Poll: Annoyed much with Left 4 Dead?

[Nox13last]

Eh, your playing on the 360 right? Well I'll try to say this as nicely as possible...the 360 community BLOWS.

I'll say it for you. The 360 community blows BUCKETS OF ASS. Don't sugar-coat around me.

At this point I'm done. If you want to end the argument then fine but if you want to address my other points than go ahead.

...I choose to address your points, but I'll try my damnedest to be level-headed about it. I'd like this to have a peaceful resolution, even if that resolution is only a stalemate.

You could set it up so that some of your friends are on infected while other are on survivors. That way you always have a balance between human players and bots. It would also discourage people from leaving if your friends stay.

A good idea, a sound and logical (even to me) compromise, but it only works on paper. It's also about habit - friends stick together. Especially in the face of the unknown. In this case, it would be random people of whom you have no idea will perform. For example, if they're a godlike team, then I for one would like to 'suffer' with my friends. I'm overreacting, but the idea of having a friend on the team that kicks my ass to be terrifying and insulting. Contrariwise, I may feel guilt for beating the team (because I defeated my friend, who I stick with through and through).

Also the difference between my logic and your logic is that mine doesn't hinder the ability of other players to have fun.

I iterated previously, numerous times, that it doesn't hamper anyone's enjoyment. Please read this carefully and tell me if there's anything you still disagree with (if I don't get it right).

At the end of the day, reputation only exists as a way of refining who you play with. If I were to repute someone badly, it would be because I do not want to play with them again. That is fine, considering the millions of others they could play with. As mydogisblue said (indirectly), not many people care about the reputation system anyway.
It only evaluates someone as a player (and doesn't even do that well, because I have not seen anyone with more than a month's of subscription under his/her belt go below 4.5 stars).
I have a feeling that this argument would not even exist if not even the person feedbacked against can't see their result.
It's not a "steer clear of this guy" signpost (as only YOU can see the specifics of your reputation). It's so you don't have to play with them again if you don't want to. If you both frequent the same game, then you will be pretty likely to meet them again (Burnout Revenge does this to the extreme by actively pointing out when you see an old rival). What the negative reputation does is make it less likely that you see them again. It ruins nobodies' experience of the game.

I find it helpful and informative, because I can reflect on my own negative feedback and improve myself as a social person. That, I feel, is a good system, if not for the aforesaid swaying of the chances.


I have said that. I am exhausted.

 

[L33tsauce_Marty]

Eh, your playing on the 360 right? Well I'll try to say this as nicely as possible...the 360 community BLOWS.

I'll say it for you. The 360 community blows BUCKETS OF ASS. Don't sugar-coat around me.

Yikes, fiesty.

 

[Nox13last]

Yikes, fiesty.

XBoxLive is pretty cheap, in the grand scheme of things. Now you know why.
I'm only there because my PC can't handle mainstream games.

 

[Nox13last]

Post deleted on request of author.

 

[edinflames]

You could set it up so that some of your friends are on infected while other are on survivors. That way you always have a balance between human players and bots. It would also discourage people from leaving if your friends stay.

A good idea, a sound and logical (even to me) compromise, but it only works on paper. It's also about habit - friends stick together. Especially in the face of random people who you have no idea will perform. For example, if they're a godlike team, then I for one would like to 'suffer' with my friends. I'm overreacting, but the idea of having a friend on the team that kicks my ass to be terrifying and insulting. Contrariwise, I may feel guilt for beating the team (because I defeated my friend, of whom I stick to through and through).

Here's a simple solution for you, which will end this problem of filling the server with players: You and your friends choose to play as Survivors for the first round.

It really is that simple, works for me and my friends every time - though you can't guarantee that people won't ragequit after you've won a few rounds.

Unless of course you and your friends are incapable of letting the opposition be Infected first time around...in which case you would be as bad as the people you complain about.

 

[Nox13last]

Oh crap guys, he's typing in caps, he must be pissed.

