Competitive Multiplayer Choices That you don't Respect

[ObsidianJones_v1legacy]

I've always love Fighting Games, so it goes without explanation that I love fighting against a human opponent. I like to test my skills against them, and see what skills they have.

But you always come across that one person who always picks the cheap stuff. The One Shot Cannon, The Broken Character, The stage that they know they can exploit the most. So, I'm asking you what are some of the choices that a competitive player makes which causes you to lose respect for them instantly.

In Ultimate Marvel Vs Capcom 3, it seems like Balance was never apart of the game design from the beginning, and I get that. Some things are questionable to me (Like Why isn't Spiderman top tier given that his power set puts him light years above some of the Top tier cannon power sets, like Wesker and Spencer), but I know what I'm getting if I play a match.

However... I will never respect Zero May Cry players. Zero May Cry is a name of a team, which is Dante from Devil May Cry (with some of the best assists for locking the other player down), Vergil (who is a bit broken) and Zero, widely accepted as the most broken character in the game due to his giant hit boxes for attacks and infinite loops. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wwXDw0IrvwQ is an example of a typical Zero May Cry match up

I find nothing high level about taking the most broken characters in the game and treating yourself like you're an elite player. Due that shit with Hsein-Ko, and then we'll talk. A lot of people say 'Learn to play' when you get bodied by the team, as a long time fighting game player I get the response. But picking nothing but high tier makes me feel like you can't play, only exploit. So I will always hate on a Zero May Cry choice.

What are some of the choices in Multiplayer that when selected, you just lose all respect for that player?

 

[BQE]

I don't like anything that prevents the opponent from even having the opportunity to react. I've seen combos in Magic: The Gatering, YuGiOh, PoxNora and various other competitive games that just completely lock out an opponent. While it may a strategy, I believe it's one that detracts from the game and entertainment it's supposed to provide. What was supposed to be a contest is one no longer, and you're effectively just running through a checklist.

Also I don't like people that bandwagon onto whatever they research to be the most powerful strategy or figure out what the top competitive players are doing and just mimic it. I've seen that aspect in DotA, LoL, HoN, Warhammer 40K tabletop, as well as Magic too.

 

[themind]

Going with the OP's fighting game example, I hate it when someone is only good with one character, and chooses three of the game guy in games where that is allowed. The example that comes to mind is MK3, where someone would choose 3 Cyrax's and throw the net at you over and over and over again, or 3 Noob Saibot's and continually alternate between the shadow run and the teleport uppercut. Now it is possible to defeat 3 of any enemy, but it shows a complete lack of skill or gamesmanship to get good with one guy and win based solely on one moveset.

 

[Terminate421]

I don't like anything that prevents the opponent from even having the opportunity to react. I've seen combos in Magic: The Gatering, YuGiOh, PoxNora and various other competitive games that just completely lock out an opponent. While it may a strategy, I believe it's one that detracts from the game and entertainment it's supposed to provide. What was supposed to be a contest is one no longer, and you're effectively just running through a checklist.

Also I don't like people that bandwagon onto whatever they research to be the most powerful strategy or figure out what the top competitive players are doing and just mimic it. I've seen that aspect in DotA, LoL, HoN, Warhammer 40K tabletop, as well as Magic too.

Pokemon has yet to end up like this. I hope it stays this way.

Though there are tiers and such to "guide" people into making good teams. I usually catch them off Guard.

One Scolipede with Jolly Nature and a Swords Dance and Life orb on my side

One Latios, Landorus, and Ferrothorn later, he took my scolipede down.

I did a completely basic sweep set up and facerolled him. It's up to being unpredictable to change up the game.

 

[BQE]

I don't like anything that prevents the opponent from even having the opportunity to react. I've seen combos in Magic: The Gatering, YuGiOh, PoxNora and various other competitive games that just completely lock out an opponent. While it may a strategy, I believe it's one that detracts from the game and entertainment it's supposed to provide. What was supposed to be a contest is one no longer, and you're effectively just running through a checklist.

Also I don't like people that bandwagon onto whatever they research to be the most powerful strategy or figure out what the top competitive players are doing and just mimic it. I've seen that aspect in DotA, LoL, HoN, Warhammer 40K tabletop, as well as Magic too.

