even had the slightest urge to play Modern Warfare 2.

Other things: Any free-for-all game ever–hate. Anything where the point is racking up kills instead of accomplishing an objective–hate. And why can’t someone implement a multiplayer game that only shows global team or squad stats during the game–let players see their own k/d etc, sure, but the only stats you can see for OTHER players are aggregate to their team or subgroup. Quit bitching about your shitty teammates and start pulling your share! Who even cares about team k/d? Show territory or flag caps or whatever.

Actually, can I just have Enemy Territory back?

[Richard_Pearse]

It’s been ages since I played multiplayer FPS, that said, the only thing I really don’t like is spawn point camping. It’s a level design fault really but I think there are times when common decency dictates you don’t take full advantage of a level design. I have no problem with other types of campers. Sometimes part of the fun can be trying to take a camping point from someone and then defending it yourself. If it is not possible to assault a camping spot then that’s bad level design.

[what_do_I_type_here]

I can understand the noobtube hate. But sometimes people accuse others of being “cheap” in ways that don’t make sense. I remember playing WW2 Online and using an anti-tank weapon. As in a weapon that is pretty much exclusively used to fight tanks, not infantry. But it could be used to kill infantry in a pinch. So sometimes I would be sitting there looking for tanks and I would happen to spot enemy infantry, and take them out with the anti-tank gun.

And then I read a message board post where people are calling this “cheap.” Now hold on there, Charles. If I see infantry, I’m gonna take a shot. It doesn’t matter what kind of gun I’m using. What, you expect me to just let them walk by? You’re calling me “cheap” because I’m not being lenient on you? I don’t get that mentality at all.

[Zeriel]

@what_do_I_type_here

I can understand the noobtube hate. But sometimes people accuse others of being “cheap” in ways that don’t make sense. I remember playing WW2 Online and using an anti-tank weapon. As in a weapon that is pretty much exclusively used to fight tanks, not infantry. But it could be used to kill infantry in a pinch. So sometimes I would be sitting there looking for tanks and I would happen to spot enemy infantry, and take them out with the anti-tank gun.

And then I read a message board post where people are calling this “cheap.” Now hold on there, Charles. If I see infantry, I’m gonna take a shot. It doesn’t matter what kind of gun I’m using. What, you expect me to just let them walk by? You’re calling me “cheap” because I’m not being lenient on you? I don’t get that mentality at all.

I can get behind this 100%.

Especially since the risk is that you just popped a scout with your last round, and now here comes an actual tank. That proceeds to wreck your sector while you frantically run for the ammo dump.

I can’t really imagine a scenario where a self-punishing behavior is “cheap”.

[GreedySmurf]

Most of my peeves have already been covered.

I don’t mind grenade launchers, they’re an actual weapon. I don’t mind camping, apart from spawn camping.

I’ve been playin COD:MW2 lately, and for some reason I’ve been finding it difficult to find games in a Hardcore Server , so have been forced into a normal game, which brings me to my two pet hates at the moment.

• Instant kill knives. I know they are a staple of almost all FPS’s, but there is nothing more frustaating then putting 2-3 round from a light machine gun into a guy, and see him not only survive that but get the tiniest feathe touch of a knife hit on you and you’re dead. Grrr. That is actually #1 reason I play Hardcore wherever possible.

• the Lobby system in MW2 is terrible. What was so wrong with the systems used in earlier incarnations of the game? It didn’t cost you anything becasue the servers were all hosted by interested gamers or clans so why switch?