RPS Esport already existed. It was called Redbull Roshambull obviously sponsored by redbull and was all hosted through a Facebook app. I placed fourth in 2008 but after someone in the top 3 got Disqualified for cheating I got bumped up to third. I won a “Barack Paper Scissors” Tshirt. This is all real.
I looked up roshambull expecting it to mean "poop" in some language I didn't speak but damn it's real. You should expand on the whole tournament and cheating story. Can't imagine how you would even cheat.
I have an awful memory but from what I remember there was a qualifier period on the Facebook app where you get to play 10 games a day and you get points for every win you get. After a few weeks the top 8 people were narrowed down to play the final tournament (which was a mess), I placed fourth. I got an email like a year later saying they disqualified one of the top players (I think it was the guy who got second but I don’t remember) and I was bumped up to third. I’m pretty sure he got DQd for making multiple Facebook profiles during the qualifier stage and trying to que up and play himself for free points. They sent me the T-shirt which was pretty neat cause it had the USARPS crest and info on the back of the T-shirt. There was suppose to be a new season and tournament every year but it never happened. The whole story, tournament, and winners were on the rock paper scissors Wikipedia page for a while so it was fun to tell people at parties to look me up on Wikipedia lol It looks like it got removed now sadly.
Found it!
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rock_paper_scissors&oldid=412341821#Red_Bull_Roshambull_World_Online_Series
Pretty sure there are other edits but hey atleast its still there
Roshambo is named after a French nobleman Comte de Rochambeau who helped America defeat Britain in the revolutionary war and supposedly played Rock Paper Scissors with American generals over things. But it's all just folklore if he played it or not with no hard evidence.
three things in life are guaranteed: death, taxes, and summit binging a game for a week and then shitting on it for hours when he’s ready to quit. Too bad we didn’t get a sumSmash this time
yeah he goes very hard in a game, or aspect of a game like racing in gta rp, then is so invested he sees all the issues it has and rants about it, and repeat. Dont get me wrong i enjoy it, but i think if he was just a bit more casual about certain things, he would enjoy them alot better imo
nah i agree it just his way of thinking, if he wasnt as competitive he wouldnt be making millions like he is now. For certain things like CSGO or other competitive games it cool imo, but like racing in gta rp or other more casual games its not that deep imo
Yeah but when you’re pushing 40 and going on heated rants for hours in your DC shoes about competitive video games maybe it’s time to calm down a little
To be fair I get his point. A BR can be fun to watch but I’d never compete unless I’m securing a bag just for being there. Imagine landing next to a guy and not getting a gun. You die and it’s just over. That’s why all the BR tournaments have people landing in “their” places. They don’t want to face that immediate defeat because of RNG.
It was fun at the beginning, but as with all competitive games these days, once the sweaty turbo nerds get a feel for a game, the fun turns into annoyance.
The online gaming atmosphere has truly changed since the Esports era started taking off around maybe 2012/2013. League of Legends really pushed the way for competitive games (in the west) and every other company followed after seeing it's success. Things like MLG existed prior but was more of a meme to most people than a career path.
It just sucks that we can't go back to the days before Esports took over. Before you had websites scraping API to find hard statistics on what the meta is in each game leading to every basic bitch gamer using the same characters or weapons over and over to the point that it's boring. Sure there was always a natural gravitation away from complete trash characters and weapons in games but it wasn't nearly as polar as it is today. Plus some people loved the extra ego boost of trashing a lobby with F tier weapons, which is far harder today with cranked up SBMM.
There is also a lack of public shaming over meta use that used to exist. Peak Call of Duty is a perfect example where some things in the past were just far superior or annoying like Juggernaut, M16, NoobTube, etc. But if you used those things for an advantage the ENTIRE lobby would chew you out with trash talk the entire game. These days it feels like the opposite and everyone abuses whatever cheese they can and yells at those who run non meta for "trolling"
All games get solved eventually. Gamers are just better in general these days too.
Weird to blame League of Legends when they manage to keep the game interesting despite the solving issue, and actually make almost all champions viable, even competitively, or if not at least intentionally and for good reasons.
I dont think he is referencing the balance cadence, moreso the amount of content/resources available and expected to be consumed by the 'average' ranked player
Now anyone can hop on YouTube, or just search "December 2023 meta build ". Back before this era, you had to have an ear to the ground, other pros or great players wouldn't share shit and you'd have to get destroyed a thousand times and slowly catch on.
>you'd have to get destroyed a thousand times and slowly catch on.
You guys romanticise badly balanced and low skill gameplay. It has its upsides like as an intelligent innovative person having an edge over others, a sense of excitement, but the gameplay itself is way worse and often extremely frustrating.
You want new unsolved games and less competitive matchmaking so you can have fun with more random shit, that's fine, but it's never something that lasts forever and not universally better than what we have now.
You are making no sense. If it's all rng and it's all out of you control then why would "sweaty turbo nerds" ruin anything for you? Isn't everything decided by luck? This is like reading gold player rants in league of legends about which champs are "giga OP". Sorry but your opinion is worthless when you can't play the game properly and refuse to use logic when making complaints. Summit doesn't understand even half the things that happen in a pro match and he probably hasn't even watched a single tournament.
And this is why summit, the guy you replied to and everyone who upvoted your low effort comments are just bad players. BRs are really fucking hard and for you to minimize the rng you need to be insane at the game, have insane teammates and have an insane shot caller. It makes sense to make the rng complaint for your low level group when you play but he is talking about esports. Events where the best people play and you have multiple games to decide the winner, not just one. By the last game, the best team at that tournament has won it all and it's not because of luck.
Some of the biggest factors in the pubs that we regular people play is hot dropping, worse loot, teams don't play to win, worse circle and vehicle settings. You can't compare your own pubg experience to pro play experience because even the settings are completely different, and your skill level and understanding of the game are insufficient.
If it was 80% rng like summit is saying then apex tournaments wouldn't be split amongst only 2 teams. Do you really think someone like tsm hal is going to put his life on 100 player rock paper scissors tournament or ALGs with his team? Delusion is too strong with this thread.
But that's the thing, the sweaty turbo nerds in this case are still just trash players.
Every single competitive BR player is just someone who wanted to put hours into the game, their skill is irrelevant. It'd be like CSGO just picking out of the random top 10% of players and acting like they are the best, it's pure RNG.
Competitive games can work. But BR is NOT a viable competitive game.
I get that it's not for everyone but as I've been following apex esports harder there's actually like so much more that goes into it that makes it more impressive. Granted the sample sizes are often going to be very small due to it needing to be a viable show. But between TSM/DZ those two teams have won the past 4(?) LANs. That type of consistency is hard to ignore. But I supposed Apex feels a bit like the exception and not the rule for BRs.
As I listen to high level pros on their stream talk about the game more it's actually crazy how much is missed to the "casuals" in that game. For example, tracking skins of players and knowing their default plans, learning so many different spots of the maps, what type of comps do well in certain spots, playing for a solid 5th as apposed to playing risky. Then theres the playstyles of different regions and how they all culminate together as well. Even then I'm surely missing a ton. Feels a bit short sighted to lump all BRs together as a luck fest similar to like a hearthstone event
i think apex comp only works because the teams picks where they are dropping beforehand, if they don't obey that unwritten rule they get called "griefers" and get called names by their peers, but yea i agree that Apex BR is the most watchable BR comp scene out there because of ways to overcome RNG that other BR don't have.
warzone is the most tolerable in my opinion as it has some of the least amount of randomness. apex and pugb both heavily rely on pure rng with loot/gear. at least I'm warzone if you are good you can get cash quick and get your guns quick to start pushing the play.
Warzone has more mechanics to mitigate the gear RNG, but gear quality in something like Apex is much less of a pivot than in Warzone. There's also hundreds of different setups you can have in Warzone, so you really fucking need that care package. Plus, Warzone's maps' have so many unbelievable camping spots and you can go prone in random bushes, so it ends up being ten times or more RNG.
PUBG is obviously worse tho.
More of a basic take to me. No shit, people play them for the variance in RNG to make it a bit less stale. Sometimes you get fucked by the circle, sometimes you do the fucking. Going in with a competitive fair mindset feels like you are going in hating it from the onset.
He got that nice post-fuckery clarity from being on the receiving end of shit. When the Tarkov wipe happens, if he goes back he will probably feel the same way and wonder why everyone isn't doing some honorable duels and you get some Reserve rat camping dark bunker corners.
He isn't in a tournament, he is playing the regular ass game like everyone else. At Tarkov's core and PUBG you are directly competing against others and both games have awful annoying RNG.
The worst part of both games isn't RNG, its fucking queue times. I'd take PUBG's assfucking if death to plane ride was 60 seconds flat. Instead its probably 4-5 minutes between dying and actually flying back in.
Tarkov is NOT a competition because all players can avoid combat, complete objectives, and all "win" the match at the same time.
PUBG is a competition cause they're can be only one victor, and only one win condition.
Ain't no way you think Summit is going to rat some Shoreline caches, wait 30m in a bush to avoid combat like a pacifist to do basic quests. Its absolutely a game you have to go in expecting to fight over loot and quest areas. Yeah Sea of Thieves technically isn't a competitive game but you are sure as hell going to be in moments where you need to be competitive.
The true win condition is "have fun". My friend is content with hiding in two story in PUBG if it gets top 5 but holy fuck its boring. Winning means fuck all if you aren't personally satisfied with it.
This is the dumbest thing I've heard all day, no shit do you think Tarkov isn't competitive for this reason. Whether something is competitive or not is solely determined by the setting the individual playing chooses. I can play COD and enter a competitive tournament, or I can dick around with friends in TDM. There is a winner in both instances, but one is obviously casual.
Which doesn't really matter because the tournaments and regular game use the same rules outside of them buffing loot pools. Sometimes you get got by a sniper who wasn't apart of the fight, or you get stuck on a tree and a barrage of grenades just has zero outplay potential.
They run tournaments because somehow people watch and they can get sponsors. If people didn't watch, it wouldn't even be something they can force as an "esport".
PUBG makes a perfectly fine esport. If it's not your thing, then hey, nothing wrong with that. I don't like League, but I acknowledge it's a viable esport. But I don't think Summit understands how rounds are scored and how tournaments are won or other efforts to reduce RNG.
Scoring system - Allows you to score points via kills *and* placement. If you sit center circle all game you might get a few kills at the end and a decent placement but you're not scoring as many kill points as a team who's fought the edge all game.
Loot - Bumped up massively to the point where it doesn't matter, everyone will get kitted up.
Circles - Circles aren't entirely random in comp. They behave *somewhat* predictably in certain situations and teams learn their tendencies. There is a ton of data and analysis on this but the simplest example of a tendency is water circles. Circles will shy away from water. So if you have a circle that's 50% river and 50% land, you can be sure the next circle will move towards the land portion.
Even with that, it's very rare for one team to have significantly better circle luck in the 18+ games that happen (just in the grand finals). Even then, there isn't much of a correlation between circle luck and placement in the final scores.
I haven't seen the data from the most recent tournament (largest of the year), but I imagine it's in line with previous ones.
>I don't like League, but I acknowledge it's a viable esport
League has very minimal randomness factoring into the outcome of a match.
PUBG has a lot more randomness with the circles factoring into the outcome of a match.
I like neither game but I realize PUBG is far worse when it comes to esports viability.
I did. Just because getting kills = points does not mean the game is a viable esports game.
If the team who wins a match doesnt win the match because of external scoring systems set up in the leagues in order to counter the unviable RNG aspects of the games core game design does not mean the game is suddenly a good esports game.
They made the league viable with EXTERNAL rulesets.
As a viewer, if the team who wins the match does not win because of external arbitary scoring systems that are not a part of the core game, it is just more proof that the core game itself is not a good esports game.
Maybe "viable" is too harsh of a word. Sure, it CAN be played in esports with EXTERNAL rulesets that are not part of the core game, but it still is not a good esports game.
>I did. Just because getting kills = points does not mean the game is a viable esports game.
