Reply
Wastelander
Registered: 10/18/2010
Offline
685 posts
 

Re: Wow, told you so...

Nov 26, 2013

Alright...so, the handicap system is a deciding factor for some people when teams are equally matched.  How often do you get matched with an equally skilled team?  If I was to go by my experience, I would say about a quarter of the matches I enter have evenly matched teams (based on actual skill demonstrated in game).

 

Of those 25% of my matches, I can't recall a single instance where I believed the handicap system was the deciding factor (for us or the other team) in who won the match.  It might affect stats a bit but in a close match, your stats are going to take a hit anyway.  And for those whom the handicap system ends up being a deciding factor, how many of those matches do you actually lose?

 

It's clear to me that some people don't like the handicap system because it's perceived as unfair.  On some levels, this is a difficult point to debate because people's expectations of the game vary so widely.  And while “fair” might seem to be an absolute, fair for whom?

 

What isn't clear to me is:

 

  1. Do the majority of anti-handicappers want the system abolished or tweaked?
  2. "Deciding factor" to me, implies a win or a loss.  Is the objection about W/L ratio?...or...
  3. Is it about other stats?
  4. Maybe both?

With respect to:

 

  1. If the handicap system is unfair, then by all means tweak it but I just don't see it being a deciding factor in the games I play - whether I'm the beneficiary or not.  At first glance it does seem unfair that it kicks in relatively early as well as both "punishing" winning players and "rewarding" losing players.  BUT a huge factor for me is the gaming style of those that are vehemently against it and I'm not seeing a clear indication in the posts here on that point.  IF you're playing as a team (no lone wolfs), playing a more tactical, deliberate game (no running and gunning) AND you're still consistently losing, then yeah, you have my sympathy and the system may have to be tweaked but please don't abolish it.  If you're expecting to run roughshod over your opponents for the whole match (ie. playing run and gun), then I honestly believe that gaming style runs contrary to ND's game design as well as the incentives that have been built in and in that case, I think removing (or even just tweaking the handicap system) could fundamentally change the nature of the game.  THAT, I'm very much against.
  2. To some degreee, I addressed this in the previous point but I will add that in the case of two evenly matched teams, wouldn't the outcome of such a match likely be a tossup (with or without the handicap system) anyway?  For those that have an issue with the handicap system, I'm not hearing that you get blown out but that the other team sometimes comes roaring back.  Is this less about winning or losing than about the heartbreak of losing a close match?  And how often in these cases, do you actually lose?  And what is the nature of the loss?
  3. To me, TLOU is intended to be a team oriented game.  If stats are that important to you, then do what you need to do to preserve them.  I'd say I'm a slightly above average player (certainly not great) and if stats were all I cared about, I wouldn't have too much trouble maintaining them.
  4. 'nuff said

It's not my intention to be insulting (or call other players skill into question)...far from it and I apologize profusely if it's coming across that way but I really can't understand how the handicap can be the deciding factor so often as to even warrant this discussion.

 

Message 81 of 99 (188 Views)
Keyblade Wielder
Registered: 07/23/2012
Online
7110 posts
 

Re: Wow, told you so...

Nov 26, 2013

I personally want it tweaked, since I know that handicaps are going nowehre anytime soon, it should be tweaked to where it helps the losing team when they are losing badly, not having a minor hiccup at the start of the battle.

 

In my opinion, a handicap system will be non-existent if the teams are evenly matched; this isn't the case in the last of us.

Oh, I'm just leaving. -Best Uncharted character ever
Message 82 of 99 (183 Views)
Reply
0 Likes
Wastelander
Registered: 10/18/2010
Offline
685 posts
 

Re: Wow, told you so...

Nov 26, 2013

@sanddude20...

 

OK.  Thanks.

Message 83 of 99 (181 Views)
Reply
0 Likes
Wastelander
Registered: 12/28/2011
Offline
738 posts
 

Re: Wow, told you so...

Nov 26, 2013
I want it tweaked.

I'd say we don't really encounter this type of scenario all that often, but when we do, it's infuriating. Worst of it all is having the opposing team throwing a laundry of bombs and you having to hit 2/3 boxes to craft a single bomb.

You can't possibly compete with BS like that.
Message 84 of 99 (154 Views)
Reply
0 Likes
Gaming Beast
Registered: 09/06/2012
Offline
1513 posts
 

Re: Wow, told you so...

[ Edited ]
Nov 26, 2013

Tweaked would help, I agree.
What ends up happening to me nearly every match is I spend my time buying bullets, not getting a single mollie, getting a 2x4 but no binding and two smoke bombs.

I'm just completely tired of the game deciding that being I'm a decent player so I don't get to have any mollie fun, or chosen to have to keep my distance because every one has a shiv bat when I can't get one.
Its not fun and it is driving me away.