Pokemon has yet to end up like this. I hope it stays this way.

Though there are tiers and such to "guide" people into making good teams. I usually catch them off Guard.

One Scolipede with Jolly Nature and a Swords Dance and Life orb on my side

One Latios, Landorus, and Ferrothorn later, he took my scolipede down.

I did a completely basic sweep set up and facerolled him. It's up to being unpredictable to change up the game.

The words you said....make absolutely no sense to me. Right when you started talking about Jolly Ranchers and Swords Pants I was completely bewildered.

 

[Terminate421]

I don't like anything that prevents the opponent from even having the opportunity to react. I've seen combos in Magic: The Gatering, YuGiOh, PoxNora and various other competitive games that just completely lock out an opponent. While it may a strategy, I believe it's one that detracts from the game and entertainment it's supposed to provide. What was supposed to be a contest is one no longer, and you're effectively just running through a checklist.

Also I don't like people that bandwagon onto whatever they research to be the most powerful strategy or figure out what the top competitive players are doing and just mimic it. I've seen that aspect in DotA, LoL, HoN, Warhammer 40K tabletop, as well as Magic too.

Pokemon has yet to end up like this. I hope it stays this way.

Though there are tiers and such to "guide" people into making good teams. I usually catch them off Guard.

One Scolipede with Jolly Nature and a Swords Dance and Life orb on my side

One Latios, Landorus, and Ferrothorn later, he took my scolipede down.

I did a completely basic sweep set up and facerolled him. It's up to being unpredictable to change up the game.

The words you said....make absolutely no sense to me. Right when you started talking about Jolly Ranchers and Swords Pants I was completely bewildered.

These little factors can completely alter how you use a pokemon, I'll do my best in engrish:

Jolly Nature: Raises Speed by 10%, lowers Special attack by 10%
Swords Dance: Attack that raises my attack by two stages
Life Orb: increases power of attacks by x1.3, at the cost of 1/16 of my pokemon's health for each move used.

Summary: I buffed up my scolipede to make it hit REALLY HARD and REALLY FAST

Scolipede is fast on his own, but without the boosts to attack power, he's kinda lacking in power.

 

[Username Redacted]

I play a lot of fighting games and from a player choice perspective, as long as the same choice my opponent has made is also available to me, it takes a lot to get me out of the #dealwithit camp but there is one thing that comes to mind that does so and that's stage selection. Most games allow for stage selection (rather than automatically and randomly selecting a stage) and in games where stage selection doesn't (really) matter I find it highly irritating if a person picks a stage where the costume colors for their character(s) blend into the background (UMvC3, SFIV and KoFXIII are all guilty of this to some degree). For games where the are environmental effects (see also: most 3D fighting games + Injustice: Gods Among Us) picking a stage that can highly skew a match-up can also be irritating (Injustice kind of solves this by making the stage selection a coin flip).

 

[G-Force]

However... I will never respect Zero May Cry players. Zero May Cry is a name of a team, which is Dante from Devil May Cry (with some of the best assists for locking the other player down), Vergil (who is a bit broken) and Zero, widely accepted as the most broken character in the game due to his giant hit boxes for attacks and infinite loops. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wwXDw0IrvwQ is an example of a typical Zero May Cry match up

I find nothing high level about taking the most broken characters in the game and treating yourself like you're an elite player. Due that shit with Hsein-Ko, and then we'll talk. A lot of people say 'Learn to play' when you get bodied by the team, as a long time fighting game player I get the response. But picking nothing but high tier makes me feel like you can't play, only exploit. So I will always hate on a Zero May Cry choice.

If Zero May Cry is so broken, how come high level tournaments do not feature that team in the top stats?

To answer your question, multiplayer choices I don't like are players who choose to say something is broken and leave the issue at that instead of adapting and overcoming the challenge. People who kick and scream about stuff being broken before its tested on high level play. The thing about Marvel is that EVERYONE is broken and its not about exploiting a system and character set but more about the mentality. Your average Zero May Cry player will get DESTROYED in upper echelon matches because really good players have seen these tactics over and over again that they know the counters

 

[Vegosiux]

The choice to participate.


