Video game news oriented community. No NanoUFO is not a bot :)
Posts.
Comments.
My goal is just to have a community where people can go and see what new game news is out for the day and comment on it.
Other communities:
PC players like this too because controller players get pretty atrocious aim assist, meaning that playing on controller basically gives them cheats compared to mouse users. Not sure if controller users on PC get the aim assist as well, or if it can be disabled or if you can queue into matches with only the same input method.
Either way, I dont see why this.would be bad unless the player population on one device is too low to find matches in a reasonable amount of time.
Well if you had community servers instead of brain dead match making this wouldn’t be a problem for PC players
Fucking preach.
I dunno, without this, controller players would have no chance against mouse players. ITT cross play between controller and mouse can never really be a fair fight.
Yeah but in COD it's not much of an assistance as it is a straight up aimbot. It's why I laugh at the fact that "quick scoping" is seen as this amazing thing, when in reality the moment you ADS when just vaguely near a target instantly snaps your aim to the target allowing a super easy hit.
Battlefield also has aim assist, but all it does is have a weak magnetizing effect if the target starts moving as you get the crosshair over them that feels like the speed you can move your aim is dynamic but only when you're already aiming well enough on something.
But also: COD supports Mouse & Keyboard on the console (at least PlayStation). It's literally the only game I've found so far that does.
It’s why I laugh at the fact that “quick scoping” is seen as this amazing thing, when in reality the moment you ADS when just vaguely near a target instantly snaps your aim to the target allowing a super easy hit.
IDK which cod you're referring to but in the original MW1-2 quick scoping and trick shots were insanely challenging and a real skill. There was never such assistance that these actions were easy.
This, the aim assist didnt seem to exist on snipers, spent probably hundreds of hours with friends fucking around on MW2 doing quick scope shit, you could be looking right at them but just be sliiiightly off and you'll absolutely miss.
The worst part of COD on console is that install takes up half your friggin drive.
It's just as big on PC.
I'm so fucking sick of the whole "bUt AiM aSsIsT!!!!11!"
It's nowhere fucking near the advantage pc players act like it is when they have pretty much every other advantage using m&k. It's literally only even a thing in the first place because aiming quickly with a controller is ass for most people.
Console level aim assist used to work even on PC with a controller. Don't remember any news saying this changed so I'm guessing it still works the same.
As someone who has played competitive FPS games at a highish level in multiple games for most of his life I cannot fathom why they ever combined the two in the first place. Like I obviously understand more players and quicker matchmaking, but at the cost of competitive fairness??? No thanks.
Controllers playing against PC is fine without any any aim assist as that is just straight up a disadvantage for the controller player 99.9999% of the time, but the moment they add any aim assist to the controller it kills competitive integrity.
Controller players should only ever go up against other controller players if any amount of aim assistance is turned on and same goes for mouse and keyboard. That shit should not be on consoles and allowed to play against controllers for any reason.
I pretty much dropped Apex Legends entirely just because I wasn't having fun anymore. I was a diamond player on M+KB and getting laserbeamed from across the map by a controller player just was not fun. Just like I am sure they hated getting hit by a nasty flick only possible with a mouse.
Player input uniformity is one of my biggest gaming gear grinding situations. It's especially problematic with my favorite genre of games: competitive FPS games.
It depends on the game, really. Some games balance controller and M/K inputs very well, and I appreciate cross-play in those games. In my experience, Apex is particularly bad about their input balancing and gives way too much advantage to controller users, which is why XIM/Cronus cheating is so prevalent.
But, you can definitely still have a competitive and fair balance between inputs. Destiny 2 was actually really good about this, and their weapons team did a LOT of work to make sure that matches between console and PC players felt good even at high levels of play, and they nailed it, imo. I think part of the way Bungie made it work was by making every weapon have intrinsic aim assist, even on M/K. This allowed them to tweak that value for each input mode, so that guns felt right regardless of what you played with.