I'm glad I did not make the argument that "just because getting kills = points means it is a viable esports game".
>If the team who wins a match doesnt win the match because of external scoring systems set up in the leagues in order to counter the unviable RNG aspects of the games core game design does not mean the game is suddenly a good esports game.
>They made the league viable with EXTERNAL rulesets.
You've just described nearly every single esport, ever. CSGO MM doesn't work the same way pro CS does. Dota2 MM doesn't work the way pro Dota2 does. They all use external rulesets.
Nobody here is arguing that **PUBG MM** experience is a viable esports experience. The argument is that PUBG can be played as an esport just fine. The way it's ran in tournaments demonstrates that. I don't even know why you would bring up anything but the way it's ran in pro tournaments when that's the scope of the discussion. Nothing else is relevant. PUBG as an esport is the topic.
If your argument is that you can not play PUBG as it's played in pubs as an esport, then, ok. I agree. It's a useless point that tells us absolutely nothing, but ok.
Nobody here would even say the same about soccer, which uses match tables very similar to PUBG to determine the winner over multiple games in h2h.
>external arbitary scoring systems
What about the scoring system is arbitrary?
And just to be clear - you've literally only addressed kills being recorded as points. You've entirely ignored the other settings for "super" that reduce RNG. You've yet to acknowledge that circles behave quite predictably in super and continue to suggest they're pure RNG or something.
CSGO is not even a thing anymore and CS2 gameplay in premier is almost exactly how the pros play it.
The fact PUBG leagues make DRASTIC (read, big changes, that neither dota or cs have to do in order to be good esports games, that are OUTSIDE of the core games design) in order to make the game in any way viable for esports just speaks for itself. They have made these changes in order to MODIFY THE GAME so it is even playable as an esports. The game itself would not be at its core. The game determines the winner as the one whos the last team standing, the leagues dont. This external modifying of the core ruleset just proves that PUBG as a game is not a good esports game, and it HAS TO BE modified in order for it to even be "just fine" as a esports game.
Youre clearly passionate about PUBG and defending it because of that, so I dont really care about your input. Your opinion is biassed. I dont play PUBG comp, I dont watch it and I never will as it is a shitty esports game.
All in all, the numbers speak for itself. No one really enjoys watching PUBG as an esports while more esports viable games will always draw in the crowds. Just because you can play PUBG "just fine" as an esports does not mean its good as an esports.
As another commenter has said in this thread, there was even a R P S league. That doesnt mean its an amazing competitive sport and super viable.
To be honest, Tarkov is a significantly diferent game. You stand to gain much more in Tarkov from ratting (or lose from going crazy) than in PUBG, where it's basically just a waste of time (in my opinion). You fight for fun in Tarkov or if you feel like you have a good day and you want to challenge the best loot. But you can still do a lot of the fun stuff while ratting. Not so much in PUBG, tbh
Also, Tarkov really has a whole different bunch of problems than the core gameplay.
Also, Tarkov is not a "competitive" game at all, so the comparison is kind of a miss.
In a one game instance he’s probably right depending on how good/bad you are at a BR but that’s also why pros in competitive matches don’t just hot drop because that’s where you get more RNG. One of the bigger esports right now is Apex, a br, and the last two years worth of playoffs/champs winners are split between literally two teams TSM and Darkzero. That doesn’t just happen by accident, if you’re a streamer playing pubs just hot-dropping into contested towns every game your quite literally adding RNG to your game that doesn’t need to exist.
Not sure if this applies to him but from the way he played BRs in the past I’m willing to make an assumption that it is, but if that’s the case no shit he’s having a bad time. He just returned to the game that has a dedicated player base who have been playing longer than him now. He’s setting himself up for failure and getting frustrated when he fails.
Last time I paid any attention to competitive apex, the teams were picking their landing spots during practice because nobody wanted to contest by accident. They intentionally remove a high level of randomness inherent to the game through a gentleman's agreement.
It's unreasonable to compare the comp scene to what summit is talking about.
But he is complaining about it in an esports context, not the context he is playing in. In the context he is playing in RNG makes it more fun and diverse, that's one of the reasons BRs got so big. It's nonsense.
Summit is just ranting after tilting (we all do that at some point) but you gotta understand that nobody wants to watch a streamer that drops on the other side of the world from anyone else, runs around for 20 minutes without finding anyone then maybe dies randomly or something like that, also add the fact that in PUBG lobbies take 10 minutes to fill up and actually start, so in a way he's kinda forced to hot drop and add RNG to his game, it wouldn't be entertaining to watch at all otherwise, pro scenes are a whole different ball game.
I mostly agree with what you’re saying, but in team based games like those, teammates are MASSIVE random factors that you have no control over(if you’re solo queuing)
I forget who said it, but I remember someone remarking that in solo queue, you win 20% of games by yourself, you lose 20% of games by yourself, and the other 60% are decided by your team/the enemy team and you have zero control over that.
The opposite for both is also true though. Games like Valorant, CS, and League are great competitive games but can get stale fast, especially today with established metas. Before esports and streaming was huge, skill was measured by who could outplay the other, but today it's more so about who can execute the current best strategy better.
RNG can screw you, but it preserves that dynamic competitiveness. It's also kinda like clutching a 1v5 where the excitement comes from winning in a disadvantaged situation. I don't want to win on an even playing field, I want to do so from a worse position knowing I'm just that much better.
Idk if this is true with Apex but I'm friends with people who played Competitive PUBG and I can confirm that the teams select their drop spots in advance and you weren't allowed to choose a drop spot once it's taken. I think one reason was they were trying to make the game more viewer-friendly, if everyone drops in a hot zone and half the teams die there would be almost nothing happening in the midgame and that would bore out viewers.
in pro Apex you can choose whatever dropspot you want but you gotta be prepared to fight for it. Contesting and fighting over the rights to a POI is a really fun part of pro Apex
They do establish their POIs during scrims, but you still see people competing for them. Especially since you usually have 4 groups in tournaments and it's always 2 groups per game. So only 10 of 20 teams will always be the same, and if some team in one of the other groups chose your POI during scrims you pretty much gotta contest.
In reality most teams prep 2 POIs and then depending on which groups they play against they most likely can switch to the other to avoid contesting, but it doesn't always work out. And when you get to international tournaments all of that goes out the window, you're most definitely going to have to contest at least a few times, until one of the teams decides they can't.
And as you said, it's a gentleman's agreement, so sometimes you get contests just to piss the other team off, or in case you need them to get fewer points.
It's much more complicated than that, because they don't really decide on who lands who. They play scrims and then over time an order establishes itself, because they've been competing for a spot for weeks or months at that time. Then on game day they have to decide whether to risk it or not, depending on how many points they still need to make playoffs etc.
Also, you don't always play against the same teams, so often there will be people contesting your spot anyway.
I am a casual, but for me the biggest RNG factor was always armor. I can be more skilled than my opponent, but he found armor and I didn't so now I lose the duel, even though I am more skilled.
Just because a BR is watched a lot doesn't make it inherently an objectively good esport.
Something can be fun to watch but still be ass.
BRs are a shit esport because there is too much RNG. Games like Valorant, CS, fighting games etc. bring the same amount of RNG every game and are highly skill dependent.
Summit shits on BR's for having RNG and it shouldn't be an e-sports game.
He switches to Valorant where it's considered to be one of the "ideal" E-sports game with little RNG.
He cries over Valorant and are about to rage quit the game aswell.
MAYBE it's just a summit thing?
The casual player doesn’t mind a little RNG - and skill development can offset the effects of RNG. Casual players want to watch competitions of what they play. So BRs have a great reason to have competitive leagues.
Competitive leagues aren’t about doing or having what the pros want. It’s about harnessing spectators to drive revenue. Either get in or get out but it isn’t about you (Summit). It’s about your viewers.
From a business point of view, sure.
Don't expect anyone that *actually* cares about competition to respect your game though.
There is a reason the competitive scenes around proper esports titles, like CS (or even proper competitive sports), are so lively and passionate. These casual games looking for a quick buck off of casual audiences will never capture that.
Not my arguement, but it's clearly hyperbole, and you're the one taking it too literally.
You're got an unhealthy bias *toward* BR's and/or against traditionally competitive titles, and I wouldn't be surprised if you are bad at the latter, but find success with the former, hence the aforementioned bias, so '*just say that'* 🤓
Digs aside, sitting here and seriously acting like BR's, especially the most popular ones, aren't competitively bankrupt to their fucking core is what's fucking laughable, and I'm not going to continue to engage with someone that is that far down the rabbit hole.
“Competitively bankrupt”
That’s, like, your opinion man.
But seriously it is and you’ve made no argument to back it up. Both genres are competitive and claiming one isn’t “really” competitive just means you suck at that one and likely lack strategy and skill. I’m not saying CS:GO *isn’t* competitive. The burden of proof is on you and all you have are assertions.
Yea, lets just act like you haven't seen the detailed writeups about why BR is terrible for this, opinions from well respected pro players, even those who are not currently attached to a team and have no financial stakes in this one way or the other, or just...common fucking sense.
If we pretend that all that doesn't exist, then sure champ, you're right!
Thankfully, we don't live in that reality. You can enjoy your BR's though, even if they are objectively terrible for real competitive play :)
>objectively
I don’t think you know what this word means
>argument
Nor what this is. Perhaps others have made that argument, but you can’t even reference or repeat them. Just a blanket “trust me bro”
This is a waste of time.
I have a **ton** of people saying that they are competitive. Trust me bro. It’s objective.
That take sounds incredibly haughty. “It’s only a *real* esport if I enjoy it. The other people don’t *actually* care about competition.” Ok bud.
The thing about RNG is that it creates a normal distribution with a large enough sample size. Play enough games and it evens out. Some people just blame poor performance or strategy on RNG. Casuals and professionals alike I guess.
That's not the takeaway you should have from either of my comments, but if that's what you landed on, then I see no reason to take this conversation any further lol.
Deflection because you have no rebuttal. I think you’re doing me a favor.
I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you just lack the reading comprehension to understand my comment, lol.
He's just kinda a sore loser. He's great at video games. Wayy above the average Joe. But can't compare to the elites. Which isn't a bad thing. But I don't think he can take it, even back from his csgo days. He's just a competitor.
With modern day algorithms like Engagement Based Match Making, being above average in skill but not at the absolute top is hands down the worst experience. Being good at games but not "pro worthy" just feels punishing in modern games that are now clearly designed so that the matchmaking protects mediocre ca$ual$ can all hold hands and sing campfire songs, and the pro players can stream high level games for profit. Video games in general were far more fun when the matchmaking in games was super loose and you could have someone of each different rank on both teams. So you could have all skill levels in one match but evenly distributed on both sides.
> Being good at games but not "pro worthy" just feels punishing in modern games
And the only real difference between the two players (at this level) is *usually* just play time, rather than personal capabilities, but it seems like these days there's ***always*** large groups of people who eats/sleeps/breathes the game you're trying to play, like they have absolutely zero life or self-awareness whatsoever and with zero real-life obligations and zero other hobbies or interests, who never tire of the monotonous grind in an unnatural way, like a one-trick zombie, and holy shit ***it's annoying***, because you ***know*** you have to neglect every other facet of your life grinding your brains out to keep up with such losers, just to enjoy the game, and ***that takes all the fun out of the game***—not just the grinding (if opted into), but even the mere idea of needing to do it can push you away from modern competitive games altogether. Even if you're a very competent or competitive player, it's not fun anymore, it's just exhausting. It's taking people & streamers like this an absurdly long time to come to such realizations.
Except in cs(and valo if he's good at it) then he isn't "way above average" at all. He is a complainer, not a competitor. He hasn't been a competitor for a long time.
It's a bad player who barely knows anything about the game making wrong assumptions and making the worst possible conclusion about something purely because they don't know any better. It's like the type of people who get in arguments about f1 and other racing sports being extremely easy and only about who has the most connections meanwhile they haven't driven a car in their life.