OK, more seriously now. The choice to be a dick about it, basically. The choice to go out of your way to ruin the game for other people. The choice to go all munchkin in a quick friendly.

 

[ObsidianJones_v1legacy]

However... I will never respect Zero May Cry players. Zero May Cry is a name of a team, which is Dante from Devil May Cry (with some of the best assists for locking the other player down), Vergil (who is a bit broken) and Zero, widely accepted as the most broken character in the game due to his giant hit boxes for attacks and infinite loops. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wwXDw0IrvwQ is an example of a typical Zero May Cry match up

I find nothing high level about taking the most broken characters in the game and treating yourself like you're an elite player. Due that shit with Hsein-Ko, and then we'll talk. A lot of people say 'Learn to play' when you get bodied by the team, as a long time fighting game player I get the response. But picking nothing but high tier makes me feel like you can't play, only exploit. So I will always hate on a Zero May Cry choice.

If Zero May Cry is so broken, how come high level tournaments do not feature that team in the top stats?

To answer your question, multiplayer choices I don't like are players who choose to say something is broken and leave the issue at that instead of adapting and overcoming the challenge. People who kick and scream about stuff being broken before its tested on high level play. The thing about Marvel is that EVERYONE is broken and its not about exploiting a system and character set but more about the mentality. Your average Zero May Cry player will get DESTROYED in upper echelon matches because really good players have seen these tactics over and over again that they know the counters

Listings really don't mean a thing given that people don't find exploits early enough, or they don't pay attention to a certain thing. I mean, Cyborg in Injustice (before the patch) was considered the only S ranked character because of his fireball lockdown ability. Didn't matter because no one used him.

Now, if you read my post I completely said in the beginning that nothing about Marvel was made on the terms of balance. It's something I enjoyed about the game actually. Even in the selection of my post, I even mentioned that as a fighting game player, I get the 'learn to play' response when anyone does cry broken. Anyone is beatable. Things I've all said.

However, it doesn't stop me from losing respect for a Zero May Cry Player, because they all play the exact same way. I feel the same thing for a Doom player, because I know they saw MarlinPie or Chris G show how powerful Hidden Missles or Foot Dive was and they decided they needed the exploit. Morgdoom (again Chris G) Soul fist lock down made everyone go get a pocket Morg.

Again, you find the problem and you get it. If that means burning your X factor after a Meaty to take the Soul Fist Parade out, do it. Then rely on raw skill. Fine. Man up and do what you got to do. That's what the game is about.

But I still lost respect for that Player. Why? Because everyone picks up what's considered Top Tier. tourneys have so little variety to them nowadays. Justin Wong plays the only Storm I see nowadays. Every now and again I see a C.Viper, but mainly only due to MarlinPie.

But if you're going to watch a Tourney, you're mainly going to see a Wesker, Morg, Definitely Doom, Mag, and a Vergil. It's made the tourney scene boring. There are plenty other of characters, but people find the most exploits with the guys I just listed so people stay on them. Of COURSE it's easy to break these characters. you see them all the time. It ruins the damn competitve nature if all you have to do is counterpick.

It's like "I just want to be considered Elite and get a good score!" move. I honestly can't say for everyone who Picks Zero May Cry or MorgDoom. Maybe they really like the characters. But I came across enough butthurt people on live who claim I cheated because being a Zero May Cry must have took some type of cheat as it's a Top Tier team. People. Get. Mad. That. You. Beat. Their. Team. Because. They. Thought. It. Was. Unbeatable. Where should respect be in that?

Variety of the Spice of Life. And if I have to play another Zero May Cry player because they saw they could be easily exploited and just want to win, it bores me. Another person who picks MorgDoom for the Soul Fist Parade, I know what I got to do and I'll do it. But I'm frankly tired of having to do the same thing every game because people pick what's considered "OP" or God-like on the streets now.

