Man if your losing because of the welfare system your not good in this game plain and simple, the system helps the bad players but it wont make up for their lack of skill makes the game a bit more interesting and last longer before you close them out..
Whats worse then a try hard? a try hard that sucks!
Come on just say it you know you wanna, youtube you lose!
Voone vee vooone.
I never said I'm losing.
For me (and I suspect many others), it’s a game…not world class competitive chess (or world class competition of any kind). I find it odd that my example is ridiculed (I admitted it was extreme to make a point) and yet world class chess is offered as a more suitable example? I play the game to have fun and if the opposing team is clearly sandbagging to gain an advantage, I finish out the match, exit find game and wait a few minutes before finding a new one. Tryhards will find a way no matter what because they have no scruples….handicapping system or not.
If you're not losing because of the handicapping system, what's the problem with giving less skilled players a chance? And for me, this is not about calling anyone’s skill into question…I really don’t care – it’s about what’s best for the game and community overall...makes me wonder if this is about fairness, KDR or ego.
With respect to sandbagging sure…but if they’re better than me anyway, what do I care whether I lose by a narrow margin or get completely creamed?
Perhaps I should qualify my statement about handicapping making a difference…a player with a few weeks under their belt should be able to tell whether the opposing players are any good. I may have been astoundingly lucky but I’ve NEVER had less skilled players beat our team unless we messed up on our teamwork. I should probably also confess that I play cautiously (no…NOT camping)…I just don’t rush or go Lone Wolf when I can avoid it.
Fair enough...my bad but is it so awful that there's a system in place to give lesser skilled players a fighting chance?
I've never played competitive chess but however the matchmaking works, I don't think I'd choose to compete in a match if I had to play a Kasparov or Fischer.
You can still lose a chess game even if you had the improbable but possible maximum queen count.
Why exactly is playing chess against Fisher an example of a welfare system? If I had a hint book and Fisher's moves are timed, I'd still call it pretty okay.
I was on the side of thinking the welfare system is ok due to helping noobs and players who are not good or are having a bad game until smugglin yo yos said this ... Would you consider it beating them if they removed his Queen and gave you four? ... No I would not consider it beating them and I would disregard the chess game and demand it be redone on fair equal grounds. Smugglin yo yos you make a very good point and Ive changed my view because of it. (I didnt actually think of the welfare system like that before).
If both players agree to the rules (either explicitly in the chess example or implicitly in the case of TLOU) before competing, then it's still a win or loss...isn't it? Or are we now talking about the "value" of a win? If I agree to compete under certain conditions and lose, I'm not going to say afterwards that it didn't count because it wasn't fair.
In any event, I thought the discussion had moved on from the idea of winning because for many of those against handicapping, apparently winning matches is not an issue. Is it then margin of victory that's at issue? KDR? Bragging rights? I don't know.
Winning is great (and better stil if it has "value") but since the handicap system rarely (if ever) seems to make a difference in matches, is it so horrible for the game to be more accessible?
I don't agree to me getting 1 thing per box and the enemy getting bombs, molotovs, parts, and a ton of supplies because they are losing by like 5 kills.