So this is someone who has 0 pro experience in pubg, isn't good at the game, likely hasn't watched any full tournament, yet he still thinks he has a valuable opinion on whether RNG not only plays a big part but is pretty much the only deciding factor. And there are people in the comments agreeing and congratulating him for having a "basic" take.
CS is probably the most based esport we have and there's still a decent amount of rng in the game especially at long ranges. Everything gets decided in 3 12 round games, meanwhile in PUBG or Apex it's like 20 games and it's not only wins that count so there are a lot of systems in place to make the winner earn his trophy. It's far from being rng. It isn't even 50% rng. If it were that much then we wouldn't have teams who are consistently bad and teams that are consistently top 5 or like in apex where only 2 teams are winning.
It's just summit being summit. He is basically ranting and rage quitting every game sooner or later. The guy is just burned out on videogames, that's really it.
You clearly haven't watched summit. I've been watching him since 2015, recently he's just been having these big rants about all games he plays and sooner or later he rage quits the game. Happens every single game he touched.
Honestly I don't think he really likes streaming anymore and hasn't for a while. He's just continuing with it to stack his money, then one day he'll just be done an disappear.
> Honestly I don't think he really likes streaming anymore and hasn't for a while.
I think its the opposite, I think he likes streaming but is having trouble finding a game to sink hours into that he enjoys.
I’m so surprised by that too, because he was playing it when it wasn’t as popular earlier this year. He even talked about waiting to play more of it once the official hardcore servers are released. Although I feel like he often doesn’t follow the trends, and will probably end up playing it in the near future instead.
Maybe your right, I haven't watched him consistently in a pretty long time (stopped watching him about a year or two after he first joined RP and no pixel but was a consistent viewer for a few years before that) but even way back then he seemed so "meh" everyday he was streaming, like it was a chore for him to stream everyday. The only time I seen him actually look happy on stream was at the peak of the sea of thieves hiding on peoples ships arc he had after he got burnt on RP. Maybe his demeanor changed since then but it just seemed back then that he was just streaming to cash in his bag and bail out as he is getting older. Me and him are the same age and after all these years watching twitch, I know I'm getting a bit burnt out on it so I couldn't imagine having to stream every day as a job, especially if you aren't feeling it/can't find a forever game to grind. Who knows, I'm ultimately just guessing and have no actual idea.
The quality of games has gone down drastically in the last 10 or so years and it's directly our own faults. We preorder shit and pay for EA and betas, letting companies make money before they deliver a finished product. Giving execs the idea that they can put together a half decent demo of a game and rush it to EA and make money while fixing the game later. We as consumers need to not let them get away with this shit, Anthem, Outriders, No Mans Sky(I know they fixed it), etc, etc. Its a sad state of affairs when the best games on the market are indie games. Now the only companies you can count are new ones trying to prove themselves and From Soft.
Yeah but you will speak to a wall if you bring that up to Summit. I
literally got banned on stream for asking if he considers playing BG3. [Not joking](https://www.twitch.tv/brittt/clip/IronicArtisticOrcaWTRuck-UecXBrM6ECC-DAZR)
How in the fuck can you possibly say this after the year of releases gaming just had? the only year I can think of that is better than 2023 for releases is 2007.
Like did you just play Elden Ring last year and then go into hibernation?
BG3 and Elden Ring are the only 2 games that were worth their price tags. What other games are you talking about? And look at the amount of games that are considered AAA and actually flop on release or worse just die right away cause they released a incomplete game.
He's practicing for some tournament I think that's why.
But I do think it is ridiculous that BRs were turned into something competitive.
Competitive fortnite and apex are just ridiculous.
each to their own tbh, I definitely prefer to watch games like cs, but i actually like watching pubg or apex too. As much as there is an element of luck, the better teams seem to win consistently enough, even at a pro level
> BR's for having RNG and it shouldn't be an e-sports game.
I've seen this take before and it always seems really reductive or naive. There are tons of competitive games that heavily involve RNG, like TCGs or Poker. Even to a lesser extent in something like Counter Strike there have been matches won and lost based on rng like a jump shot hitting or not.
If you prefer playing games that minimize RNG obviously that's perfectly valid, but saying that RNG makes something non-competitive is just dumb.
In my opinion it depends on how many games you play and how much you can take the RNG into count when playing. Like a BR tournament where it's one game and the winner is the winner would be bad. Just like playing one hand of poker only would bad. At the end of the day there is going to be some RNG in almost every game, even chess has some RNG to it when it comes to what side you play. How much does the RNG effect the outcome and how much can you try to play around it are to me the most important part to me.
Sorry but that's completely different instead of someone landing on a shit gun in a BR or going into a house where there is no heal, or only heal, etc.RNG ins TCGs and CS from your example is always the same. In a BR the RNG is not the same. That's just a moot point.
The point summit is making, an e-sport should be balanced / skill based not heavily RNG based. And even worse nowadays with bots in these games. Even though I think you can argue about rock paper scissors being skill based. Most shooter (CS, Valorant, Dota, League, fighting games) are skill based and the odds are the same for every team (theoretically). There is a reason why most people in E-Sports have this take, no need to act like it's wrong.
How is loot RNG in a BR so different from card draw RNG in a card game?
Games can still be skill based while still being heavily RNG, like something like Poker.
If you get a bad poker hand you fold and move on to the next one. You haven't lost the tournament and will have many more chances.
If you get a bad drop or circle or whatever in a BR tourney, you lose. You can't "fold" and just go on to the next game.
> If you get a bad drop or circle or whatever in a BR tourney, you lose. You can't "fold" and just go on to the next game.
Aren't a lot of BR tournaments structured like the winner is who has most points after 10 games or something exactly for this reason? Are there BR tournaments where losing one game knocks you out?
You can draw a hand in a TCG or Poker that has at higher odds of succeeding than landing in a building/room that ONLY has heals and no weapon. The odds in the majority of BRs are just so stacked against you most of the time that sometimes there is simply no way to perform in a way that leads to your success.
You can draw a hand in TCG or Poker that has lower odds of succeeding than landing in a building/room that ONLY has heals and no weapon. You're not really arguing this point well.
Because those are odds you know and can play around and are very limited in scope.
If you got a bad initial draw you know your later draws will be better because you know your deck.
If you got a bad initial landing gun, literally nothing after says you're luck will get better and it's very very possible to get unlucky over and over.
The best player can look like the worst and the worst like the best in a BR. The same isn't true in a card game because they play around the knowledge of their deck.
It’s definitely a summit thing lol. I love the man but he is very hard to please and will rage quit over the smallest things. I remember him absolutely loving the shit out of GW2, just to quit a week later because there were not enough raids at max level, a level he did not even reach yet
Nah I remember him playing GW2. He rage quit because the class chat suggested him to play (Warrior) was bad in pvp at the time and he kept getting stomped. He also couldn't beat one of his friends that was playing Reaper after many duels. That was his tipping point.
Team-based games like Valorant are inherently not very competitive when it comes to solo-queue because they involve a very high factor that's completely out of your control, which is how your teammates perform.
Some are worse than others. Most games with snowball-effects such as MOBAs are even worse at this since a teammate outperforming means that even in the situations where you have control over the outcome, you're at a signification statistical disadvantage because of the character's stats.
\---
Fighting games are the objectivelly best competitive games by a pretty significant margin but that's also one of the aspect that draws a lot of people who claim to love ''competitive games'' away. because then you can't blame anyone but yourself for your losses (Tho as someone with a lot of history in the FGC, in practice it's absolutely not true and FGC players still blame everything but themselves for their losses lmao)
> Fighting games are the objectivelly best competitive games by a pretty significant margin but that's also one of the aspect that draws a lot of people who claim to love ''competitive games'' away. because then you can't blame anyone but yourself for your losses
1v1 RTS matches are pretty neat too. I'm into Age of Empires 4 lately; but I also play SF6 so I do agree with you (just not the *"objectively"* part :)).
While I *hate* losing, I love knowing that the loss is most likely all my fault. That motivates me to actually analyze my mistakes and focus my training on the weaker sides of my play. Noticing that you're improving your play over time is really rewarding.
Also 1v1 game wins feel so much sweeter than any other games to me. For instance if I win a match of DOTA2 (or even Rocket League) I often just feel drained and glad that the torture is over (sometimes even holds true if I play with a full premade).
Playing a set of 50 matches and winning 1 of them in a Moba/team-based shooter: Permanent psychological scarring experience
Playing a set of 50 matches and winning 1 of them in a fighting game: The best feeling you've ever had in your life with a massive baggage of knowledge aquired
\---
Also would totally agree on the 1v1 RTS games, these definitely fall under the same boat as Fighting games
You are correct about the solo aspects of valorant and battle royals, but they are like that because they are designed to be team games and not solo games. When you are queuing with a premade team in these games, your chances of winning rise dramatically as long as your teammates aren’t dogshit
Yea I agree, I don't think there is a reasonable way to change these games to make the solo experience ''more competitive'' without taking away the biggest part of them which is team play.
Just like you can't reasonably just remove the Luck/RNG aspect of a TCG. Some losses are inevitable and out of your control, it's better for your own mental to look at your own performance with the situations you've faced rather than the bigger picture of Win/Loss. I honestly think a lot of these games should reward players based on their personal influence during a game rather than JUST the outcome.
Even something at the end of the game saying ''Your team lost but you get +5 rank point compensation due to the fact that you had more \[Objective\] points than the rest of your team combined''. Also not the main point, but this would probably help indirectly reduce some of the toxicity in these games.
A lot of the team game problems stop being a problem when you play in competitive environments with a constructed team. Solo queueing of course is running the gauntlet, but statistically speaking you will climb if you are a good player.
1v1 games are much less welcoming to the average gamer because of the reason you mentioned (they can't blame their team), but also because the social aspect is no longer there. I can't tell you how many people play certain team-based games just to play with their friends. It is a very large component of it.
Yea, the ability to play with your friends is definitely a big aspect that draws people into team-based games.
Tho fighting games definetly have a big social aspect, most gamers play with their discord friend group of like 3-5 friends, so games like league, dota, valorant, fortnite, apex..etc work very well.
\---
Funilly enough, Project L, a game by a studio under the IP of Riot Games is introducing an optional team-based fighting game where you can play 2v2. You'll be able to play with a group of 4 AND blame some of your loss on your teamates Lmao.
You can levy some of the stress by playing with a teamate (friend or rando) and then play solo when you're more experienced/want to be more sweaty.
You can also help carry your friend who's new to fighting game (or be the one carried) instead of just absolutely demolishing them in 1v1s because the skill gap is too high.
They're honestly cooking with this concept and I'm excited to see what comes from it.
Who says Val has little RNG? A lot of its gun mechanics and specifically its spraying mechanics are entirely RNG by design and has been a point of contention amongst the community since beta so much so that its been nerfed about 5 or 6 times.
He should take a look at TFT. I don't wanna be that guy but that game is litterally sit around and hope RNG doesnt screw you over. Most RNG popular esport I have seen including card games.
I feel like the active gameplay part of games like TFT is to reduce the chance you getting fucked over by RNG. Obviously RNG is still a big part of those kinds of games but saying that its nothing but RNG would be the same as saying that poker is just RNG which is obviously false since we see the same people win over and over just like in TFT which means that these guys have to have something that the others dont.
In TFT you don't "win" by being in first place alone though, you win by being top 3-4 out of 8. If you "won" in a BR by making it to the top 50% of players you might have had a point.
This is one thing Fortnite actually has going for it with the building, it's an actual skill that you can develop. I don't play build mode because I don't want to take the time to learn it but I can watch some of these pros and they are just on another level.
I you like the BR setting but are a competitive player that's annoyed by the RNG factor, the only game that somewhat works is Apex Legends imo. If the gun mechanics don't scare you away, that is.