 

[krazykidd]

However... I will never respect Zero May Cry players. Zero May Cry is a name of a team, which is Dante from Devil May Cry (with some of the best assists for locking the other player down), Vergil (who is a bit broken) and Zero, widely accepted as the most broken character in the game due to his giant hit boxes for attacks and infinite loops. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wwXDw0IrvwQ is an example of a typical Zero May Cry match up

I find nothing high level about taking the most broken characters in the game and treating yourself like you're an elite player. Due that shit with Hsein-Ko, and then we'll talk. A lot of people say 'Learn to play' when you get bodied by the team, as a long time fighting game player I get the response. But picking nothing but high tier makes me feel like you can't play, only exploit. So I will always hate on a Zero May Cry choice.

If Zero May Cry is so broken, how come high level tournaments do not feature that team in the top stats?

To answer your question, multiplayer choices I don't like are players who choose to say something is broken and leave the issue at that instead of adapting and overcoming the challenge. People who kick and scream about stuff being broken before its tested on high level play. The thing about Marvel is that EVERYONE is broken and its not about exploiting a system and character set but more about the mentality. Your average Zero May Cry player will get DESTROYED in upper echelon matches because really good players have seen these tactics over and over again that they know the counters

Listings really don't mean a thing given that people don't find exploits early enough, or they don't pay attention to a certain thing. I mean, Cyborg in Injustice (before the patch) was considered the only S ranked character because of his fireball lockdown ability. Didn't matter because no one used him.

Now, if you read my post I completely said in the beginning that nothing about Marvel was made on the terms of balance. It's something I enjoyed about the game actually. Even in the selection of my post, I even mentioned that as a fighting game player, I get the 'learn to play' response when anyone does cry broken. Anyone is beatable. Things I've all said.

However, it doesn't stop me from losing respect for a Zero May Cry Player, because they all play the exact same way. I feel the same thing for a Doom player, because I know they saw MarlinPie or Chris G show how powerful Hidden Missles or Foot Dive was and they decided they needed the exploit. Morgdoom (again Chris G) Soul fist lock down made everyone go get a pocket Morg.

Again, you find the problem and you get it. If that means burning your X factor after a Meaty to take the Soul Fist Parade out, do it. Then rely on raw skill. Fine. Man up and do what you got to do. That's what the game is about.

But I still lost respect for that Player. Why? Because everyone picks up what's considered Top Tier. tourneys have so little variety to them nowadays. Justin Wong plays the only Storm I see nowadays. Every now and again I see a C.Viper, but mainly only due to MarlinPie.

But if you're going to watch a Tourney, you're mainly going to see a Wesker, Morg, Definitely Doom, Mag, and a Vergil. It's made the tourney scene boring. There are plenty other of characters, but people find the most exploits with the guys I just listed so people stay on them. Of COURSE it's easy to break these characters. you see them all the time. It ruins the damn competitve nature if all you have to do is counterpick.

It's like "I just want to be considered Elite and get a good score!" move. I honestly can't say for everyone who Picks Zero May Cry or MorgDoom. Maybe they really like the characters. But I came across enough butthurt people on live who claim I cheated because being a Zero May Cry must have took some type of cheat as it's a Top Tier team. People. Get. Mad. That. You. Beat. Their. Team. Because. They. Thought. It. Was. Unbeatable. Where should respect be in that?

Variety of the Spice of Life. And if I have to play another Zero May Cry player because they saw they could be easily exploited and just want to win, it bores me. Another person who picks MorgDoom for the Soul Fist Parade, I know what I got to do and I'll do it. But I'm frankly tired of having to do the same thing every game because people pick what's considered "OP" or God-like on the streets now.

I disagree . Tournament play is for top players . There are a couple of Profession fighting game players and they all you different characters . The copycats you see are all randomers .

Chris G ( morrigan / doom / virgil )
Combofiend ( nova or she hulk / spencer / strange )
Fchamp ( magneto / doom / phoenix or dormammu )
Jwong ( wolverine / storm / akuma )
Marlin pie ( viper / doom / ammy )
Infrit ( nova / doom / strider )
Kanebluriver ( hulk/haggar/ sentinel?)

Etc...etc... These are the guys that are proffesionals , and they use different teams . Everyone else copies what THEY do .