 

I absolutely do not see how it is fair for two people to spend the exact same amount of money on a game and then the game decide that this person should get to have a completely different experience just  because one decides to play the game how it was intended.

Also this is why I support the B.S that happened to the U.K version of this game.

 

Treating long time customers with less respect than an pop in and play players like this company does is insulting.

If they feel that welfare is so fair maybe they should take 80% of their profits and give them to struggling game developers.

Or instead of selling guns with pictures of dogs on them to get money from their customers to donate they could just donate it ALL themselves.

 

I DO NOT see how in a post apocalyptic survival game a welfare system even makes sense.

 

I shoot you first, I die= you lag. Vice versa not applicable.
Message 85 of 99 (151 Views)
Uncharted Territory
Registered: 06/21/2013
Offline
1531 posts
 

Re: Wow, told you so...

Nov 26, 2013
@smugglin: It is kindof comical how many good ideas they've shot down because "they don't fit the theme of the game", and yet despite the fact that supplies are supposed to be scarce they're fine with one team being able to craft unlimited items.
Message 86 of 99 (136 Views)
Wastelander
Registered: 10/18/2010
Offline
685 posts
 

Re: Wow, told you so...

Nov 26, 2013

I didn’t use the phrase “they don't fit the theme of the game” and I’m pretty sure no one else did.

 

What I did refer to was the kind of gameplay that I think ND intended when they designed the game the way they did.  I believe that ND intended TLOU to be played at a more deliberate pace and to foster team work over individual accomplishments.  Just because TLOU resembles a traditional shooter on a superficial level doesn’t mean it should be played that way.  The differences are subtle but they do exist and to me they’re both relevant and important to my enjoyment of the game (I don’t know if I’m in the majority but I’m definitely not alone).   It’s regrettable that some people bought the game expecting a traditional shooter (or something akin to it) and are now disappointed but many of us like TLOU the way it is and sincerely don’t see the issue with a handicap system.

 

When I bring up the issue of gameplay, it’s in the larger context of trying to understand or explain why the handicap system is such a big issue for some AND to make those that are against it aware:

 

  • I understand that for some it’s a question of fairness and being able to play the game the way you want.  Please, correct me if I’m wrong on this.
  • Coincidentally, for those that support the handicap system it’s also a question of fairness and playing the game the way we want.

Am I wrong?  It then becomes about fair for whom and in what way the game is played.

 

I know the thread is about the handicap system but to me, the handicap system (and the issues some have with it) fundamentally goes to the nature of the game (it’s design).  ND likes to level the playing field because, right or wrong, it seems they believe this will broaden the appeal of their games.  They are a company in the business to make money and if they’re wrong, they’re toast.  I trust they have some data/evidence for their belief.

 

Much of my argument is predicated on my conclusions of ND’s intentions for TLOU.  If TLOU was a completely different genre of game, would we even be having this debate?  Would anyone expect to play an online racing game as a shooter?  I just have a gut feeling that this talk of changing the handicap system (whether modifying or removing it) would end up being a general trend towards changing TLOU MP into a traditional shooter…if that’s what the majority wants and ND is okay with it, so be it.  I’ll move onto another game secure in the knowledge that I got my money’s worth out of the SP.

Message 87 of 99 (118 Views)
Reply
0 Likes
Keyblade Wielder
Registered: 07/23/2012
Online
7110 posts
 

Re: Wow, told you so...

Nov 26, 2013

handicap system still changes the core of the game as well. If a team of below average players is given 2+ of every item, you can be sure they will use it. Instead of being tactical or slow-paced with emphasis on surviving, which is how many people see this game should be played as, the people will run out like crazy bombarding the enemy with them for a quick 1-3 kills. It usually closes the gap scorewise a bit (and like a few of us mentioned; turns the tide for close games) but otherwise doesn't help casual players too much.

 

Looking at ND's last game, UC3, the handicaps (powerplays) greatly altered the way that game is played as well. It is seen as a fast-paced platforming shooter, yet when MM or DD came on, the game essentially came to a halt sometimes as the current winning team hid.

 

I personally think the material system could use a overhaul; that seems like asking for too much to me, though a tweak to the welfare system is a step in that direction.

 

Teamwork plays a big part yes, but when someone is given practically free armour, and an explosive to kill each of you individually; that is thrown out the window.

 

I personally don't deem it as fairness when I'm getting 4 bindings and nothing else out of supply caches when an enemy who has 2 more deaths than me is getting 1 of everything and 100 parts out of 2 supply caches. Especially since this kind of welfare system affects all players, not just casual, consistently throughout all 3 modes.

