304 réponses à ce sujet

[XAN]

My 'kind of an insecure loser' remark was entirely mischievous. I have been very clear about my love of BSN, and the skill of the players here, and I of course accept that there are many competitive ones among you. The idea that your opinion wouldn't matter to me is kinda ridiculous - you're one PSN/BSN's greatest assets. I'm sure we'll run into one another here or in Andromeda.

 

For what it's worth, I don't disagree with any of what you say, and I approach the game exactly the same, right down to messages. I just don't check scores because I'm not interested. I will know the capabilities of the team within a very short time, with opinions usually confirmed by wave 3. I'm pretty good at predicting what a table will look like before it appears, because I rarely go Rambo and will usually try to remain aware of what the host is doing. I will be second in the vast majority of pug games I play, sometimes third, occasionally first and rarely fourth. I make for a pretty solid wingman, but ultimately I am an Average Joe, and I'm proud. 

 

As for the wider concept of competition, I once had this debate with Cain too. What passes for reality from an American perspective may be different in other cultures. (Are there other cultures?! ) I am happy to compare myself to someone in terms of height or weight or objective values, but I don't seek to be better than anyone in any context. I try to be the best I can be. I can learn many things from other people, playing ME3 MP or how to fix a puncture, but to view what they do in a way that makes me feel worse about myself is pointless, just as doing something better than someone else should be irrelevant to me. I've learned things first hand from some of this game's masters, who are undoubtedly more skillful than me, but they've all seemed happy to have me as a regular teammate over the years. I have a bit of skill killing virtual aliens - it's really not that big a deal to me how much skill, as I'll have the knowledge that I've done everything I reasonably can to contribute to a successful mission. Successful missions make me happy. Some more than others, but it's my only real motivation. Ultimately, I would say a 'Mission Successful' message is the only thing that really matters. Objectively, you can't really argue too much against that. In my entire career I've failed two Gold duo GiPs with QMR, one GiP with Cato, one AHF Hydra Collectors Plat game with Cronshaw, Lucky's brand new alt, and Oni I think, maybe Ark, with lag and frame drop from hell, although I did bank the wave 10 credits. I don't remember a single other failed mission I've begun with a BSNer, except a bizarre SIlver duo with Stephen the Quarian fan when I was trying to teach him the Justicar / Acolyte. (Edit: and one other game with QMR and Mordokai which I refuse to talk about.) My pug success is obviously lower, but honestly not by much if you discount clusterf*ck GiPs. I do know I probably come across as a patronising old fart, but I'm just trying to articulate some of the core things I genuinely love about the gameplay, and what makes it so addictive, particularly in the context of this thread, and with the development of Andromeda in mind. Co-op has the potential to take over my life. PvP doesn't. But I don't begrudge you guys your desires.

 

I believe that universally, in nature and everywhere else, cooperation trumps competition, even though using the word trump right now feels kinda icky. That's where belief in human competitiveness being natural gets you. 

I somehwat suspected you were joking, but I had to make sure because I don't know you. Competition isn't a destructive thing by itself. However I do not consider ME3 to be competitive at all. Even in speedrunning, which is the closest thing to competitiveness in this game, RNG has way too much impact to be taken seriously. This game wasn't designed to be a ground for competition. I do try however to reach my limits in the game, so I can do something that I would consider "impressive" (like a sub20 gold solo with a non-geth character on PS3). I'm actually pretty conflicted at this point about this, because "being good" against AI that uses the same strategy against you over and over again doesn't fit my definition of skill (please someone correct me on this), neither does RNG grinding, but I've put so much time into this game that I might as well do something impressive. I'll clearly need some DS2 pvp teraphy after I'll take a break from ME3 (I was referring to myself too in my original post btw, because I do suck terribly at Souls pvp  ).

 

Just like you, I don't care about how much you score as long as you're doing the objectives and having fun. This is why I also love having people like you and most of BSN as teammates. I did run into you once shortly after joining AHF. Mexximal was hosting *shudders* and you joined as a second pug, but it was a long time ago and I had no idea you were a BSNer. I would happily play with you, especially after developing an unexpected krogan addiction a month ago 

 

As many others said before, this (ME3MP part of BSN, the rest are disturbing) is the best community I've ever been part of and it's the reason why I'm still playing this game. Love the community's maturity and looking at the "age" topic and realising I was one of the youngest BSNers was surprising. The maturity, paired with the immature and over-the-top sarcastic jokes are the best thing about BSN. I always laugh when I see people challenging each other to Thunderdome (which I've always interpreted as a sarcastic reference towards competitive games). But at the same time, it's actually an effective way to settle disputes.

 

The best example of the community's awesomeness is that even though the only thing I enjoy in ME3MP at this point is soloing, I still can't refuse playing a couple of team games when I see some of my BSN/AHF friends online.

[Teabaggin Krogan]

...

I believe that universally, in nature and everywhere else, cooperation trumps competition, even though using the word trump right now feels kinda icky. That's where belief in human competitiveness being natural gets you. 