And the tradeoff wasn't just "extra bullet magnetism in exchange for slower aim speed", they also increased the visual recoil and screen shake effects for controller users, so that the aim assist wasn't completely free, all on a per-weapon basis. Despite Bungie's flaws and numerous missteps with Destiny, this is something that I don't think they get nearly enough credit for.
I don't want to seem dismissive, but I have had this argument 100s of times with an untold number of people over the years. If you ask any pro FPS player who has played at a top level on both they will all tell you that the two should never cross. At least not in any competitive/ranked situations.
It does not matter what you do. If there is anything altering the players inputs whatsoever those players need to be playing against only other people with those same assists and controls.
I was in a CAL-O team back in my CS days. Not saying this to brag (clearly, as CAL-O was definitely not top tier), just to credential my own opinion as I'm no stranger to competitive FPS play, myself.
It does not matter what you do. If there is anything altering the players inputs whatsoever those players need to be playing against only other people with those same assists and controls.
I don't necessarily agree that the two are incompatible, even for comp/ranked play. Even if you segregate controller and M/K players, the players in the controller pool aren't necessarily all playing with the same controller (third-party or Pro/Elite controllers are fairly common), and the players in the M/K pool are definitely not all playing with the same peripherals.
Some controller players will have extra buttons, paddles, or gyro aiming that other players won't; and it's probably rare to find two players in any M/K lobby using the same mouse. Even in a PC-only lobby, the player with the $400 RGB HyperTactical GX Mountain Dew & Knuckles mouse is going to have an intrinsic advantage over the player using the 2-button mouse that came with the Dell Optiplex he bought at a yard sale. So either way, neither matchmaking pool has players on a truly even playing field to begin with, and somebody's choice in their input method is likely to give them some sort of advantage over others in their lobby.
If we want to game in a truly fair, competitive environment, then we should do it like sports leagues do and ensure all players are using standard-issued equipment so that the only variable is the individual skill of the players. But there's a million reasons why that can't happen though, so we have to accept some amount of compromise to fairness in order to make games playable.
Ultimately, if the concern is "aim assist is too strong on controller", then I think that's a quality control issue on the developers' part, and something that can be remedied. I don't think the right solution is "split the player base into sequestered factions", even though it's an easy solution. Because you also need to consider that the input method isn't the only factor deciding any encounter between players. If it were, then you could give the top M/K players a controller and they'd skyrocket through the leaderboards. And vise-versa, the top controller players should start landing all their flick shots once they switch to M/K. But they don't, because just like in traditional sports, familiarity with the equipment is just as important as one's ability and game knowledge.
Another often-overlooked issue, which nobody wants to hear, is that there 100% exists an attitude among many M/K players of "he's on controller, so there's no way he can be better at the game than me". A lot of times, the balance between controller and M/K is just fine, and players are just finding themselves on the uncomfortable end of the Dunning-Kruger curve. And I'm not saying this as some sort of Holy Paladin of Gamepads or anything; I actually prefer M/K. But quite often I see PC players dismiss the skill of console players, because they equate their skill to their platform selection. I'm not accusing you of this, by the way, just mentioning that this is an attitude I see a lot in competitive circles, but never see anybody actually talk about it.
I'm multitasking and dangerously decaffeinated as I write this, so I'm sorry if I'm rambling and not making any sense lol.
What do you think about gyro aiming?
Like conceptually or in a competitive environment? I think gyro aiming sucks to use personally but for some people who cant use traditional user interfaces I understand it can be revolutionary.
I have no problems with it as it is still just an alternative way to translate the humans input into a direct action. It's no different than a thumb stick in my eyes.
Yeah, I meant in the context of competition. It's not aim assist, but with practice it can be quite competitive vs the mouse.
I agree, it should be fair game for competitive play, unlike aim assist.
