>[Competitive sandbox multiplayer is *very* rarely mentioned on Zig Forums].
>[Is some of the most skillful, persistent-world, socioeconomic, and thus rewarding gaming].
"Multiplayer is More Challenging, Strategic, Intense, and thus Fun"
Jackson Martinez
Joshua Lopez
Get this shit off my board, janny!
Liam Butler
Zig Forums doesn't actually play games. They like weebshit with more cutscenes than gameplay, or repetitive loops.
Jack Morris
I prefer singleplayer games because I don't play games for competition I play them for escapism and making me play against others isn't good for escapism.
Benjamin Lee
That's.. not what was purposed with these boards.
I'm finding that the plausibility of critiquing Zig Forums's tendencies of SP and cinematics (even if a percentage of it is because of a lot of games being simple anyway) is really honest and freedom-directed. Standards of optimizations are really important for happiness and fun.
There maybe aren't extremely perfected SP *or* MP games, and multiplayer designs are a whole further aspect of studios having knowledgeability of what's available and what's fundamental -- but there *are* options for communities such as Zig Forums playing together and having so much fun that it's all they're quite actively entertaining, in the industry, until actually producing games (because of how easy that honestly is: A *very* few sets of individuals is enough for producing various zones; models and animations; and items -- plausibly multiple whole areas per day ..and implementing utility and socioeconomy in another -- which has even "MMOs" at accessibility.).
Joseph Smith
All online competitive shit boils down to speed + knowledge of the game.
Speed is almost entirely determined by your internet connection, and slightly by your reflexes, equipment, game experience.
Knowledge is almost entirely determined by playtime, and only slightly by IQ, maybe outside research.
So it all boils down to people who have sunk more time into the game having better internet connections winning, that's literally it. We can pilpul and argue over anecdotes and experiences, but by a large margin, internet video games are a fucking joke. If you want to compete, go pick up a sport or instrument.
Chase Fisher
>Competitive sandbox multiplayer
What are some good examples of this
Noah Torres
Like what though? I mean balance in a lot of games is shit. MMO genre is piss poor for comp, FPS has gone team based ability moba, moba are full of imba characters, RTS is dead as fuck, even a lot of fighters are broken as hell. So I mean Quake it is?
This is actually decently true. Good equipment can really help, decent net, and most of the rest is just playtime.
There is some skill to games though. But when you get into the higher percentile the margin is so narrow having a shittier mouse can be the difference.
Dominic Anderson
>how quickly you can move your cursor
>how much pf the game systems you know
LITERALLY the entirety of vidya. What the fuck-
>Zig Forums opinion
why do i keep getting tricked into posting by retardation
Robert Allen
>There is some skill to games though. But when you get into the higher percentile the margin is so narrow having a shittier mouse can be the difference.
That's talking about "I'm playing this video game for money" levels, which is still not enough to discount things the other user said like
>Knowledge is almost entirely determined by playtime
Which is the ultimate truth to anything in life, even outside of video games. While it is true that skill can translate between games, like if you're decent at CS:GO you'll probably be decent at Valorant, but it doesn't distract that most "skill" in a game comes from playing the same game for hours on end. The level you're talking about with "if I have a better mouse that will make a difference" will rarely make the difference compared to playtime or connection.
Ryder Clark
If that's all you took away from that post, than you might just be the retard, friend.
Cooper Brown
liero
Ayden Richardson
>which is still not enough to discount things the other user said like
Of course it isn't. I was agreeing with him.
Jack Jenkins
lots of games require quantitative reasoning, IQ definitely can play a part. MOBAs for example require an understanding of what plays are better at what times, which is not just about knowledge but also about the ramifications of that knowledge and its application which is a different skill. Just sayin
Nathan Kelly
All of which can be learned by experience, thus more playtime = more wins. Like user said, higher IQ can help, but with enough playtime even a chimp, or MOBA player, can learn.
Grayson Reed
>speed [seemingly "of the game"] + knowledge of the game
I'm not convinced. Monitor hertz, framerates of settings to components, and gameplay-option "muscle-memory" are beneficial, but real life optimizations are many and deep..
•Fundamental nutrition.
•Cardio.
•Flexibility.
•Strength.
•Further supplements.
•Timing.
..And so many more throughputs are plausible for different playstyles -- gathering; crafting; trading; PvEing; PvPing -- that strategic planning and effection are of both knowledgeability and moment-to-moment cruxes.
Also, niche efficiency is obtainable from those already experienced, so it's not "absolute".
>good
That's an extreme, for me, so there plausibly aren't any, but there are really playable and enjoyable games, much more story-defining and status abundant, amongst sharing and exploration..
Lobby games are out, because they're really bland and repetitive (though CoD: AW has had some of the best, most unique mobility in its subgenre[s]).
