🚀 go-pugleaf

On Sat, 29 Jul 2017 12:33:53 -0400, Rin Stowleigh
<rstow...@nevrhadgmail.com> wrote:

>
>I know that online gaming in this NG isn't as popular as it is
>everywhere else, but it occurred to me this question is more for
>anyone interested in streaming their games.

I'd argue that multiplayer here /is/ as popular as "everywhere else"
in toto, just not in circles where multiplayer gamers tend to hang
out. By their very nature, multiplayer gamers congregate and discuss
their hobby far more than single-player gamers, which creates a bias
in the apparent popularity of the medium.

Which isn't to say that multiplayer isn't popular in general or even
that it isn't popular here; even /I/ enjoy the occassional online
game, and I'm Mr. Single-Player personified. I'm just nitpicking on
your "everywhere else". I'm pedantic; it's what I do ;-)

>
>For those that do stream their games, or have an interest in doing so
>(either of those conditions excludes me), why would you be bothered by
>"stream sniping" (someone watching your live stream and using it to
>gain the upper hand on you in an online game)?

It does seem a silly complaint, although one that stretches back to
the split-screen multiplayer of yesteryear. Didn't some publisher
recently release a game where the whole point was that you HAD to
watch everyone else's screen?  

While ethically the streamer has a point - the watcher has an unfair
advantage over the streamer and if he is in anyway interested in
playing honestly, the watcher should focus on his own game -
practically the streamer is causing his own problem. If he feels his
game is just THAT important that it has to be streamed, he should add
a delay to the stream that makes it useless as a source of
intelligence to enemy observers. Alternately, just stop streaming
live.

Or just insist on only playing against people who stream live as well,
so everyone has the same advantage.

On Sun, 30 Jul 2017 08:51:12 -0400, Spalls Hurgenson
<spallsh...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Sat, 29 Jul 2017 12:33:53 -0400, Rin Stowleigh
><rstow...@nevrhadgmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>I know that online gaming in this NG isn't as popular as it is
>>everywhere else, but it occurred to me this question is more for
>>anyone interested in streaming their games.
>
>I'd argue that multiplayer here /is/ as popular as "everywhere else"
>in toto, just not in circles where multiplayer gamers tend to hang
>out.

You would be incorrect sir :)   The top 10 most played Steam games at
any one point in time are either exclusively multiplayer games or
games like GTA V being played due to their online modes.  Because
Steam represents such a huge sample size of the gaming population,
this is the best gauge I can think of, because a lot of gamers are
both SP and MP players, so this way of measuring "gaming popularity
everywhere else"; so, because it's almost impossible to say whether an
individual gamer is either an SP or MP player, and accepting the fact
that most are some combination of both, measuring how they actually
spend their time on the most popular and prevalent gaming service
gives us the most accurate measure.  

That said, I will consider alternate metrics for purposes of this
discussion :)

> By their very nature, multiplayer gamers congregate and discuss
>their hobby far more than single-player gamers, which creates a bias
>in the apparent popularity of the medium.

This would actually support my statement more than disprove it.  If
multiplayer gamers like to discuss their hobby more than single-player
gamers, it means that if multiplayer gaming were popular in this
newsgroup, we would see a disproportionate ratio of MP to SP
discussions (in favor of MP of course) that reflects other discussion
forums.  We see the exact opposite of that.  I can think of only two
regular posters to this NG (Toby Newman and Mr Rob) that ever
demonstrate an interest in online games.  I think Werner Punz used to
play MP games at one time but no longer, unless I'm mistaken.
(Speaking of which, I haven't seen anything from Mr. Rob or Werner in
a while, so I hope all is well with them).  

Add to all of this the fact that I kill-filed a number of people in
this newgroup many years ago, and they were all single player only
types (or at least they presented themselves as such to this newsgroup
prior to being kill-filed).  In fact thinking back at the folks who
got themselves fired from my reading list, they were all social
rejects anyway, so I doubt they would get very far in online gaming
even if they tried.  

Yet, because of the number of kill-fileys, this would mean I reduced
the amount of SP player traffic I see in this NG, which would result
in my seeing a much greater amount of MP related posts than others
here do (again, I see exactly the opposite).

>Which isn't to say that multiplayer isn't popular in general or even
>that it isn't popular here; even /I/ enjoy the occassional online
>game, and I'm Mr. Single-Player personified.

