Why do so many people not understand how to play a shooter?

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

Playing multiplayer shooters with randoms is so fucking aggravating because they don't know how to play. I'm not talking about their shooting/aiming skills. I'm talking about how people don't know how to take and defend objectives. And it's just common sense, nothing do with skill. You would think with so many multiplayer shooters and so many people playing, the majority would understand what to do.

Any objective-based mode is about having map control. You control more of the map than the other team, and you'll win. Instead of rushing out at the start of the game to take key map points, most people move out all slow letting the enemy basically win the game in the first minute because you didn't even try to win. Not rushing out only makes you EASIER to kill, not harder. If the enemy is just allowed to get into that sweet position and they are a better shot than you, can't you see your chances of killing that player only got much harder instead of easier?

Players don't know how to defend objectives. I see people constantly sitting on the objective or sitting behind the objective. You defend objectives from in front of them and keeping the enemy as far from the objective as possible. What happens when the whole team is defending the objective (at or behind it)? An enemy push will eventually wipe you all out and then they are at the objective with no chance of spawning back in and being able to stop the enemy from getting the objective. However, if you have a defensive front set up ahead of the objective and you all get wiped out (which you will eventually), you can spawn back in and get to the objective to stop the enemy.

People that can't snipe (which is 99% of the people that snipe), shouldn't snipe. I'm tired of people sniping from the spawn only helping their own team get spawn camped. Not only can't most snipers actually aim and shoot well, they are not even in the right position to properly snipe to begin with.

Then, you have all these players as far from the objective as possible laying prone in some corner and they can't even get more kills than deaths, how do you fail so much? Can't you at least figure out that what you are doing isn't working and you need to try something else? I'm not telling you not to camp either because the point of every shooter is to camp. You push out, take over the key map points that have a great sightline on a chokepoint, then you camp your ass off. That's how you properly camp and help your team win, not sitting is some useless corner.

Games have killcams nowadays. Pay attention to where the better players are positioning themselves and try to get into those good positions that are netting them all these kills while you go like 5 kills - 8 deaths while other players have over 30 kills. Don't you think you need to change your tactics?

I don't care if your gun skills are not that good, that's fine. All I ask is that you TRY TO FUCKING WIN instead of playing like a coward and only helping your team lose. If you complain about spawn camping, you are most likely one of the players that greatly contributed to your team getting spawn camped. I've played against teams that had below 1 KDRs for the game, pushed hard all game, and never got spawn camped while my team did win quite handily, it's just that they never let us spawn camp them.

If you are afraid to die, you already lost the game. Just like baseball, you can't be afraid of the ball.

 

[Dead Seerius]

Welp, first things first - most people don't care about winning all that much.

I haven't played every FPS out there, but the ones I have played don't really make a big deal out of winning or losing, aside from some extra XP. I mean, you'll play hundreds of matches if you so choose; what's the issue if you lose most of them? You do your best to play objectives, but you're playing to have fun.

I won't camp an objective, ever, unless I'm capturing. To me camping is the epitome of boredom in an FPS. 'Stand still and wait' isn't my cup of tea, so I go out and try to pick of unsuspecting players around the map. Still, I play the objectives; if I didn't I would just play deathmatch or something. But I don't let the 'winning' get in the way of the enjoyment to be found by playing the way I prefer most - running and gunning.

I think most people feel this way, man. Either you come to terms with that or maybe give the FPS genre a break.

 

[omega 616]

Welp, first things first - most people don't care about winning all that much.
I haven't played every FPS out there, but the ones I have played don't really make a big deal out of winning or losing, aside from some extra XP. I mean, you'll play hundreds of matches if you so choose; what's the issue if you lose most of them? You do your best to play objectives, but you're playing to have fun.

I won't camp an objective, ever, unless I'm capturing. To me camping is the epitome of boredom in an FPS. 'Stand still and wait' isn't my cup of tea, so I go out and try to pick of unduspecting lone wolves around the map. Even though, I still enjoy the objectives; if I didn't I'd just play deathmatch or something. But I don't let the 'winning' get in the way of the enjoyment to be found by playing the way I enjoy most - running and gunning.