Yeah it's the computer augmentation of player inputs that I have a problem with. Alternative input methods that are still 1 to 1 with the human player input don't bother me. I don't care if it's gyro or tongue joystick or whatever else.
I mean who really cares for pub matches? If you are worried about competitiveness then play pugs. Team stacking and pub stomping isn’t competitive
but at the cost of competitive fairness??? No thanks.
You do realize current CoD is matchmaking based on engagement, right?
If it takes 3 matches of getting stomped to exit the game, it'll give you an easy win every 3 games.
If the first number changes, so does the second.
That's not even getting into how buying skins artificially reduces the second number.
Like, after accounting for just those two things, it's kind of absurd to complain about fairness unless it's competitive mode, and I'm pretty sure those already have pc/console splits.
Player input uniformity is one of my biggest gaming gear grinding situations. It’s especially problematic with my favorite genre of games: competitive FPS games.
That's how it was split....
A PC controller would be matched up like a console controller. Now pc controllers will be grouped with PC mouse players....
You typed a lot but don't seem to know what you're talking about about bud
I can almost guarantee you I know more about the topic and high level fps gaming in general than you do.
you’re currently engaging with one of THE biggest “know-nothing know-it-all”s on Lemmy, fyi.
Ah thanks for the warning. I won't waste my time then. Based I their first comment that does appear to be true for this topic at the very least lol.
Sucks to suck, I'll stick to my games: they cost less, aren't full of microtransactions, aren't just re-hashing the exact same thing every single year, and most importantly? They're fun.
Now remove skill-based matchmaking too.
Make only ranked skill based
Have unranked be a free for all
This would kill the fun for everyone but the best. SBMM is there to protect casuals and new players, aka 90% of players.
Well yeah, naturally, how it always was. SBMM and the addition of bots completely killed many online shooters.
What's the reasoning for this? Why wouldn't you want to pit players against other players of a similar level? Genuine question.
In my personal opinion people who complain about this are mid level players. Noobs like it because it means they get to win some, experience players like it because it means they get non trivial matches. But these people want to pwn noobs and are frustrated because they're getting owned half of the time. There's no reason to be against skill level matchmaking other than "I want to play against people who are worse than me so I can look good".
Play ranked for SBMM, casual mode lobbies should be random and diverse.
Strongly disagree, I'm a weak player, this means that I wouldn't be able to enjoy the game as I would get destroyed on all my matches.
Not true, unless you are in the absolute bottom 1%. We all enjoyed games before SBMM, it only became a real thing in like the last 6 years, don't know why everyone is suddenly scared to have a challenge every few games.
First of all SBMM has been going in for WAY longer than that, at least going back to 2007 on CoD according to google. If it wasn't a problem before, it shouldn't be now, it's just that now you're aware so you're salty about it. And may I ask, what's the problem with it? You don't like playing with people you might lose to? What's the reasoning behind not liking it?
Also you're assuming a uniform distribution of skill level, which doesn't make sense, i.e. for every person who's playing CoD for the first time there are multiple people with at least some experience, and the more experienced the more the person plays so the more likely they'll be put in a match. This means that for people in the bottom, probably closer to bottom 10% they're likely to be the only bottom player in the whole match, so the game for them would be spawn, die, wait over and over, which will be frustrating and so they'll quit, and now the same will happen to the next bottom 10%, so on and so forth until no one else is left playing.
Random matchmaking is not a thing, it hasn't been a thing for a LONG time, any match that you found online and had fun had SBMM. Small games can get away with it because the distribution is more even, but in huge titles with millions of people it's not feasible. You know why this began to annoy you 6 years ago? Because 6 years ago you became good enough to jump from the bottom to the midrange level, and now you're matched with people you can't so easily beat all of the time.
I do think games should allow you to do fully random matchmaking, although I have a strong suspicion it would be lots of work to set up for a feature that almost no one will use, because you think you want that, but if you got it you will always be the worst player in the match, and if you aren't people who're worse than you will eventually get frustrated and quit until you're the bottom player and get frustrated and leave.
