Poll: Experience and Ranks -- Ruining the Online FPS

[Deschamps]

It took a few great games to finally make me see the light (Portal, Braid) but I've finally raised my standards. I won't play a game that does not really have anything to offer. Unfortunately, since I've become more picky about what I play, it's been really tough to find a good game.

I remember playing Call of Duty 4 (360) online for a while. I felt like I was enjoying it at the time, but looking back, I'm not sure if I did. What kept me playing for so long? The only thing I can come up with is the ranking system. CoD4 wore it like a mask, to keep the player addicted even though the "strong competitive multiplayer" (Gamespot's review) is completely empty. Players die and respawn every twenty seconds. Teamwork and strategy is barely required, or at all possible. The only thing that matters is ranking up.

I don't like this. When the only thing the player wants to do is reach the next rank, they forget that they are actually playing with other humans. Everyone wants to accumulate kills, capture flags and plant the bombs. Multiplayer cannot work that way.

To me, a good multiplayer game is when you are put with a bunch of people you don't know and you have to work together as a team. A team can only work if everybody plays their part. That requires defense, people to play the support role, and co-ordination, but when the only thing that matters is ranking up, nobody wants to play that role.

So, my question to you is this: Should games get rid of the ranking system and focus on actual team play?

 

[Deschamps]

I don't agree that the game is good if you keep playing it. The level system is, to me, a form of subliminal messaging designed to keep you addicted.

 

[Deschamps]

I don't agree that the game is good if you keep playing it. The level system is, to me, a form of subliminal messaging designed to keep you addicted.

That sounds like an accusation of something. So what if the levels keep people playing? They enjoy the game, otherwise they wouldn't play it. I know that if the levels "influenced" them to keep playing it might seem like they're not really enjoying it, but on a basic level, they enjoy the game. Is there something wrong with that?

Yes, I do think that it is wrong on a basic level. They are wasting our time. I would much rather get a high quality team based game for my money, rather than pay for, as harhol said, "glorified grinding".

 

[wewontdie11]

I don't think yours is so much a question of "are ranks a good idea" so much as "where are ranks a good idea". If you want team play go get another game, COD4's gameplay style does not suit it whatsoever, whereas games such as Gears Of War 2 rely on huge amounts of teamwork to overcome your adversaries. GOW2 also has a ranking system so I really don't think you can put the lack of team play down to just ranks, it's simply the style of the game.

I do enjoy a lot of co-op in games such as Left 4 Dead, GOW2 and Halo 3, but on COD4 I am one of those player who does just like to play for themselves. Half the time trying to coordinate just slows me down and I'm three times as effective if I just go off and do my own thing. And to me that's fun. I love pitting myself against the odds and not having to rely on a team that end up letting me down most of the time, and I don't give a crap about my rank.

 

[Miles Tormani]

Sometimes it works, usually it doesn't. My main beef with ranking derives entirely from the competitive scene, as opposed to co-op where you feel like you're earning something from plowing through droves of NPCs.

So I'm joining a game of Resistance 2 after a few successful single player missions, lock and load my Bullseye Mark I, and suddenly get owned by a guy with a rocket launcher. Eventually I sneak up behind him, kill him, take his LAARK (which is now kinda low on ammo). He respawns, WITH THE LAARK IN HIS HANDS, and blows me up. Before I respawn, I figure I can out-n00b him, check the loadouts, and... no rocket launcher of pwnage +5.

Ranking systems create clear winners and losers based almost entirely on who's been playing for longer. I mean, hell, in Call of Duty 4 everyone calls the M16 the 'ultimate n00b weapon,' but I can't even begin to count how many times I got completely owned because everyone BUT me had a silenced P90 in their hands and a Barrett M82 slung on their backs. And Martyrdom. None of which I was deemed "worthy" to use because I hadn't been grinding for long enough.

Giving up and slinking back to TF2 on the Xbox 360, I found myself liking how the lack levels and such put both teams on equal grounds, divided only by three factors: class roster, ability to work together, and skill. Yet I find out later that the "superior" PC version has leveling up. My friend tells me it's awesome and all that, but I find myself EXTREMELY skeptical after so many cases of developers putting their WoW in my Halo.

