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

[Right Hook]

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

Exactly why I hate K/D ratios, they are fine in theory but they've been relegated to a digital dick measuring contest. They should make them a private stat or I'd honestly prefer to simply not have them, a lot of weak players would be less afraid and the truly good players wouldn't care or would find others ways to shine.

 

[Dryk]

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

Exactly why I hate K/D ratios, they are fine in theory but they've been relegated to a digital dick measuring contest. They should make them a private stat or I'd honestly prefer to simply not have them, a lot of weak players would be less afraid and the truly good players wouldn't care or would find others ways to shine.

Personally I'm more impressed by people with the guts to throw themselves at the objective at the last second in the vain hope of preventing a win. They're rarer.

In TF2 for instance I'll see people standing back from the final point that's almost capped shooting and the guys on it. At least if you block the point it buys a few seconds.

 

[sanquin]

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.

Actually, it does have aim assist. At one point early on in the video I see you shooting at an enemy that was almost entirely out of your crosshair. The bullets should have definitely missed. Yet you still kill him with 2 shots. The crosshair might not move, but there definitely is an 'invisible' aim assist.

You're not really run and gunning that much. You almost always stand still unless the target is incredibly close. Also, the only times when you are able to 'aim accurately' is when the enemy walks into your crosshair. When the enemy is off to the side a little, your aim suddenly becomes very inaccurate.

You can try to make excuses for your analogue stick as much as you want, but that doesn't change the actual facts. Games that have tried putting mouse/keyboard users and controller users against each other all resulted in an overwhelming advantage to the mouse users. Even with 'regular' aim assist mouse users were still destroying controller users in those games. Shadowrun is a good exam ple of this. Only when the controller users got a VERY heavy aim assist and the mouse users were given a disadvantage with more bullet spread/recoil, did the controller users stand a chance.

 

[General Twinkletoes]

Sinp

Actually, a game can have aim assist without moving the cross-hair, but moving the bullets. It's a lot harder to notice, but it's there for most console shooters and ports.

Anyway, it's because in fps, most people don't care much about winning. Either try another genre like MOBA where people care more about winning, or play in a team. Why are you complaining about team work from pubs? Of course it's going to be awful. Those people are there to have fun, not to win. The most fun thing in an FPS is gunfights, so that's what they'll prioritize. Get a proper team if winning is your main goal.

 

[BreakfastMan]

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.

Says someone who has obviously never played Halo 3 or later titles in the series...

 

[Aaron Sylvester]

@Phoenixmgs, I think your expectations of the typical player are a bit too high. People know how to play shooters, what objectives are, etc but there will always be duds around. Always.
I don't know how long you've been playing shooters for, but over the last ~8 years of playing shooters I've pretty much become used to playing with the typical players and NOT getting angry over their mistakes. I know what to expect of typical public players and I adjust my playstyle to compensate for that the best I can. Seriously, what's the point of getting angry...? Just PLAY and have fun lol.

If you're really that concerned, then I recommend forming a tight friend circle (or clan) and only playing with them. That's one way to really step up your game and ensure your team wins, because a bunch of clanners who are decent at the game and are communicating will almost always destroy the opposing team of random public players. So do that.
I personally don't because I don't find any sense of accomplishment when a team of clanners destroy a team of randoms, I'm the lone wolf type and seek to push what I can get done on my own.

Man, an FPS multiplayer game that isn't about dick measuring? sounds like a utopia to me.

Sounds like an impossibility to me, what the hell would the point of an FPS multiplayer game be if it WASN'T about dick-measuring? That's the entire reason people play them. That's the entire reason I play them

 

[Bara_no_Hime]

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.

arena shooters were and still are better.

This.

**fist bumps xDarc** Everything you just said, except I was 15 in 1994, and I didn't start playing for another year or two (1996 or 1997 I believe). And for me it was Quake 1 (and later Quake 2), not Doom But otherwise, yeah.

I can't stand modern shooters. I'll take Timesplitters (or hell, Quake 2) any day of the week over Halo anything.

 

[Sansha]

The only team-based game I play is TF2 as Medic.

I'm really fucking good at it. I know how to pick different Mediguns for different situations, as well as coordinating with fellow Medics, I don't value my own life any further than 'I heal for zero when I'm dead', I rush in and keep as many people alive as possible, and I know how to use my Needlgun and Saw to defend myself.