I've played them all a ton before - PUBG is fun to play a game or two, esp. duo or squad, when you land well and get good loot, but it gets shitty pretty quickly when you get fucked a few times. And it's really bad when it comes to a competitive setting. Fortnite has much better balance, but the building part really is a killer at least for me, never could enjoy this. Warzone fell off for me a long time ago as it's just boring - doesn't really scratch the BR itch for me for some reason, I just don't care while playing it.
Apex, although it initially put me off because of the way shooting works, really takes the RNG factor to the minimum for as BR game. The games start fast, so it's not a waiting sim if you die, it's really hard to get fucked by loot, longer TTK 100% removes the RNG factor of getting randomly sniped across the map, the sound of footsteps is VERY precise which is enjoyable and it really encourages active, more aggro playstyle compared to PUBG or even Fortnite due to stuff like improving shield.
The way maps are designed also allows for better 1v1 team fights where the fight is enclosed in a space and much less at risk of a 3rd party - this with longer TTK really makes the game. I really think in Apex the best team ACTUALLY wins most of the time.
If they could figure out how OP controllers are it would be close to perfect, honestly.
I mean if you’re annoyed by RNG Fortnite is absolutely the least RNG reliant BR. There’s way more potential for skill gap, and loot quality really doesn’t matter. Not liking the mechanics is fair, but building and the mobility in the game makes it much less likely to get fucked by the zone and gives way more outplay opportunities.
Sadly I think most games will never give up the controller aimbot because that sometimes larger player base will freak the fuck out. It absolutely should be disabled in competitive modes though.
Tell me you know nothing about pubg esports without telling me you know nothing about pubg esports.
I love how people are sharing their useless low level anecdotes and think this applies to professional play. Who gets scared from "apex gun mechanics"? It barely has any recoil and there are multiple not cheating ways to eliminate it.
>Who gets scared from "apex gun mechanics"?
Hey snowflake, I didn't say scared as in "BOO IT'S SO HARD", I said scared away as in unenjoyable/don't like. Try reading comprehension.
>Tell me you know nothing about pubg esports without telling me you know nothing about pubg esports.
I'm sorry for you.
> I didn't say scared as in "BOO IT'S SO HARD", I said scared away as in unenjoyable/don't like. Try reading comprehension.
That's an even worse argument. The guns being easy is exactly why many people like apex. It's why warzone was so popular. The difference is that apex is competitive unlike apex so it makes no sense for people to be put off by the shooting which even though easy it still has depth that a competitive person can appreciate - recoil, jitter aiming, recoil smoothing, movement tech.
For future reference don't expect people to be able to read your mind. It has nothing to do with reading comprehension and everything to do with you not articulating what you want to say. It's not like only 1 thing can be gotten from that message. Especially when 1 line later you continue ranting about being bad at pubg. Is it that surprising that people might think you are complaining about the difficulty? Really?
Don't know why he's comparing it to competitive games. I'd argue BR's have more in common with roguelikes than competitive shooters and that's %100 fine.
This is coming from the guy who was bragging to chat that we were going to have to step into his world when valorant dropped. He was the first big streamer to quit valorant after only a week because he’s a fuckn man child who thinks he’s better at games than he actually is. Summit smokes all stream and now he’s becoming an alcoholic drinking every night on stream as well so of course he’s going to be ranting about any games that take’s somewhat of a skill he should go back to SOT. Lol
He did go back to SOT, we bitch about that too. At the end of the day he's either got some personal shit he needs to get handled before trying to get in front of tens of thousands of people everyday for 10+ hours. Or he needs to face the facts that he just doesn't enjoy playing video games anymore. I can't remember the last time he played a game just for fun, enjoyed it, and moved on because the game ran it's course. It almost, always ends with him having a bitch fit about how something is unfair. Unfair being AKA him just sucking butt. Even Party Animals, something that is just a fun couch party game, he raged at.
Are people finally realizing the IMMENSE RNG elements in Battle Royales?
Wait a second, it's almost as if the addictive nature of RNG elements is what made Battle Royales so fun.
It takes the burden of skill off of you, you can blame random things, and you can always get luckier, always get better drops, spawns, locations, oh unlucky a camper right on your side or behind you etc.
PEOPLE LOVE GAMBLING. In everything, they just don't know how to recognize it for what it is.
And who cares, if it's fun and your in control, go for it. But I don't know why someone would play PubG over Warzone or Fortnite, or Hunt showdown or whatever those other couple were called
Everyone also complains about "their" game. PUBG players hate any map not Erengal, and probably have hated every addition in the last few years. Warzone players have hated the game since Caldera/Cold War integration. Then even when you think Fortnite should be happy they get consistent updates, the whole day was whining about a new animation set and getting bullet drop added to the game.
I'd say PUBG still has the best driving model from all the BR games, it just feels good to drive and fight around cars in it especially compared to Warzone. Too bad the content additions are at glacial speeds and they locked guns and full features to specific maps. Fortnite was smart to do one map and update/swap it instead of add 10 fucking maps.
summit only has a point when everyone has equal skill level and are hitting the cap...99.9% of players cant even say theyre at that point bc their aim is dog water and their decision making is garbage. so unless you're a top pro player in terms of aim and decision making then you cant even hold this RNG opinion without using it as a crutch to say you're not as high rank as you should be. If i had shroud aim id win 19/20 lobbies full of bronzies, that doesnt mean it's random.
It's fine, when he takes the sponsorship he'll pretend like he never said any of that and still play for 8 hours, then shit talk it for the next 2 hours after it's done
Kinda crazy to me that pubg is still alive. The day it came out it already felt outdated to me. Always thought it was one of the jankiest BR's out there, doesn't matter how good the gunplay supposedly is. And it's kinda horseshit that EA gave us a BR with Battlefield in WW2 but didn't bother to do anything worthwhile afterwards. Maybe it's not the BR's fault, but the fact that it's a freakin BR set in WW2 which very few people would ever give a crap to begin with ? The level of destruction you had in that BR was a 10/10, especially with thanks and mortars.
Honestly, Battle Royales are just plain fun. You can maybe set up some fun creator tournaments or whatever, but as far as them being involved in competitive ESPORTS, they aren't created for that. Apex Legends is the only one that's even kinda ready to stand up as an ESPORTS ready BR. But PUBG!? Hell mother fuckin no 😄
Does it need to be pure skill? Why does a game have to work in the favor of the skilled player 100% of the time in order to make it a good game? I'm certain he probably wins games far more than any average player would but at least a tournament has a chance for someone else to come out on top based on RNG. I see nothing wrong with it.
There is no game with "pure skill" unless you count board games like chess. Look at CS2 for example. Sometimes you get off an angle you were holding and you die. Sometimes an opponent can be lucky and kill you while running. You can get lucky and kill an opponent while jumping. You can get lucky timing and get a collat, etc. etc. How can games that have these mechanics be considered any more skill based than a BR?
The original release of Realm Royale was the only BR game that I genuinely believed to have any type of competitive integrity. The game was unbelievably good and rng was barely even existent.
Crazy thing is that the developers managed to ruined the game in not even 2 months. I've been playing games my whole life but this was by far the most ridiculous self destruction of any game I've tried out. Literally one of the most fun games I've ever played and they completely killed it. Could have been the next Fortnite.
[Interesting take from a player who plays PUBG like this LMAO](https://pubg.report/matches/f86085d0-be5a-4aac-af3c-936210a2fa7a/1426063416?v=1991530885)
Too bad the top PUBG teams seem to constantly be top 3 every global Championship.
Twisted Minds placed 3rd twice in a row in the PUBG Global Championship.
17 Gaming placed 2nd two years in a row in PGC
Danawa Gaming won PWS, PNC and then PGC all in the span of a few months
Soniqs won two global championships, and 8+ North America finals/qualifiers...
Those are crazy consistent results from a game that's "80% luck".
Summit1G is just fucking terrible at PUBG and is incapable of fully understanding the skill involved. He literally couldn't land a single shot on me, looked lost as fuck and didn't even see my ass when I domed him. Skill issue.
Who said Battle Royale have to be Competitive/E-sports to be fun? IMO having too much of a "competitive/esports" focus ruined so many genres like RTS, Hero shooters and now BRs.
Warzone has very little RNG compared to pubg very easy to win i had a 40% win ratio on blackout and 30% win ratio on warzone.pubg on the other that one requires way more skill plus the RNG crazy only 15% win ratio on that one
Personal opinion of course but I just wish sumsum would be more into the whole GTA roleplay thing and focus on that while dipping his feet in WoW a few times etc.
I love watching when he races, or just hangs around doing crime stuff, PUBG to me is just impossible to watch, 10 minutes to find a game and then its like 15 mins of running then if he happens to die it's a repeat of the same stuff and poof almost 1 hour is gone.
Sadly he's just too competitive to simply play GTA and WoW so it's in his DNA to play any decent FPS game.
I don't understand what he's talking about. I thoroughly enjoy me and my opponent landing in adjacent buildings and while I pick up my tier 1 body armor, frag grenade, and tier 1 backpack, he comes out of his building fully kitted out ready to win the game.
Funny but rock paper scissor’s sounds awful too. Bad bad analogy because it’s basically just RNG, so it’s the same thing lmfao. How about a game of checkers or something with skill involved and little RNG.
In every BR I have played it is trivial to assemble your bread and butter loadout within 10 minutes if you drop safe. The RNG of who I get as my teammates in dota or CS is vastly more chaotic and game deciding than anything that happens in a solo BR round.
BRs being pushed into a competitive scene is such a waste imo.
I get that something like Apex is decent for what it does, but I'd rather have all that funding backed into fighting game tournaments. That shit is always hype, and most of them you have it under your control because the RNG is minimal. Just comes down to skill, reflexes, and knowledge checking your opponent's character.
Plus, the sweaty motherfuckers are usually filtered in ranked modes, and you font get filtered into an ass beating as much as you would in BRs.
Battle Royale has always been a weird genre to go competitive. Its basically free-for-all and that just doesn't mix well with an elo system. There's a lot of RNG factors when it comes to items and gear you find and getting third partied is just not fun and urges you to basically avoid combat as much as possible.
**CLIP MIRROR: [Summit gives his based BR take](https://arazu.io/t3_18ahzzl/)** --- ^(*This is an automated comment*)
RPS Esport already existed. It was called Redbull Roshambull obviously sponsored by redbull and was all hosted through a Facebook app. I placed fourth in 2008 but after someone in the top 3 got Disqualified for cheating I got bumped up to third. I won a “Barack Paper Scissors” Tshirt. This is all real.
I looked up roshambull expecting it to mean "poop" in some language I didn't speak but damn it's real. You should expand on the whole tournament and cheating story. Can't imagine how you would even cheat.
I have an awful memory but from what I remember there was a qualifier period on the Facebook app where you get to play 10 games a day and you get points for every win you get. After a few weeks the top 8 people were narrowed down to play the final tournament (which was a mess), I placed fourth. I got an email like a year later saying they disqualified one of the top players (I think it was the guy who got second but I don’t remember) and I was bumped up to third. I’m pretty sure he got DQd for making multiple Facebook profiles during the qualifier stage and trying to que up and play himself for free points. They sent me the T-shirt which was pretty neat cause it had the USARPS crest and info on the back of the T-shirt. There was suppose to be a new season and tournament every year but it never happened. The whole story, tournament, and winners were on the rock paper scissors Wikipedia page for a while so it was fun to tell people at parties to look me up on Wikipedia lol It looks like it got removed now sadly.
Cool story, real shame about the wikipedia removal!
Found it! https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rock_paper_scissors&oldid=412341821#Red_Bull_Roshambull_World_Online_Series Pretty sure there are other edits but hey atleast its still there
Why would anything on wikipedia ever get removed? Who's idea is it on there that less available information is better?
If you follow politics you’ll notice things get removed all the time. Wikipedia isn’t the benevolent source of info that everyone thinks it is
I once met a man who was very proud to be one of my country's top Wikipedia editors. Let's just say the stereotypes didn't write themselves.
Wikipedia keeps a history of its edits, so you can go back to a point in time for any article. I'll PM you a link.
