'Cheating' in shooters; that isn't cheating.

[gremcint]

I don't play multiplayer very much, I've really only done smash bros with others regularly and there's a spoken agreement that there is not such thing as a cheap shot.

Goldeneye is another one, we have to play with rules, the one time we didn't the guy who owns the game would shoot someone then run to the next spawn point and shoot them again as they spawned and then kept doing that giving me like no time to play. It was brutal what he could do.

This discussion really reminds me of the amazing race when they would use the things that let you delay the other teams, completely within the rules and everybody knows this is available and the others would call them cheaters.

[KabeRinnaul]

I actually agree- but what I was referring to is when it's clear that either one player, or an entire team, is good enough that it renders it less a game and more a slaughter. If that is happening, it's probably time to find new opponents- though it is not cheating.

Or "playing TF2 on public servers", for short.

About 90% of games are your team running into an endless meat-grinder, or your team utterly steamrolling the opposition.

The other 10% have an enjoyable back-and-forth and last more than 3-5 minutes.

[Rapscallion]

The other 10% have an enjoyable back-and-forth and last more than 3-5 minutes.

That's what she said.

Sorry. The doctor told me to take fewer straight lines, but I couldn't resist...

Rapscallion

[lordlundar]

That's what she said.

Sorry. The doctor told me to take fewer straight lines, but I couldn't resist...

Rapscallion

Well your doctor said straight lines, not straight shots.

I actually agree- but what I was referring to is when it's clear that either one player, or an entire team, is good enough that it renders it less a game and more a slaughter. If that is happening, it's probably time to find new opponents- though it is not cheating.

Now this one takes me back to a CS 1.6 match I was in. I was the only one on my team to get any kills on one match. Why? The ENTIRE enemy team went into a single choke point (on a map with no less than three paths to add) that I was waiting at and had no concept of tactical awareness. 30 seconds into the match and it was over and most of that time was getting into position and waiting.

And just for the record, this was not an AI I was up against. I would like to think that even the AI was better programmed than THAT.

[TheHuckster]

And just for the record, this was not an AI I was up against. I would like to think that even the AI was better programmed than THAT.

Half-Life AI had some flaws in it, though. Usually it was the opposite, where they'll have like 10 enemies, but they'll go around a corner one by one, making it far easier to take care of them individually instead of if they had gone as a group.

But, yes, these kinds of things were why I enjoyed more formal tournament style of play where people actually worked as a team rather than just joining a random server and having a free-for-all where nobody really had a plan.

[Seshat]

One IT place my husband worked at (programming company) had a Friday Night LAN party every week. Friends and family were welcome, especially ones who were good sports about both winning and losing.

They had the LAN anyway, for the business. It cost them nothing to host a counterstrike server that was locked behind the firewall, everyone enjoyed them/ourselves, and it was hella good for company morale.
Besides, the owners played too.

We all learned who was good (and bad) at what. That's where I learned I make a good sniper, btw: or at least, where I learned that I had the potential for it. I can also do point/scout, and team medic. Sniper is just my best.


You'd hear shouts across the office. 'Seshat, you bitch! I was just about to shoot you!' 'I know.' 'Well, nice shot. But I'll get you next time.' 'Maybe!'

All friendly, even the obscenities. And when someone was developing a pattern of behaviour that was a weakness, like always taking the same path somewhere, we'd help each other with it.

Basically, we tried to ensure that everyone had a base level of skill that made it a challenge, not a slaughter; even though some of us were much better than that base level. (not me, though. I was base level at the time.)

[siead_lietrathua]

i was talking to hubs about this, and he says odds are it's the competitive gaming method (win at any cost) VS the casual gaming method. he can't stand casual gaming, because he doesn't like putting limits on himself beyond the game mechanics. in competitive gaming, spawn camping is a legit tactic and actually hard to do, because you're competing with others of the same skill set.
however, he also knows that there are 'scrubs' that intentionally play below their skill level to get the cheap win. and he says if you want to get rid of scrubs, just laugh at them for playing below their level. stuff akin to "awe look, he can't compete with the higher levels so he picks on the casuals to feel like he has a big dick". his explanation is that embarrassment has always been used as an effective tactic for correction in gaming etiquette. lol.
so, when a round starts, everyone kick into spectator mode and just mock the scrub. they'll either leave the server of boredom, or be embarrassed into playing properly.

[D_Yeti_Esquire]

Or "playing TF2 on public servers", for short.

About 90% of games are your team running into an endless meat-grinder, or your team utterly steamrolling the opposition.

The other 10% have an enjoyable back-and-forth and last more than 3-5 minutes.

This is probably a team-balancing oversight. Really, a server could easily run player and objective stats and compile something akin to a win contribution percentage against average that not only took into account kill ratios but also objective touch/proximity stats (since there are different types of good team players) and aggressively rebalance the skill every round.

I'm shocked they don't for public since it's really only private where people know enough about everyone else to know how to balance correctly. I know they have autobalance, but it really does reflect what you're suggesting. The algorithm is too dumb.