I use the Saw that has an AOE heal with the taunt because it's very efficient to use in a defensive or when I have a moment's pause during a push, I use the Blutsauger for its efficient self-healing (anyone who uses the crossbow is a moron), and I genuinely enjoy the class.

I don't play to win, that's everyone else's responsibility. My job is to keep them alive so they can do that, and I'm happy being a support role to the war effort.

 

[Snotnarok]

I know those people, most of the time I try to cover my teammates who are throwing themselves on to the objective without even looking to see that it's clear.
A lot of time players join these matches because in TDM players camp and wait for you to come around, but in king of the hill? There's a place were everyone is going so why play the objective when the kills come to you so easily? Capture the flag, well the flag needs capturing so get the camp sauce out and sit near it and you get a conveyor belt of people and you don't have to look at all.

That's my theory anyway, I rarely wind up on the objective because I'm usually forced to cover because no one looks to see if there's enemies lurking. When no one is going for it... then I wind up having to try both and that's even worse.

 

[Trippy Turtle]

If you care about winning why would you play public? I for one play for fun.
My team generally hates me for it but I spend half my games with a riot shield only and prone crawling around the entire map going for a single kill.

I would prefer to rush in and get fun kills but lose rather than camp and go 30-0 and win. I don't really care what my team thinks. They can find people who want to be serious themselves, your fun is not my responsibility.

 

[OneOfTheMichael's]

And this is why i play rpgs. No expections for people online, no need for people online, and no bitching about people online.... Yeah until the game companies do 1 or 2 things wrong, then you never hear the end of it.

 

[Dryk]

If you care about winning why would you play public? I for one play for fun.

If you don't care about your team why would you play on one?

 

[skywolfblue]

@Phoenixmgs, I think your expectations of the typical player are a bit too high. People know how to play shooters, what objectives are, etc but there will always be duds around. Always.
I don't know how long you've been playing shooters for, but over the last ~8 years of playing shooters I've pretty much become used to playing with the typical players and NOT getting angry over their mistakes. I know what to expect of typical public players and I adjust my playstyle to compensate for that the best I can. Seriously, what's the point of getting angry...? Just PLAY and have fun lol.

If you're really that concerned, then I recommend forming a tight friend circle (or clan) and only playing with them. That's one way to really step up your game and ensure your team wins, because a bunch of clanners who are decent at the game and are communicating will almost always destroy the opposing team of random public players. So do that.
I personally don't because I don't find any sense of accomplishment when a team of clanners destroy a team of randoms, I'm the lone wolf type and seek to push what I can get done on my own.

Man, an FPS multiplayer game that isn't about dick measuring? sounds like a utopia to me.

Sounds like an impossibility to me, what the hell would the point of an FPS multiplayer game be if it WASN'T about dick-measuring? That's the entire reason people play them. That's the entire reason I play them

^ This.

There are large portion of the people are there to screw around, and winning is more of a secondary concern.

If you don't find playing with the average joe enjoyable, join a team/clan.

 

[Squilookle]

Why play any game if you're not trying to win?

Seems like you're failing to grasp one major part of playing shooters. Most don't play to win. They play for kills. All you're doing is complaining that others don't play like you do. It's petty. Everyone plays in different ways and everyone has the potential to disagree with another's playstyle.

For example- you say this:

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.

Now, one could say that by always playing to win, you're a poor sport (especially if you go and join winning teams just to win), and you're forgetting it's just a game. One could also wonder what you do when it becomes "unwinnable". Do you curse the rest of the team? do you ragequit to preserve your score? Do you stop striving just because you see defeat in sight? If you do any of those, once again- you're just a poor sport. And you know what's worse? You didn't even enjoy yourself, while those that were after kills more than likely did. In the party example you give, games are probably on offer more as a social lubricant; a tool for randoms to bond and chat over. If you value in-game victory above all else, you're just 'that guy' everyone will remember from the party that couldn't handle defeat. You're taking it too seriously.

Of course, I don't get all serious about winning every game

C'mon buddy, you can admit to it- it's ok, we're all friends here.

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?