You can say that again! :)    On your "what have I been playing
lists", I don't think I have EVER seen you describe playing an online
game, even for a fleeting moment.  In fact, I've always assumed you
post to the newsgroup from a public library or Internet Cafe because
you don't have access to internet connectivity at your residence (lol,
just messin'... but seriously you've never displayed an interest in MP
that I can recall).

> I'm just nitpicking on
>your "everywhere else". I'm pedantic; it's what I do ;-)

And if I'm not here to fulfill the task of picking apart your
pedanticisms, I don't know who would, and somebody has to do it :)

>>
>>For those that do stream their games, or have an interest in doing so
>>(either of those conditions excludes me), why would you be bothered by
>>"stream sniping" (someone watching your live stream and using it to
>>gain the upper hand on you in an online game)?
>
>It does seem a silly complaint, although one that stretches back to
>the split-screen multiplayer of yesteryear. Didn't some publisher
>recently release a game where the whole point was that you HAD to
>watch everyone else's screen?  
>
>While ethically the streamer has a point - the watcher has an unfair
>advantage over the streamer and if he is in anyway interested in
>playing honestly, the watcher should focus on his own game -
>practically the streamer is causing his own problem. If he feels his
>game is just THAT important that it has to be streamed, he should add
>a delay to the stream that makes it useless as a source of
>intelligence to enemy observers. Alternately, just stop streaming
>live.

Yes, that's my thinking.  It's kind of like these people that post
their vacation schedule on Facebook, then wonder how someone knew to
break into their home.  Then they whine "but I should be able to share
things without being burglarized" -- in a perfect world maybe, welcome
to the real world though.  In the real world we recognize that not
everyone does what we would like them to do, including following the
rules.

>Or just insist on only playing against people who stream live as well,
>so everyone has the same advantage.

To the best of my understanding, the reason to stream in the first
place is mostly of interest to people who are trying to build social
media followings to monetize what they do?  I don't know, someone else
would have to educate me in this matter, I don't get the whole
"professional youtuber" thing any more than I understand why stream
sniping is such a big problem.

> If he feels his
>game is just THAT important that it has to be streamed, he should add
>a delay to the stream that makes it useless as a source of
>intelligence to enemy observers.

    Twitch already has a built-in delay, probably 10-20sec or more.  You can 
see this when typing in chat and watching the stream if that same chat 
window is visible on the stream.

rms 

On Mon, 31 Jul 2017 08:08:48 -0600, "rms"
<rsqui...@MOOyossmanMOO.net> wrote:

>> If he feels his
>>game is just THAT important that it has to be streamed, he should add
>>a delay to the stream that makes it useless as a source of
>>intelligence to enemy observers.
>
>    Twitch already has a built-in delay, probably 10-20sec or more.  You can 
>see this when typing in chat and watching the stream if that same chat 
>window is visible on the stream.
>
>rms 

In a game like PUBG (where a lot of the recent controversy around this
is coming from), even with a delay that long, an enemy would still
have an advantage, just by knowing the general location of the player
they are stalking.  As the play zone radius shrinks, it's not uncommon
for players to take up camp in a building, on a hill, etc., and
staying hidden until it's time to ambush is an important part of the
game.

So, I don't doubt it can give the stalking player an advantage they
otherwise wouldn't have -- I just don't see what's hard about not
streaming if this is important to you.

When I used to play a lot of twitch games, I used to actually enjoy
playing against hackers, because it made me a better player. Extremely
satisfying to beat a guy that already has an advantage on you, just to
rub his nose in it.

On 30/07/2017 13:51, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:

> It does seem a silly complaint, although one that stretches back to
> the split-screen multiplayer of yesteryear. Didn't some publisher
> recently release a game where the whole point was that you HAD to
> watch everyone else's screen?
> 
> While ethically the streamer has a point - the watcher has an unfair
> advantage over the streamer and if he is in anyway interested in
> playing honestly, the watcher should focus on his own game -
> practically the streamer is causing his own problem. If he feels his
> game is just THAT important that it has to be streamed, he should add
> a delay to the stream that makes it useless as a source of
> intelligence to enemy observers. Alternately, just stop streaming
> live.
> 
> Or just insist on only playing against people who stream live as well,
> so everyone has the same advantage.
> 

For you average player yes but for someone where it's part of their 
their job, even if only part time, then I'd disagree.