I actually like how much crap there is to unlock in that game. I've had it since day one and at level 30-something, I still have plenty to keep aiming for when I play.ShinyCharizard said:
I'm Not Opposed to Leveling Up In Multiplayer As a Concept BUT...
- Thread starter cojo965
- Start date
Recommended Videos
*Points at Counter Strike*
One of the most pervasive and long lived MP Shooters, no leveling system, can experience just about every gun in a few hours of play.
That having been said I have seen a remarkable rise in gamers needing some sort of reward for winning aside from the challenge of getting to top of the leader board.
One of the most pervasive and long lived MP Shooters, no leveling system, can experience just about every gun in a few hours of play.
That having been said I have seen a remarkable rise in gamers needing some sort of reward for winning aside from the challenge of getting to top of the leader board.
I like grinding in my RPGs, not my online shooters. In a game like Borderlands, Diablo or Torchlight I can have fun because my shortcomings from not grinding enough don't bite me in the ass (as much) compared to Call of Duty and Battlefield where not having the time to grind, or getting to the party late, has me fighting an uphill battle against more skilled AND better equipped enemies that require hours of struggling and frustration before I can even stand a chance at competing.aguspal said:
Not to say the co-op games with grinding doesn't bite you in the ass for your lack of grinding. The reason I stopped playing Mass Effect 3's multiplayer was because the enemies were being buffed and weapons/abilities were being nerfed to the point that only a hand full of rare weapons (at the highest levels) were relevant any more and not having the time/skill to grind the highest difficulty with crap weapons/characters until you get the right equipment to deal with actually playing the higher difficulties was too much of a pain in my ass to continue.
Damn kids. Back in my day multiplayer meant split screening with two controllers, everyone got the same weapons and there was none of this fancypants perks or killstreaks nonsense. We had to earn our kills! (by screenpeeking)StylinBones said:
You could also mod your game any way you wanted, meaning the online community provided limitless maps, character skins, weapons etc. to change up your game when you got bored. Aww I miss Medal of Honor LAN matches at uni. Unmoddable FPS's just can't match the fun of having the Master Chief, an English gent and a frogman fighting Hitler, a Spetsnaz agent and a sailor on the Eiffel Tower with super powerful shotguns.
I suppose you just have to pick your multiplayer accordingly, COD etc. have a competitive leveling system that favours the people who play the most, games like Halo are a bit less like that, and games like Team Fortress 2 or Tribes Ascend are the most even regardless of your time played.
The way I got around that problem was to spawn as an engineer and lay down some AT Mines along all the usual spots, then I'd hop into a jet as soon as one was available and try to do the best I could with just the machine gun. Provided I didn't get shot down right away, any kills done by the mines would go to my jet experience because that's the vehicle I was flying when I actually got the kill. Got the missiles and flares in no time and was able to match the guys who already had the unlocks.13thforswarn said:
If things were balanced, I wouldn't have an issue with it. But they are not. Whenever I play CoD split screen at a friends, he is a really high level and I am level 1 (with the exception of black ops 1). Not only do I have less experience, but I have worse guns as well. Kind of puts me in a shitty situation.
That's pretty much how BO2 is as well. Most of the starting classes have mid-late level equipment (C4, EVO, LSAT, Dual Wield Kap-40, Ghost, XPR-50, etc) and they're varied enough to handle most any situation. Mercenary is AA in the event that you get tired of being destroyed continuously by scorestreak vehicles, Operative is an all-rounder, Specialist...is meant to show you more of the 'gimmicky' weapons but it kinda sucks, Scout Recon is for sniping, and Heavy Gunner...kinda sucks. But that's just because it gives you a lot of gear and attachments meant to supplement the LSAT, but the LSAT is probably the only LMG that's terrible. It's good at killing scorestreaks, but that's it. Even without that, the best guns in the game are unlocked early on. (Vector, Type-25, MP7, PDR, etc. They're all before level 15, I think)Magicman10893 said:
Anywho, leveling up mostly unlocks fun options as opposed to just wholly better gear. Like, none of the starting classes have Black Hats, which are my favorite thing to use in the game. They're incredibly versatile, being able to hack into almost all enemy scorestreaks and equipment. In exchange for that, they take a long time to kill scorestreaks (Leaving you defenseless while working) while EMP grenades will kill them immediately, they're too slow to reliably shoot down Care Package helis before they drop the CP (Something that the FHJ-18 AA is capable of doing somewhat easily), and they're unable to directly give you kills- which is probably why very few people even use them, but eh.