Off the top of my head just now?

a) They're new, and want to master the most basic role first.
b) They want action, and want to move as little as possible to get into it.
c) They have a bad ping. They can't take on more mobile roles.
d) They enjoy successful sniping, and see it as their role of choice.
e) They've been sniped too much, and see it as the only way they can fight back.
f) They don't know the map, so don't want to rush into unknown areas.

The list goes on and on. Sure I get a bit annoyed too when half the Americans on Omaha Beach are hunkering down on the sand as useless snipers while our tickets bleed away to oblivion, but I can at least understand why they do it.

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.

Amen to that. Though I was 9 in '94. I first cut my teeth on Quake 2 and UT. God I miss the days when everybody sprinted all the time, leaping over chasms avoiding rockets and lasers and shrapnel, wheeling around all the time checking your surroundings, seeing a far off enemy and snapping of a shot in midair with no aim assist that vapourised them instantly (good old instagib), and being back into the fray a single mouseclick after a death. Ans Ironsights? Ironsights can go drown at the bottom of a well for all the good it's done gaming.

Shooters used to be a nonstop adrenaline rush. Now they're essentially walking-frame simulators.

Man, an FPS multiplayer game that isn't about dick measuring? sounds like a utopia to me.

Try Timesplitters. It pretty much is that Utopia in every way. Sure it has K/D ratios, but compared to all it's other features they're barely even acknowledged.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

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.

Actually, it does have aim assist. At one point early on in the video I see you shooting at an enemy that was almost entirely out of your crosshair. The bullets should have definitely missed. Yet you still kill him with 2 shots. The crosshair might not move, but there definitely is an 'invisible' aim assist.

You're not really run and gunning that much. You almost always stand still unless the target is incredibly close. Also, the only times when you are able to 'aim accurately' is when the enemy walks into your crosshair. When the enemy is off to the side a little, your aim suddenly becomes very inaccurate.

You can try to make excuses for your analogue stick as much as you want, but that doesn't change the actual facts. Games that have tried putting mouse/keyboard users and controller users against each other all resulted in an overwhelming advantage to the mouse users. Even with 'regular' aim assist mouse users were still destroying controller users in those games. Shadowrun is a good exam ple of this. Only when the controller users got a VERY heavy aim assist and the mouse users were given a disadvantage with more bullet spread/recoil, did the controller users stand a chance.

I think Ghost Recon has random bullet deviation to a degree as several times my crosshairs will be right on a guy and I don't hit him. Or just bad hit detection and lag, it has probably the worst netcode of any online shooter I've play as almost all the time, your first 2-3 bullets literally don't count as you'll get blood splatter on the enemy but no hitmarker. If you watched the whole match, I play the sniper as a sniper, assaulter, and I shotgun it too. There are several times where I run and gun it, and dive roll and shoot with the sniper rifle. In MGO, your first bullet would go EXACTLY where you aimed, then random deviation would then take over within your circle reticule.

I never stated or even tried to imply that controller is better or equal to the keyboard mouse, I said that you can aim well enough with a controller to not need aim-assist. I don't care for the keyboard/mouse as it's too easy to aim plus I hate the keyboard for its digital inputs. I like the feeling I get when I make my shots with a controller, I don't get that with the keyboard/mouse.

@Phoenixmgs, I think your expectations of the typical player are a bit too high. People know how to play shooters, what objectives are, etc but there will always be duds around. Always.
I don't know how long you've been playing shooters for, but over the last ~8 years of playing shooters I've pretty much become used to playing with the typical players and NOT getting angry over their mistakes. I know what to expect of typical public players and I adjust my playstyle to compensate for that the best I can. Seriously, what's the point of getting angry...? Just PLAY and have fun lol.

If you're really that concerned, then I recommend forming a tight friend circle (or clan) and only playing with them. That's one way to really step up your game and ensure your team wins, because a bunch of clanners who are decent at the game and are communicating will almost always destroy the opposing team of random public players. So do that.
I personally don't because I don't find any sense of accomplishment when a team of clanners destroy a team of randoms, I'm the lone wolf type and seek to push what I can get done on my own.

