There was a brief time in the late 90s to early 2000s where you'd just hop into an open server. The lobby would keep the same players as it went round to round and people would just filter in and out as they felt like it. It didn't track scores or stats between games, and there wasn't a leveling or progression system that followed you. You just played through the round as it came. People seemed to care a whole lot less about their record or team--it just seemed like everyone was happy to be able to play online. Maybe it's just because I'm older now and I'm looking back at it with rose tinted glasses, but I wish we could go back to casual modes like that. I don't have the energy or will to deal with people the way it's set up now.
this post was submitted on 15 Jul 2023
124 points (98.4% liked)
Gaming
30579 readers
91 users here now
From video gaming to card games and stuff in between, if it's gaming you can probably discuss it here!
Please Note: Gaming memes are permitted to be posted on Meme Mondays, but will otherwise be removed in an effort to allow other discussions to take place.
See also Gaming's sister community Tabletop Gaming.
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
I was also there but it's not a really good system when scale up. If you are from the same era, and if you did not own a clan server, they can kick you out for whatever reason. (Like killing a mod one too many times.) And for competitive games that really doesn't work well, that's why old server has that after round auto balancing mod, it shuffles player around base on how they performed. A fake way to try balance the team. Ie. I was kinda decent capper for 3wave ctf, grenade rocket jump and all that. So if opponent doesn't have a good sniper or also decent enough capper, I can usually win the game even when our team is a bit short on players. Then when auto balancing come around to balance players, it actually make it less balance.(you also can't dial it too much that you got spawn camped and thus one side of player just quit to find another server.)
And it also not helping if you go to a clan server and the clan all want to stay on the same team. Which often leads to players go in/out frequently.(that's why later on GameSpy can even show match status so you can choose to join or not.)
A well managed server pool and MMR system helps resolve all those issues, and scale up really well.
I was there. I would prefer to go back to that. At least you'd be able to find communities that have the same idea of what makes the game fun. Random matchmaking sucks donkey dick for making friends.
xonotic, sauerbraten, 0ad
I remember those times. They were awful. I had no fun if the people I started the match with weren't the same I ended it with. What was the point? It's not fun if I can't even tell if I'm getting better at the game. I didn't need to be the best Counter-Strike player, but I wanted to play actual Counter-Strike.
However, while this isn't necessarily mutually exclusive, those games that let you run your own servers will actually survive to be seen by future generations, unlike just about every game with matchmaking these days that won't let you run the game in LAN or on a private server. It's possible to have both, but devs don't want to.
There's a customs browser in Halo MCC that is essentially that. There are a lot of fun game modes to be found on there.
Black Ops II had this in 2012. There were still ranked modes in the game, but you could select an option in the multiplayer and it would just auto-sort you into a lobby with an open spot in it. Every time the round would end, it would reset you into a new map and there would be new people there. I always found it way more populated than the ranked modes. You could always get a full lobby at 3 am.
The problem with non balanced lobbies is that they can be completely wrecked by someone who is more skilled.
This is especially true in games like Starcraft where even the tiniest different in skill results in a total face stomp.
This is still an issue with matchmaking systems intended to keep the game balanced in developer controlled servers though, so I don't know what the relevance is.
Smash Bros uses/used "For Fun" and "For Glory", which I thought was pretty cute.
I think there is an issue with saying that ranked is "playing to win" though, since people in non-ranked games are still trying to win. They probably don't want the pressure of ranked, or maybe just don't want to play the meta.
I think there is an issue with saying that ranked is "playing to win" though, since people in non-ranked games are still trying to win
And also people in ranked may still be having fun
I play LeagueOfLegends and play exclusively Normal Draft only. The pressure and toxicity is just to much.
Aside from that, don’t care much about the rank. It’s just more that people expect and force you to play ‘at your best’ and if you don’t. Well expect to be spam pinged, insulted and even trolled because “you died once because you played bad”.
I just wish "gamers" would get less angry, anger management or something.
Something that really doesn’t help is that although I am a gamer, I hear about how toxic many multiplayer environments are, so I never join them. I’ll only play with my real life friends, who aren’t going to call me a racial slur if I make a mistake or am honest-to-goodness bad at the game.
A toxic environment leads to droves of people who won’t tolerate it fleeing. Most people who won’t tolerate toxicity also would not perpetuate a toxic environment themselves—in other words, the toxicity drives out lots of non-toxic people. Now the proportion of toxic to non-toxic people is much more slanted towards the toxic.
I just disable voice chat these days. Makes the game (any game) so much better.
What about the people who play to win for fun
Do you still have fun when you lose?
Yes because I'm not a crybaby.
That statement comes off a bit disingenuous when you qualify like that.
