By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General Discussion - Salty losers during online play

Tagged games:

GoOnKid said:
Chazore said:

I would agree with that, but it's still a viewpoint that sits with the winning side and not the losing sidce. You acknowlage that it is indeed an issue, but you cannot agree with it being one to care for. The cycle will continue ad infinitum the more we focus on the winning side and wanting nothing to dow ith the losing one.

Games really do need the option for surrendering, because 1) it still gives the other side the victory they sought after and 2) it allows the losing side to give in on their decision as well as being able to find another match that bit faster.

The idea of bowing out after the match is well and truly done doesn't exactly do much, it's just forcing the loser through the mud after the victory has been announced, which is what I said before as not being the kind of thing a loser looks forward to, especially if they've lost multiple times in a row.

The thing is, I've lost and won in plenty of games for a long time, the difference is that I know what it feels like to lose and I know what it feels like for those that lash out when they lose multiple times in a row and I'd love for them to have the option to surrender, rather than telling them "no you're going to let me bash you in and like it", because that only benefits me and it in no way benefits them, so it's hardly being fair if all I'm doing is caring for just the winning team.

The way you deal with loss is different to others, you have to accept that everyone has a different view on losing and ways to deal with it. The option for surrender is not a bad option to have, after all it gives both sides a benefit rather than one side alone.

Yes, it is indeed a good idea. That would help in many games.

Perhaps instead of informing the 'winner' the 'loser' has quit, the game could silently replace the 'loser's input with AI as not to hurt the feelings of the 'winner' when his oppenent quits. That way everybody is happy! The 'winner' gets to stomp all over the AI believing he beat a weak human opponent, while the 'loser' is already off finding a more enjoyable match.



Around the Network

I have to admit.... yes im one of those people xD but I do it with a fun intention lol

Like a recent one in Arms. Theres this really good player who beat me. Then a few matches later I vs him again in a 3 way match. I just focused on him, and I didn't care if I die, as long as the other person kills him xD



Pocky Lover Boy! 

Try playing Starcraft people literally get angry at you not rolling over and dying, it's funny because RTS games revolve around a metagame so a lot of the time you realize oh many Zerg players are doing roach all ins let me counter that preemptively with tanks and Banshees only for the player to fly into a rage.

Seriously it's like you're not even allowed to try to win.



KLAMarine said:

Games where my team is getting trashed are also fun for me. I always try to go Rambo on those, try to be a one-man army.

A bunch of games are heavily oriented towards team play and different classes, so sometimes when your team is bad, you can't do anything except being onslaughted.

Uncharted 4 is a game that should have a "no-parties" playlist. Because it's really not funny when you get matched with randoms (like, 2 of them still learning the controls) and ends up against a full party. Even pushing up you best (and I normally get 10 to 20 kills per game, with around 5 deaths and plenty of assists and revives), it's hard to get a positive K/D ratio.



Chazore said:

I can see why it can be annoying for some, but the thing I've noticed a lot from those that find it irritating is that they fail to notice the other player not having fun on the losing side. They fail to see the equal frustration that the other player is feeling, yet that tiny amount that do just shrug and go "git gud", which never breeds positivity from that kind of exchange.

I'm actually glad that some games out there allow for the player to "surrender" to the other, especially for those that know when they have been bested, but it's unfortunate that those who seek to be "in it to win it"fail to accept surrender as a legitimate option to use when you have been bested. Not everyone loves having their face dragged through the mud, well after victory has been assured for the other player. If I know I've been bested (and I know myself more than anyone else) I'll toss in the towel and move onto playing another match. For those games that offer the use of surrendering to your opponents, I'll take up on said option, for others that don't, well I try to avoid playing with other players and instead opt in for co-op modes or Humans vs AI.

