Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
Discussions Rules and Guidelines
Report this post
Crossplay for PVE? Good. Crossplay for PVP? Not so much. All it does there is let people have more excuses for their own poor performance.
Get rid of pvp. Simple.
I'm PC user. I generally only use KB for competitive play, and maybe RTS/Point and click type games. I play casual games with controller. I consider this casual. I've only just started this, so haven't gotten to PvP but from playing similar games I don't think people using KB/M really makes that much difference. Not really harder. Just different, but the same. I don't use auto-aim. If it was a fast FPS, then I'd agree. This is not real competitive play, so in this case I disagree.
Pistols, Marksman rifles and rifles are the most immediate examples of where the difference between controller and mouse is very stark,
Nor did I play Div1 with a MKB at any point, and had no problem finishing all the incursions and other end-game activities.
The PvP in this game, like the PvP in any loot shooter, is YouTube-meta based and so all you need to do for PvP is follow the instructions for a PvP build on Youtube, input-agnostic
People should use what they want to use, IMO. makes the game more fun
Again, there are significant advantages M&K has over controller in ANY shooter that doesn't go absolutely absurd on aim assist. In this particular game, it's most obvious with pistols, rifles, and Marksman rifles, but it's still a factor with every other weapon type except MAYBE shotguns.
People using what they want to use is fine, but with that comes an understanding of pros and cons that most users do not accept. Allowing console crossplay will be a major wake-up call to a lot of the 'better' players on console, not just in PvP, but in PvE content as well. It's not fun to get massively outpaced by other players and feel like you can't contribute because while they are instantly pivoting and perfectly tracking, placing all 30 rounds of a mag into a moving target's head, while you are reliant on sticky aim that prevents you being able to consistently do that.
That's where a lot of the 'aimbot' accusations from console players come from, in crossplay games (and also in non-crossplay games now that more and more console players are using adapters to use KB&M on console).
Then you have the other side of the equation, like Halo or certain Call of Duty games, where the aim assist is massively strong and makes keyboard players have to be MUCH higher skill level just to break even with a controller player. In CoD's case it's snap-to aiming + low ttk, in Halo's it's differences in how the bullet magnetism works for controller vs keyboard (as well as, to some degree, a difference in movement paradigms between controller users and pc players, especially for those pc players unused to arena shooters).
I'm mature-aged. I played a lot of CS until recently. Never at a high tier - never played frequently enough to maintain a rank and climb the tiers - but often enough to know my ability. My biggest limitation there will be reflected in most games, and that's the limitation of giving a ♥♥♥♥. At the very brief times that I get a bit of adrenaline my reflexes can fairly competitive, even with all the younger guys that play that game. But, that doesn't usually happen these days. Maybe if I just had a couple of drinks, or just knocked off from a full-on shift in the kitchen. And even then I might get a surge for maybe 30 minutes-ish. I just can't muster enough ♥♥♥♥♥ to give to be competitive in that game on response time alone. So, I play the game because I enjoy it, but I play with a handicap incurred by a lack of adrenaline resulting in diminished focus and slower reflexes. Even a lack of aggression. If I were to rely on focus and reflexes and perpetual immediate action then I'm much less likely to succeed against those players. But, I make up for those deficiencies in experience, patience, and smarts. I tend to be able to outdo most of those players by out-thinking them. Definitely not pro, but respectable and proficient enough.
The same would apply here, and has proven to do so in similar games that I have played. It's not always a matter of which tool is most efficient, but in PvP play it's often a game of psychology. Gamepad vs KB/M simply don't matter in that game.
Now, a player who has is proficient in the psychological game will no doubt still hold the advantage if they use KB/M while their opponent is using a gamepad, but the point of bringing players from other platforms - i.e. consoles, generally - is, IMO, not bringing a lower standard of proficiency in control so much as it is generally importing a less mature player. And, while some players on consoles might be more mature in age, they play, and so train, with other players who are generally less mature.