More importantly, why do these games HAVE ranking systems like this? You said it yourself: artificial lengthening. Competitive games shouldn't NEED to do this. The longevity should come directly from your competition having actual skill rather than a reliance on a broken weapon you only get at level 55 (or a preorder in CoD: WaW's case). Your feeling of accomplishment should be your name on the top of the list, not 'Hey guys I'm a CORPORAL now!' Seriously. The only fragfests I've liked the ranking system for are Halo and Warhawk. Why? The earnings are purely cosmetic, good enough to show that you're a veteran and an individual, without having to look at an arbitrary number.

(EDIT: Besides. I always figured Xbox Live had a matchmaking "ranking" system meant for pitting you against players of equal skill for a reason.)

On an unrelated note, why does it seem like half of the levels I get in Resistance 2 (co-op or competitive) earn me absolutely NOTHING?

 

[xitel]

I don't know about you, but I actually like the ranking systems. I don't know why, but I do.

 

[GenHellspawn]

Ranks are fine and dandy, but I played CoD4 because I, well, actually enjoyed the gameplay.

Also, playing Portal is seeing the light? Please elaborate.

 

[Deschamps]

Also, playing Portal is seeing the light? Please elaborate.

Braid more so than Portal, but when I finished those games, I was left with this feeling that I genuinely enjoyed it. It wasn't the kind of enjoyment that you feel for an instant when you score points. It was the kind of enjoyment that I look back on and feel that those were three hours well spent.

Looking further back to the days before the level system in the FPS, I remember certain matches where I was able to co-ordinate my team. I had a sense of pride that is more than you can get from being the highest ranked individual player.

I guess Portal and Braid taught me that enjoying the moment isn't enough. For it to really be good, I have to look back later and still feel like it was time well spent.

 

[GenHellspawn]

I have to look back later and still feel like it was time well spent.

Oh for christ's sake, am I the only one who didn't like this game?

 

[Fightgarr]

For me, I dislike the ranking system because it turns things into a dick-waving competition of who can get a higher score. I have no problem with some friendly competition, but the arrogance and hostility it spawns are another thing.

 

[Bulletinmybrain]

On an unrelated note, why does it seem like half of the levels I get in Resistance 2 (co-op or competitive) earn me absolutely NOTHING?

Yeah, the levelling seems slower than R:FOM. I remember the rewards being more plentiful in the first game... perhaps I'm mistaken. I don't like the berserk system either, or the levelled weapon bias that you referred to. I liked the balance between Chimera and soldiers that was in R:FOM. The weapons were fair and the Chimera's thermo-vision just about cancelled out the soldiers' firepower & speed advantage.

Also, I wish someone would do something about mines and Spec Ops in Resistance 2 co-op. You get guys who memorize each spawn point, plant half a dozen mines on each one and outscore the entire team by about 50,000 XP. It doesn't happen often but, when it does, it effectively ruins the game.

I always outscore spec ops as a medic usually hitting into the 40k while spec ops stay at around 20k if lucky?

 

[gamergal126]

The main thing I hate about ranking is in some games (I can't think of any specific games right now) you can only get certain ranks if you pay extra REAL money to get them

 

[sneakypenguin]

I mean, hell, in Call of Duty 4 everyone calls the M16 the 'ultimate n00b weapon,' but I can't even begin to count how many times I got completely owned because everyone BUT me had a silenced P90 in their hands and a Barrett M82 slung on their backs. And Martyrdom. None of which I was deemed "worthy" to use because I hadn't been grinding for long enough.

Just a tip the M40 and silenced mp5 are even better than the M82 P90 combo.

 

[Bulletinmybrain]

I mean, hell, in Call of Duty 4 everyone calls the M16 the 'ultimate n00b weapon,' but I can't even begin to count how many times I got completely owned because everyone BUT me had a silenced P90 in their hands and a Barrett M82 slung on their backs. And Martyrdom. None of which I was deemed "worthy" to use because I hadn't been grinding for long enough.

Just a tip the M40 and silenced mp5 are even better than the M82 P90 combo.

M82A1+Stopping power=One hit kills.

 

[Ronwue]

I have 2 words and a number for you. Left 4 dead. In my opinion, by now it is the pinnacle of team play as well as some other innovations like the Director and other stuff. No other FPS has this and it changed my view on the FPS future completely. It also has ... badges to tell when a good player (aka not a shithead aka murder the whole team over and over for laughs) joins the game as well as some achievement awards. So, no the experience and ranks should not be abolished.