The majority of randoms don't try for the objective, they usually stay as far from it as possible. In MoH Warfighter, chances are really high that when I get a random as my fireteam buddy, they will sit back in the spawn and snipe, not contributing to anything. And, when they spawn on me, they can't even be bothered to press square and heal me. I do have several friends that I play with in all my shooters (I have win % of over 83% in MoH Warfighter so I play with my clan a lot). It's not just about the people on my team, but the other team as well, it's annoying to have to go into the enemy's spawn to get kills because they don't come out. Then, they ***** about us spawn camping them when they didn't even push out at the very start of the match and it's was their own fault they got spawn camped. The only time randoms actually play the objective is when my clan is spawn camping, then they come in like 1-5 and plant the damn bomb when we are going for our Apaches and we don't want the game to be over in a few minutes either.

Here, let me dial you the waaahmbulance. *beep boob boop* ... it's ringing... they say you should quit being a sissy. *shrug*

Anyway, not everyone plays FPSs. Not everyone knows the map, or where the most advantageous spots are. Not everyone cares about winning - they just want to shoot stuff and have fun.

Every shooter is basically played the same way. You RUSH out, gain map control, and camp. You don't camp your own spawn, how are you learning the map by only seeing 10% of it at most? I don't care if it's your 1st match for a particular shooter, you do the same thing you did in the previous shooter you played. If you just want to kill, there's team deathmatch and deathmatch.

If you care about winning why would you play public? I for one play for fun.
My team generally hates me for it but I spend half my games with a riot shield only and prone crawling around the entire map going for a single kill.

I would prefer to rush in and get fun kills but lose rather than camp and go 30-0 and win. I don't really care what my team thinks. They can find people who want to be serious themselves, your fun is not my responsibility.

I would so teamkill you.

 

[NoeL]

Here, let me dial you the waaahmbulance. *beep boob boop* ... it's ringing... they say you should quit being a sissy. *shrug*

Anyway, not everyone plays FPSs. Not everyone knows the map, or where the most advantageous spots are. Not everyone cares about winning - they just want to shoot stuff and have fun.

Every shooter is basically played the same way. You RUSH out, gain map control, and camp. You don't camp your own spawn. I don't care if it's your 1st match for a particular shooter, you do the same thing you did in the previous shooter you played. If you just want to kill, there's team deathmatch and deathmatch.

See, I don't play shooters so I wouldn't know that. I figured deathmatch would be the standard game mode. Is it not?

The most modern shooter I've played multiplayer for any length of time is Halo 1. I would just run around and shoot people until I got shot myself - usually in long-range sniper duels at Blood Gulch. There'd only ever be four players and we'd mostly play deathmatch, so this "RUSH out, gain map control, and camp" is completely foreign to me (and quite frankly, sounds a bit boring). But again - rush out WHERE? Gain map control HOW? Camp WHERE? Unless you know the map or are in a position of high visibility you're not likely to get it right on your first go.

 

[Trippy Turtle]

If you care about winning why would you play public? I for one play for fun.
My team generally hates me for it but I spend half my games with a riot shield only and prone crawling around the entire map going for a single kill.

I would prefer to rush in and get fun kills but lose rather than camp and go 30-0 and win. I don't really care what my team thinks. They can find people who want to be serious themselves, your fun is not my responsibility.

I would so teamkill you.

And I would probably laugh at how irrationally mad people get over stuff like that.

If you care about winning why would you play public? I for one play for fun.

If you don't care about your team why would you play on one?

Because free for all has to many people and team mates are useful distractions while I crawl. Its not that I want my team to lose anyway, just that nobody who actually wants to win a lot should play public. You are bound to get bad teams, and they have every right to play as bad as they want.

 

[mezorin]

I'll do this from a Planetside 2 point of view because hacker filled COD on PC can die in a fire (and doesn't really facilitate team play anyways).

Often times in my outfit, I will be an acting squad leader or officer in the outfit I am in. When I'm "on duty" during ops, it is serious PTFO time. This means we will often ghost hack empty hexes, go AA crew, or do other "Crap Work" that is needed for our empire to win in the big picture. Going around empty bases on Indar (let alone Esamir or Amerish) is boring as all f**&, and watching empty skies for that one Mossie that twelve people pounce on is crap for getting certs, and nobody likes having to /suicide constantly (thus tanking their k/d) to base jump around the map, only to get to finally get to a fight somewhere only to have it end in five minutes then you spend 15 minutes waiting for a base timer to flip. In other words, hard core PTFOing is a pain to do, and you often sacrifice not only decent cert gain (I could get more than four times my points per hour spamming rocket pods with my fighter craft instead of babysitting a Liberator Gunship like some kind of designated driver at a Cert Point Party), but the game can also be like watching paint dry when you are doing it right and serious. Now don't get me wrong, the tension on small base fights can be very real, and small scale squad on squad combat between ourselves and another enemy in the dead of night outfit's squad feels all bad ass "Teir One Operator", but a lot of playing Planetside 2 right is "work".