 

Tbh I think most games should offer the option for surrender, rather than opting to look out for one side and not the other (especially when one side is suffering frustration and all the other side can do is just piss all over them and expect no consequences)

I agree. Honestly, when I enter a match that's an onslaught, I just quit immediatily. In the opposite side, when you're suffering a sound beating, people quit, newcomers quit (like I do) and you're not only stuck with a better enemy team, but also ends up with a numerical disavantage.

I normally quit in team MP games where the match became an onslaught. People may disagree with this attitude, but I buy games to have fun, not to be stuck not having fun during a massacre. In one-on-one games I remain until the end. An option to surrender would solve most scenarios anyway.



Around the Network
KLAMarine said:
barneystinson69 said:

I never give up in online play. If I'm a one man team in Halo 5 losing 5-22, than so be it. Though then again, the experience isn't enjoyable to say the least.

I'm the opposite. I love rounds where the other team is either decimating mine or putting up a good fight because it means I don't have to hold back. I find rounds where my team is dominating to be boring.

Things are weirder for me. I will quit if I am being thrashed or am somehow trashing everyone. If I have a bad day I will also quit often. I will not quit from a match where the other team was faster and managed to seize upon any potential opportunities. 

In case they win fair and square, we might even become friends... Yes, I want those guys on my team... Or a rematch at least... 



Epic was right all along... 

SvennoJ said:
GoOnKid said:

Yes, it is indeed a good idea. That would help in many games.

Perhaps instead of informing the 'winner' the 'loser' has quit, the game could silently replace the 'loser's input with AI as not to hurt the feelings of the 'winner' when his oppenent quits. That way everybody is happy! The 'winner' gets to stomp all over the AI believing he beat a weak human opponent, while the 'loser' is already off finding a more enjoyable match.

This sounds like a wonderful way to kill bona fide gaming communities... 



Epic was right all along... 

Shadow1980 said:
The only thing worse than a sore loser is a sore winner. Being upset over losing is normal. Rubbing a victory in someone's face is just a dick move.

That stuff I cannot stand. I will leave at the end of the match weather my team wins or not. There was a match in Overwatch. We lost Hanamura on Attack. Then this guy was being a snarky asshole and was like: I just started playing symetra. He was being an arrogant prick with a character that is primarily spam and no need of aiming. I'm Zarya surviving 5 people shooting at me. While their team just walks 10 feet to point. Same goes if a person on my team becomes some ass. I will tell them to stop. If they don't, I just leave.

I do agree games do need surrender options. Because either way. If the team agrees its not worth the time to continue. They will just stop. I've had in a Overwatch comp match before. Be completly outmatched. We all agreed to just suicide off the map for the remainder of the round. It was a waste of time. Which wouldn't happen if we all could do a majority vote on ending the game.

AsGryffynn said:
SvennoJ said:

Perhaps instead of informing the 'winner' the 'loser' has quit, the game could silently replace the 'loser's input with AI as not to hurt the feelings of the 'winner' when his oppenent quits. That way everybody is happy! The 'winner' gets to stomp all over the AI believing he beat a weak human opponent, while the 'loser' is already off finding a more enjoyable match.

This sounds like a wonderful way to kill bona fide gaming communities... 

If the MP aspect becomes too one sided. The comunity will die anyway.



SvennoJ said:
GoOnKid said:

Yes, it is indeed a good idea. That would help in many games.

Perhaps instead of informing the 'winner' the 'loser' has quit, the game could silently replace the 'loser's input with AI as not to hurt the feelings of the 'winner' when his oppenent quits. That way everybody is happy! The 'winner' gets to stomp all over the AI believing he beat a weak human opponent, while the 'loser' is already off finding a more enjoyable match.

That'S EVEN BETTER! Boy, we should really suggest this to some companies!



Gameplay > Graphics

Substance > Style

Art Direction > Realism

I think the first thing I learned in online gaming is better to be quiet and in general to mute the other players. I swear anonymity in games causes IQs to drop 50% in some people. The rage quitting seems like a symptom of the juvenile tantrums I hear going into graphic and violent details to one another. Multi-player was more fun in couch and lan party days honestly.