 

No not really, it's just not as simple or black and white as that dear Grunt. Like Xan said, competitiveness isn't inherently destructive in nature. It can be an important catalyst for development and progress, since the very essence of competition is about finding out the best in the business. 

 

There are many inventions which owe their existence to competition, for example as you know, the space race between USSR and the USA led to major breakthroughs in our space program besides providing many improvements to life and the helping us grow as a species.

                      Another big case is market competition in business which is what promotes companies to provide better services and products because if they don't do it, their competitor will. And if there was no competition, that would usually be an incentive for exploitation of the market by the company simply because there is no one else the customer could go to.

 

Competitive racing events like F1 and MotoGp, have huge financial backing and RnD teams behind them because besides producing a lot of income as a sport they also contribute to the innovation and development of new technologies, like better engines, better aerodynamic design, launch control, disc brakes and so much more.You probably already know this since you're a rider yourself.

 

Competition is also what makes us avoid stagnation, there is hardly any pressure in cooperation. It is competition that drives you to be better than your opponents, the veritable fire in your belly that makes you strive to be better. Ideally it can also teach us to recover from our losses and to be graceful in winning. I could go on but I think you get my point.

 

But ME3 Mp is hardly competitive though and I don't really care about score, as long as someone's not going down a lot and is helpful with objectives.

 

 

..... I'll clearly need some DS2 pvp teraphy after I'll take a break from ME3 (I was referring to myself too in my original post btw, because I do suck terribly at Souls pvp  ).

 

It's just practice man, you'll get better eventually. If I might give a couple pointers, try getting yourself to at least level 150 and have about 50 vigor(hp). That way you won't get one shot by someone with an Op setup.

              You could try practicing at the iron keep but I personally wouldn't recommend that cluster ****. Instead I would say try the blood bro arena, sure there's some over leveled cheesy mofos out there but on the upside it's got a good space to fight and most of the really good pvp dudes hang around there. Sure it might be pretty tough at first but the more better players you fight the better you'll become in the long run. Or you could try invasions which are a huge amount of fun as well!

 

It's all about getting that mindset right, kinda like how you become accustomed to gold and platinum on ME3 MP after playing a lot. Try and find a weapon you like and then get familiar with its moveset. How fast are its swings, whether you can cancel animations halfway through, how long is the recovery time for swings and so on. But do not make it a crutch and do not just stick to one weapon all the time. Don't be too dependent on an Op weapon like the katana or straight sword. Try everything out including the not so easy to use ones like greatswords etc. Their limitations will only make you a better player in the long run when you learn how to overcome them. And don't worry about taking risks like parries, you might mess up a few times but it's worth learning how to parry in pvp. 

 

I would've loved to help you practice if you're playing ds2 on ps3 but you know I'm not home. However you could ask Bowlcuts or Sinful to duel with you if they'd like and that should be really helpful for improving your pvp.

 

Also my bad for writing this big paragraph, it's just that I'm really passionate about it!

[PatrickBateman]

It's the second best for me, World of Warcraft will always be my no 1.

But the problem for me with WoW was that it was just way to addictive, 4 hours of hardcore 25 man raid grinding 4-5 nights per week and then 10 man raiding every Friday/Saturday night combined with PvP/questing etc, it just took such a large part of my life that I had to quit.

MEMP is a lot more casual eventhough on average I play about 90 min per day or so. Luckily I don't play any other games as my free time would be gone again if I did

[Lightning-Lucan]

Me 3 multiplayer mode is fun when you team up with skilled players..

[Onewomanarmy]

I've always wanted to try World of Warcraft but it's only for pc and I don't like playing on pc I know a lot of people like me3 mp for the competition and such but I like it to have fun, I don't care if I get many kills or not, I care about laughing with friends and having a good time with them. I love playing with friends and getting to know new people as well

[Darth Volus]

My 'kind of an insecure loser' remark was entirely mischievous. I have been very clear about my love of BSN, and the skill of the players here, and I of course accept that there are many competitive ones among you. The idea that your opinion wouldn't matter to me is kinda ridiculous - you're one PSN/BSN's greatest assets. I'm sure we'll run into one another here or in Andromeda.

 

For what it's worth, I don't disagree with any of what you say, and I approach the game exactly the same, right down to messages. I just don't check scores because I'm not interested. I will know the capabilities of the team within a very short time, with opinions usually confirmed by wave 3. I'm pretty good at predicting what a table will look like before it appears, because I rarely go Rambo and will usually try to remain aware of what the host is doing. I will be second in the vast majority of pug games I play, sometimes third, occasionally first and rarely fourth. I make for a pretty solid wingman, but ultimately I am an Average Joe, and I'm proud. 

