At the risk of sounding like a jerk, I have to chuckle at the non-argument that just because the game doesn't have an official leaderboard or some other similar nonsense doesn't mean players are absolved of all conscious wrongdoing. The Controlled Difficulty crowd certainly doesn't buy that. "Life is ephemeral and nothing really counts," while relevant in philosophical circles, doesn't answer anyone's question of "what makes you good at this video game".
The long and short of it is that I was responding to the OP's question ("what makes a good KF2 player?") with a response that can be summed up as "someone who understands their perk, their perk's role, how to play that role, and how to best achieve it with ideal effeciency." Anything else is secondary because, in asking "what makes a good player," I am assuming you're asking from a standpoint of "trying to win at the thing you're playing," a concept that doesn't always line up with "whatever you want to do is all good, man." Picasso had to master the basics of art before he started cellotaping noses to random objects, and in the same vein, you need to know how KF2 works and be good at it before you can be effective with off-meta builds and not waste a player slot.
Note that I don't use complete meta builds all the time, nor do I "hate fun." In fact, using stuff like the RailSharp/M99 builds is considered distasteful in some circles because it completely removes the threat of HVTs from the game, which in a team of good players is the only thing that will actively challenge them. But I am speaking from the point of "don't pick loadouts and run with playstyles that actively screw your team over," which apparently some also take issue with.
And it's funny you mention the "leave" bit, because there are a number of games I've been in where I can see the writing on the wall and feel my time would be better spent not fighting an uphill battle that would test my patience more than my technical abilities. Or because it's yet another run I've done a billion times, like Nuked lap running or Prison/Farmhouse zerkwalls, because I find them to be worthless as far as challenging my ability to improve at the game is concerned (what nuance is there to learning target prioritization or aiming if the game boils down to "nobody here is confident enough to aim, so let's pour fire and explosives into a doorway for 50 minutes"?).
Which brings me to my last point, a reiteration of my first one: "Being the ideal player" and "doing whatever you like" are completely independent concepts that occasionally overlap. When I play a game in Hell on Earth, it's with the expectation that other players (who are also on the hardest difficulty) are trying to win, like I am, and at the very least are trying to hone their own skills. Otherwise, why play on the hardest diffculty? There's Hard and Normal to just run around with little care, because at least on Suicidal and Hell on Earth, the game will actually start trying to fight back.
I'm sympathetic if you're trying to learn Hell on Earth, or if you're trying to win and still lose. These things do happen, and everyone has to start somewhere. What I take issue with is players gumming up the difficulties intended for those shooting for the hardest challenge the game has to offer, because that's basically wasting everyone's time and patience, and I don't want my diffculty to come from the other purported teammates I'm stuck with.
----
@serulin, I hope your original question was answered at some point throughout this increasingly bizarre thread. Hopefully we'll get a response from you sooner or later.
There are objectively better way than other methods in this game to play with maximum effectiveness and skill, though. That requires understanding the mechanics and the lesser-known stuff about the game, but that's another story for another time. To make that long story short, I refer to this amazing guide written by one of the best players from years ago, where the concepts still apply today even if not all the numbers are the same (as it hasn't been updated since 2018 due to his distaste for the direction TWI took the game in).
The long and short of it is that I was responding to the OP's question ("what makes a good KF2 player?") with a response that can be summed up as "someone who understands their perk, their perk's role, how to play that role, and how to best achieve it with ideal effeciency." Anything else is secondary because, in asking "what makes a good player," I am assuming you're asking from a standpoint of "trying to win at the thing you're playing," a concept that doesn't always line up with "whatever you want to do is all good, man." Picasso had to master the basics of art before he started cellotaping noses to random objects, and in the same vein, you need to know how KF2 works and be good at it before you can be effective with off-meta builds and not waste a player slot.
Note that I don't use complete meta builds all the time, nor do I "hate fun." In fact, using stuff like the RailSharp/M99 builds is considered distasteful in some circles because it completely removes the threat of HVTs from the game, which in a team of good players is the only thing that will actively challenge them. But I am speaking from the point of "don't pick loadouts and run with playstyles that actively screw your team over," which apparently some also take issue with.
That interaction, while regrettable and certainly not something I'd endorse, is independent of being a mechanically "good/skilled player"; it's indicative of that guy being uncooperative, and an asshole to boot. I may be a tryharding sweatlord by my own admission, but I don't endorse being a dick and playing selfishly, nor do I believe screaming at your medic is usually beneficial. I would get irritated if, say, the medic ran all right-side skills and only used the Healthrower to gas things to death, but that's just failing to try on the Medic's part and wasting a player slot that could be for someone more useful. I get irritated because I know players like that can do better, but they just elect not to.
And it's funny you mention the "leave" bit, because there are a number of games I've been in where I can see the writing on the wall and feel my time would be better spent not fighting an uphill battle that would test my patience more than my technical abilities. Or because it's yet another run I've done a billion times, like Nuked lap running or Prison/Farmhouse zerkwalls, because I find them to be worthless as far as challenging my ability to improve at the game is concerned (what nuance is there to learning target prioritization or aiming if the game boils down to "nobody here is confident enough to aim, so let's pour fire and explosives into a doorway for 50 minutes"?).
Which brings me to my last point, a reiteration of my first one: "Being the ideal player" and "doing whatever you like" are completely independent concepts that occasionally overlap. When I play a game in Hell on Earth, it's with the expectation that other players (who are also on the hardest difficulty) are trying to win, like I am, and at the very least are trying to hone their own skills. Otherwise, why play on the hardest diffculty? There's Hard and Normal to just run around with little care, because at least on Suicidal and Hell on Earth, the game will actually start trying to fight back.
I'm sympathetic if you're trying to learn Hell on Earth, or if you're trying to win and still lose. These things do happen, and everyone has to start somewhere. What I take issue with is players gumming up the difficulties intended for those shooting for the hardest challenge the game has to offer, because that's basically wasting everyone's time and patience, and I don't want my diffculty to come from the other purported teammates I'm stuck with.
----
@serulin, I hope your original question was answered at some point throughout this increasingly bizarre thread. Hopefully we'll get a response from you sooner or later.
Upvote
0