OT: i too play a lot of marvel , and lose respect for anyone who taunts/teebags . ( my team is x-23,nova/ strange ).

 

[The Wykydtron]

However... I will never respect Zero May Cry players. Zero May Cry is a name of a team, which is Dante from Devil May Cry (with some of the best assists for locking the other player down), Vergil (who is a bit broken) and Zero, widely accepted as the most broken character in the game due to his giant hit boxes for attacks and infinite loops. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wwXDw0IrvwQ is an example of a typical Zero May Cry match up

I find nothing high level about taking the most broken characters in the game and treating yourself like you're an elite player. Due that shit with Hsein-Ko, and then we'll talk. A lot of people say 'Learn to play' when you get bodied by the team, as a long time fighting game player I get the response. But picking nothing but high tier makes me feel like you can't play, only exploit. So I will always hate on a Zero May Cry choice.

If Zero May Cry is so broken, how come high level tournaments do not feature that team in the top stats?

To answer your question, multiplayer choices I don't like are players who choose to say something is broken and leave the issue at that instead of adapting and overcoming the challenge. People who kick and scream about stuff being broken before its tested on high level play. The thing about Marvel is that EVERYONE is broken and its not about exploiting a system and character set but more about the mentality. Your average Zero May Cry player will get DESTROYED in upper echelon matches because really good players have seen these tactics over and over again that they know the counters

Actually I would say that's half of what UMVC3 is about. Which assists compliment which characters to make them even more Broken Tier.

Does the name ChrisG mean anything to you? MorriDoom is actually unbeatable, unless he lost the last EVO I didn't watch it yet, he wins every tournament ever because if you can play the team well it's near impossible to deal with.

OT: I'm going to skip over taunters because the last time I went into that I got a warning for expressing my feelings slightly too hard man! WHY DOES THE MAN KEEP US DOWN?!

So i'm going to say people who pick Mitsuru in P4A! Woooo! Bullshit range on her normals and specials! You think you're out of range of Mitsuru? NOPE! Think again!

She can literally lock you in the corner and a lot of the GTFO moves in the game will whiff because she's making you block from so far away you just miss entirely.

"Hi, welcome to this week's Champion Spotlight, featuring Mitsuru Kirijo, The Blind Monk. She excels at everything."

 

[CrazyCapnMorgan]

I think my example would have to be the StarCraft 2 Mothership. Especially in Heart of the Swarm. (After proof reading, I realized this thread is about player choice rather than design choice, but I feel this falls under the lack of player choice by design choice.)

Every unit in the game has its place and is completely viable at some point in the game. All, sadly, except for the Protoss Mothership. Granted, the Mothership Core was a nice addition for Protoss early game, but at no point in StarCraft 2 will the Mothership EVER be viable. With Vortex gone, and along with it the Archon and Storm toilets, the Mothership serves as little more than a mobile cloaking field; which is rendered useless by detectors whose cost is anywhere from 50 energy to 2 army supply to 150 minerals and 50 gas depending on the race you play, compared to that of the Mothership's 8 army supply and 400 mineral and gas cost.

I really wish the team at Blizz could re-vamp the Mothership to be a viable late game support unit, like the Mothership Core is early game. And before anyone accuses me of racial bias in SC2, I main Terran and even I believe Protoss could use a little lovin' towards the Mama Ship. Now thinking about it, I'm half tempted to use the editor myself and see if I can conjure up a version of the Mama Ship that every Protoss would like.

 

[LAGG]

I play the game for what it is. Some stuff I know the opponent wouldn't be able to do without said choice, but those are the rules of the game. Except when it's about exploiting conditions that shouldn't be part of the game.

Being a Counter-Strike rifler it's very common to face snipers and run-and-gun SMGs, but that doesn't make me mad unless the server is bad making my bullets not register well or the player I'm against has his rates screwed making him lag around teleporting on my screen, because under those circunstances his sniper/smg/shotgun of choice becomes overpowered by external effects (bad network performance). That drives me mad.