 

As for the wider concept of competition, I once had this debate with Cain too. What passes for reality from an American perspective may be different in other cultures. (Are there other cultures?! ) I am happy to compare myself to someone in terms of height or weight or objective values, but I don't seek to be better than anyone in any context. I try to be the best I can be. I can learn many things from other people, playing ME3 MP or how to fix a puncture, but to view what they do in a way that makes me feel worse about myself is pointless, just as doing something better than someone else should be irrelevant to me. I've learned things first hand from some of this game's masters, who are undoubtedly more skillful than me, but they've all seemed happy to have me as a regular teammate over the years. I have a bit of skill killing virtual aliens - it's really not that big a deal to me how much skill, as I'll have the knowledge that I've done everything I reasonably can to contribute to a successful mission. Successful missions make me happy. Some more than others, but it's my only real motivation. Ultimately, I would say a 'Mission Successful' message is the only thing that really matters. Objectively, you can't really argue too much against that. In my entire career I've failed two Gold duo GiPs with QMR, one GiP with Cato, one AHF Hydra Collectors Plat game with Cronshaw, Lucky's brand new alt, and Oni I think, maybe Ark, with lag and frame drop from hell, although I did bank the wave 10 credits. I don't remember a single other failed mission I've begun with a BSNer, except a bizarre SIlver duo with Stephen the Quarian fan when I was trying to teach him the Justicar / Acolyte. (Edit: and one other game with QMR and Mordokai which I refuse to talk about.) My pug success is obviously lower, but honestly not by much if you discount clusterf*ck GiPs. I do know I probably come across as a patronising old fart, but I'm just trying to articulate some of the core things I genuinely love about the gameplay, and what makes it so addictive, particularly in the context of this thread, and with the development of Andromeda in mind. Co-op has the potential to take over my life. PvP doesn't. But I don't begrudge you guys your desires.

 

I believe that universally, in nature and everywhere else, cooperation trumps competition, even though using the word trump right now feels kinda icky. That's where belief in human competitiveness being natural gets you. 

 

 

Don't worry man, I stopped reading most of your posts weeks ago.   

 

 

I hear you on the tolerant wife man. We're not hitched, but considering my partner is French, the little amount of complaining she does about this game is kinda incredible. 

 

As for contribution, for me, honestly, if I'm playing, I'm contributing. If I'm running around with nothing to kill, it makes me laugh because it's usually one of our regular's fault. I may jokingly curse the day I first read the letters 'BSN', but it's all good.  If people wanna go all turbo-charged, I say good luck to them. I'm perfectly happy picking on scraps from time to time. And you know how I feel about objective waves, where it is very, very easy to gauge my contribution, as well as everyone else's - that's where my opinion of players comes from, not score. 

 

And I still have no likes. 

 

I'll pretend that I read it all. 

 

Here's my answer: 

 

[inert14]

ME3MP is pretty barebones as far as MP goes. But it is the first game to bring me back into multiplayer in over ten years.

 

I played alot of PC FPS multiplayer back during the Quake 2 days, spending most of my time with Kingpin: Life of Crime. I also played a bit of Unreal Tournament and Battlefield 1942 afterwards. Even these old games had better structure and access to their multiplayer than ME3 has nearly 15 years later. Still, the co-op vibe and horde mode fit the narrative of the game pretty well which made it fun for me.

 

I doubt I put 1000+ hours into any game prior to ME3.

[Supreme Leech]

Infinitely better than any other online multiplayer game I've played. But then I've only played a handful of online multiplayer games so my experience is extremely limited. Still, no other game has ever had me hooked as much as Mass Effect 3 multiplayer has done. What an adventure it's been.

[LightRobot]

 

No not really, it's just not as simple or black and white as that dear Grunt. Like Xan said, competitiveness isn't inherently destructive in nature. It can be an important catalyst for development and progress, since the very essence of competition is about finding out the best in the business. 

 

There are many inventions which owe their existence to competition, for examples as you know, the space race between USSR and the USA led to major breakthroughs in our space program besides providing many improvements to life and the helping us grow as a species.

                      Another big case is market competition in business which is what promotes companies to provide better services and products because if they don't do it, their competitor will. And if there was no competition, that would usually be an incentive for exploitation of the market by the company simply because there is no one else the customer could go to.

 

Competitive racing events like F1 and MotoGp, have huge financial backing and RnD teams behind them because besides producing a lot of income as a sport they also contribute to the innovation and development of new technologies, like better engines, better aerodynamic design, launch control, disc brakes and so much more.You probably already know this since you're a rider yourself.

 

Competition is also what makes us avoid stagnation, there is hardly any pressure in cooperation. It is competition that drives you to be better than your opponents, the veritable fire in your belly that makes you strive to be better. Ideally it can also teach us to recover from our losses and to be graceful in winning. I could go on but I think you get my point.

 

You made some good points, competition is probably not the right word. I think what Grunt and I were talking about is the idea of comparing yourself to others to ascertain an idea of your worth.

 

If we're talking about Xan's definition which is probably a good one, Competitiveness : "a desire for action and an external, achievement-oriented focus,..." ,  then I'm all for it.