I think most people feel this way, man. Either you come to terms with that or maybe give the FPS genre a break.

Who says you can't do both?

On cod there is always 3 main ways to get to different places, you can either hardcore camp (lay looking at one spot), patrol (cover all 3 routes) or fuck everything off and roam around trying to be a slayer. Problem is, everyone wants to be a slayer and very few are cut out for it.

What I'm saying is you can still play the objective, while not camping.

I only have 2 pet peeves in fps, "quick scopers" and shit campers. Quick scopers are just abusing aim assist, it's such an over powered thing... The amount of times I have fired firstt connected first, then died to these guys.

Shit campers are the ones sat behind door ways, in dark and obscure corners, aiming down sights for minutes at a time. What goes through these people's minds?

I'm quite fond of standing in a very high traffic area, ads with an LMG. The way I see it is if I kill you then sucks for you, second time you know I was there, third time "try flanking!".

 

[Dead Seerius]

Welp, first things first - most people don't care about winning all that much.
I haven't played every FPS out there, but the ones I have played don't really make a big deal out of winning or losing, aside from some extra XP. I mean, you'll play hundreds of matches if you so choose; what's the issue if you lose most of them? You do your best to play objectives, but you're playing to have fun.

I won't camp an objective, ever, unless I'm capturing. To me camping is the epitome of boredom in an FPS. 'Stand still and wait' isn't my cup of tea, so I go out and try to pick of unduspecting lone wolves around the map. Even though, I still enjoy the objectives; if I didn't I'd just play deathmatch or something. But I don't let the 'winning' get in the way of the enjoyment to be found by playing the way I enjoy most - running and gunning.

I think most people feel this way, man. Either you come to terms with that or maybe give the FPS genre a break.

Who says you can't do both?

On cod there is always 3 main ways to get to different places, you can either hardcore camp (lay looking at one spot), patrol (cover all 3 routes) or fuck everything off and roam around trying to be a slayer. Problem is, everyone wants to be a slayer and very few are cut out for it.

What I'm saying is you can still play the objective, while not camping.

I only have 2 pet peeves in fps, "quick scopers" and shit campers. Quick scopers are just abusing aim assist, it's such an over powered thing... The amount of times I have fired firstt connected first, then died to these guys.

Shit campers are the ones sat behind door ways, in dark and obscure corners, aiming down sights for minutes at a time. What goes through these people's minds?

I'm quite fond of standing in a very high traffic area, ads with an LMG. The way I see it is if I kill you then sucks for you, second time you know I was there, third time "try flanking!".

Hey, I'm with you. I do my best to both play my way and help the team by playing the objectives, and it usually works just fine.
All I'm saying is I don't let winning become my sole motivation. If I've gotta depart from Flag A to get in the action around no-man's land, I will.

But yeah, most people want to be the slayers. Potentially bad for winning, but that's people seem to enjoy most. I guess that's what the OP is frustrated with, and most of the 'slayer types' don't play the objective as much as some of us choose to.

As for quickscoping and camping, the banes of my existence back when I used to play FPS's often.

 

[sanquin]

It's not just a problem in FPS games. The same applies to mass pvp in rpg's. Kills are the first objective, actual objectives are secondary. That's how most players play in such games. It's stupid, I agree. And I can't figure out why they do it. Which is why I wish I could do more premade matches with friends or clan/guild members so we can use some actual tactics.

 

[ResonanceSD]

People play what they want to play in team games if they're matched up randomly.

Here's my TF2 spray.

 

[xDarc]

Objectives? Do not want.

I was 12 in 1994. Guess what I was doing? You bet your ass I was tying up my phone line, dialing up a friend for a little death match in Doom.

I cannot stand modern FPS games. You can't sprint and shoot, side-step/strafe speeds are lower than movement speeds, hip-fire is useless, ADS glues you to the floor... does anyone see the trend here? Movement, dodging- used to be HALF of playing shooters.

But apparently some people find it difficult to walk and chew gum... so they just took that out.

And hey, now FPS games are a household item when before you could count all the kids in your jr. highschool who played these games on your fingers... and oh boy were we popular.