ARK is my favorite sandbox as of yet, even if it has *a lot* of problems. It's really conducive to grouping and simple "survival".
Eli Morgan
That doesn't disregard that more time = more success. Even if you try to pick up information like that in stuff like youtube videos you're still using your time to get better.
Isaac Martin
(Skills between multiple games is a conclusion, which.. sorta wasn't what that other user was posting.)
Josiah Collins
But thats wrong. If you're talking things like MMOs.
In nearly all persistent world games there is PvPvE, which creates a fundamental issue, balancing PvE and PvP characters. The issue has never been fixed in any game, because you simply cant. It means that PvPers who are dedicated always win. Additionally in anything with any sandbox mechanics the attacker always has the advantage of both initiative and only losing what they have on them, while the defender has to react and can lose everything they have and then more. i.e. if you're doing PvE or quests in RS in wildy, you can lose a lot more than someone who runs in to the wildy just to kill you.
Its amusing but when you have fair PvP like in Sea of Thieves the PvPers bitch and cry about how they dont have any advantages over others, and demand the devs add in leveling/stats so they can gain an advantage. I honestly dont think if you're the type of person who enjoys attacking and effectively ruining someone elses game that you care about balance or fairness and you're doing it for kicks. If you wanted fair you wouldn't be playing games where you can stack the odds perpetually in your favor.
Oliver Jackson
"I don't believe you." MMOs aren't inherently some character-action gameplay difference from other genres; there are simply more players. (Anything you're on about beyond that, in your first paragraph, is non-obvious.)
>In nearly all persistent world games there is PvPvE, which creates a fundamental issue, balancing PvE and PvP characters. The issue has never been fixed in any game, because you simply cant.
That's neither self-evident, nor proven with your text.
>It means that PvPers who are dedicated always win.
Being a "PvPer" isn't a valid distinction. Real players are, right now, more skillful than AI; and enjoying that while having fairness and confidence is simple.. Only PvEing -- whereof, plausibly soon, remaking games and implementing really intriguing AI is as simple as pushing a few buttons -- is really mediocre.. It's very low..
>the attacker always has the advantage of both initiative and only losing what they have on them
(E.g., equipment..) Metagames aren't necessarily different that this is a problem. (Furthermore, "legitimacy and designs of botting and a real-money-economy" is a figurative example of gameplay options being available -- having items, and only personally getting into favorite archetypes. Accessibility is relevant. Spontaneity is encouraged.)
>PvPers bitch and cry about
Players, especially those that aren't knowledgeable about what's best for gaming, are having been rarely proof of what is or isn't viable or blissful..
--
.."Levels" is another topic.
Landon Bennett
Isaac James
Jonathan Long
Ian Barnes
Evan Butler
Accuracy/muscle memory? Movement? Decision making? Teamwork capabilities?
What an absurd simplification
Camden Baker
Kevin Davis
going to go ona a little rant here and i know no one gives a shit.
you can generate fun out of any scenario in multiplayer settings, this isnt a bad thing. fun is good. but it isnt necesssarily a sign of a good game.
what i mean is that, surely you can relate, for example playing couch co/op or local multiplayer back in the day.
maybe the game you and your homeboy were playing kind of sucked ass, but you still had fun playing against/with him
you maybe even came up with your own little rules to spice things up because youve drained the game of all of its fun and you have to come up with something
maybe youre not allowed certain weapons, or you make the ai a ridiculous difficulty setting.
the point im making is that multiplayer fun isnt actually 100% generated from the game. it comes from the player.
this is why you can technically have fun in multiplaye, but only if youre ignorant to the fact that the game isnt providing any fun.
a bunch of people might be playing a game in a server having a lot of fun shooting the shit, and thats fine and dandy.
what if someone joins the server that is ten times better than everyone else and dominates the server. would they still be having the same fun?
or perhaps you are the dominating force, is it fun to just take out people without any challenge?
fun in a multiplayer setting also based on the relation of skill between the players.
that is why you will have people that suck ass at games, that are shit at the very game they are playing. maybe some arent even into the game. but theyre all having "fun" because theyre on the same level or because its just a social experience for them.
which, again, is fine. but its not a fun game, its a fun experience had with friends.
you cannot argue that going out to a cafe with friends and joking around was a "fun game", now can you?
contd.
Evan Mitchell
You're retarded.
Joshua Murphy
God I feel like I'm having a stroke trying to read this thread
Benjamin Kelly
What is wrong with you
Is this written by a fucked up AI or translator or something
Also persistent world MP like Day Z or Rust is cheap garbage for autists
Colton Wright
That's true of everyone and everything
This thread is retarded
Eli Smith
As you're somewhat referencing, fun in games is still "the responsibility of the studio". Happy players are fun and entertaining..
>[Not an argument].