I save the big guns for just that. I rarely use allcaps for anything else (other than emphasis, where it's just for a couple words).

Here's a simple solution for you, which will end this problem of filling the server with players: You and your friends choose to play as Survivors for the first round.

It really is that simple, works for me and my friends every time - though you can't guarantee that people won't ragequit after you've won a few rounds.

Unless of course you and your friends are incapable of letting the opposition be Infected first time around...in which case you would be as bad as the people you complain about.

No, it's a good idea. We (my group) had not questioned our habits, and we were unbeknownst to this tactic.

If the whole 'taking turns' thing didn't nullify it to begin with, though, then the aforementioned date of the 21[sup]st[/sup] certainly will, for reason I already explained.

(Narcissism deleted)

Sorry.

 

[Lothae]

As I play on a PC, the whole "rating system" is moot .
It also offers an amazing solution to your problem, which you can do on Xbox live with a bit more effort: Every time you play with a good player who you get along with, add them to your friends list. Eventually you'll never have to play with nubs/leavers ever again.
Also, anyone else excited about the new update? Survival mode! ^^

 

[Nox13last]

As I play on a PC, the whole "rating system" is moot .
It also offers an amazing solution to your problem, which you can do on Xbox live with a bit more effort: Every time you play with a good player who you get along with, add them to your friends list. Eventually you'll never have to play with nubs/leavers ever again.
Also, anyone else excited about the new update? Survival mode! ^^

I befriend people I get along with, but the sad thing is is that we rarely play again...
We can use the Friends-Only function like you, but it's hard to enforce when someone like me only has 32 friends on his list (*snigger*), only five of which play Left 4 Dead, only two of which are online at any given time.
Bless the "Press X to invite friend to game" function.

My sister lives at the same house as me and she can pick up Controller 2 to fill a slot. I KNOW she won't leave (because she'll pull me out of the game with her).

As for the new content...

*drool*

New maps... Survival mode... Pouncing around the AIRPORT!

I fail to understand why Death Toll and Dead Air were not included in the Versus. It seems logical (By the gods, I hate that word now) to leave the game until they're included.

I was stoked when I played through Dead Air, and it sucked when I found out that it wasn't Versus-compatible.

 

[runtheplacered]

You could set it up so that some of your friends are on infected while other are on survivors. That way you always have a balance between human players and bots. It would also discourage people from leaving if your friends stay.

A good idea, a sound and logical (even to me) compromise, but it only works on paper. It's also about habit - friends stick together. Especially in the face of random people who you have no idea will perform. For example, if they're a godlike team, then I for one would like to 'suffer' with my friends. I'm overreacting, but the idea of having a friend on the team that kicks my ass to be terrifying and insulting. Contrariwise, I may feel guilt for beating the team (because I defeated my friend, of whom I stick to through and through).

Here's a simple solution for you, which will end this problem of filling the server with players: You and your friends choose to play as Survivors for the first round.

It really is that simple, works for me and my friends every time - though you can't guarantee that people won't ragequit after you've won a few rounds.

Unless of course you and your friends are incapable of letting the opposition be Infected first time around...in which case you would be as bad as the people you complain about.

The other thing, too, to add to that is that sometimes people don't feel like having a match that's PUG Vs. People that know each other. It can be a tad unfair, although not necessarily. But, I know I would personally rather play 4 people that know each other vs 4 people that know each other, or PUG vs. PUG more so then anything else. Sort of like when you're playing Counter-strike and you realize you're on a team that's going against an entire clan. It usually turns into a slaughter.

 

[danosaurus]

Nox, you're about to only person I've heard of that actually gives a crap about the feedback system.

Maybe you should play outside of your circle of friends then?

On second thoughts, don't. Friends are great, if they did half the stuff in this topic (rant notwithstanding), then they wouldn't be friends, then.

Regardless, the system is there and I intend to use it.