You know what- arena shooters were and still are better.

 

[TheRaider]

Duke3d was always my favourite because of that ability to dodge and generally you could have fun with anyone.

 

[Danceofmasks]

I cannot stand modern FPS games. You can't sprint and shoot, side-step/strafe speeds are lower than movement speeds, hip-fire is useless, ADS glues you to the floor... does anyone see the trend here? Movement, dodging- used to be HALF of playing shooters.

You do realise, they removed movement from shooters because they removed aiming.

'cos between the automatic tracking and heatseeking projectiles in CoD, and the snapping, friction, accleration, and magnetism in Halo, if you were allowed to juke like a UFO, the other people's screens would shake so much due to the crap they're forced to use that the games would not be able to hide the fact that analog sticks are incapable of being used for any real aiming.

They had to remove the ability to dodge, because they coded aimbots into these games.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

Welp, first things first - most people don't care about winning all that much.
I haven't played every FPS out there, but the ones I have played don't really make a big deal out of winning or losing, aside from some extra XP. I mean, you'll play hundreds of matches if you so choose; what's the issue if you lose most of them? You do your best to play objectives, but you're playing to have fun.

I won't camp an objective, ever, unless I'm capturing. To me camping is the epitome of boredom in an FPS. 'Stand still and wait' isn't my cup of tea, so I go out and try to pick of unduspecting lone wolves around the map. Even though, I still enjoy the objectives; if I didn't I'd just play deathmatch or something. But I don't let the 'winning' get in the way of the enjoyment to be found by playing the way I enjoy most - running and gunning.

I think most people feel this way, man. Either you come to terms with that or maybe give the FPS genre a break.

Who says you can't do both?

On cod there is always 3 main ways to get to different places, you can either hardcore camp (lay looking at one spot), patrol (cover all 3 routes) or fuck everything off and roam around trying to be a slayer. Problem is, everyone wants to be a slayer and very few are cut out for it.

What I'm saying is you can still play the objective, while not camping.

I only have 2 pet peeves in fps, "quick scopers" and shit campers. Quick scopers are just abusing aim assist, it's such an over powered thing... The amount of times I have fired firstt connected first, then died to these guys.

Shit campers are the ones sat behind door ways, in dark and obscure corners, aiming down sights for minutes at a time. What goes through these people's minds?

I'm quite fond of standing in a very high traffic area, ads with an LMG. The way I see it is if I kill you then sucks for you, second time you know I was there, third time "try flanking!".

Hey, I'm with you. I do my best to both play my way and help the team by playing the objectives, and it usually works just fine.
All I'm saying is I don't let winning become my sole motivation. If I've gotta depart from Flag A to get in the action around no-man's land, I will.

But yeah, most people want to be the slayers. Potentially bad for winning, but that's people seem to enjoy most. I guess that's what the OP is frustrated with, and most of the 'slayer types' don't play the objective as much as some of us choose to.

As for quickscoping and camping, the banes of my existence back when I used to play FPS's often.

Commenting on bits from all 3 posts:

Why play any game if you're not trying to win? There's a team deathmatch and/or deathmatch mode if you just want to screw around. Any game I play, I try to win, even playing some random game at a party. Of course, I don't get all serious about winning every game, I'll give it my best like playing Munchkin with friends. I really only get serious when playing a clan battle, but I still try my best to win a match (even if I'm fooling about with a new gun or class or whatever) until a match becomes un-winnable.

Quickscoping in most games is actually pretty skillful. COD's retarded aim-assist makes it cheap, there's no reason for a competitive shooter to have any aim-assist whatsoever. I'm tired of developers thinking console users need help aiming. Mass Effect 3's co-op multiplayer at times becomes very frustrating because of the aim-assist; I got this phantom all lined up with my Widow, I go to scope-in and the game moves my crosshairs to a foot soldier.

I don't think most people do want to be Slayers though. Slayers rush out and kill everything in sight. Most players don't rush and don't even shoot at enemies they see. Slayers just don't run all over killing any and everything. Most shooters have maps designed where you got your right, left, and middle routes. A slayer will stick to one of those areas, lock it down, and keep it locked down. They'll switch over and give help when needed.

