Originally Posted by decimator
Ha, seems like you took that personally...That's not arrogance. That's just pragmatism. A novice picking the game up for the first time should not be able to consistently kill players of a higher skill level. To give new players a handicap like that does nothing to actually improve their ability at the game because they will not know how to play when they eventually don't have such a handicap.
So now you're comparing this game to real life...a game with booster packs and mechs. Right...
Take it personally? God no.
I don't take anything on a forum personally. I do however, find the thought that "you should dominate because you're pro" to be incredibly elitist.
I absolutely agree. A novice won't be able to wall climb. A novice won't be able to assasinate or shoot while climbing. A novice won't have the knowledge of the map. Within those boundaries, I absolutely agree with you that a skilled player should dominate...My disagreement comes into play when you autmatically assume the average player will gain skill by being dominated.
I watched a pro game of CS last night...HUGE fan of CSS...Average life span was 20s. Please, Decimator, since you're an expert on decimating and domination, explain to me, how 20 seconds is enough to improve on a skill? To learn a skill? To get better? Oh wait, it's not...Because these players are pro.
My point is that you are of the opinion that the average person won't get frustrated, won't rage quit, will accept your dominance when he/she has no window of opportunity through with to learn and/or improve...That opinion no longer fits the genre.
And we'll just agree to disagree on TF2. I've played that game since beta and consider myself a pretty good player. It definitely feels cheap to me when I get a random crit kill or when someone gets a random crit kill on me. Just feels like a crutch to give bad players kills.
So getting a headshot would be a "random crit kill"? Interesting...It's not a crutch and exists in other FPS...FEAR for example, integrated critical hits long before anyone knew that's what they were. ARMA3...
You said the AI will give the losing team a better shot at winning, so you didn't say it outright, but you implied it. Why should the losing team be given some sort of advantage? I would feel like if you're on the losing team, but think of some strategy on your own (without some AI stepping in) that gives you the upper hand and the win, that victory would feel a lot better than some win where the AI helps you out and gets you a "charity" win.
You're taking a simple concept and skewing it well beyond it's reality.
I said the AI would scale in difficulty and gave you an example.
There is no charity win. There are no charity victories.
The AI currently scales to the difficulty of an opponent.
If I'm a pro and you're a noob, should there be a dominance? Sure...A slaughter? No.
I want the opportunity to learn from a better opponent, the honor in fighting a similarly skilled opponent. I want to better myself through that engagement. Not mercilessly slaughter my opponent and Titanfall offers that.
You ultimately control the action of that Titan, if you do something stupid, you suffer the consequences, use that Titan correctly, you gain advantage...The strategic element is still king above all.
I disagree with this. The first 20 hours or so that I played BF3, I was horrible. My K/D was around 0.5 or so. But the more I played, the better I got. I learned from my mistakes and after about 50 hours or so, my K/D was up to around 2. Yeah, maybe some AI could've helped me out and got me a better K/D and more wins sooner, but that takes away from the experience IMO. Getting kills and winning matches now feels more satisfying because I was once the guy getting beat down regularly.
That's interesting because as I take a gander through the BF3 forums, the #1 complaint is hacking and how players can't improve because spawn locations don't allow them too, much less when they do spawn and are killed within 3 steps...
The same is true of COD, the average complaint is that there's such a slant to skill, the game's no longer fair.
I think we just have different viewpoints on the subject that no amount of discussion will reconcile. Not to bring politics into this, but it seems you hold more of a "socialist" view on this where the skilled and unskilled should sort of regress to the middle somewhere. I hold more of a "capitalist" view where the bad players can claw their way up to being good and the good players will consistently win.
Lol. I have absolutely nothing against capitalism, in fact, I'm a capitalist.
What I have against your stance is the lack of dignity and/or honor. When you mercilessly slaughter an opponent repeatedly, you have none.
Would I rather repeatedly slaughter an opponent to the point of where he rage-quits and likely curses the game forever? Or would I rather help that individual learn to play and improve his skill?
Titanfall offers that ability through strategy and an AI.
If you're doing poorly because you're learning and your opponent is slaughtering you to oblivion, it picks up a little bit.
Quite frankly, that's not only inventive, it's damn well brilliant...Because now the guy that WAS getting slaughtered has hope, he has the belief that he can still play you, the pro, at an honorable level so instead of quitting, he now engages you, learns from that experience and builds upon it.
So instead of quitting, that opponent now engages you...Even when he loses the game, he's learned what he can do, what he can't do and has improved on himself rather than being randomly slaughtered by an opponent.
To slaughter someone doesn't take skill. To engage at an even keel, does.