And, while I understand and agree that KB/M is generally going to be more precise and quicker, there's ways to get around that, even ways to use it to your advantage - e.g. it's often possible to deliberately cause such players who rely on those abilities frustration, diminishing their overall performance. Demoralisation is also a very good friend to know well. I know that I'll not be a top player, but I've no doubt that by the time I get to that part of the game that I'll fare perfectly well on whatever input device I am using. And since I consider this a sit-back-and-get-comfy game (and also my bias being that 3rd-person perspective detracts from immersion and makes for a less competitive than arcade gameplay) the device will be, as now, a gamepad. I get that there's some precision necessary, and I'm managing well enough with that. As usual, the more important skills are strategy and tactics, and most of all adaptability. It's these skills that I think suffer in the console environment.
And I think the nail in the coffin is that if I am to lose to another player, I say well done and get on with my day. At most it might inspire my next effort. The fact that the general opinion is that crossplay would result in a lot of performance based grievance I think tends to back up the notion that it's less about tools and even ability, and more about degree of maturity (and I'm kind of falsely conflating experience with maturity here, but I'm generalising).
I'm not a top reflexes player anymore. I get shots in my left eye every few months to stave off blindness, FFS. I tend to stick to PvE games because my body struggles with the stress levels (or more specifically, adrenaline elevation) of persistently pushing myself to be competitive against other people (can literally cause sugar crashes). I'm fully aware of the 'positioning and planning vs reactve precision/speed' situation. I'll also point out that most gamers are on the younger side, be it on console or PC, and most gamers, regardless of age or capability, would prefer a mechanically even playing field.
The division 2 absolutely does not have an even playing field between controller and K+M, I know this because I've used both, and am quite experienced with both control methods in general. The level of tracking and just pixel-nailing of in-cover enemies I pull off with mouse and keyboard are impossible on controller, at least not with the same level of reliability and consistency. Hell, your own argument about positioning and planning actually also favors M+K, as far as that goes, as you can make positions work that a console player will struggle with due to lack of precision.
This would be the immaturity that I was referencing.
Well, just continuing as you started, really.
Revision of what you did say, to me:
Not much. Essentially, could be paraphrased as "I'm right, you're wrong, KB/M > gamepad."
Correct? Anyway. I think most of the rest of your comment deserves to be ignored. I'll also respond to it as I do so.
...moving on.
I didn't. Let me quote me:
I didn't ignore what you didn't say to me. I addressed it, but I don't draw the same conclusion.
So, that's pretty much the sum of your argument. But, consider this: there's already a lot of us using gamepad on PC-only. And yet the forums aren't inundated with the grievance you describe. So, I don't see how you think that it's the tools that are the problem. It's a behavioural problem. That behaviour is common to a certain demographic, but not limited to it. And that demographic is also common with console use, more so than PC use. I described in my many, many words some several connecting ideas, at the centre of which was the notion of maturity as the explanation for all of them. I think that you've backed up my conclusion in several ways.
It's not the tool that maketh the man complain.
But in any case it's a moot discussion because the game is what it is and there's next to no chance crossplay would ever happen at this point.
Yeah, this game has aim assist for controllers, so yeah literally every one of those weapons you mentioned is equally viable with a controller as with a mouse and keyboard.
Man, gamers are hilarious. Back in the day, people used the same arguments that you're using.
Then crossplay games like Halo, Destiny, and CoD became more prevelent, and then all the mouse and keyboard players started complaining about how controller was too powerful thanks to aim assist.
Now, you're trying to make the opposite argument, that console players would complain about mouse and keyboard players, when the exact opposite has been proven in all games that have enabled cross play between PC and console players?
Your argument doesn't hold water, sorry.