We're not the ones ruining many people's fun by giving unbalanced sides, among other things. Who's the selfish ones? Not we.

It's NOT imbalanced sides.

Like I said, if you'd care to open your eyes: it only effects the person receiving it in connection to the person giving it.

IT ONLY MEANS YOU'LL, AND ONLY YOU'LL, BE LESS LIKELY TO PLAY WITH THEM IN FUTURE

THE SOONER YOU TWO GET IT THROUGH YOUR HEADS, THE HAPPIER EVERYONE WILL BE.

LOL I feel sorry for you Noxblast, i followed these comments upto the 3rd page and what you're saying makes complete sense to me.

I've been playing online FPS' on PC from about the time there first started being an Online FPS available and I think the feedback system should be more widely implemented because IT MAKES TOTAL EFFING SENSE.

Honestly guys, if this feature could help match me up with (what I would personally consider) trustworthy opponents and slim the chance of me not having to deal with (what I would consider) serial-bailers then i would TOTALLY utilise it, possibly religiously.
It's a tool designed to help ME as an INDIVIDUAL (I can't stress the individual part enough) play in matches with people that I know are there for the same type of game that I am.

If you don't want to use the feature that's fine but it's there for INDIVIDUALS who prefer not to play with OTHER INDIVIDUALS that they don't consider are the right type of opponent//team-mate that they want to play with.

It's clearly NOT going to kill their chances of playing the game, it's NOT going to hurt their feelings (unless they are irrationally emotional) and it's NOT going to make people throw rocks at them in the street.

If you want to call this self-serving then you're wrong - You are not putting anybody elses interests ahead of your own because IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ANYONE ELSE BUT YOU AND THE PERSON WHO BAILED ON YOUR GAME.
In fact, I'd call it even-grounds because;

A) They've bailed on you during a team-oriented game
B) You've opted not to play with them in a future game if it can be helped.

Equilibrium at it's simplest and starkest.
Deal with it.

End.

 

[Crash486]

I'm annoyed with Left 4 Dead, because microsoft has been holding up the release of the new content patch. I have no idea why valve signed an exclusive contract with microsoft when there user base is emphatically PC based.

I'm also annoyed with the whole lobby system in general. WTF Valve, what's wrong with your server browser... which you've used for every other game you've ever released. I guess they couldn't figure out how to port it over to the xbox effectively.

Basically the 360 has really attached an anchor to L4D, and this annoys me.

 

[Devilpapaya]

I'm annoyed with Left 4 Dead, because microsoft has been holding up the release of the new content patch. I have no idea why valve signed an exclusive contract with microsoft when there user base is emphatically PC based.

I'm also annoyed with the whole lobby system in general. WTF Valve, what's wrong with your server browser... which you've used for every other game you've ever released. I guess they couldn't figure out how to port it over to the xbox effectively.

Basically the 360 has really attached an anchor to L4D, and this annoys me.

Not to be rude, but its nice to see the consoles get the shitty port for once. Normally us PC users get the shaft as they try quickly and cheaply to rework the game just enough to make it function on the PC (i.e. GH3, Saints row 2, Farcry 2, the list goes on).

 

[Crash486]

I'm annoyed with Left 4 Dead, because microsoft has been holding up the release of the new content patch. I have no idea why valve signed an exclusive contract with microsoft when there user base is emphatically PC based.

I'm also annoyed with the whole lobby system in general. WTF Valve, what's wrong with your server browser... which you've used for every other game you've ever released. I guess they couldn't figure out how to port it over to the xbox effectively.

Basically the 360 has really attached an anchor to L4D, and this annoys me.

Not to be rude, but its nice to see the consoles get the shitty port for once. Normally us PC users get the shaft as they try quickly and cheaply to rework the game just enough to make it function on the PC (i.e. GH3, Saints row 2, Farcry 2, the list goes on).

