People are actually getting upset because others don't have to read their useless garbage in the chat anymore?
Nope, the problem is you're not given an option.
Thread: What the garden is this chat moderation bullpudding?24 Oct 2014, 19:15 PM
People are actually getting upset because others don't have to read their useless garbage in the chat anymore? Nope, the problem is you're not given an option. In: COH2 Gameplay |
Thread: What the garden is this chat moderation bullpudding?24 Oct 2014, 18:03 PM
Good stuff, thanks for the clarification. In: COH2 Gameplay |
Thread: What the garden is this chat moderation bullpudding?24 Oct 2014, 15:09 PM
I agree with most of what you said, but what I don't understand is why you then think that enforcing good behaviour is necessary. Censorship isn't going to prevent displays of anger, but it is going to frustrate people who happen to use censored words in regular conversations. I curse all the time, but I learned years ago to control anger and emotion during competition. I still curse. It's just a byproduct of my upbringing and environment. Cursing doesn't "get you mad", as you put it. Words are words, and there's nothing inherently different about one that would make its user feel differently than using another. You choose words based on your emotional state, but your emotional state is not in turn influenced by your choice of words. It's a one-way street. I curse all the time, talking to friends, talking to strangers, talking online and talking in my daily life. I understand that some people don't like listening to that kind of thing, and for those people I adapt. But I don't want to be forced to do this at all times, because with some people I'd much rather interact in a way that's most comfortable to me. I'll give you an example. I'm part of a chat group on Twitch that I hang out in when I'm watching Twitch streams. It has a word filter because of some config screwup, and it's the most infuriating thing in the world. I'm not the only one who feels that way either. These are people I'm comfortable talking with, and I know they're not offended by my conversational habits. But the conversation is limited by the system's filter, and that's extremely annoying. Am I being harmful by using words that some may find offensive around a group of people who aren't offended by them at all? I played baseball competitively for over 15 years. I played in high school leagues and university leagues, with players who would go on to play professionally and with players who were good for amateurs but never good enough to make it pro. Cursing was just how you spoke. There were angry players and relaxed players, but everyone cursed, because it was just what you did. You hit the shit out of that ball, you fucked up your arm, you pissed on it, you and your buddies were bitches and pussies and fuck-ups and shitheads and everything in between. That was the culture I grew up in, and while I understand that some may be more sensitive than me, I would've been furious if I was forced to change how I spoke around others who spoke the same way. There is nothing inherently wrong with cursing; it's just words. Now, once you get to publicly-viewed levels of competition things change a bit. I had teammates who were good enough to play baseball professionally but were looked over because of their temperaments. The same is true in competitive gaming. Once sponsors are involved, a player who is unable to control his speech in public is going to have less success that a player who knows how to act professionally with a sponsor's name attached to his. In that way, the system works entirely as expected. Now this is all a very round-about way of addressing the problem of mandated censorship. Your argument, as I read it, boils down to "cursing makes you made, and competitive players shouldn't be mad because it negatively impacts play, so removing cursing from in-game communications makes sense". If I'm incorrect in that assessment then please correct me, because perhaps I'm just misinterpreting what you say. But I disagree with this stance because I think the notion that cursing causes anger is absurd, and because I think that censoring speech without letting users opt in or out of the censorship will do nothing to reduce the amount of flaming and trash talking in games. Instead, it will simply frustrate the segment of the playerbase that isn't offending by cursing while placating the segment that finds it offensive. At that point, why not just give people the choice? In: COH2 Gameplay |
Thread: Let me clear up some things about Relic and AA24 Oct 2014, 14:37 PM
He states that the community should pre-order AA as a sign of support for Relic, and the majority of the post recounts the merits of the development team, with only a tiny snippet about how he played, but can't talk about, the game and enjoyed it. It's a very emotional appeal to the community. If he had said people should pre-order AA because he played it and thinks it's worth the money, there's nothing wrong with that. But he added that the pre-orders should be done to support the developers, and that's what I disagree with. It dilutes what was otherwise an excellent post with an excellent message. In: Lobby |
Thread: What the garden is this chat moderation bullpudding?24 Oct 2014, 14:19 PM
Trash talking isn't an e-sports thing, it's a competition thing. Imagine if a professional athlete had a microphone attached to him during every minute of every practice session and competition. I bet you're going to hear a lot of things you don't like. It's more apparent in competitive gaming because the players are watched more closely, and interact more closely with their communities. They also have less contractual obligations in the way of the communities and their opinions. I appreciate that you want things to improve, but you're going about it in the wrong way. In: COH2 Gameplay |