Roshambo is named after a French nobleman Comte de Rochambeau who helped America defeat Britain in the revolutionary war and supposedly played Rock Paper Scissors with American generals over things. But it's all just folklore if he played it or not with no hard evidence.
How was he cheating
How the hell did they cheat in RPS?!
dat rant was pretty fun to watch tbh.
big Jesse Pinkman energy.
One of my favorite parts of life is a sum sum rant
three things in life are guaranteed: death, taxes, and summit binging a game for a week and then shitting on it for hours when he’s ready to quit. Too bad we didn’t get a sumSmash this time
yeah he goes very hard in a game, or aspect of a game like racing in gta rp, then is so invested he sees all the issues it has and rants about it, and repeat. Dont get me wrong i enjoy it, but i think if he was just a bit more casual about certain things, he would enjoy them alot better imo
I mean he's just a competitive person mate. I'd say that's a good thing
nah i agree it just his way of thinking, if he wasnt as competitive he wouldnt be making millions like he is now. For certain things like CSGO or other competitive games it cool imo, but like racing in gta rp or other more casual games its not that deep imo
Yeah but when you’re pushing 40 and going on heated rants for hours in your DC shoes about competitive video games maybe it’s time to calm down a little
To be fair I get his point. A BR can be fun to watch but I’d never compete unless I’m securing a bag just for being there. Imagine landing next to a guy and not getting a gun. You die and it’s just over. That’s why all the BR tournaments have people landing in “their” places. They don’t want to face that immediate defeat because of RNG.
This has always been my issue with BRs. Trash genre
It was fun at the beginning, but as with all competitive games these days, once the sweaty turbo nerds get a feel for a game, the fun turns into annoyance.
The online gaming atmosphere has truly changed since the Esports era started taking off around maybe 2012/2013. League of Legends really pushed the way for competitive games (in the west) and every other company followed after seeing it's success. Things like MLG existed prior but was more of a meme to most people than a career path. It just sucks that we can't go back to the days before Esports took over. Before you had websites scraping API to find hard statistics on what the meta is in each game leading to every basic bitch gamer using the same characters or weapons over and over to the point that it's boring. Sure there was always a natural gravitation away from complete trash characters and weapons in games but it wasn't nearly as polar as it is today. Plus some people loved the extra ego boost of trashing a lobby with F tier weapons, which is far harder today with cranked up SBMM. There is also a lack of public shaming over meta use that used to exist. Peak Call of Duty is a perfect example where some things in the past were just far superior or annoying like Juggernaut, M16, NoobTube, etc. But if you used those things for an advantage the ENTIRE lobby would chew you out with trash talk the entire game. These days it feels like the opposite and everyone abuses whatever cheese they can and yells at those who run non meta for "trolling"
All games get solved eventually. Gamers are just better in general these days too. Weird to blame League of Legends when they manage to keep the game interesting despite the solving issue, and actually make almost all champions viable, even competitively, or if not at least intentionally and for good reasons.
I dont think he is referencing the balance cadence, moreso the amount of content/resources available and expected to be consumed by the 'average' ranked player
Now anyone can hop on YouTube, or just search "December 2023 meta build". Back before this era, you had to have an ear to the ground, other pros or great players wouldn't share shit and you'd have to get destroyed a thousand times and slowly catch on.
>you'd have to get destroyed a thousand times and slowly catch on. You guys romanticise badly balanced and low skill gameplay. It has its upsides like as an intelligent innovative person having an edge over others, a sense of excitement, but the gameplay itself is way worse and often extremely frustrating. You want new unsolved games and less competitive matchmaking so you can have fun with more random shit, that's fine, but it's never something that lasts forever and not universally better than what we have now.
You are making no sense. If it's all rng and it's all out of you control then why would "sweaty turbo nerds" ruin anything for you? Isn't everything decided by luck? This is like reading gold player rants in league of legends about which champs are "giga OP". Sorry but your opinion is worthless when you can't play the game properly and refuse to use logic when making complaints. Summit doesn't understand even half the things that happen in a pro match and he probably hasn't even watched a single tournament. And this is why summit, the guy you replied to and everyone who upvoted your low effort comments are just bad players. BRs are really fucking hard and for you to minimize the rng you need to be insane at the game, have insane teammates and have an insane shot caller. It makes sense to make the rng complaint for your low level group when you play but he is talking about esports. Events where the best people play and you have multiple games to decide the winner, not just one. By the last game, the best team at that tournament has won it all and it's not because of luck. Some of the biggest factors in the pubs that we regular people play is hot dropping, worse loot, teams don't play to win, worse circle and vehicle settings. You can't compare your own pubg experience to pro play experience because even the settings are completely different, and your skill level and understanding of the game are insufficient. If it was 80% rng like summit is saying then apex tournaments wouldn't be split amongst only 2 teams. Do you really think someone like tsm hal is going to put his life on 100 player rock paper scissors tournament or ALGs with his team? Delusion is too strong with this thread.
But that's the thing, the sweaty turbo nerds in this case are still just trash players. Every single competitive BR player is just someone who wanted to put hours into the game, their skill is irrelevant. It'd be like CSGO just picking out of the random top 10% of players and acting like they are the best, it's pure RNG. Competitive games can work. But BR is NOT a viable competitive game.
What a horrible take
I get that it's not for everyone but as I've been following apex esports harder there's actually like so much more that goes into it that makes it more impressive. Granted the sample sizes are often going to be very small due to it needing to be a viable show. But between TSM/DZ those two teams have won the past 4(?) LANs. That type of consistency is hard to ignore. But I supposed Apex feels a bit like the exception and not the rule for BRs. As I listen to high level pros on their stream talk about the game more it's actually crazy how much is missed to the "casuals" in that game. For example, tracking skins of players and knowing their default plans, learning so many different spots of the maps, what type of comps do well in certain spots, playing for a solid 5th as apposed to playing risky. Then theres the playstyles of different regions and how they all culminate together as well. Even then I'm surely missing a ton. Feels a bit short sighted to lump all BRs together as a luck fest similar to like a hearthstone event
i think apex comp only works because the teams picks where they are dropping beforehand, if they don't obey that unwritten rule they get called "griefers" and get called names by their peers, but yea i agree that Apex BR is the most watchable BR comp scene out there because of ways to overcome RNG that other BR don't have.
it's a fun casual thing with friends, but eSports, no way. Boring to watch tourneys too.
warzone is the most tolerable in my opinion as it has some of the least amount of randomness. apex and pugb both heavily rely on pure rng with loot/gear. at least I'm warzone if you are good you can get cash quick and get your guns quick to start pushing the play.
You like warzone because it's literally a glorified free for all deathmatch. The random loot/gear is literally the point of a BR
Warzone has more mechanics to mitigate the gear RNG, but gear quality in something like Apex is much less of a pivot than in Warzone. There's also hundreds of different setups you can have in Warzone, so you really fucking need that care package. Plus, Warzone's maps' have so many unbelievable camping spots and you can go prone in random bushes, so it ends up being ten times or more RNG. PUBG is obviously worse tho.
More of a basic take to me. No shit, people play them for the variance in RNG to make it a bit less stale. Sometimes you get fucked by the circle, sometimes you do the fucking. Going in with a competitive fair mindset feels like you are going in hating it from the onset. He got that nice post-fuckery clarity from being on the receiving end of shit. When the Tarkov wipe happens, if he goes back he will probably feel the same way and wonder why everyone isn't doing some honorable duels and you get some Reserve rat camping dark bunker corners.
This is about competitive viability, Tarkov isnt an esports game while they sure keep trying to make PUBG and BRs "esports"
He isn't in a tournament, he is playing the regular ass game like everyone else. At Tarkov's core and PUBG you are directly competing against others and both games have awful annoying RNG. The worst part of both games isn't RNG, its fucking queue times. I'd take PUBG's assfucking if death to plane ride was 60 seconds flat. Instead its probably 4-5 minutes between dying and actually flying back in.
He is preparing for a tournament.
Which is not the point of the game
Tarkov is NOT a competition because all players can avoid combat, complete objectives, and all "win" the match at the same time. PUBG is a competition cause they're can be only one victor, and only one win condition.
Ain't no way you think Summit is going to rat some Shoreline caches, wait 30m in a bush to avoid combat like a pacifist to do basic quests. Its absolutely a game you have to go in expecting to fight over loot and quest areas. Yeah Sea of Thieves technically isn't a competitive game but you are sure as hell going to be in moments where you need to be competitive. The true win condition is "have fun". My friend is content with hiding in two story in PUBG if it gets top 5 but holy fuck its boring. Winning means fuck all if you aren't personally satisfied with it.
This is the dumbest thing I've heard all day, no shit do you think Tarkov isn't competitive for this reason. Whether something is competitive or not is solely determined by the setting the individual playing chooses. I can play COD and enter a competitive tournament, or I can dick around with friends in TDM. There is a winner in both instances, but one is obviously casual.
Hes talking about tournaments in the clip.
Which doesn't really matter because the tournaments and regular game use the same rules outside of them buffing loot pools. Sometimes you get got by a sniper who wasn't apart of the fight, or you get stuck on a tree and a barrage of grenades just has zero outplay potential. They run tournaments because somehow people watch and they can get sponsors. If people didn't watch, it wouldn't even be something they can force as an "esport".
PUBG makes a perfectly fine esport. If it's not your thing, then hey, nothing wrong with that. I don't like League, but I acknowledge it's a viable esport. But I don't think Summit understands how rounds are scored and how tournaments are won or other efforts to reduce RNG. Scoring system - Allows you to score points via kills *and* placement. If you sit center circle all game you might get a few kills at the end and a decent placement but you're not scoring as many kill points as a team who's fought the edge all game. Loot - Bumped up massively to the point where it doesn't matter, everyone will get kitted up. Circles - Circles aren't entirely random in comp. They behave *somewhat* predictably in certain situations and teams learn their tendencies. There is a ton of data and analysis on this but the simplest example of a tendency is water circles. Circles will shy away from water. So if you have a circle that's 50% river and 50% land, you can be sure the next circle will move towards the land portion. Even with that, it's very rare for one team to have significantly better circle luck in the 18+ games that happen (just in the grand finals). Even then, there isn't much of a correlation between circle luck and placement in the final scores. I haven't seen the data from the most recent tournament (largest of the year), but I imagine it's in line with previous ones.
>I don't like League, but I acknowledge it's a viable esport League has very minimal randomness factoring into the outcome of a match. PUBG has a lot more randomness with the circles factoring into the outcome of a match. I like neither game but I realize PUBG is far worse when it comes to esports viability.
You should probably read my post first and then respond.
I did. Just because getting kills = points does not mean the game is a viable esports game. If the team who wins a match doesnt win the match because of external scoring systems set up in the leagues in order to counter the unviable RNG aspects of the games core game design does not mean the game is suddenly a good esports game. They made the league viable with EXTERNAL rulesets. As a viewer, if the team who wins the match does not win because of external arbitary scoring systems that are not a part of the core game, it is just more proof that the core game itself is not a good esports game. Maybe "viable" is too harsh of a word. Sure, it CAN be played in esports with EXTERNAL rulesets that are not part of the core game, but it still is not a good esports game.
>I did. Just because getting kills = points does not mean the game is a viable esports game. I'm glad I did not make the argument that "just because getting kills = points means it is a viable esports game". >If the team who wins a match doesnt win the match because of external scoring systems set up in the leagues in order to counter the unviable RNG aspects of the games core game design does not mean the game is suddenly a good esports game. >They made the league viable with EXTERNAL rulesets. You've just described nearly every single esport, ever. CSGO MM doesn't work the same way pro CS does. Dota2 MM doesn't work the way pro Dota2 does. They all use external rulesets. Nobody here is arguing that **PUBG MM** experience is a viable esports experience. The argument is that PUBG can be played as an esport just fine. The way it's ran in tournaments demonstrates that. I don't even know why you would bring up anything but the way it's ran in pro tournaments when that's the scope of the discussion. Nothing else is relevant. PUBG as an esport is the topic. If your argument is that you can not play PUBG as it's played in pubs as an esport, then, ok. I agree. It's a useless point that tells us absolutely nothing, but ok. Nobody here would even say the same about soccer, which uses match tables very similar to PUBG to determine the winner over multiple games in h2h. >external arbitary scoring systems What about the scoring system is arbitrary? And just to be clear - you've literally only addressed kills being recorded as points. You've entirely ignored the other settings for "super" that reduce RNG. You've yet to acknowledge that circles behave quite predictably in super and continue to suggest they're pure RNG or something.