BTW, here's a video of me soloing a heroic mission with all directives on, using a contoller:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ypi40aMRsNU&t
There are objective differences in capability between control methods. You are trying to sidestep that and drag off into the weeds, relying on ad hominems (like calling me immature for not appreciating a massively off-topic tangent about player ideology), yet somehow think you have any level of ground to stand on?
You didn't remotely address what I had said, you went off on a tangent about a related but separate subject.
No, the exact opposite was NOT proven in 'all games that have crossplay between players and consoles'. Aim assist in those examples, aside form Halo, was actually MASSIVELY beefed up specifically because they knew console players would get dumpstered otherwise. The AA in modern call of duty is massively stronger than it used to be. The main thing that changed was that they worried about crossplay and trying to prevent pc players from just dumpstering players.
IDGAF if you can do a 'solo heroic'. That means nothing when it can be done in half the time with better aim. Which is my entire point. Better aim means less time exposed, enemies dead quicker, and less ammo concerns. Even in just PVE that is a MASSIVE difference in usability that will leave a console player in the dust if paired with M&K users who are of similar statistical skill level (relative to their input type) as the controller player. Some (one could even argue most would be neutral on the matter), don't care, but a very vocal and active section of the playerbase WILL care.
Your video actually demonstrates exactly what I'm talking about. Your hit rate with that rifle (and the pistol, for that matter) is abysmal, with you regularly getting dragged off target, while you are almost never managing to land headshots. Meanwhile with a mouse I can be hammering on the trigger and still land 6 out of 10 as headshots on most targets. Which is a substantial boost to dps, making the game far easier, and meaning I don't have to lean super hard on healing gadgets or spamming armor kits to survive. There's also the ability to maintain aiming while doing other tasks, which on a controller is iffy if you don't have an 'elite' type controller with underside paddles. You will also run into issues maxing out the firerate on your semi-auto guns from the way gamepad triggers work, unless you have trigger locks to even the field, or are amongst the roughly top 10% of controller users with muscle memory dialed in to that degree.
I use both. and which I use depends on the particular game in question. Most third-person shooters I feel comfy with a gamepad, so use it most of the time. Divison 2 is an exception there, primarily because aim precision actually matters in it a lot more than my other third person shooters.
MOST people who use both on a regular basis come to the same conclusion as I do: That for shooter games, be they FPS or TPS, M&K has an undeniable advantage and controller requires really beefed up aim assist to remain competitive with the other method, where even there, it's only better in CERTAIN SCENARIOS. Thing is, it's unfair to M+K players in those scenarios, because the controller player is getting handholding the M+K doesn't. This isn't touching on the issue that is conversion devices that let people have aim assist + M&K, which are just absolutely unfair no matter how you slice it.
Halo and Destiny (which, from a foundation level, have the same developers and most importantly: same core shooting paradigm) are outliers that are only outliers because their projectiles are DESIGNED around having some degree of bullet magnetism. Not aim assist, bullet magnetism. What breaks controllers compared to K+M in those games, is that the settings related to how magnetism functions (like, for example, the ranges at which it is active and the intensity of it at said ranges) are also changed, in addition to the aiming assist.
This isn't even touching on the issues that would present in Division 2 PVP from those same advantages still being present.
Your own 'evidence' actually proves that my argument holds water. Especially when your 'example' of crossplay games focuses only on recent games that they SPECIFICALLY beefed up AA to try to keep console players remotely competitive against mouse and keyboard. By all means, go back to, say, the original modern warfare, and compare footage of the BEST players you can find, from console and PC, and you will see the difference that makes. Then there are examples like Fortnite and BF1 where the majority of the zeitgeist around aim assist in them is remnants from a time where aim assist was OBJECTIVELY broken.
I can provide a mostly objective video (it's not my video, but it covers what I'm talking about fairly competently) talking about the advantages and disadvantages:
https://youtu.be/-RQbAO9jx_I
While it is focused on FPS, most of this still applies to third-person shooters and even non-shooter games like Chivalry and Mordhau.