 

I think the confusion comes from the fact that we live in societies where a lot of words have lost a fair part of their meaning and where the idea of competition is often related to the idea of being better/worse than someone else, of winning/losing, of good/bad. That's why a lot of people have trouble believing that "all that matters is to participate". The idea of being a loser or a winner with all their connotations is pervasive. Even if it's true that all that matters to you is participating, it's hard to keep this feeling of satisfaction when everybody around you is mainly focused about winning or losing. Anyone that played a competitive sports will know what I'm talking about.

 

The exemple you picked about competitive business is an interesting one, in my opinion it all depends on what motivates you to be better. If the only/main reason behind your improvements are selfish ones devoid of any genuine care for your customers, coworkers, employees, fellow human beings, the environnement etc...then I think that idea of competition is sick and morally wrong. I wouldn't trust companies like that and I can think of a dozen of successful companies that are king in the competitive aspect of ther business but whose actions I consider vile and I'm being generous here. Monsanto is probably the most famous one and what they're doing is downright criminal and evil, that's not even an opinion. 

 

On the other hand, I admit that seeing how other people fare at things is not a bad thing in itself. If you're a sane, balanced, stable and confident individual it can give you all sorts of useful information. But there again, in our societies, most of the time, comparing yourself to someone else often results in : 

 

- I'm better than him / that's good for my ego / I need to secure that feeling by keeping that status / possibly try to feel even more secure by besting more people --> I have a false twisted sense of what I and other people are worth.

 

Or 

 

- I'm worse / I feel like crap / I'm inferior etc... --> I have a false twisted sense of what I and other people are worth.

 

Same goes for cooperation, it's hard to realize it because of the way the world is but cooperation is so far away from stagnation. Stagnation happens when there is no movement, no life. It's a mistake to think you necessarily need opponents or someone to beat to feel that intense drive to be better. The nuance is, wanting to be better than someone/everyone and wanting to be better period. 

 

There can be great challenge and excitement in cooperation,  you don't necessarily need ennemies to rally around something, it can be for a good cause, to help someone or whatever. My brother's been a father for a couple of years now and I don't think I've ever seen him wanting to improve himself this much and he did. He's not doing it to win over someone else, he's doing it for his kids, his wife and himself, what greater fire than the will to be the best parent you can be ?

 

I do think that too many aspects of our societies are built with corrupted ideas as their backbone which is a shame. Ideally, a company should try to improve its service to its customers (without sacrificing the well-being of its employees or anyone for that matter) because it's the right thing to do and they would be rewarded for it, because that's the way it should be , like natural law. Obviously, that's not the way it is, but anything going towards that gives me great satisfaction.

[GruntKitterhand]

Competition isn't a destructive thing by itself.

 

I was already contemplating publicly editing my earlier post before you, 5 , Robot and Teabaggin quoted it. (As for Binary Helix, yeah, like, whatever, dude. Go get some electrolytes.) I regret trying to get a dig at The Don in such a way that I ended up misrepresenting my own views, so I feel the need to add to what I said in such a way that proves that I'm not Bill Bailey and I haven't accidentally swallowed the Little Book of Calm. If you don't know what I'm talking about, you should look it up, though it's unavailable in the UK, sadly, due to a little thing called......... COMPETITION!!!   

 

So, keeping this in the context of MP gaming so as not to alert the mods, my views are that competitive character traits do exist naturally in each and every one of us, to varying degrees. Yes, even me. On this day in 1980, I encountered my first Space Invaders machine and I'm not going to pretend that I wanted to do worse than my friends when my turn came. I went on to have such a Sega Rally rivalry with my mate that people would pay us to play for their entertainment. Long easy right.....maybe.   I can still feel the bruises on my upper arm when I think about those days - we ended up getting barred from the establishment for being too raucous. I could continue to ramble on about how my gaming tastes evolved, but I'm conscious that Binary Helix might be pretending not to read this, so I'll try to bring it up to date. ME2 SP was the first game I'd ever played in which I had control of 3 characters in battle, and learned over several playthroughs how to make the most of combining powers. I had never played an online game at that stage, despite owning several CoD titles. My mates all played FIFA, or Street Fighter, or whatever, but I wasn't interested. I do remember finding the squad control feature pretty cool, because they were real personalities as well, but there was a spark of recognition that it might be even more cool if this was a game where your friends could take control of the other characters. I was thinking locally rather than online, basically something that would work a bit like RE5, but with the added benefit of combos. I'd been away from games completely for 10 years, and had no idea what had been happening in terms of online capability, but didn't really care because I just played SP games anyway. Then Bioware hit us with their Galactic Readiness tactic in ME3. Was it a masterstroke or an act of treachery? Well, we know how it's viewed by the BSN members who don't venture over here with us morons, don't we? I don't think it was either, but it's ultimately why we're having this discussion. For me, it was pretty close to what I'd imagined when I was playing ME2, and it appealed to me specifically because of its co-op nature. I would actually prefer it if every wave was structured like hacks and escorts, as I believe Helldivers possibly is. I haven't played it as I don't like top-down games. But again, I do understand the competitive instinct - I just don't have it in this context because I don't think it is required in a Mass Effect environment.