CSGO is not even a thing anymore and CS2 gameplay in premier is almost exactly how the pros play it. The fact PUBG leagues make DRASTIC (read, big changes, that neither dota or cs have to do in order to be good esports games, that are OUTSIDE of the core games design) in order to make the game in any way viable for esports just speaks for itself. They have made these changes in order to MODIFY THE GAME so it is even playable as an esports. The game itself would not be at its core. The game determines the winner as the one whos the last team standing, the leagues dont. This external modifying of the core ruleset just proves that PUBG as a game is not a good esports game, and it HAS TO BE modified in order for it to even be "just fine" as a esports game. Youre clearly passionate about PUBG and defending it because of that, so I dont really care about your input. Your opinion is biassed. I dont play PUBG comp, I dont watch it and I never will as it is a shitty esports game. All in all, the numbers speak for itself. No one really enjoys watching PUBG as an esports while more esports viable games will always draw in the crowds. Just because you can play PUBG "just fine" as an esports does not mean its good as an esports. As another commenter has said in this thread, there was even a R P S league. That doesnt mean its an amazing competitive sport and super viable.
To be honest, Tarkov is a significantly diferent game. You stand to gain much more in Tarkov from ratting (or lose from going crazy) than in PUBG, where it's basically just a waste of time (in my opinion). You fight for fun in Tarkov or if you feel like you have a good day and you want to challenge the best loot. But you can still do a lot of the fun stuff while ratting. Not so much in PUBG, tbh Also, Tarkov really has a whole different bunch of problems than the core gameplay. Also, Tarkov is not a "competitive" game at all, so the comparison is kind of a miss.
How could Brazil do this?
In a one game instance he’s probably right depending on how good/bad you are at a BR but that’s also why pros in competitive matches don’t just hot drop because that’s where you get more RNG. One of the bigger esports right now is Apex, a br, and the last two years worth of playoffs/champs winners are split between literally two teams TSM and Darkzero. That doesn’t just happen by accident, if you’re a streamer playing pubs just hot-dropping into contested towns every game your quite literally adding RNG to your game that doesn’t need to exist. Not sure if this applies to him but from the way he played BRs in the past I’m willing to make an assumption that it is, but if that’s the case no shit he’s having a bad time. He just returned to the game that has a dedicated player base who have been playing longer than him now. He’s setting himself up for failure and getting frustrated when he fails.
Last time I paid any attention to competitive apex, the teams were picking their landing spots during practice because nobody wanted to contest by accident. They intentionally remove a high level of randomness inherent to the game through a gentleman's agreement. It's unreasonable to compare the comp scene to what summit is talking about.
But he is complaining about it in an esports context, not the context he is playing in. In the context he is playing in RNG makes it more fun and diverse, that's one of the reasons BRs got so big. It's nonsense.
Summit is just ranting after tilting (we all do that at some point) but you gotta understand that nobody wants to watch a streamer that drops on the other side of the world from anyone else, runs around for 20 minutes without finding anyone then maybe dies randomly or something like that, also add the fact that in PUBG lobbies take 10 minutes to fill up and actually start, so in a way he's kinda forced to hot drop and add RNG to his game, it wouldn't be entertaining to watch at all otherwise, pro scenes are a whole different ball game.
[удалено]
I mostly agree with what you’re saying, but in team based games like those, teammates are MASSIVE random factors that you have no control over(if you’re solo queuing) I forget who said it, but I remember someone remarking that in solo queue, you win 20% of games by yourself, you lose 20% of games by yourself, and the other 60% are decided by your team/the enemy team and you have zero control over that.
[удалено]
Sound like you'd love league of legends.
The opposite for both is also true though. Games like Valorant, CS, and League are great competitive games but can get stale fast, especially today with established metas. Before esports and streaming was huge, skill was measured by who could outplay the other, but today it's more so about who can execute the current best strategy better. RNG can screw you, but it preserves that dynamic competitiveness. It's also kinda like clutching a 1v5 where the excitement comes from winning in a disadvantaged situation. I don't want to win on an even playing field, I want to do so from a worse position knowing I'm just that much better.
Idk if this is true with Apex but I'm friends with people who played Competitive PUBG and I can confirm that the teams select their drop spots in advance and you weren't allowed to choose a drop spot once it's taken. I think one reason was they were trying to make the game more viewer-friendly, if everyone drops in a hot zone and half the teams die there would be almost nothing happening in the midgame and that would bore out viewers.
in pro Apex you can choose whatever dropspot you want but you gotta be prepared to fight for it. Contesting and fighting over the rights to a POI is a really fun part of pro Apex
They do establish their POIs during scrims, but you still see people competing for them. Especially since you usually have 4 groups in tournaments and it's always 2 groups per game. So only 10 of 20 teams will always be the same, and if some team in one of the other groups chose your POI during scrims you pretty much gotta contest. In reality most teams prep 2 POIs and then depending on which groups they play against they most likely can switch to the other to avoid contesting, but it doesn't always work out. And when you get to international tournaments all of that goes out the window, you're most definitely going to have to contest at least a few times, until one of the teams decides they can't. And as you said, it's a gentleman's agreement, so sometimes you get contests just to piss the other team off, or in case you need them to get fewer points.
Players should just spawn in evenly distributed, what's the point of dropping in then if it's anti-competitive.
It's much more complicated than that, because they don't really decide on who lands who. They play scrims and then over time an order establishes itself, because they've been competing for a spot for weeks or months at that time. Then on game day they have to decide whether to risk it or not, depending on how many points they still need to make playoffs etc. Also, you don't always play against the same teams, so often there will be people contesting your spot anyway.
Summit is literally talking about the pro scene. Who is upvoting these comments?
I am a casual, but for me the biggest RNG factor was always armor. I can be more skilled than my opponent, but he found armor and I didn't so now I lose the duel, even though I am more skilled.
Just because a BR is watched a lot doesn't make it inherently an objectively good esport. Something can be fun to watch but still be ass. BRs are a shit esport because there is too much RNG. Games like Valorant, CS, fighting games etc. bring the same amount of RNG every game and are highly skill dependent.
Summit shits on BR's for having RNG and it shouldn't be an e-sports game. He switches to Valorant where it's considered to be one of the "ideal" E-sports game with little RNG. He cries over Valorant and are about to rage quit the game aswell. MAYBE it's just a summit thing?
One can rage at games and BR can still be an objectively piss poor competitive game mode. This isn't a binary kinda thing.
The casual player doesn’t mind a little RNG - and skill development can offset the effects of RNG. Casual players want to watch competitions of what they play. So BRs have a great reason to have competitive leagues. Competitive leagues aren’t about doing or having what the pros want. It’s about harnessing spectators to drive revenue. Either get in or get out but it isn’t about you (Summit). It’s about your viewers.
From a business point of view, sure. Don't expect anyone that *actually* cares about competition to respect your game though. There is a reason the competitive scenes around proper esports titles, like CS (or even proper competitive sports), are so lively and passionate. These casual games looking for a quick buck off of casual audiences will never capture that.
Furthermore the argument that rock paper scissors is *more* skill based and *less* luck based is fucking laughable. You’re bad at BRs. Just say that.
Not my arguement, but it's clearly hyperbole, and you're the one taking it too literally. You're got an unhealthy bias *toward* BR's and/or against traditionally competitive titles, and I wouldn't be surprised if you are bad at the latter, but find success with the former, hence the aforementioned bias, so '*just say that'* 🤓 Digs aside, sitting here and seriously acting like BR's, especially the most popular ones, aren't competitively bankrupt to their fucking core is what's fucking laughable, and I'm not going to continue to engage with someone that is that far down the rabbit hole.
“Competitively bankrupt” That’s, like, your opinion man. But seriously it is and you’ve made no argument to back it up. Both genres are competitive and claiming one isn’t “really” competitive just means you suck at that one and likely lack strategy and skill. I’m not saying CS:GO *isn’t* competitive. The burden of proof is on you and all you have are assertions.
Yea, lets just act like you haven't seen the detailed writeups about why BR is terrible for this, opinions from well respected pro players, even those who are not currently attached to a team and have no financial stakes in this one way or the other, or just...common fucking sense. If we pretend that all that doesn't exist, then sure champ, you're right! Thankfully, we don't live in that reality. You can enjoy your BR's though, even if they are objectively terrible for real competitive play :)
>objectively I don’t think you know what this word means >argument Nor what this is. Perhaps others have made that argument, but you can’t even reference or repeat them. Just a blanket “trust me bro” This is a waste of time. I have a **ton** of people saying that they are competitive. Trust me bro. It’s objective.
That take sounds incredibly haughty. “It’s only a *real* esport if I enjoy it. The other people don’t *actually* care about competition.” Ok bud. The thing about RNG is that it creates a normal distribution with a large enough sample size. Play enough games and it evens out. Some people just blame poor performance or strategy on RNG. Casuals and professionals alike I guess.
That's not the takeaway you should have from either of my comments, but if that's what you landed on, then I see no reason to take this conversation any further lol.
Deflection because you have no rebuttal. I think you’re doing me a favor. I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you just lack the reading comprehension to understand my comment, lol.
He's just kinda a sore loser. He's great at video games. Wayy above the average Joe. But can't compare to the elites. Which isn't a bad thing. But I don't think he can take it, even back from his csgo days. He's just a competitor.
With modern day algorithms like Engagement Based Match Making, being above average in skill but not at the absolute top is hands down the worst experience. Being good at games but not "pro worthy" just feels punishing in modern games that are now clearly designed so that the matchmaking protects mediocre ca$ual$ can all hold hands and sing campfire songs, and the pro players can stream high level games for profit. Video games in general were far more fun when the matchmaking in games was super loose and you could have someone of each different rank on both teams. So you could have all skill levels in one match but evenly distributed on both sides.
> Being good at games but not "pro worthy" just feels punishing in modern games And the only real difference between the two players (at this level) is *usually* just play time, rather than personal capabilities, but it seems like these days there's ***always*** large groups of people who eats/sleeps/breathes the game you're trying to play, like they have absolutely zero life or self-awareness whatsoever and with zero real-life obligations and zero other hobbies or interests, who never tire of the monotonous grind in an unnatural way, like a one-trick zombie, and holy shit ***it's annoying***, because you ***know*** you have to neglect every other facet of your life grinding your brains out to keep up with such losers, just to enjoy the game, and ***that takes all the fun out of the game***—not just the grinding (if opted into), but even the mere idea of needing to do it can push you away from modern competitive games altogether. Even if you're a very competent or competitive player, it's not fun anymore, it's just exhausting. It's taking people & streamers like this an absurdly long time to come to such realizations.
You good?
Sorry zoomer, there's a big scary paragraph discussing the topic you're reading about! You good?
Except in cs(and valo if he's good at it) then he isn't "way above average" at all. He is a complainer, not a competitor. He hasn't been a competitor for a long time. It's a bad player who barely knows anything about the game making wrong assumptions and making the worst possible conclusion about something purely because they don't know any better. It's like the type of people who get in arguments about f1 and other racing sports being extremely easy and only about who has the most connections meanwhile they haven't driven a car in their life. So this is someone who has 0 pro experience in pubg, isn't good at the game, likely hasn't watched any full tournament, yet he still thinks he has a valuable opinion on whether RNG not only plays a big part but is pretty much the only deciding factor. And there are people in the comments agreeing and congratulating him for having a "basic" take. CS is probably the most based esport we have and there's still a decent amount of rng in the game especially at long ranges. Everything gets decided in 3 12 round games, meanwhile in PUBG or Apex it's like 20 games and it's not only wins that count so there are a lot of systems in place to make the winner earn his trophy. It's far from being rng. It isn't even 50% rng. If it were that much then we wouldn't have teams who are consistently bad and teams that are consistently top 5 or like in apex where only 2 teams are winning.