I quite like the levelling up system in Halo 4, because the rewards for higher tiers don't really affect the game itself. They're usually just new skins for the player's own in-game avatar, which has no effect on gameplay. The only possible advantage anyone could get would be the loadouts and specialisations, and even then the weapons unlocked are dropped around the map if you're playing well anyway (and the best weapons, like the sniper rifle or rocket launcher, aren't even included in any loadout), so no-one has an unfair advantage. Except me, of course, because I stick to a Marksman loadout and happen to be an excellent long-distance shot... 
I think Monster Hunter Tri had the best leveling system. Your hunter rank reflected your actual skill in the game because there were caps on when you could move into the next tier of quests. To do so you needed to do an Urgent Quest which meant a difficuly one. Once you pass your Urgent the cap was removed and a new one was in place. The beauty of it was you needed to do certain Key Quests within your tier in order for your Urgent to become avalible. The quests weren't labeled as Key Quests so you either had to go online and look up Which were the Keys or play it safe and do all of them. The Key Quests had a wide range of objectives making a more rounded player. You needed to be the one to initiate your Urgent for it to count but you just needed to complete your Keys. You could also join the your tier's Urgent Quest four levels before the cap, but someone else has to choose it.
Stats are all armour and weapons.
Stats are all armour and weapons.
I hate levelling in multiplayer, especially in shooters.cojo965 said:
All it serves to do is put the best players at an advantage, which makes getting into a game even worse for the new players. Of course in a series like CoD it make little difference regardless, left trig + right trig = kills, but in others (Notably Bf3) it can be nightmarish.
Facing down someone using the motion tracker, suppressor and holo sights may as well be opening up the menu and clicking 'suicide' on the game options. Even worse against snipers who have bipod and ballistic sights.
I think for game play to work best, leveling should work backwards. Noobs start with every toy at their disposal, the better you get the fewer and fewer options you have until it's just you, a knife and a hand gun. A few rounds of GunGame pro on Counter Strike demonstrate this perfectly, with everyone starting at the Awp allows the less twitchy a chance at kills, whilst the endings of matches are always incredibly tight as the fastest players battle against shotguns and MP5s with nothing but the trusty Glock. It never ends in that better player with better gear spiral that standard gun game can devolve to.
Of course marketing such a model could be difficult, I can't see many pre-teen CoD addicts liking a game that gives them less toys, but they may come round once the bragging rights dawn on them.
lol! Yea, I'm not a fan of killstreak rewards. A harrier jet vs. 1 soldier....a little unbalanced.Hero in a half shell said:
I always thought Counter-Strike was a very balanced game. It recently came out for XBLA and PS Network, I like that one. Halo 4 is OK, but still, some of the perks you have to earn are stupid - I'm looking at you, invisibility cloak. Halo 1 & 2 on splitscreen were the best MP FPS since Perfect Dark on the N64.
Gears of War 3 for the team DM is even if you have a 360. I think the only thing you have to earn are executions, which have no affect on equality. There are some things you have to earn in Horde mode, but that's team vs. AI and the perfect mode, I love Horde. The leveling up in Gears3 was pretty unique, too. Everything you did in the game: Horde, Multiplayer, and the campaign went towards your overall character level.
TF2 is great and I never played Ascend, but the original Tribes was one of my favs growing up.
Gears 3 was pretty much the best multiplayer shooter of 2011; shame all the competitive shooters of this year haven't really strive to reach that level of quality (which is ironic since Gears 2 seem to start this trend of broken multiplayer).StylinBones said:
im not here to really do anything useful i am just here to say how much i hate it when someone ends a title with the word but, was it really that hard to just put the subject of discussion in the title? did you really feel the need to lure people in to your thread, for a moment i thought it was the kinda spam id see on damn lol.
Defeats the entire objective of levelling. The idea is that you have to work up and grind to the best stuff so you'll keep playing their game. Clearly it works very well.