You're not being rude to me... I'm a PC gamer and a long time valve fan. I've only recently become annoyed with them. That being said consoles have tons of shitty PC game ports, such as... any rts that's ever been ported over, unreal tournament, morrowind, halflife, orange box... in fact just about any valve product that's been ported over to a console has been pretty bad.

I'm just upset that this particular port has been holding up the release of content patches on the PC VERSION! This is not right. Thanks alot microsoft. Also, they can stick that DLC for fallout 3 right up there ass.

 

[Devilpapaya]

It's clearly NOT going to kill their chances of playing the game, it's NOT going to hurt their feelings (unless they are irrationally emotional)

I'm sorry, how is it any more "irrational" for someone to get their feelings hurt over a BS rating system, than it is for you to get your panties in a twist over someone leaving the game?

You know what me and my friends do when someone rage quits? We throw a couple clever "rage quit" taunts into chat via some binds (haha, we have keyboards and can make macros... sorry) laugh a little bit, then keep playing. If the whole team leaves, we do the exact same thing, reasonably surmise that we have probably won that round, and go make a different game. We don't ***** and moan about it, we don't cry and flame people over it.

Favorite rage taunt (credit to my brother on this one): "HIS RAGE LEVEL IS OVER 9000!?!?" yea its nerdy as hell, but its great to see chat just explode with "lol"s when someone leaves. Keeps the game positive, makes people want to stay, and play some more. You know what doesn't make people want to stay/ play, whining; its annoying and pointless.

 

[Devilpapaya]

I'm annoyed with Left 4 Dead, because microsoft has been holding up the release of the new content patch. I have no idea why valve signed an exclusive contract with microsoft when there user base is emphatically PC based.

I'm also annoyed with the whole lobby system in general. WTF Valve, what's wrong with your server browser... which you've used for every other game you've ever released. I guess they couldn't figure out how to port it over to the xbox effectively.

Basically the 360 has really attached an anchor to L4D, and this annoys me.

Not to be rude, but its nice to see the consoles get the shitty port for once. Normally us PC users get the shaft as they try quickly and cheaply to rework the game just enough to make it function on the PC (i.e. GH3, Saints row 2, Farcry 2, the list goes on).

You're not being rude to me... I'm a PC gamer and a long time valve fan. I've only recently become annoyed with them. That being said consoles have tons of shitty PC game ports, such as... any rts that's ever been ported over, unreal tournament, morrowind, halflife, orange box... in fact just about any valve product that's been ported over to a console has been pretty bad.

I'm just upset that this particular port has been holding up the release of content patches on the PC VERSION! This is not right. Thanks alot microsoft. Also, they can stick that DLC for fallout 3 right up there ass.

I don't even know why they bother trying to but RTSs on the consoles.... actually, the Wii might have some potential there, now that I think about it, but trying to play a RTS with a normal controller is painful at best.

Yea, and anything made by valve is gonna be a PC to Console Port... god bless Valve.

 

[danosaurus]

It's clearly NOT going to kill their chances of playing the game, it's NOT going to hurt their feelings (unless they are irrationally emotional)

I'm sorry, how is it any more "irrational" for someone to get their feelings hurt over a BS rating system, than it is for you to get your panties in a twist over someone leaving the game?

You know what me and my friends do when someone rage quits? We throw a couple clever "rage quit" taunts into chat via some binds (haha, we have keyboards and can make macros... sorry) laugh a little bit, then keep playing. If the whole team leaves, we do the exact same thing, reasonably surmise that we have probably won that round, and go make a different game. We don't ***** and moan about it, we don't cry and flame people over it.

Favorite rage taunt (credit to my brother on this one): "HIS RAGE LEVEL IS OVER 9000!?!?" yea its nerdy as hell, but its great to see chat just explode with "lol"s when someone leaves. Keeps the game positive, makes people want to stay, and play some more. You know what doesn't make people want to stay/ play, whining; its annoying and pointless.