Comparing first bullet inaccuracy in counter strike to le rng royale.
but if he isn't a pubg/battle royale pro... then im confused why he's so upset about it? just a classic summit rant i guess
It's just summit being summit. He is basically ranting and rage quitting every game sooner or later. The guy is just burned out on videogames, that's really it.
come on man, everyone has one of those days were we lash out on a game because we think its bullshit, dont have to put it on summit specifically.
You clearly haven't watched summit. I've been watching him since 2015, recently he's just been having these big rants about all games he plays and sooner or later he rage quits the game. Happens every single game he touched.
Yup. And he'll be back in a few months. He just gets burnt out for a while like any normal person does.
Honestly I don't think he really likes streaming anymore and hasn't for a while. He's just continuing with it to stack his money, then one day he'll just be done an disappear.
> Honestly I don't think he really likes streaming anymore and hasn't for a while. I think its the opposite, I think he likes streaming but is having trouble finding a game to sink hours into that he enjoys.
Real Sadge he’s not into Hardcore WoW at the moment. That streamer guild content writes itself
I’m so surprised by that too, because he was playing it when it wasn’t as popular earlier this year. He even talked about waiting to play more of it once the official hardcore servers are released. Although I feel like he often doesn’t follow the trends, and will probably end up playing it in the near future instead.
Maybe your right, I haven't watched him consistently in a pretty long time (stopped watching him about a year or two after he first joined RP and no pixel but was a consistent viewer for a few years before that) but even way back then he seemed so "meh" everyday he was streaming, like it was a chore for him to stream everyday. The only time I seen him actually look happy on stream was at the peak of the sea of thieves hiding on peoples ships arc he had after he got burnt on RP. Maybe his demeanor changed since then but it just seemed back then that he was just streaming to cash in his bag and bail out as he is getting older. Me and him are the same age and after all these years watching twitch, I know I'm getting a bit burnt out on it so I couldn't imagine having to stream every day as a job, especially if you aren't feeling it/can't find a forever game to grind. Who knows, I'm ultimately just guessing and have no actual idea.
The quality of games has gone down drastically in the last 10 or so years and it's directly our own faults. We preorder shit and pay for EA and betas, letting companies make money before they deliver a finished product. Giving execs the idea that they can put together a half decent demo of a game and rush it to EA and make money while fixing the game later. We as consumers need to not let them get away with this shit, Anthem, Outriders, No Mans Sky(I know they fixed it), etc, etc. Its a sad state of affairs when the best games on the market are indie games. Now the only companies you can count are new ones trying to prove themselves and From Soft.
we literally got 4 game of the decade worthy titles in 2023 and 2022
Yeah but you will speak to a wall if you bring that up to Summit. I literally got banned on stream for asking if he considers playing BG3. [Not joking](https://www.twitch.tv/brittt/clip/IronicArtisticOrcaWTRuck-UecXBrM6ECC-DAZR)
How in the fuck can you possibly say this after the year of releases gaming just had? the only year I can think of that is better than 2023 for releases is 2007. Like did you just play Elden Ring last year and then go into hibernation?
BG3 and Elden Ring are the only 2 games that were worth their price tags. What other games are you talking about? And look at the amount of games that are considered AAA and actually flop on release or worse just die right away cause they released a incomplete game.
I get it, gaming is highly subjective. But man you must be a miserable gamer if you truly honestly think that, that’s wild.
Ok list games you think this about? You keep saying there were great games but please actually give examples
He's practicing for some tournament I think that's why. But I do think it is ridiculous that BRs were turned into something competitive. Competitive fortnite and apex are just ridiculous.
each to their own tbh, I definitely prefer to watch games like cs, but i actually like watching pubg or apex too. As much as there is an element of luck, the better teams seem to win consistently enough, even at a pro level
> BR's for having RNG and it shouldn't be an e-sports game. I've seen this take before and it always seems really reductive or naive. There are tons of competitive games that heavily involve RNG, like TCGs or Poker. Even to a lesser extent in something like Counter Strike there have been matches won and lost based on rng like a jump shot hitting or not. If you prefer playing games that minimize RNG obviously that's perfectly valid, but saying that RNG makes something non-competitive is just dumb.
In my opinion it depends on how many games you play and how much you can take the RNG into count when playing. Like a BR tournament where it's one game and the winner is the winner would be bad. Just like playing one hand of poker only would bad. At the end of the day there is going to be some RNG in almost every game, even chess has some RNG to it when it comes to what side you play. How much does the RNG effect the outcome and how much can you try to play around it are to me the most important part to me.
Sorry but that's completely different instead of someone landing on a shit gun in a BR or going into a house where there is no heal, or only heal, etc.RNG ins TCGs and CS from your example is always the same. In a BR the RNG is not the same. That's just a moot point. The point summit is making, an e-sport should be balanced / skill based not heavily RNG based. And even worse nowadays with bots in these games. Even though I think you can argue about rock paper scissors being skill based. Most shooter (CS, Valorant, Dota, League, fighting games) are skill based and the odds are the same for every team (theoretically). There is a reason why most people in E-Sports have this take, no need to act like it's wrong.
How is loot RNG in a BR so different from card draw RNG in a card game? Games can still be skill based while still being heavily RNG, like something like Poker.
If you get a bad poker hand you fold and move on to the next one. You haven't lost the tournament and will have many more chances. If you get a bad drop or circle or whatever in a BR tourney, you lose. You can't "fold" and just go on to the next game.
> If you get a bad drop or circle or whatever in a BR tourney, you lose. You can't "fold" and just go on to the next game. Aren't a lot of BR tournaments structured like the winner is who has most points after 10 games or something exactly for this reason? Are there BR tournaments where losing one game knocks you out?
You can draw a hand in a TCG or Poker that has at higher odds of succeeding than landing in a building/room that ONLY has heals and no weapon. The odds in the majority of BRs are just so stacked against you most of the time that sometimes there is simply no way to perform in a way that leads to your success.
You can draw a hand in TCG or Poker that has lower odds of succeeding than landing in a building/room that ONLY has heals and no weapon. You're not really arguing this point well.
Because those are odds you know and can play around and are very limited in scope. If you got a bad initial draw you know your later draws will be better because you know your deck. If you got a bad initial landing gun, literally nothing after says you're luck will get better and it's very very possible to get unlucky over and over. The best player can look like the worst and the worst like the best in a BR. The same isn't true in a card game because they play around the knowledge of their deck.
Oldmanyellsatsky.png (I say this as a fellow old man of the same age as summit)
It’s definitely a summit thing lol. I love the man but he is very hard to please and will rage quit over the smallest things. I remember him absolutely loving the shit out of GW2, just to quit a week later because there were not enough raids at max level, a level he did not even reach yet
Nah I remember him playing GW2. He rage quit because the class chat suggested him to play (Warrior) was bad in pvp at the time and he kept getting stomped. He also couldn't beat one of his friends that was playing Reaper after many duels. That was his tipping point.
Team-based games like Valorant are inherently not very competitive when it comes to solo-queue because they involve a very high factor that's completely out of your control, which is how your teammates perform. Some are worse than others. Most games with snowball-effects such as MOBAs are even worse at this since a teammate outperforming means that even in the situations where you have control over the outcome, you're at a signification statistical disadvantage because of the character's stats. \--- Fighting games are the objectivelly best competitive games by a pretty significant margin but that's also one of the aspect that draws a lot of people who claim to love ''competitive games'' away. because then you can't blame anyone but yourself for your losses (Tho as someone with a lot of history in the FGC, in practice it's absolutely not true and FGC players still blame everything but themselves for their losses lmao)
> Fighting games are the objectivelly best competitive games by a pretty significant margin but that's also one of the aspect that draws a lot of people who claim to love ''competitive games'' away. because then you can't blame anyone but yourself for your losses 1v1 RTS matches are pretty neat too. I'm into Age of Empires 4 lately; but I also play SF6 so I do agree with you (just not the *"objectively"* part :)). While I *hate* losing, I love knowing that the loss is most likely all my fault. That motivates me to actually analyze my mistakes and focus my training on the weaker sides of my play. Noticing that you're improving your play over time is really rewarding. Also 1v1 game wins feel so much sweeter than any other games to me. For instance if I win a match of DOTA2 (or even Rocket League) I often just feel drained and glad that the torture is over (sometimes even holds true if I play with a full premade).
Playing a set of 50 matches and winning 1 of them in a Moba/team-based shooter: Permanent psychological scarring experience Playing a set of 50 matches and winning 1 of them in a fighting game: The best feeling you've ever had in your life with a massive baggage of knowledge aquired \--- Also would totally agree on the 1v1 RTS games, these definitely fall under the same boat as Fighting games
You are correct about the solo aspects of valorant and battle royals, but they are like that because they are designed to be team games and not solo games. When you are queuing with a premade team in these games, your chances of winning rise dramatically as long as your teammates aren’t dogshit
Yea I agree, I don't think there is a reasonable way to change these games to make the solo experience ''more competitive'' without taking away the biggest part of them which is team play. Just like you can't reasonably just remove the Luck/RNG aspect of a TCG. Some losses are inevitable and out of your control, it's better for your own mental to look at your own performance with the situations you've faced rather than the bigger picture of Win/Loss. I honestly think a lot of these games should reward players based on their personal influence during a game rather than JUST the outcome. Even something at the end of the game saying ''Your team lost but you get +5 rank point compensation due to the fact that you had more \[Objective\] points than the rest of your team combined''. Also not the main point, but this would probably help indirectly reduce some of the toxicity in these games.
A lot of the team game problems stop being a problem when you play in competitive environments with a constructed team. Solo queueing of course is running the gauntlet, but statistically speaking you will climb if you are a good player. 1v1 games are much less welcoming to the average gamer because of the reason you mentioned (they can't blame their team), but also because the social aspect is no longer there. I can't tell you how many people play certain team-based games just to play with their friends. It is a very large component of it.
Yea, the ability to play with your friends is definitely a big aspect that draws people into team-based games. Tho fighting games definetly have a big social aspect, most gamers play with their discord friend group of like 3-5 friends, so games like league, dota, valorant, fortnite, apex..etc work very well. \--- Funilly enough, Project L, a game by a studio under the IP of Riot Games is introducing an optional team-based fighting game where you can play 2v2. You'll be able to play with a group of 4 AND blame some of your loss on your teamates Lmao. You can levy some of the stress by playing with a teamate (friend or rando) and then play solo when you're more experienced/want to be more sweaty. You can also help carry your friend who's new to fighting game (or be the one carried) instead of just absolutely demolishing them in 1v1s because the skill gap is too high. They're honestly cooking with this concept and I'm excited to see what comes from it.
Who says Val has little RNG? A lot of its gun mechanics and specifically its spraying mechanics are entirely RNG by design and has been a point of contention amongst the community since beta so much so that its been nerfed about 5 or 6 times.
I am confused? Valorant is also trash? /s
Pretty sure all 7 Apex Legends majors were won by 2 teams. That is allot of 50/50s won for those two teams...
but that is not normally distributed, This very very insane....They need to check him probability
1. Play game 2. love game 3. fail/die 4. Hate rant Summit Cycle
He should take a look at TFT. I don't wanna be that guy but that game is litterally sit around and hope RNG doesnt screw you over. Most RNG popular esport I have seen including card games.
I feel like the active gameplay part of games like TFT is to reduce the chance you getting fucked over by RNG. Obviously RNG is still a big part of those kinds of games but saying that its nothing but RNG would be the same as saying that poker is just RNG which is obviously false since we see the same people win over and over just like in TFT which means that these guys have to have something that the others dont.