 

Competition is natural. Competition is unnatural. Competition is good. Competition is bad.

 

I believe all of those statements, to varying degrees and depending on context. I thought I would make it easier for 5 if he ever decides to selectively quote me out of context again by just putting them all together myself. When it comes to sport in particular, competition is undeniably good. I think it is the best example of how we should, as a civilisation, exercise those genes. The problems begin when we don't know where to draw the line and end up with the situation we have now, where every event that has a global market is inevitably tainted by the whiff of corruption.  I cannot respond to Teabaggin's comments about business and commerce without the thread being automatically locked, because my political views are considered illegal in the Land of the Free, but I don't believe I'm breaking any rules by recommending reading Moondust by Andrew Smith, about the Apollo missions, in conjunction with John Higgs' Stranger Than We Can Imagine: Making Sense of the 20th Century. (edit: as well as learning about Werner Von Braun and Operation Paperclip)

 

There is more than one way to skin Schroedinger's Cat. 

[HamleticTortoise]

I was already contemplating publicly editing my earlier post before you, 5 , Robot and Teabaggin quoted it. (As for Binary Helix, yeah, like, whatever, dude. Go get some electrolytes.) I regret trying to get a dig at The Don in such a way that I ended up misrepresenting my own views, so I feel the need to add to what I said in such a way that proves that I'm not Bill Bailey and I haven't accidentally swallowed the Little Book of Calm. If you don't know what I'm talking about, you should look it up, though it's unavailable in the UK, sadly, due to a little thing called......... COMPETITION!!!   

 

So, keeping this in the context of MP gaming so as not to alert the mods, my views are that competitive character traits do exist naturally in each and every one of us, to varying degrees. Yes, even me. On this day in 1980, I encountered my first Space Invaders machine and I'm not going to pretend that I wanted to do worse than my friends when my turn came. I went on to have such a Sega Rally rivalry with my mate that people would pay us to play for their entertainment. Long easy right.....maybe.   I can still feel the bruises on my upper arm when I think about those days - we ended up getting barred from the establishment for being too raucous. I could continue to ramble on about how my gaming tastes evolved, but I'm conscious that Binary Helix might be pretending not to read this, so I'll try to bring it up to date. ME2 SP was the first game I'd ever played in which I had control of 3 characters in battle, and learned over several playthroughs how to make the most of combining powers. I had never played an online game at that stage, despite owning several CoD titles. My mates all played FIFA, or Street Fighter, or whatever, but I wasn't interested. I do remember finding the squad control feature pretty cool, because they were real personalities as well, but there was a spark of recognition that it might be even more cool if this was a game where your friends could take control of the other characters. I was thinking locally rather than online, basically something that would work a bit like RE5, but with the added benefit of combos. I'd been away from games completely for 10 years, and had no idea what had been happening in terms of online capability, but didn't really care because I just played SP games anyway. Then Bioware hit us with their Galactic Readiness tactic in ME3. Was it a masterstroke or an act of treachery? Well, we know how it's viewed by the BSN members who don't venture over here with us morons, don't we? I don't think it was either, but it's ultimately why we're having this discussion. For me, it was pretty close to what I'd imagined when I was playing ME2, and it appealed to me specifically because of its co-op nature. I would actually prefer it if every wave was structured like hacks and escorts, as I believe Helldivers possibly is. I haven't played it as I don't like top-down games. But again, I do understand the competitive instinct - I just don't have it in this context because I don't think it is required in a Mass Effect environment.

 

Competition is natural. Competition is unnatural. Competition is good. Competition is bad.

 

I believe all of those statements, to varying degrees and depending on context. I thought I would make it easier for 5 if he ever decides to selectively quote me out of context again by just putting them all together myself. When it comes to sport in particular, competition is undeniably good. I think it is the best example of how we should, as a civilisation, exercise those genes. The problems begin when we don't know where to draw the line and end up with the situation we have now, where every event that has a global market is inevitably tainted by the whiff of corruption.  I cannot respond to Teabaggin's comments about business and commerce without the thread being automatically locked, because my political views are considered illegal in the Land of the Free, but I don't believe I'm breaking any rules by recommending reading Moondust by Andrew Smith, about the Apollo missions, in conjunction with John Higgs' Stranger Than We Can Imagine: Making Sense of the 20th Century. (edit: as well as learning about Werner Von Braun and Operation Paperclip)

 

There is more than one way to skin Schroedinger's Cat. 

 

I don't feel this is my place to expound my views on the topic of competition (yet? ), other than to say that I believe it is a word with a wide range of uses and connotations (biology, psychology, business, sports, ...), which makes it necessary to use it with the proper framing, and to understand it in the spirit it was used. I do appreciate this discussion however, and all the well-articulated points of views expressed!