I don't recall ever having my panties shift, i'm just frustrated that others are trying to force their opinions and judgement onto this bloke by saying he's selfish for using a system that's implemented to be used by exactly the type of gamer he is.
It's like heckling a Vegan for going to a Salad convention... ok bad example :|

I'd just like to point out before i continue that I've never even used the rating system and the only xBox i own was given to me with red-circle disease and i haven't been arsed to fix it yet.

I think That's great you don't use the rating system, it's your choice and i've got no beef with it at all and nor would i call you up on it if I did.
(total rad rage quit call too, i giggled)

The point I'm trying to get across is that i think that the rating system makes sense for me and the types of gamers I'd want to play with.
I know a lot of my mates agree with me too but that's just us.
Everyone's different when it comes to games//social interactions and I don't think it's fair to criticize someone who does use a tool that is implemented to help them play a game more accustomed to their wants, that's all

 

[danosaurus]

I'm annoyed with Left 4 Dead, because microsoft has been holding up the release of the new content patch. I have no idea why valve signed an exclusive contract with microsoft when there user base is emphatically PC based.

I'm also annoyed with the whole lobby system in general. WTF Valve, what's wrong with your server browser... which you've used for every other game you've ever released. I guess they couldn't figure out how to port it over to the xbox effectively.

Basically the 360 has really attached an anchor to L4D, and this annoys me.

Not to be rude, but its nice to see the consoles get the shitty port for once. Normally us PC users get the shaft as they try quickly and cheaply to rework the game just enough to make it function on the PC (i.e. GH3, Saints row 2, Farcry 2, the list goes on).

You're not being rude to me... I'm a PC gamer and a long time valve fan. I've only recently become annoyed with them. That being said consoles have tons of shitty PC game ports, such as... any rts that's ever been ported over, unreal tournament, morrowind, halflife, orange box... in fact just about any valve product that's been ported over to a console has been pretty bad.

I'm just upset that this particular port has been holding up the release of content patches on the PC VERSION! This is not right. Thanks alot microsoft. Also, they can stick that DLC for fallout 3 right up there ass.

I don't even know why they bother trying to but RTSs on the consoles.... actually, the Wii might have some potential there, now that I think about it, but trying to play a RTS with a normal controller is painful at best.

Yea, and anything made by valve is gonna be a PC to Console Port... god bless Valve.

Heh, i actually remember watching a mate try to play Red Alert on PS1 back in high-school. Looked sooooo painful

 

[Ravinak]

I'm not trying to be offensive or rude, but I would appreciate it if you were a little bit more considerate of other players before you use the rep system.

Sorry nova but you fail. Calling someone who reports a leaver selfish? If they leave a game early just because they are losing, even if it is a public game, then they deserve the appropriate negative feedback from the other players it affected. You said that they are entitled to leave because it is not FUN for them? How about all the other people in the server who has now had THEIR fun taken away from them because of the team imbalance?

Compare the person who is using the feedback system to report someone who left the game, versus the person who left and ruined the game for everybody else. Who is the more selfish one here?

 

[Sergeant M. Fudgey]

Negative feedback is not temporary.

Again, your complaints are very self centered. They basically amount to "Wah I want to make other people suffer for my own enjoyment."

Also you can solve some of these problems yourself. People leave because they can't be infected? Choose humans at the beginning of the game so the infected slots are open.

If I played over XBox live I'd use such a feedback system on a regular basis when people quit. I love how people whine about "abuse" of the feedback system.

Want to make others suffer for, well, our enjoyment? No. This is about dealing with a plague that manifests itself in online games. People who leave the game far before conclusion ruin the game for almost everyone else. My side, AND the opposing side. If you don't enjoy the game, play a different bloody game.

If you probably don't have time to finish? DON'T START. It's that simple.

If anything, it's not harsh enough.

What if they did want to finish but due to unforseeable circumstances they couldn't? Should they not start because they didn't know they couldn't finish? You would be marking them down anyway.