So sometimes at the end of a long day, I'll log in, grab my infiltrator, and go on little pointless ninja missions to try and harass the enemy to death with either sniper fire or close quarter SMG take downs. I plant mines, hack everything that isn't nailed down, steal a base turret and whack a few unsuspecting Prowlers not expecting rear armor fire, and generally be a Super Pest purely for my own amusement. I'll also grab a tank or a Scythe fighter and farm loads of easy kills, or jump from red alert to red alert and just infantry foot zerg because its *fun* and I want certs and my next Auraxium medal at some point. I'm not "on the clock", and I'm not going to do thankless chores like /suicide hopping across the continent to chase down every ghost hack, I just want to run around and kill stuff and have a good time and simply 'zerg'.

If you are sick and tired of your teammates being useless all the time, I highly recommend either volunteering to do the crap job yourself (stop making objective defense or healing "somebody else's problem"), or join a semi serious or serious squad (or outfit in PS2's case) and play the game seriously. Playing even in a six man team willing to get shit done will make a huge difference, and make your game feel that much better.

The best analogy I have ever read about Planetside is "Expecting the Zerg to do anything useful is like expecting your dog to do your taxes for you.", and you should think as such. If you want something done right, do it yourself, get a team of friends to do it with you, or just find an easy way to farm kills and go with the flow. But don't scream at your cocker spaniel because he can't fill out a tax form for rental income, because you shouldn't be expecting that much from a dog in the first place.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

Why play any game if you're not trying to win?

Seems like you're failing to grasp one major part of playing shooters. Most don't play to win. They play for kills. All you're doing is complaining that others don't play like you do. It's petty. Everyone plays in different ways and everyone has the potential to disagree with another's playstyle.

For example- you say this:

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.

Now, one could say that by always playing to win, you're a poor sport (especially if you go and join winning teams just to win), and you're forgetting it's just a game. One could also wonder what you do when it becomes "unwinnable". Do you curse the rest of the team? do you ragequit to preserve your score? Do you stop striving just because you see defeat in sight? If you do any of those, once again- you're just a poor sport. And you know what's worse? You didn't even enjoy yourself, while those that were after kills more than likely did. In the party example you give, games are probably on offer more as a social lubricant; a tool for randoms to bond and chat over. If you value in-game victory above all else, you're just 'that guy' everyone will remember from the party that couldn't handle defeat. You're taking it too seriously.

Of course, I don't get all serious about winning every game

C'mon buddy, you can admit to it- it's ok, we're all friends here.

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?

Off the top of my head just now?

a) They're new, and want to master the most basic role first.
b) They want action, and want to move as little as possible to get into it.
c) They have a bad ping. They can't take on more mobile roles.
d) They enjoy successful sniping, and see it as their role of choice.
e) They've been sniped too much, and see it as the only way they can fight back.
f) They don't know the map, so don't want to rush into unknown areas.

The list goes on and on. Sure I get a bit annoyed too when half the Americans on Omaha Beach are hunkering down on the sand as useless snipers while our tickets bleed away to oblivion, but I can at least understand why they do it.

Again, there's team deathmatch if you just want to kill. How many times do I have to say this?

I don't know if you played Munchkin or not, but it's like a really wacky, fun card game of DnD to a degree. There's randomness and luck involved to it so the 'best' player isn't going to always win. I play to have fun as the game is more about the social aspect like you say, but I still play in a manner to win. I don't get upset or anything if I lose. I only tell tell the other players to not camp if they are camping. If they are trying to win and sucking, I won't get on them. I don't quit any of my games (unless I'm facing glitchers or playing with glitchers), I want my stats to accurately show the type of player I am, I don't boost anything.

Sniping is perhaps the hardest role to play (skill-wise and positioning-wise), not the most basic or easiest at all. A bad sniper hurts a team more than a bad player running in with an assault rifle or SMG. If you don't know the map, you're not going to learn it by not seeing the majority of it.