 

I will say that I do find it a bit puzzling when people choose this multiplayer game as an outlet to prove themselves as better/best - especially when this is done by using personal score as the metric. Besides the fact that score does not really represent a player's contribution, and it is biased towards certain specific aspects of gameplay that do not fully encapsulate one's contribution to the match, to use a game specifically designed around the idea of cooperation to try and prove oneself to be better than their peers is something I find baffling, particularly when it begins to negatively affect the final outcome of the match (most obvious when ignoring objectives).

I don't play this game to be able to say "I won", but to be able to say "we overcame"

[TheShadyEngineer]

Folks, competition and co operation aren't mutually exclusive in PvP games, especially in the more objective-based team-oriented shooters out there. It is a general rule of thumb that a co ordinated team of average players will triumph over a disorganized band of highly skilled players. Sure, the high skill player will dominate average Joe in a 1v1, but what if that 1v1 never happens? What if team average forces team high skill into 2v1 or 3v1 fights? The situation just got a lot more interesting, didn't it?

 

Here's an example from Battlefield. I do have better stories about how co operation overcame numbers from Planetside like when our squad was attacked by a force 3 times our numbers only for them to get their attack momentum stalled, get held up at the gates, get mercilessly farmed and later when our reinforcements arrived, get beaten so silly that their main battle tanks were running away from our dune buggies and battle buses. But since Battlefield is a way more known PvP shooter here's an example from that.

 

Ever noticed how sometimes at the post game scoreboard the top handful of players on the loosing team are stat wise the best players in the lobby? You would have the jet skyknight who kept the enemy's air fleet grounded throughout the game, the ace tanker who also farms infantry and maybe a few gifted ground pounders who managed to rake in a beastly KDR. Yet they still lost. Why? Because the enemy team was more co ordinated and PTFO'd while the skilled team was just a bunch of individuals doing their thing.

 

Or a better scenario is when you spawn into a lost cause battle- enemy has all the points, is surrounding your spawn with tanks and is shooting anyone daring to come out. But then, miraculously, this lost cause team manages to pull together and after an hour long slugfest comes out on top with a couple dozen tickets left. Towards the end of such fights, you'd see things like "Holy ****, we actually did it" (emphasis on WE) pop up in text chat. People cheering in squad voice comms and even congratulations coming from the defeated enemy team are not uncommon. In fact, such fights is how most of my FL got filled with Battlefielders back when BF3 was my main game.

 

Point is PvP games are competitive, sure, but if you want to actually win, co operation and co ordination reign supreme. You can treat these PvP shooters as co-ops with AI of mixed difficulty. Some AI are diamond difficulty that will gib you before you even know they're there and others sub wood difficulty who haven't yet decided which end of the weapon bullets come out of. 

[TheShadyEngineer]

Oh and I don't always check the scoreboard, but when I do it's in an uphill fight and I want to see if the team is doing as bad as I do. 

[Fuenf789]

{Does a bit of introspection and correction after various feedbacks from BSN}

That's a bit better Grunt.  Thx for taking the effort, old sport.

It's great show of character to be able to adapt.

Yes- read A.Smith - I would say it falls into classical modernism - those mono-culture authors goes a bit beyond conspiracy theories on true human nature as driving force ala 1980 George Orwell etc. with a jab of cold war philosophy.

 

For something a bit more refreshing - I would recommend that you might want to follow that up with The Selfish Gene from Richard Dawkins. I'm not sure how long this link will last, though. Highly entertaining author, down to earth style, apolitical and more scientific, it promises refreshing perspective that our minds are not so in control of our motives as we would like to "rationally" think. Of course there are even more modern spin-offs of that book. But its a "classicial" post modernist work.

 

OT : It is recommended reading for anyone who thinks about competition, interaction with other people/species/genes etc. Caution - if you have a weak belief - it will shatter with slight hints of devious persiflage .

[Aetika]

So we mostly are a bunch of noo3s who only ever played me3mp online and think it s the best

 

Hey! I played DAI MP too! 

and Warframe

 

All three can be enjoyable, but of those, ME3 I would describe as most catchy, easy going and straight forward fun.

 

Warframe is one big mess of all sort of features, overwhelming and chaotic often and DAI is just insane (ly hostile to new players)

also insanely poor content wise 

[TheN7Penguin]

I've been interested by WoW but never wanted to play it... 1. I don't think my laptop can run it. 2. It seems a bit... idk generic, and lots of people play it and y'know, that means I probably won't XD

[Salarian Master Race]

I've been interested by WoW but never wanted to play it... 1. I don't think my laptop can run it. 2. It seems a bit... idk generic, and lots of people play it and y'know, that means I probably won't XD

 

It was ok-ish up until Burning Crusade.  It was all downhill from there.

[TheN7Penguin]

I have no idea what that is, but okay.

 

Literally every multiplayer experience I've ever had is in no way as good as ME3MP... like I connected with the MP instantly and realised that I was alright at it, so just kept playing. Never spent so much time playing a MP game as I have with ME3MP.

