bullying, harassing, or even “criticizing” them is an entirely pointless endeavor that does nothing but make you feel superior to another person. having a “minimum standard” for random matchmaking is OK i guess, but not having that standard met is the developer’s fault for not having proper matchmaking, not the random shitty player just trying to play the game.
and it’s a game. it fundamentally does not matter if someone is so bad you can’t get your +0.2 second record or whatever. it does not matter if you can’t win the difficulty you chose. everyone starts somewhere, and in games where different difficulties tend to be almost like entirely different games, this is even more true. if you want a game where you have an 100% chance of everyone involved being at the correct skill level you want, than don’t play with explicitly random players. no one cares if you want to feel special because you can win more at some fictional game than other people. I respect skill, but if you think that’s a reason to bully people than you should leave every game scene ever to save people from your presence
if a player stumbles into something but doesn’t understand it it’s the developer’s fault 90% of the time. if a player doesn’t want to “git gud” it’s the developer’s fault 90% of the time. every single genuine criticism made about a game’s difficulty is inherently valid. every game should have an easy mode. players should default to helping new players rather than dismissing them. learning a game by playing it is always more intuitive than using google or reading blog posts.
I’m not sure what this means but if you’re trying to analogue all bad players to treating the game as a “roleplay chat server” than that feels pretty dishonest
Your post(s) feel pretty dishonest. The bad players are bad because the game is too poorly designed. But then how are they’re good players? You’re trying to treat video game skill levels like societal classes and it’s annoying.
I’m not saying the players are bad because the game is poorly designed, I’m saying the fact they end up working alongside skilled players in a way that makes both upset is an example of bad design, IE impromper matchmaking. bad players will make bad decisions because they’re bad at the game and this includes choosing difficulty options they shouldn’t. allowing a player who by the very definition of being bad does not know which option is best to pick the option that makes other’s experience worse, is bad game design
i never once likened it to societal classes lol
You’re complaining about several different things. No one likes matchmaking and the difficulty will reflect that shitty and inherently limited design. But difficulty itself is a different topic and should be based on whatever the devs feel like enforcing on players. If they want players to choose, great. But if they choose only one difficulty for everyone then suck it up or play something else.
A lot of multiplayer games already have casual mode. You’ll still get barely good players getting upset at worse players beneath their barely serviceable skill level because that’s the nature of competitive games. As for co-op, there’s not really matchmaking unless I’m missing something.
yes if they choose only one difficulty for everyone than you should simply accept bad players because they literally have no other options to play. git gud. bad players are an obstacle to work around
co-op games are specifically what i’m talking about. having the best team you can for your esports event or whatever makes sense. being (toxically) angry that your consequenceless game that you chose to be difficult was made more difficult because someone else is bad at it does not make sense. i mean being annoyed makes sense as it does with any obstacle in any game, but straight up insulting or berating the bad player is not remotely a reasonable thing to do