SBMM has existed yes, but it was essentially random because the priority was always low queue times over anything else. It wasn't until the later cods like Advanced Warfare where they started prioritising it more and then MW2019 really killed the matchmaking experience by relying on skill as a factor way too much (this by the way, is the issue we are talking about now when we refer to SBMM, not ancient systems like TrueSkill that didn't have much sway, except for stopping the best of the best matching with the worst of the worst, which I would agree with being fine).
Call of Duty until ~2014 always prioritised queue times, same with the emergence of Battle Royales when they took over the online space for a while in 2017-2020. Fortnite had the quick queues with little SBMM, if any, because queue times were the most important thing. Now you wait a bit longer get against half players similar skill to yourself and the rest of the lobby is filled with bots to speed up matchmaking times, it's terrible and unfun.
That's the issue we are talking about and it's not an unpopular opinion. It's nothing to do with my own skill, infact I have gotten worse at shooters in the last few years if anything as I have gotten older and I still don't want SBMM. Back when I played Cod everyday on console I was pretty average, but slowly got better until I quit consoles in 2014. On PC I mainly played CS, which I became very good at yes. I was a bit better than average on Fortnite/PUBG and would win like 1 in 10 with a decent amount of kills. Now I can win like every game because it's all bots. It's boring. I can beat anyone now because I'm not matched with or against people who are better than me, I don't learn anything.
I want to jump into a game and have fun, I want to lose some, I want to win some, I want to try in some, I want to goof around in others. The strictness of SBMM today prevents that from happening. I can't join a lobby of people, lose to them and then try to beat them in the next game, because they reset the lobby after every match. Cod is also a lot less social because of this, you can't make friends or enemies across matches anymore. These big multiplayer games have dropped fun, instead they want people to win win win so they keep playing and buy skins. That's why people don't improve anymore, there's no challenge, every game is the same thing, same strategy required.
I played some mainstream games recently and they put you against bots and stuff for like 10 of your first games, I end up quitting because I just want to play versus players, every game wants this heavily curated experience and it sucks. Let players have fun again, if people want to play against bots, give them a mode to. If they want "fair" games against players, they can play ranked. Just give us our casual lobbies back.
I can beat anyone now because I'm not matched with or against people who are better than me, I don't learn anything.
I call bullshit on that. If that were the case your skill would be considered higher and you would be matched against ever higher skilled players until you're not able to win that much. If you can beat anyone in a SBMM system, you would absolutely obliterate every single match in a non-SBMM. You might think you're bad at those games, but this is what's happening to you: https://xkcd.com/2501/ i.e. You think the average player is winning most matches, but the truth is that the average player wins around 50% of the mathes. If you win significantly more than 50% of the games you're placed in then you're among the top players and just aren't enough skilled people online to match up with you, which means that if you were to be put in a non-SBMM lobby you would be MVP 99.999% of times and win the match solo. Think about it this way, imagine there are 1000 people searching for matches in your area, and for ease let's also asume their number also represents their skill level compared to the other, i.e. 1 is a total noob, 1000 is a pro, in this scenario on a SBMM you're likely in the top 995 so you get paired with the top 10 and according to you you still win that match, on a non-SBMM your average enemy would be 400 skill levels below your current enemies.
I want to jump into a game and have fun, I want to lose some, I want to win some, I want to try in some, I want to goof around in others.
I'm sorry, but that will never happen, you're just too good at the game, you win most matches when paired against people of your relative skills, which means there aren't people with your skill around, pairing you with random people will just result in even more frustrating matches for you. You're like a martial artist who goes on dojos fighting the black belts and winning and think that it would be more fun if you were allowed to fight a random belt color.
I can't join a lobby of people, lose to them and then try to beat them in the next game, because they reset the lobby after every match.
