Roy Tang

Actually, the matchmaking system is designed so that you are matched with players of more-or-less equal skill, opponents and teammates, so that's debatable

Meanwhile, SF has short matches where you can run through a rapid series of wins and losses to desensitize yourself, while every single loss in DOTA feels like a personal failing

Lol, that 40-60+ minute match length is killer, true.

The team-based aspect of said online multiplayer games is another barrier to entry, so I'd argue that it's easier to enter as a casual in a fighting game where the individual controls approximately half the variables (i.e. your character/s and your skill level). There's no communications overhead with learning how to play with your team's character comp, and learning your teammate's skills. (eg. Reinhardt's a good Overwatch knight-tank, and your comp looks good on paper with him around, but if the player decides to flank instead of leading the vanguard…). There's only you and the enemy. If, in a casual team-based online multiplayer game, a good player ('expert') can carry the rest of the team, then that expert is simply an ace, and should not be playing at that skill level (or the game is terribly broken because a solo player of similar skill choosing the right character can curbstomp all opposition regardless of how poorly their teammates are playing). If the game is balanced, and the curbstomping still happens, then in a levelling / item-based MOBA game like DOTA, then it means the other characters have simply bought space and farm for their golden-boy hero, and carry's coming to collect. TL;DR: Learning team variables and communications overhead make team-based games less casual-friendly . A team-based game where a player overcompensates for weak teammates and owns the enemy team is either playing in a game where his skill level is too high, the game is unbalanced, or his "weak teammates" have actually done their job, sacrificing themselves so that their ace in a hole can develop unimpeded.

Jaime L. Garcia dont you find team starcraft less stressful than 1v1? nakaka high blood ung 1v1 e lol.

Actually, I have a question, since you play a lot of fighting games. If you find that you are having a bad run in game because either: a) you gambled on high risk moves and lost, b) you 'played' the correct strat, but failed to execute. is it usually possible to turn the tables and change strategies mid-fighting, or is there not enough HitPoints to allow for a solid transition and win the game?

On the other hand, being a noob against an opponent will make them glad to face you. Being a noob with good teammates will get insults hurled against your mother.

AHAHAHA. No. Well, depends on the genre and the game. For the most part, team-based multiplayer is LESS casual-friendly because your team (probably made up of randoms) has a good chance of being toxic, especially if you're not good, or if said random is a tryhard.

I'll admit I wasn't really considering the chat/toxicity aspect of it (that doesnt exist in Street Fighter)

Well, I think the point is, if you screw up in a team, the impact is less since there are more players to help recover. Whereas if you screw up one on one, your entire team screwed up!

Roy Tang Ah, but in a team game if you are likely to screw up because of your lack of skill, then your teammates are too.

The 'carry' situation you describe tends to occur when you party up with friends, who are more likely to have disparate skill levels than quick match teams

But aren't teams less likely to be affected by one person going on tilt or having a bad day for example?

In DOTA there is a phenomenon known as 'feeding', where one poor player dying over and over again can hand the whole game to the entire team. So it's actually quite likely that you're so bad you drag 4 people down with your noob ass

Lol true. I guess they have their own challenges in different ways

You have to play DOTA as a noob to experience the abuse. :v

i have a DOTA2 MMR of 2.7k. i've dragged people down with my noob ass.

On the stress matter, yes. I've never been a really good SC player, just decent. I happen to have allied with people who are more than a tier of skill higher than me, so curbstomp happens. The Ace ally more than makes up for my lack of skill, and my opponents are also out of their league against him. Stress might be less, but there is no reward. When I do win with such an ally, the victory is often hollow for me, since you can clearly tell that I'm just being a load on the team. When I lose, I know it's because I didn't deliver. Lose-lose, either way. —– Team-based RTSs are slightly different cases, since each faction is designed to work on its own first, instead of being designed in synergy with other team variables. (contrast MOBAs that have roles, and one bad player playing healer cannot easily have someone covering his back, since they're playing tank / carry / DPS). A bad casual player can be offset by an extremely good ally, but if the enemy team was likewise equally skilled (ala Conservation of Ninjutsu), then the good ally should still be curbstomped by the remaining opponents since the bad teammate did not deliver.