It's also funny how many people want to be snipers. Why? It's always a support class, you're not going to be carrying the team as a sniper. Playing any other class in a shooter is more helpful to your team than sniper so why play it?

Pretty much this:

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

analog sticks are incapable of being used for any real aiming.

You can aim quite awesome with analog sticks (Ghost Recon: Future Soldier has no aim-assist). My accuracy stat in MoH Warfighter is higher than many PC users too. The following is me run and gunning as a sniper in GRFS:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ln231R_aJZY

 

[jehk]

So you're complaining these people don't have the same level of experience as you?

 

[Danceofmasks]

analog sticks are incapable of being used for any real aiming.

You can aim quite awesome with analog sticks (Ghost Recon: Future Soldier has no aim-assist). My accuracy stat in MoH Warfighter is higher than many PC users too. The following is me run and gunning as a sniper in GRFS:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ln231R_aJZY

OH PLEASE.

Don't even start.
If anyone, ever, says a shooter using a controller has no aim assist, they're either lying or ignorant.
It's impossible.
IMPOSSIBLE.

Google it.

 

[jehk]

analog sticks are incapable of being used for any real aiming.

You can aim quite awesome with analog sticks (Ghost Recon: Future Soldier has no aim-assist). My accuracy stat in MoH Warfighter is higher than many PC users too. The following is me run and gunning as a sniper in GRFS:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ln231R_aJZY

OH PLEASE.

Don't even start.
If anyone, ever, says a shooter using a controller has no aim assist, they're either lying or ignorant.
It's impossible.
IMPOSSIBLE.

Google it.

To be fair most shooters, even on PC, have aim assist to some degree.

 

[Dryk]

Ugh, this is a huge problem I have with the average FPS player too.

In Planetside 2 hundreds of people will sit around in cramped rooms farming each other for experience instead of capturing territory. Those that don't will blindly charge in one direction and eventually get surrounded by a group that actually has some map awareness. It makes me wonder how they were sold on the game in the first place.

 

[mokes310]

I used to play the CoD games with a great group of people of mediocre talent. None of us could really do that well individually, but we embraced a military mantra: Shoot. Move. Communicate. We always knew where each other was, we'd inform others when killed or when an enemy was down, etc... This allowed us to dominate multiple game modes simply because we worked as a team. Sadly, that team fell apart for whatever reason, and I've yet to pick up a multiplayer FPS ever since.

 

[Danceofmasks]

To be fair most shooters, even on PC, have aim assist to some degree.

Well, console ports don't count.
If the engine is designed with certain mechanics in mind, they're not going to make sweeping changes to fix them, especially if they also intended to include controller support.

After all, there's a reason why this conversation started with "modern shooters removed movement, omg sux."

 

[Eliwood10]

In my (admittedly limited) experience with multiplayer FPS games, players seem to care more about how they are doing personally than how the team is doing.

When I play TF2, if my team is losing, but I'm racking up a great score on my own, I'm having fun. If my team is winning, but I can't make it out of the base without getting headshotted by a sniper from across the map, I'm going to be miserable.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

analog sticks are incapable of being used for any real aiming.

You can aim quite awesome with analog sticks (Ghost Recon: Future Soldier has no aim-assist). My accuracy stat in MoH Warfighter is higher than many PC users too. The following is me run and gunning as a sniper in GRFS:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ln231R_aJZY

OH PLEASE.

Don't even start.
If anyone, ever, says a shooter using a controller has no aim assist, they're either lying or ignorant.
It's impossible.
IMPOSSIBLE.

Google it.

The game doesn't have any aim-assist, I know when a game moves my crosshairs and when it doesn't. I played Metal Gear Online for 4 years and that game has no aim-assist either, and you needed headshots to kill as body shots did very little damage. Prove to me that MGS4/MGO has aim-assist because the game doesn't.

So you're complaining these people don't have the same level of experience as you?

No, it's that they don't try to win, they play to lose. I play with all kinds of players; the very best, the average, and below average as long as they give it their all to win. I won't yell at you for going like 5-20 and trying, but I'll yell at you for going like 4-2 and not helping.