What's Your Position on Skill Mitigating Measures in Multiplayer?

I don't think that inhibiting the better players accomplishes anything, but I think providing boosts to the poorer players (death streak perks, shorter respawn timers, quicker nitro recharge when falling way behind) is a good thing that benefits the game in the long run. Making sure that those people feel like they can still be somewhat competitive by keeping them in the game will only encourage them to continue playing and allow them to get better

I honestly like the whole catch up system in races. It keeps it fun, i dont really give a shit about skill in those races anyways. I mean if i wipe out on the first turn, i might as well just bail from the race since i have no real chance at winning.

I'm a Fencesitter. I think it works with some games and not others.

I think the likes of giving the player in last quickly-regenerating boost in Need for Speed: Hot Pursuit is a fine way of doing it, as opposed to slowing down the first place racer in GTA V.

I'd prefer better matchmaking. Skill mitigation is a jerry-rig solution to the core problem that competitive games _require competition_. I wouldn't have fun playing tennis with Roger Federer, he wouldn't have fun playing with me. You can throw handicaps to make it more fun for both of us, or you can find a proper opponent for him and a proper opponent for me.

In GTA5, I can't see anyone playing that game competitively, so the rubberbanding would help alleviate frustration for less skilled players. For any actual competitive game: I prefer either larger teams (so that the skill balance between the two is more likely to be even), or utilize skill-based matchmaking.

I think its fine in gta but in a pure fighting, racing, or sports game and any other type of competitive game it should be optional or match people based on skill.

So long as it's optional, sure. I'd probably take a handicap in my favour against some of my friends who play fighting games - otherwise they'd likely Perfect me in the opening 10 secs, and that would only be fun for so long.

Multiplayer developers face an immense challenge in balancing their game for casual, intermediate and highly skilled players. I think StarCraft 2's matchmaking with it's tiered leagues is a great approach, but every game is different and there isn't a solution for everyone.

new int r = rand(time());

is already mitigating your skill;

I'm not particularly for it. I'm not a big multiplayer guy so maybe my opinion doesn't matter, but I disagree with the idea that you shouldn't let someone who is good, be good, and let someone who sucks, suck or get better.

If I'm going to win, I want to win because I'm the better player. If I'm going to lose, I hate it when it's because someone else was given an unfair advantage because they suck.

I'm ok with it until they come up with better ways to group players together. Then again I rarely play multiplayer unless it's with my friends. Even then it's mostly co-op. I'm not a competitive person and I usually can't stand the people who populate games online.

I think optional catch-up features are good to have, but whether or not they should be used is up to those playing.

Optional is fine, but that should never be forced on the user. Thats one reason why Mario Kart may be great for casual fun but not serious racing.

Games tend to have mechanics which reward the player who is already winning. I find that incredibly sloppy.

People are looking at it ego-wise, like "I should deserve to win" or "my opponent should not win". I care more about whether everyone is having fun, and maybe even more so whether the game is good, rather than ego. This is a site for critical analysis of games, but we're discussing our egos?