[GruntKitterhand]

misrepresents a BSNer again while making a post that reflects his own failure to pick up on the original reference made by GruntKitterhand himself

 

Dawkins is one of the most amusing men in the world, for reasons you and he may fail to grasp. He is a blinkered, fundamentalist religious zealot, whose view of reality is based on the premise: give me one free miracle and I'll explain everything else for you. He reminds me of Deckard ( not the BSN one ) - a man who becomes the thing he fears and hates most. I love him to bits, but I agree with him on very little. I've said repeatedly I subscribe to 'Maybe Logic', enlivened with large spoonfuls of Discordianism. Hail Eris!

 

As for your concern as to what my motivations are, or whether they are influenced by the winds of BSN, while it is touching that you pay such close attention, you are beginning to tread on thin ice with me. Lucky Starr is the only poster I have ever blocked, and I would prefer not to have to do it again. That depends on your future interaction with me. I would like things to remain civil, but if they don't that is entirely on you. Good day sir, I will only discuss game mechanics with you from here on in. 

[bauzabauza]

ME3MP is different, just seeing what developers left out you realize that the final product was a kind of BETA a way of going to see what happens, I sincerely doubt that biower expected had success

 

I hope in the next galaxy repeat the formula and not many things left out, because another PvP more... there are many of those...

[Teabaggin Krogan]

You made some good points, competition is probably not the right word. I think what Grunt and I were talking about is the idea of comparing yourself to others to ascertain an idea of your worth.

 

If we're talking about Xan's definition which is probably a good one, Competitiveness : "a desire for action and an external, achievement-oriented focus,..." ,  then I'm all for it.

 

I think the confusion comes from the fact that we live in societies where a lot of words have lost a fair part of their meaning and where the idea of competition is often related to the idea of being better/worse than someone else, of winning/losing, of good/bad. That's why a lot of people have trouble believing that "all that matters is to participate". The idea of being a loser or a winner with all their connotations is pervasive. Even if it's true that all that matters to you is participating, it's hard to keep this feeling of satisfaction when everybody around you is mainly focused about winning or losing. Anyone that played a competitive sports will know what I'm talking about.

 

The exemple you picked about competitive business is an interesting one, in my opinion it all depends on what motivates you to be better. If the only/main reason behind your improvements are selfish ones devoid of any genuine care for your customers, coworkers, employees, fellow human beings, the environnement etc...then I think that idea of competition is sick and morally wrong. I wouldn't trust companies like that and I can think of a dozen of successful companies that are king in the competitive aspect of ther business but whose actions I consider vile and I'm being generous here. Monsanto is probably the most famous one and what they're doing is downright criminal and evil, that's not even an opinion. 

...

 

Same goes for cooperation, it's hard to realize it because of the way the world is but cooperation is so far away from stagnation. Stagnation happens when there is no movement, no life. It's a mistake to think you necessarily need opponents or someone to beat to feel that intense drive to be better. The nuance is, wanting to be better than someone/everyone and wanting to be better period. 

 

There can be great challenge and excitement in cooperation,  you don't necessarily need enemies to rally around something, it can be for a good cause, to help someone or whatever. My brother's been a father for a couple of years now and I don't think I've ever seen him wanting to improve himself this much and he did. He's not doing it to win over someone else, he's doing it for his kids, his wife and himself, what greater fire than the will to be the best parent you can be ?

...

 

About the business example I stated, I was speaking about the fact that a competitive model is always best for the customer since it gives them choices which makes the companies improve their service/products etc so as to stay afloat in the market. I'm up for ethical standards sure but unfortunately not everyone follows those rules. But I feel It's more a question of ethics than a byproduct of competition because these organisation will be unethical regardless of the competition they face. 

 

I never said that cooperation leads to stagnation per se nor am I against cooperation by any means. I was merely pointing out Grunt's use of a blanket statement about competition in general, although he seems to have clarified his views afterwards. What I was meaning was that in many cases, I've felt like competition gives you that drive to be better and needn't be a demotivational factor. True, improvement for it's own sake is ideal but competition is the literal barometer that shows you where you stand, giving you something to relate to. 

 

I absolutely agree with your example about kids though. It is a particularly moving example but like I said, I was never against cooperation. But in hindsight perhaps I might have come across as such although that wasn't my intention. 

 

 

I was already contemplating publicly editing my earlier post before you, 5 , Robot and Teabaggin quoted it. (As for Binary Helix, yeah, like, whatever, dude. Go get some electrolytes.) I regret trying to get a dig at The Don in such a way that I ended up misrepresenting my own views, so I feel the need to add to what I said in such a way that proves that I'm not Bill Bailey and I haven't accidentally swallowed the Little Book of Calm. If you don't know what I'm talking about, you should look it up, though it's unavailable in the UK, sadly, due to a little thing called......... COMPETITION!!!   

...

Competition is natural. Competition is unnatural. Competition is good. Competition is bad.