Thread: Let me clear up some things about Relic and AA24 Oct 2014, 13:46 PM
I visited Relic twice during alpha and beta, met tribalbob and some other designers, toured the offices, did all that fun stuff. It definitely gives you a different and unique perspective on the game and how it's being developed, and it greatly narrowed the focus of my criticism of the game. That being said, I don't think the fact that the developers care about the game and its community makes the game itself immune to criticism, and I don't think it gives people enough reason to go out and spend their money. If you think the game is worth its price, you should buy it; if you don't, you shouldn't. I don't think appealing to the community in this way is the right thing to do; Relic is a company, not a charity, and while they employ some excellent people, you're purchasing a product, not an abstract idea. If there's anything people should take away from this topic, it's the fact that there are real people behind this game who really care, and those facts should be factored into your criticism of the game itself if and when that criticism is given. If you have a problem with the game, extending that to a problem with the people behind the game is a silly thing to do, because while you might know the game, you know absolutely nothing about those behind it. This should be common sense, but it's often lost in the sea of anonymity that is the internet. Asking that a product be judged on the merits of its creators and not on the quality of the product itself is not a smart thing to do, in my opinion. In: Lobby |
Thread: What the garden is this chat moderation bullpudding?24 Oct 2014, 13:12 PM
You win the best thread title of the year award I think. Honestly, I don't know why they don't just add a chat censoring option that you can opt into. Don't force it on people. You can curse in a non-inflammatory way, and you can flame people without cursing. Handle troublemakers on a per-case basis, don't impose sweeping automated moderation and censorship. In: COH2 Gameplay |
Thread: Company of Heroes 2 - Not for SEA players ?23 Oct 2014, 13:22 PM
The reason it was better in vCoH is because it was pure P2P, so when you played someone you connected right to their machine. If they were sitting beside you, that meant you'd have practically zero latency; if they were on the opposite side of the world, your latency would be insane. In CoH2 you send and receive all of your commands through the battle servers, which means your latency depends on your distance to the servers, no longer your distance to your opponent. It's amazing if you're close to the servers, but awful if you're not. In: Lobby |
Thread: Company of Heroes 2 - Not for SEA players ?23 Oct 2014, 13:17 PM
240ms is 0.24sec, but add the input delay thats still in the LIVE version and youre above playable. i advice you to try the beta or wait for the patch. things might improve for you by about 30-40% (since your current delay should be around 420ms [ping+input delay]) 240ms latency in an RTS isn't playable, honestly. I personally can't really play at anything above 150ms if I'm trying to be competitive. 240ms is just insanely slow, you can't react to anything. This is one of the issues with the new battle server setup. Consistent latency, but potentially far higher latency depending on how far away you are from the server cluster you're connecting to. All you can really hope is that Relic adds more servers worldwide, but given how small CoH2's multiplayer base is right now that might be wishful thinking. In: Lobby |
Thread: Is Coh2 ready for E-Sports?Post-oktober Betapatch discussion22 Oct 2014, 14:41 PM
RNG itself isn't bad, it's just the implementation of it that matters. I haven't played CoH2 enough to speak to that, but the people who blindly slag on RNG as being generally bad are misguided. I can't comment on how LoL handles things because I don't play it, but Dota 2 and CSGO are two of the most popular competitive titles right now and they both have a ton of RNG. Hell, there are entire heroes in Dota designed around RNG, every autoattack you do deals random damage, and every creep kill you get gives you random gold. RNG isn't inherently bad. PwnageMachine above me made a lot of really good points. Personally I don't enjoy CoH2 as a competitive game because I don't like how the core factions have so little in the way of strategic options. Because of this, the variety comes entirely from commanders, and since you're limited to three of those per game, your options are limited as well. Something like having to choose between building more units or improving the units you currently have may seem so simple, but it adds incredible depth to strategy games. The fact that CoH2 entirely lacks that decision-making element is the main reason it doesn't interest me. That said, at the end of the day all that matters is whether or not people enjoy watching it. I know I don't, but that's fine, because there are plenty of other competitive games out there that I do enjoy watching and playing. If CoH2 can find a large enough audience, it can be successful. It's usually easier if you can attract that audience at launch when your game is in front of the most eyes (see SC2), but games like Dota 2 and CSGO have shown how you can grow a competitive community over years with smart management. The main problem with that approach is that Relic has never prioritized the competitive communities in any of their games, and you really need a developer actively working to grow the competitive scene these days if you really want it to flourish. Only time will tell. In: Lobby |
2 | |||||
182 | |||||
7 |