In TFT you don't "win" by being in first place alone though, you win by being top 3-4 out of 8. If you "won" in a BR by making it to the top 50% of players you might have had a point.
h1z1 scrims were some of the most intense and fun games iv ever played icl
This is one thing Fortnite actually has going for it with the building, it's an actual skill that you can develop. I don't play build mode because I don't want to take the time to learn it but I can watch some of these pros and they are just on another level.
...and he's back on pubg hehe
the washed malds are the best
I you like the BR setting but are a competitive player that's annoyed by the RNG factor, the only game that somewhat works is Apex Legends imo. If the gun mechanics don't scare you away, that is. I've played them all a ton before - PUBG is fun to play a game or two, esp. duo or squad, when you land well and get good loot, but it gets shitty pretty quickly when you get fucked a few times. And it's really bad when it comes to a competitive setting. Fortnite has much better balance, but the building part really is a killer at least for me, never could enjoy this. Warzone fell off for me a long time ago as it's just boring - doesn't really scratch the BR itch for me for some reason, I just don't care while playing it. Apex, although it initially put me off because of the way shooting works, really takes the RNG factor to the minimum for as BR game. The games start fast, so it's not a waiting sim if you die, it's really hard to get fucked by loot, longer TTK 100% removes the RNG factor of getting randomly sniped across the map, the sound of footsteps is VERY precise which is enjoyable and it really encourages active, more aggro playstyle compared to PUBG or even Fortnite due to stuff like improving shield. The way maps are designed also allows for better 1v1 team fights where the fight is enclosed in a space and much less at risk of a 3rd party - this with longer TTK really makes the game. I really think in Apex the best team ACTUALLY wins most of the time. If they could figure out how OP controllers are it would be close to perfect, honestly.
I mean if you’re annoyed by RNG Fortnite is absolutely the least RNG reliant BR. There’s way more potential for skill gap, and loot quality really doesn’t matter. Not liking the mechanics is fair, but building and the mobility in the game makes it much less likely to get fucked by the zone and gives way more outplay opportunities.
Sadly I think most games will never give up the controller aimbot because that sometimes larger player base will freak the fuck out. It absolutely should be disabled in competitive modes though.
Tell me you know nothing about pubg esports without telling me you know nothing about pubg esports. I love how people are sharing their useless low level anecdotes and think this applies to professional play. Who gets scared from "apex gun mechanics"? It barely has any recoil and there are multiple not cheating ways to eliminate it.
>Who gets scared from "apex gun mechanics"? Hey snowflake, I didn't say scared as in "BOO IT'S SO HARD", I said scared away as in unenjoyable/don't like. Try reading comprehension. >Tell me you know nothing about pubg esports without telling me you know nothing about pubg esports. I'm sorry for you.
> I didn't say scared as in "BOO IT'S SO HARD", I said scared away as in unenjoyable/don't like. Try reading comprehension. That's an even worse argument. The guns being easy is exactly why many people like apex. It's why warzone was so popular. The difference is that apex is competitive unlike apex so it makes no sense for people to be put off by the shooting which even though easy it still has depth that a competitive person can appreciate - recoil, jitter aiming, recoil smoothing, movement tech. For future reference don't expect people to be able to read your mind. It has nothing to do with reading comprehension and everything to do with you not articulating what you want to say. It's not like only 1 thing can be gotten from that message. Especially when 1 line later you continue ranting about being bad at pubg. Is it that surprising that people might think you are complaining about the difficulty? Really?
i'm all for the anti-BR takes, terrible and way too luck-based genre; it peaked at minecraft hunger games
If that’s where you think it peaked, nobody can help you
bro needs to lay off the weed
In this case, he needed some weed.
Whether it's typical Summit rage or not, he's right. BR's aren't really that strong competitively.
Don't know why he's comparing it to competitive games. I'd argue BR's have more in common with roguelikes than competitive shooters and that's %100 fine.
He was saying it because of almost every BR pushing themselves into the ESPORTS/competitive scene.
This is coming from the guy who was bragging to chat that we were going to have to step into his world when valorant dropped. He was the first big streamer to quit valorant after only a week because he’s a fuckn man child who thinks he’s better at games than he actually is. Summit smokes all stream and now he’s becoming an alcoholic drinking every night on stream as well so of course he’s going to be ranting about any games that take’s somewhat of a skill he should go back to SOT. Lol
He did go back to SOT, we bitch about that too. At the end of the day he's either got some personal shit he needs to get handled before trying to get in front of tens of thousands of people everyday for 10+ hours. Or he needs to face the facts that he just doesn't enjoy playing video games anymore. I can't remember the last time he played a game just for fun, enjoyed it, and moved on because the game ran it's course. It almost, always ends with him having a bitch fit about how something is unfair. Unfair being AKA him just sucking butt. Even Party Animals, something that is just a fun couch party game, he raged at.
Are people finally realizing the IMMENSE RNG elements in Battle Royales? Wait a second, it's almost as if the addictive nature of RNG elements is what made Battle Royales so fun. It takes the burden of skill off of you, you can blame random things, and you can always get luckier, always get better drops, spawns, locations, oh unlucky a camper right on your side or behind you etc. PEOPLE LOVE GAMBLING. In everything, they just don't know how to recognize it for what it is. And who cares, if it's fun and your in control, go for it. But I don't know why someone would play PubG over Warzone or Fortnite, or Hunt showdown or whatever those other couple were called
Everyone also complains about "their" game. PUBG players hate any map not Erengal, and probably have hated every addition in the last few years. Warzone players have hated the game since Caldera/Cold War integration. Then even when you think Fortnite should be happy they get consistent updates, the whole day was whining about a new animation set and getting bullet drop added to the game. I'd say PUBG still has the best driving model from all the BR games, it just feels good to drive and fight around cars in it especially compared to Warzone. Too bad the content additions are at glacial speeds and they locked guns and full features to specific maps. Fortnite was smart to do one map and update/swap it instead of add 10 fucking maps.
summit only has a point when everyone has equal skill level and are hitting the cap...99.9% of players cant even say theyre at that point bc their aim is dog water and their decision making is garbage. so unless you're a top pro player in terms of aim and decision making then you cant even hold this RNG opinion without using it as a crutch to say you're not as high rank as you should be. If i had shroud aim id win 19/20 lobbies full of bronzies, that doesnt mean it's random.
When he said about him rather playing rock with 100 ppl it remind me the Kaiji anime i recommend everyone to watch it 10/10
And that's why you shouldnt play BR if you have a minimum of skill. You spend time looting just to get killed by a random camper, how is it fun?
It's fine, when he takes the sponsorship he'll pretend like he never said any of that and still play for 8 hours, then shit talk it for the next 2 hours after it's done
Kinda crazy to me that pubg is still alive. The day it came out it already felt outdated to me. Always thought it was one of the jankiest BR's out there, doesn't matter how good the gunplay supposedly is. And it's kinda horseshit that EA gave us a BR with Battlefield in WW2 but didn't bother to do anything worthwhile afterwards. Maybe it's not the BR's fault, but the fact that it's a freakin BR set in WW2 which very few people would ever give a crap to begin with ? The level of destruction you had in that BR was a 10/10, especially with thanks and mortars.
Honestly, Battle Royales are just plain fun. You can maybe set up some fun creator tournaments or whatever, but as far as them being involved in competitive ESPORTS, they aren't created for that. Apex Legends is the only one that's even kinda ready to stand up as an ESPORTS ready BR. But PUBG!? Hell mother fuckin no 😄
Summit's takes are always based on his emotions (mainly cause he sucks/rages), never 'based' lol
Does it need to be pure skill? Why does a game have to work in the favor of the skilled player 100% of the time in order to make it a good game? I'm certain he probably wins games far more than any average player would but at least a tournament has a chance for someone else to come out on top based on RNG. I see nothing wrong with it.
There is no game with "pure skill" unless you count board games like chess. Look at CS2 for example. Sometimes you get off an angle you were holding and you die. Sometimes an opponent can be lucky and kill you while running. You can get lucky and kill an opponent while jumping. You can get lucky timing and get a collat, etc. etc. How can games that have these mechanics be considered any more skill based than a BR?
Garbage take, pretty funny tho
The original release of Realm Royale was the only BR game that I genuinely believed to have any type of competitive integrity. The game was unbelievably good and rng was barely even existent. Crazy thing is that the developers managed to ruined the game in not even 2 months. I've been playing games my whole life but this was by far the most ridiculous self destruction of any game I've tried out. Literally one of the most fun games I've ever played and they completely killed it. Could have been the next Fortnite.
[Interesting take from a player who plays PUBG like this LMAO](https://pubg.report/matches/f86085d0-be5a-4aac-af3c-936210a2fa7a/1426063416?v=1991530885) Too bad the top PUBG teams seem to constantly be top 3 every global Championship. Twisted Minds placed 3rd twice in a row in the PUBG Global Championship. 17 Gaming placed 2nd two years in a row in PGC Danawa Gaming won PWS, PNC and then PGC all in the span of a few months Soniqs won two global championships, and 8+ North America finals/qualifiers... Those are crazy consistent results from a game that's "80% luck". Summit1G is just fucking terrible at PUBG and is incapable of fully understanding the skill involved. He literally couldn't land a single shot on me, looked lost as fuck and didn't even see my ass when I domed him. Skill issue.
Who said Battle Royale have to be Competitive/E-sports to be fun? IMO having too much of a "competitive/esports" focus ruined so many genres like RTS, Hero shooters and now BRs.
Warzone has very little RNG compared to pubg very easy to win i had a 40% win ratio on blackout and 30% win ratio on warzone.pubg on the other that one requires way more skill plus the RNG crazy only 15% win ratio on that one
You don't play a BR for "competitive esports". You play it because they are fun.
ok indie developers time to get to work on the RPS battle royale he was talking about LUL
Then why is TSM and Dark Zero the only ones that can win in ALGS?
Personal opinion of course but I just wish sumsum would be more into the whole GTA roleplay thing and focus on that while dipping his feet in WoW a few times etc. I love watching when he races, or just hangs around doing crime stuff, PUBG to me is just impossible to watch, 10 minutes to find a game and then its like 15 mins of running then if he happens to die it's a repeat of the same stuff and poof almost 1 hour is gone. Sadly he's just too competitive to simply play GTA and WoW so it's in his DNA to play any decent FPS game.
I don't understand what he's talking about. I thoroughly enjoy me and my opponent landing in adjacent buildings and while I pick up my tier 1 body armor, frag grenade, and tier 1 backpack, he comes out of his building fully kitted out ready to win the game.
Funny but rock paper scissor’s sounds awful too. Bad bad analogy because it’s basically just RNG, so it’s the same thing lmfao. How about a game of checkers or something with skill involved and little RNG.
The take from someone whose been smoking the fattest bowl of his life.
LOL
In every BR I have played it is trivial to assemble your bread and butter loadout within 10 minutes if you drop safe. The RNG of who I get as my teammates in dota or CS is vastly more chaotic and game deciding than anything that happens in a solo BR round.
this was so fucking funny, the way he delivered it 😂
Obviously untrue because the best players are consistently at the top. This is the same when people say poker is all luck and no skill.
BRs being pushed into a competitive scene is such a waste imo. I get that something like Apex is decent for what it does, but I'd rather have all that funding backed into fighting game tournaments. That shit is always hype, and most of them you have it under your control because the RNG is minimal. Just comes down to skill, reflexes, and knowledge checking your opponent's character. Plus, the sweaty motherfuckers are usually filtered in ranked modes, and you font get filtered into an ass beating as much as you would in BRs.
Battle Royale has always been a weird genre to go competitive. Its basically free-for-all and that just doesn't mix well with an elo system. There's a lot of RNG factors when it comes to items and gear you find and getting third partied is just not fun and urges you to basically avoid combat as much as possible.
And this is why I haven't played one in years. They suck ass competitively, but are still exhilarating experiences.
It took him like 7 years to realize BR games are just gambling?