hindi naman kasi necesarilly curbstomp ang situation. more of may averaging kasi ng skill levels so even if a single team member in a five man team is suddenly 5% less efficient, the team only takes a 1% drop in efficiency (conversely, extra efficiency is equally distributed as well)

Or like, in a DOTA game it is more likely for a team to be able to survive one team member getting distracted by something IRL for 2 secs (or IDK pausing to eat a sandwich). In Street Fighter, those 2 seconds will cost you the game

If that's the case, it's not so different than playing a 1v1 and expecting your opponent to be -5% to +5% better than you, and winning / losing accordingly. You will probably not even feel na mabigat ka in those team scenarios where you are 5% less efficient. The only scenarios I can conjure na medyo pabigat ka and your team wins the game is if the enemy goes all in and attacks your base, leaving their bases wide open to reprisal from your friends. In which case, you were the distracting bait and while you feel bad on getting 4v1'd, you did your job.

Re: DOTA Game, I'm not an expert, but turnarounds happen a lot. The game has a lot of math involved, but generally speaking, if a losing team plays defensively, they only need to succeed once to semi-balance the odds. The game has a built-in snowball and counter-snowbal l effect. Teams that win clashes tend to carry more gold post fight, but heroes with killstreaks also get juicier, with their gold bounty increasing when they do get killed in the next clash. The game also has several different metas depending on team compositions that are being run. Some team comps have phases where they just suck, but once the game matures and everyone has some measure of gold and levels, their golden age kicks in (like when key players get key items or have ultimate skills go online as a natural course of levelling) where the tables can turn. Sometimes, yes, the enemy team can screw up, misfiring a spell or being caught out of place, or some teammate can miraculously initiate perfectly. I'm sure our mutual DOTA player friends have more to say on this subject.

Hm, mahabang reply. Wait.

Hindi pala mahabang reply. In fighting games, you can win with even a sliver of life (Google the famous EVO moment #37) given perfect defense, mind-reading and execution. Fighting games also typically implement some sort of comeback mechanism that allow a player in a losing situation to turn things around. I highly recommend reading http://www.sirlin.net/articles/slippery-slope-and-perpetual-comeback and the rest of Sirlin's articles on playing competitively (he's a former competitive SF player who is now a board game designer - he created Puzzle Strike and that Panda poker game we used to play)

Wala naman "levels" like DOTA in-game, you are as strong at 1% HP as you were at 100% (well ok merong fighting games for which this isnt strictly true), so comebacks are easier. But I think dahil one-on-one siya, mas vulnerable yung losing side to psychological damage, i.e. going on tilt, panicking etc. With a team kasi you can have the other team members calm you down or keep you focused.

Opposite is also true though, depending on the stage of the moba game where you need teammates or not (if you've snowballed with a carry / core hero, some players will argue that you don't need your friends… as much other than for spell absorption). Morale is still a big factor, and while a solid leader can keep people in line and in the game, an unled team with one fatalist or doomsayer can easily ruin any chances as well.

I'd argue that if you play with the same set of friends, then support, solidarity, and discipline are more likely. But playing with a bunch of random people will have a higher chance of screwing up the chances you have of winning, assuming you're an average player, because you need to make "more rolls on character creation" to see if you can succeed.

Some games (like DOTA nd CSGO) are notorious for their toxicity. On the other hand, 1v1 pvp you only have yourself to rely on and blame.

In general, PvE multiplayer is much less toxic. My experiences with Battleborn and ME3 PvE were quite pleasant. Still a chance of toxicity in large groups, like MMO raids.

As someone who plays both Dota and fighting games, 1v1 fighting games are more casual friendly for reasons other than win-loss: community, toxicity, smurfing, and maybe some emotional/ psychological aspects too.