[s_stabeler]

it's because they always act on the assumption that both teams are random- that is, that a group hasn't decided to join a server together. Unfortunately, it never works that way.

considering the fact that I'm currently learning programming though, I can guess why. To just compare team numbers, it's a relatively easy piece of programming. ( the actual comparison is one line) while if you want to add different factors, you need extra programming to account for such, which is far more complicated. Bear in mind that computers CANNOT make value judgements- thye can compare two numbers, and get the difference. You would need to code comparisons for each separate stat, then code to handle working out what each different combination of stats means. THEN you need code to work out what a "fair" balance of stats is... then you have to listen to player complaints because their clan is never all on the same team.

basically, it can probably be done, but the coding would be tricky at best- and considering how balancing different weapons still seems to be something of a black art to game developers... ( there's always ONE weapon that ends up overpowered compared to others- and I don't mean "difficult to beat I mean "if you know how to use it, it's physically impossible to beat you even with weapons that are supposed to counter it")

[Fire_on_High]

I don't play multiplayer very much, I've really only done smash bros with others regularly and there's a spoken agreement that there is not such thing as a cheap shot.

Two words for you my friend: "Ledge hogging". And then there's that shelter on Brinstar during the lava....

I used to play UT, even designed maps for it for a while. Sniping was my method of choice. Same in Borderlands and BL2....I'm the one bringing the pain from max range. Cheap? Maybe, but oh well.

[Gravekeeper]

This is probably a team-balancing oversight. Really, a server could easily run player and objective stats and compile something akin to a win contribution percentage against average that not only took into account kill ratios but also objective touch/proximity stats (since there are different types of good team players) and aggressively rebalance the skill every round.

I'm shocked they don't for public since it's really only private where people know enough about everyone else to know how to balance correctly. I know they have autobalance, but it really does reflect what you're suggesting. The algorithm is too dumb.

Well, the thing with TF2, CS, etc is that the majority of servers are run by players. So that's asking a lot of someone running a server as a hobby. Now, there are servers that do run pretty complex stat tracking packages with web integration. But these servers tend to form their own communities and as such end up pretty balanced. Its the servers with no oversight or community where its just a crap fest.

Forcing absolute fairness doesn't tend to work out very well though. A team that is playing well probably has a few people on it who are coordinating or otherwise know each other. Who will be upset if they get switched away from the friends they want to play with. But again, the onus here is on the server moderation and community. If the server has a community, the community has a vested interest in playing for their current team and in keeping the game fun. Thus making them more likely to correct dickish behaviour like team stacking to begin with.

That said, TF2 is designed so that anyone of any skill level can be an effective team member. If one team is being UTTERLY rolled it tends to functionally be a matter of selfishness ( The team has 6 Snipers/Spies who won't play any other class ) and team class composition as a result. Major team imbalances in TF2 tend to stem from people who are playing Me Fortress 2 instead of TEAM Fortress 2. >.>

CS is a different beast entirely though. That game is set up so one player can dominate an entire server mercilessly and given that the CS community is so rife with cheating its not funny; I gave up on CS years and years ago. Use to love it in the beta days. But it really went to shit after it became an official title, got dumbed down and starting attracting more asshats.

I am enjoying the huge banhammer swathes that Valve has rocked through the CS:GO world lately though. Even if it is amazingly sad seeing how many pro CS players were actually cheaters.

[KabeRinnaul]

Major team imbalances in TF2 tend to stem from people who are playing Me Fortress 2 instead of TEAM Fortress 2.

In my experience playing public servers, it's more often due to one or two extremely good players who shift the balance heavily in favor of one team.

I pretty regularly see one Scout or Soldier who with 120+ points and a killstreak of 20 when the rest of the players are sitting at around 30-40 points at best and nobody else even has a killstreak weapon.

Except you can't really do much about that unless you set up servers to direct players to specific matchups based on their accumulated points/playtime/etc.

[lordlundar]

Two words for you my friend: "Ledge hogging". And then there's that shelter on Brinstar during the lava....

Ledge hogging I'll give you, but the idea behind the shelter is to say "MY TURF! GET OUT!" so I contest it's a cheap shot.

[KabeRinnaul]

In my experience playing public servers, it's more often due to one or two extremely good players who shift the balance heavily in favor of one team.

So, bit of thread necro, but I picked TF2 up again after taking a break from it, and remembered this. So I went through my end-of-round screenshots, and these are the kind of things I'm talking about:

More in the album (including one where I'm one of those guys), but those are the most egregious examples.

[RayvenQ]

Usually whenever someone calls people out for Camping (as long as it's not Cheap spawn camping) I usually retort with "Camping is a completely valid tactic, they did it all the time in WW1."

But then again, Sniping usually doesn't bother me because I'll either be counter sniping, going after enemy snipers to either take them out or tie them up so they're focused on trying to get me instead of my teammates, or I'll sniper hunt, which is similar, but much more close and personal. When I snipe and I'm not counter sniper, I'll play it smarter than most other people sniping, (depending on which game it is) moving back and forth between various good perches or I'll stay in one spot long enough for people to realise where I am and try to get me, then move to another position that overwatches the position I just vacated and then snipe them as they think they're closing in.

When I'm not sniping however, I tend to act as a breaker, where I just charge the enemy, I attack, attack, attack, without pause or hesitation until I am dead, forcing the enemy team to focus their attention on me, so that my teammates can roll up and get them while they're distracted. while it does mean I die a lot in games, but my team usually wins.

This works in games where you aren't expected to charge, say for instance, World Of Tanks, and is ruthlessly effective, like one time I just straight out charged and broke through the enemy lines in a Tiger (generally not a tank that charges in that game) and it put the enemy on the back foot so much that not only did I get a few kills and almost half the enemy team got wiped out as soon as I did it, but I almost won the entire game by capturing the point.

In WoT Especially, I'm not above sacrificing myself to protect a teammate, see, one of the guys I play with, is phenomenally good, so I often roll up as his meatshield, in situations where he's in trouble and take the hits and death for him, because I know, objectively speaking, he's more valuable alive to the team than I am.