Appart from that:


Also, this is relevant to the OP:

http://www.sirlin.net/ptw-book/intermediates-guide.html

 

[ObsidianJones_v1legacy]

I disagree . Tournament play is for top players . There are a couple of Profession fighting game players and they all you different characters . The copycats you see are all randomers .

Chris G ( morrigan / doom / virgil )
Combofiend ( nova or she hulk / spencer / strange )
Fchamp ( magneto / doom / phoenix or dormammu )
Jwong ( wolverine / storm / akuma )
Marlin pie ( viper / doom / ammy )
Infrit ( nova / doom / strider )
Kanebluriver ( hulk/haggar/ sentinel?)

Etc...etc... These are the guys that are proffesionals , and they use different teams . Everyone else copies what THEY do .

OT: i too play a lot of marvel , and lose respect for anyone who taunts/teebags . ( my team is x-23,nova/ strange ).

I was talking about people copying them. You never see my name in the tournaments, because I'm not in play. I'm talking about going up against the same team again and again because Flocker happened to use Zero May Cry to win Evo. I mentioned Chris G and MarlinPie because I know randomers watch the videos and try to copy their tech instead of trying to find new tech. It stagnates the game's growth in my opinion. Because, like I said, all you have to do is counterpick to break their team, as someone will (and has) come up with tech to defeat the MorgDooms and the Zero May Cry.

 

[Raika]

I find it really difficult to take people seriously when they tell me that they're a "competitive player" of any fighting game that's come out since 2008 or so(with the exception of the newer Tekken games). Street Fighter IV and Marvel vs. Capcom 3 in particular have little to no competitive value since they reward the losing player with overpowered gimmick mechanics. The same holds true for any shooter that's on a console. Yes, dear, I'm sure you do think you're very skilled at this game that aims the guns so you don't have to. That's how the game wants you to feel so you'll give it money.

 

[Shdwrnr]

I'm going to go a bit meta; I really dislike recording kill-death ratios. It seems to be nothing more than a cheap attempt at stroking the ego of established veterans while inadvertently showing late-adopters how bad they are, discouraging them from continuing to try.

ETA: Oh I see we're talking about player choices and not design decisions. Meh

I agree with this. When I was playing HoN, other people making mistakes would make me seethe and rage. The game being a DOTA clone was objectively enjoyable to me, but it made me very very angry while playing it. DOTA2 doesn't record K and I have never had the same kind of anger while playing it. Just the simple act of not recording it makes playing the game less infuriating even when my team is being completely retarded.

 

[Zyst]

I am okay with players using anything they have at their disposal to win against me, I sometimes impose some very slight limits on myself but that's on me, not on them. If they can beat me with cheap stuff I just wasn't good enough.

The only thing I hate in competitive multiplayer is a "Surrender" option. People at the point they make their first surrender vote, whether successful or failed, just give up at that point most of the time. You could still try to fight, to win, but if they surrender mentally that's it. This is mostly in team-based games. In particular I'm thinking of the contrast between LoL and DotA 2. I love both games for different reasons, but I dislike the surrender option in League, players there, after you are at a disadvantage for a while see continuing the game as a "loss of time" because in their mind they might as well surrender now and start another game.

At least this is quite lessened in Ranked play, where players are much more likely to fight until the end, at least in my opinion, which makes the game more interesting.

 

[Benpasko]

I'm going to go a bit meta; I really dislike recording kill-death ratios. It seems to be nothing more than a cheap attempt at stroking the ego of established veterans while inadvertently showing late-adopters how bad they are, discouraging them from continuing to try.

ETA: Oh I see we're talking about player choices and not design decisions. Meh

I agree with this. When I was playing HoN, other people making mistakes would make me seethe and rage. The game being a DOTA clone was objectively enjoyable to me, but it made me very very angry while playing it. DOTA2 doesn't record K and I have never had the same kind of anger while playing it. Just the simple act of not recording it makes playing the game less infuriating even when my team is being completely retarded.

It does record K, there's a scoreboard in-game. Unless you mean profile total, which I don't think it does.

If Zero May Cry is so broken, how come high level tournaments do not feature that team in the top stats?

The guy who won Evo this year ran Zero Virgil Hawkeye. It's not quite Zero May Cry, but pretty damn close.