One might get the idea that you're inserting the same toxic behavior we see in competitive games so often into this conversation.
A simple "Yes" would have sufficed and I wouldn't have thought twice about your sincerely on the subject.
Chivalry 2 might be the only PVP game I played where I often still have fun when losing.
Team Fortress 2 and Fall Guys have this quality as well. I wish more games would embrace the goofiness. It's harder to take a match so seriously as to become toxic when the game isn't even taking itself seriously.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Ranked can simply be for fun for lots of people.
I enjoy playing against people with about the same skill level.
On casual/for fun I either get owned or I'm owning.
Honestly for competitive games if you’re not playing to win, just don’t play. What’s even the point?
What counts as a "competitive game" - is it anything where there are winners and losers or something more specific?
Can you think of a game that exists in a gray area? Most games I would consider competitive multiplayer games are pretty obviously so. Maybe something like a BR game where you're expected to not win. Or Elden Ring where the competitive multiplayer aspect is de-emphasized. Do those games even have casual and ranked modes?
Smash Bros? Plenty of people play it as a competitive fighting game while others just like to goof around with their friends.
Funny enough, the two modes for Smash 4 were "for glory" and "for fun"
MTG Arena - there's a regular play queue and a ranked queue, and people definitely play to mess around and try new decks for fun. This of course doesn't cease to induce salt from sweaty gamers in the play queue.
Even ignoring games that you consider "in the gray area," who are you to say someone can't find a way to have fun in a game that doesn't align with your way of having fun? Not everyone is playing the game hoping to land on an esports team.
Edit: I'm mostly referring to casual queues - ranked queues being hyper competitive does make sense. I've just seen the same argument made that casual queues should be the same level of competitive.
I said something similar in another reply, but I can't think of any games where winning/losing is possible but doesn't change my enjoyment. Even elden ring invasions feel better if you win the encounter.
The only thing that could come close is an encounter like that or in something like DMZ where you can talk it out and join forces, but maybe that's just another form of winning.
load more comments
(3 replies)
i think a competitive game would be like CSGO where it's often pretty intense and there's a lot of mechanics to learn and often times your pretty frustrated when you lose as opposed to like call of duty where it doesn't really matter if you win or lose (or didnt in older titles)
Another name for them would be adversarial multiplayer. But, basically yes. Anything where there would be winners and losers is what I would call a competitive game.
Though others narrow it down further to more high skill adversarial games like Quake and Counter-Strike and League of Legends/DOTA for their professional competitive leagues.
Trying to think of an example of any games I play where winning or losing is possible, but doesn't affect my enjoyment.
I'm coming up short, I don't think I can honestly say that I have one. Anyone else?
i think a competitive game would be like CSGO where it's often pretty intense and there's a lot of mechanics to learn and often times your pretty frustrated when you lose as opposed to like call of duty where it doesn't really matter if you win or lose (or didnt in older titles)
There's different levels of playing to win though. I play a lot of R6 Siege. In the evenings I mostly play casual with my friends. I'm either using the random button to pick my operator for variety, or I'm playing all shotguns for a battle pass challenge or I'm trying to find ridiculous places to put a frost mat.
Within that structure I'm trying to win the rounds, but it doesn't matter if we lose. I'm just having fun in a game with my friends.
Didn't Smash basically do this already?
FOR GLORY vs FOR FUN
the glorious feeling of spiking various cute characters into the abyss
Why make it harder to say the same thing?
It actually sounds better yeah.
Don't I know you from somewhere? 🤔
MLG or Childhood Hobby
If it's competitive game you are in there to play for the "win" and fun comes from trying to win for it. ie. if you play a fighting game in none ranked queue to try a new character, you learn nothing while not trying to "win" thus even not-MMR-ranked queue will usually have a hidden one stick to it so you don't play against players that are too good/bad against you. (yeah, I know the practice landing hit-confim or combo/setups against real human player is a thing and not thinking about winning. BUT the end goal is "winning" with your new tool. )
ranked games are the trying to play at higher level mode where you try to push your skill up and thus can play against higher tier players. And to my opinion, it is also fun and why people grind.
There was a brief time in the late 90s to early 2000s where you'd just hop into an open server. The lobby would keep the same players as it went round to round and people would just filter in and out as they felt like it. It didn't track scores or stats between games, and there wasn't a leveling or progression system that followed you. You just played through the round as it came. People seemed to care a whole lot less about their record or team--it just seemed like everyone was happy to be able to play online. Maybe it's just because I'm older now and I'm looking back at it with rose tinted glasses, but I wish we could go back to casual modes like that. I don't have the energy or will to deal with people the way it's set up now.
view more: next ›