 

I get it, I understand, it's there so new players don't get stomped 9/10 of their first matches and to offer the casual players a bit more enjoyment while playing the game. Yet at the expense of those better than them, I think not. Going back to UC3, it at least made sense, still wasn't implemented well, but the fundamentals of a handicap was there, it was only active for a shortwhile, there had to be a certain gap in scores for it to even happen, and the winning team was somewhat able to avoid it. That isn't the case in TLOU though

Oh, I'm just leaving. -Best Uncharted character ever
Message 88 of 99 (114 Views)
Uncharted Territory
Registered: 06/21/2013
Offline
1531 posts
 

Re: Wow, told you so...

Nov 26, 2013
@CaptainProduce: I was refering to Naughty Dog, not to you. They've shot down things like a king of the hill gametype, Uncharted character skins, and infected in the multiplayer because they didn't fit the theme of the multiplayer.
Message 89 of 99 (109 Views)
Reply
0 Likes
Welcoming Committee
Registered: 06/14/2009
Offline
14267 posts
 

Re: Wow, told you so...

Nov 26, 2013

CaptainProduce67 wrote:

Alright...so, the handicap system is a deciding factor for some people when teams are equally matched.  How often do you get matched with an equally skilled team?  If I was to go by my experience, I would say about a quarter of the matches I enter have evenly matched teams (based on actual skill demonstrated in game).

 

Of those 25% of my matches, I can't recall a single instance where I believed the handicap system was the deciding factor (for us or the other team) in who won the match.  It might affect stats a bit but in a close match, your stats are going to take a hit anyway.  And for those whom the handicap system ends up being a deciding factor, how many of those matches do you actually lose?

 

It's clear to me that some people don't like the handicap system because it's perceived as unfair.  On some levels, this is a difficult point to debate because people's expectations of the game vary so widely.  And while “fair” might seem to be an absolute, fair for whom?

 

What isn't clear to me is:

 

  1. Do the majority of anti-handicappers want the system abolished or tweaked?
  2. "Deciding factor" to me, implies a win or a loss.  Is the objection about W/L ratio?...or...
  3. Is it about other stats?
  4. Maybe both?

With respect to:

 

  1. If the handicap system is unfair, then by all means tweak it but I just don't see it being a deciding factor in the games I play - whether I'm the beneficiary or not.  At first glance it does seem unfair that it kicks in relatively early as well as both "punishing" winning players and "rewarding" losing players.  BUT a huge factor for me is the gaming style of those that are vehemently against it and I'm not seeing a clear indication in the posts here on that point.  IF you're playing as a team (no lone wolfs), playing a more tactical, deliberate game (no running and gunning) AND you're still consistently losing, then yeah, you have my sympathy and the system may have to be tweaked but please don't abolish it.  If you're expecting to run roughshod over your opponents for the whole match (ie. playing run and gun), then I honestly believe that gaming style runs contrary to ND's game design as well as the incentives that have been built in and in that case, I think removing (or even just tweaking the handicap system) could fundamentally change the nature of the game.  THAT, I'm very much against.
  2. To some degreee, I addressed this in the previous point but I will add that in the case of two evenly matched teams, wouldn't the outcome of such a match likely be a tossup (with or without the handicap system) anyway?  For those that have an issue with the handicap system, I'm not hearing that you get blown out but that the other team sometimes comes roaring back.  Is this less about winning or losing than about the heartbreak of losing a close match?  And how often in these cases, do you actually lose?  And what is the nature of the loss?
  3. To me, TLOU is intended to be a team oriented game.  If stats are that important to you, then do what you need to do to preserve them.  I'd say I'm a slightly above average player (certainly not great) and if stats were all I cared about, I wouldn't have too much trouble maintaining them.
  4. 'nuff said

It's not my intention to be insulting (or call other players skill into question)...far from it and I apologize profusely if it's coming across that way but I really can't understand how the handicap can be the deciding factor so often as to even warrant this discussion.

 


The problem with equally matched teams does occur.

 

Equally while you may not be losing because of the welfare system, regardless of your wins or losses in matches you are certainly dying because of it.

 

It's unfair based on that principle alone.

 

I'm seeing the argument that the welfare system keeps casuals playing? yep also pushes away higher skilled players from the game making it a n00bfest.

 

No one will take it that seriously as long as it's prohibiting real skilled players from letting their skills do the talking.

 

Lets use Uncharted as an example here. If I die while marked or being handicapped by Double Damage Is that fair? No it's not. It's quite simple that in that situation I'm being screwed.

 

Same applies to any welfare system. if you are receiving even one death from it per match you are being cheated.

 

But sure. lets keep casuals playing and push good players on to other games. the casuals will improve and get sick of the newer n00bs doing what they were once doing and move on too.

 

People seriously cannot be blind enough to see it's a circle that will forever repeat itself. Good players commonly don't like dying in games. I certainly don't. I'll accept it as long as I don't feel cheated by it.



Message 90 of 99 (94 Views)