 

I believe all of those statements, to varying degrees and depending on context. I thought I would make it easier for 5 if he ever decides to selectively quote me out of context again by just putting them all together myself. When it comes to sport in particular, competition is undeniably good. I think it is the best example of how we should, as a civilisation, exercise those genes. The problems begin when we don't know where to draw the line and end up with the situation we have now, where every event that has a global market is inevitably tainted by the whiff of corruption.  I cannot respond to Teabaggin's comments about business and commerce without the thread being automatically locked, because my political views are considered illegal in the Land of the Free, but I don't believe I'm breaking any rules by recommending reading Moondust by Andrew Smith, about the Apollo missions, in conjunction with John Higgs' Stranger Than We Can Imagine: Making Sense of the 20th Century. (edit: as well as learning about Werner Von Braun and Operation Paperclip)

 

There is more than one way to skin Schroedinger's Cat.  

Interesting recommendations on the books, I have checked them out and will give these a read later on. Also interested on the political views you mentioned, you can pm those to me if you'd like.

 

@Shady Engineer, yeah had my fair share of those moments in battlefield. It's true a squad/team that sticks together for the objectives, helping the team with vehicle support and things like clearing mines etc and most importantly PTFO actually improves everyone's game as well. I've had games where a lone guy flanking the enemy managed to capture a flag while his team was getting base camped and then people started spawning on there changing the outcome of the whole game.

                   But these cases of turning the tables are kinda rare though and while it's true coordination and cooperation are very important but there are many other game modes as well and no matter how good you are at cooperating in battlefield, you also need to be decent at actually shooting stuff. More often than not games are decided by which team has the better number of more skilled players from my experience. 

 

Also since I seem to be getting dangerously off topic, I'll say that I've played a lot of battlefield, killzone, some COD, assasins creed online and a **** ton of the dark souls online. My personal favorite is of course dark souls when it comes to online gameplay both co-op as well as pvp but ME3 has always had that magic touch that makes me come back to it again and again. The MP also has the worst ever gear acquisition system of the troll store and RNJesus still hasn't been kind enough to gift me a black widow even after all this time. But gameplay wise, it sure is a lot of fun and any game that lets me be a cackling krogan is a win in my book. 

[Dalakaar]

It was ok-ish up until Burning Crusade.  It was all downhill from there.

Disagree. WOTLK was one of the best times I've had in that game. I waited till ICC was around though, the first half with Ulduar/Floating Necromancer Spire-place I avoided in favour of getting into PvP in a bad way.

 

Once I got into a decent HICC10 team that was pushing progress (and had awesome players) things got amazing.

[Salarian Master Race]

Disagree. WOTLK was one of the best times I've had in that game. I waited till ICC was around though, the first half with Ulduar/Floating Necromancer Spire-place I avoided in favour of getting into PvP in a bad way.

 

Once I got into a decent HICC10 team that was pushing progress (and had awesome players) things got amazing.

 

One time my level 20 Orc Shaman was waterrunning off the coastline of Stranglethorn Vale because there were level 40+ gank crews hanging around the village, and I came up behind a Night Elf who was swimming along the coastline for the same reason.  Since I was waterwalking, and not swimming, I was able to start Frost Shocking him and all he could do was /spit at me until he died.  This was in vanilla WoW PvP server and I must say was the most fun I ever had playing it, and I played through everything up to and including WotLK.

 

[XAN]

stuff

When I first wrote my post, I put a sentence in it which says that competition moves the market forward and it creates innovation, but as I wanted to expand on the topic I realised that my english isn't up to the task and I'm too lazy to look up words so I just cut it. Thanks for posting it 

 

And I appreciate every tip you give me about Dank Souls 2. I play it on PS4. As soon as SotFS got announced I postponed purchasing it until after I bought a PS4. Picked it up during a sale, got killed by the first group of enemies because yolo, got to Majula, explored a bit, then I went back to ME3. Nowadays I'm just soloing, or playing Demon's Souls with mex, and eventually I'll play DkS1 with ark as soon as he gets it. As for ME3 I'll either get my sub-20 and take a break, or I'll ragequit and say that ME3 soloing is just a crappy RNG simulator and it doesn't even worth my time. Anyway I'll end up with DkS2 soon and hope to get addicted. Bowlcuts said he's going to pick up the PS4 version after he's done with DeS, so there's hope! 

 

Any plans for you to get a PS4?

 

But again, I do understand the competitive instinct - I just don't have it in this context because I don't think it is required in a Mass Effect environment.

 

You are right. It is not required, and you are the perfect example for it. Still managing to do well and finish missions in the game without comparing yourself to anyone 

 

Competition is natural. Competition is unnatural. Competition is good. Competition is bad.

Competition is natural - like in evolution, sports, PvP games

Competition is unnatural - like in ME3MP and other cooperative games

Competition is good - because it creates innovation

Competition is bad - because it can make people feel bad about themselves

 

I hope I understood you right 

 

I don't pug at all nowadays, so if you have any desire playing with me, just send me a fr.

[BioWareAre****s]

 

               

Um, I play this and Elder Scrolls Online. Mostly Elder Scrolls Online. Whoever says that MMOs are video games is wrong, they are an incredibly hard full-time job and require more effort and sanity than I possess. 

Oh Dear LordClaymoar I miss my life