According to a quick Google search that has nothing to do with SBMM but it's because different maps and different modes have different number of players. Not to mention that just thinking about it real quick I realized that probably lots of people just play a match and leave, so your lobby would get smaller and smaller unless you allowed it to be refilled after every round. Not that any of this matters, because that scenario won't happen to you, because you don't lose matches, remember?
Cod is also a lot less social because of this, you can't make friends or enemies across matches anymore.
That's a bummer, but seems related to the topic of lobby reset, not SBMM.
These big multiplayer games have dropped fun, instead they want people to win win win so they keep playing and buy skins. That's why people don't improve anymore, there's no challenge, every game is the same thing, same strategy required.
Have you considered that maybe you're so good at these games that YOU keep winning but that the same is not true for 90% of people? These are multiplayer games, it's literally impossible for everyone to win all the time, it's a zero sum game, for someone to win, someone has to lose, and if you're winning more than 50% of the time it means you're an above average player.
I played some mainstream games recently and they put you against bots and stuff for like 10 of your first games
That sounds ridiculous, but with the amount of people playing CoD I don't think they need bots. At least for me every time I play I get matched against people, but realistically I don't play that much.
If they want "fair" games against players, they can play ranked. Just give us our casual lobbies back.
You are looking for a mystical fun of being able to play against people more skilled than you, that won't happen, because casual players are in general terms much worse than you, you're like a pro NBA basketball player wanting to go back to play in the yard against kids, you have good memories of that time, but your skill level would make those matches extremely boring for you and unfair for others.
You can take all claims against me and direct them at yourself. You are stuck at such a low elo you have no idea what happens higher up. Just crazy takes...
You fall under the category of players who cant tell the difference between bots and real players. So perhaps low elo should just be placed against bots and let other players have real matches.
You are delusional if you think I want to stomp every match. I want to have fun in every match, if I am against worst players, I can fuck around with random weapons, if I am against better players I have to try harder than usual if I want to win. Match diversity! If I am against the same skill every match, then I have to sweat every match and thats fucking boring.
Maybe once you get better at games, you will understand more, but you dont seem to want to improve though. So you should just play versus bots every game, you wont even know if they are players anyway and you can avoid the scary world of players who are better than you.
Because the modes are casual, I should be able to have a bit of fun, some games will be easy, some games will be harder. I can experiment with different styles, loadouts whatever. SBMM in casual modes ruins this, because every game turns into a sweaty slog.
You also dont improve at games past a certain point by killing bots and players just as bad as yourself. I got better by playing against and with the better players, the lobbies were more diverse which was more fun and better for learning.
IMO people act like it's training wheels so they can get better, but it's more like turning the game to easy and not having to face any challenging hurdles. When people go into a game on easier difficulties and then try to play it on a higher difficulty, they actually generally have a harder time than if they just played the game on the harder difficulty to begin with (with some exceptions). Players should be getting better by experience not algorithmically making them feel better by pitting them against other poor players. It worked just fine for a long time before the invention of SBMM, and servers used to do a lot of the filtering for us before that stopped being common (for absolutely no good reasons).
This is honestly why the average player is worse now than they used to be.
This misses the players who are always low elo for their whole lives - its not fun for them to get stomped every game forever...
They are low elo forever because they only play low elo games. There are way more low elo players than not, so without SBMM they wont get stomped all the time, it was never like that before so I dont get why we are pretending it will be now.
Well that kind of gets to my second point of servers disappearing. Used to be you could find or create your own servers for your more casual players but most games these days have no such options.
Honestly, games need some form of SBMM. Otherwise you just get pub-stompers every lobby that make the game unfun for everyone but the best players.
Before SBMM you stomped some and got stomped in some, no matter your skill level, because you sometimes had worse players and sometimes some better players. It made the big wins more exciting and forced you to try new things to win vs better players. It's incredibly bland playing against the same skill level, every game is predictable and you will never improve as a player.
People are still buying AAA games?